Should the US compensate Vietnam?

It was recently announced that the Italian government will be compensating Libya with $5billion dollars for the damage its 30 year colonial rule caused. This ended in 1943.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...Story/International/home?cid=al_gam_mostemail

Isn't it about time that the US government compensated the Vietnamese for all the damage they caused in their country up until 1975?

I wonder how much 3m Vietnamese dead would be worth?

 

I wonder if Russia is going to compensate all of Eastern Europe as well.

 

We damaged ourselves greatly too. I don't think we owe them anything. Everyone just wants a piece of the pie.

 

Wow, great topic. A tough one for me, given my love for my country, my brother's involvement, and the fact I was close to going in myself (just a couple years too late).

That said, I wouldn't be honest if I didn't admit, yes, I'd say, we owe Vietnam reparations. We invaded Vietnam, and we lost. We demanded it of the losers in WWI, and WWII, and I can see no justification for not holding to this simply because is my country who would have to pay the piper.

 

LOL... interesting choice of dates to add the latest "US is Evil" thread.

Guess we could go back and have all countries pay every country they've occupied or bombed. France will pay for their time in IndoChina pre-Dien Bin Phu, and China will get huge payments from Japan, as will Korea... and about half the world will get checks based on the days of the British Empire. If we wanna tap deep pockets we'll get the Vatican to pay reparations for the Inquisition. In our case, we'll use the interest laden payments from 1776 and 1812 to pay Vietnam.

Hmmm... that math could get complicated, maybe we better set a cutoff date.

If we historically refused to help countries in danger of being over-run by an aggressor... you'd probably be typing this in German. That wasnt our war either... but I think the UK is a great nation and the effort worth making. Sometimes our efforts help, and sometimes it doesnt work as planned.

I'm ok with normalized relations because hate has to stop somewhere, but reparations? Nope. Appreciate the effort to play travel agent for guilt trips, but I dont need a vacation from reality.

 

if there was any real international justice and the US government accepted any war crimes tribunal a lot of guns for hire would be behind bars and a lot of $$$ would go where it rightly should...

think about it this way: when there is no police in town the crooks have a party...


there is no question if the USA owns money to vietnam for flying over half the globe to murder millions over their governments political agenda...its just that the USA accepts no international justice it can and will bomb you and nobody will ever go to jail for it...

one day nuclear proliferation will bring freedom to small countries and weaken the invaders power to pillage and bomb the weak...until then justice is something reserved only for the ones who have the power to enforce it...

until then 5% of the world will see nothing wrong with their invaders fake policing / bombing defenseless countries over politics and profit because their side is always "legit" being that no court has the power to find them guilty!

 

I certainly don't think my country is evil, quite the contrary.

I also don't think we've been perfect in our historical record. Given the notion of reparations isn't unheard of - can you see any reason why Germany was required to pay for damages cost after WWI, II, yet our involvement in Vietnam shouldn't be dealt with?

 

Yep, but I dont consider the topic serious enough to waste the time explaining it. He got his anti-US dig in, he's happy, and I won't spend time justifying our efforts to stop aggression in a thread posted by one of the beneficiaries of the tradition.

 

Well, Rob, I guess I thought it was a fair point, and as difficult as it was for me to look at it openly, after doing so, there is something there in my mind. I cannot equate working with our British allies in WWII to stop Nazi Germany with our involvement in Vietnam. The former doesn't relate to the other, in my opinion.

 

No biggie, we just disagree on that last part. Had North Vietnam actually won a military victory (ie- we'd surrendered to them) they might have been in a position to make some demands. They didn't, we won't.

Again, in both cases we were trying to stop an aggressor. If the OP doesnt see value in that, he can ask his grandfather. My dad's generation fought WW2, and left too many of my relatives on foreign soil in an attempt to protect his ability to insult us for me to really care what he thinks about us.

 

I'm not sure the OP doesn't recognize that, either. As my uncle fought the bulge, and my dad fought as well, I have nothing but undying admiration for those folks.

As to,

This is a whole other ball of wax, obviously, which is the heart of the debate on the war itself. It isn't at all clear to me that the Vietnamese, whether from the North or South, did not see this as a war of independence, over our containment policy, based on a Foreign Affairs article by George Kennan. In a nutshell, the thing I look at, from a historical perspective. Another day.

The difficult pill, to me, is to admit we lost. Yes, it might have been because of a lack of commitment, or any from hundreds of other explanations, but when we're scrambling for exit on Hueys while the NVA takes the streets of Saigon, it isn't a stalemate, to me; certainly, the war's stated objective - the containment of a communist regime to North Vietnam, was a loss as well. Vietnam is a communist country.

 

Basically when they get around to giving life back to the people they slaughtered afterward or any one of the guys we sent over there trying to stop it from happening... we should pay reparations. Til then, naah.

 

Our involvement in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan(during the Soviet invasion) (and other places) were an effort to stem the tide of a widening influence of Soviet supported communism.

As much as people will think I'm a deranged, arrogant prick for saying so, the U.S., sticking its nose into world affairs, even by way of force for those 30-40 odd years, may very much be responsible for the mostly free and prosperous world that we are living in today.

We lost a lot of men and women in those wars ourselves. We also lost some treasure. Perhaps a world fund could be organized to compensate the U.S. for playing the major role in defeating Soviet backed communism, keeping it from spreading around the world and enslaving millions of more people, and through our efforts, allowing freedom and prosperity to flourish as it has in the past 60 years or so?

 

In my personal opinion, there needs to be a statute of limitations kind of deal on this. In essence, I don't see any point in tearing open old wounds dealing with Vietnam. The only people you would be punishing would be those that can't even remember the war.

 

Once again: Soviet Union, not Russia So, stay tuned.

Regarding the topic title, US has enourmous debts, and you are suggesting to pay smth?

Sometimes, I think US starts wars just because of that. When you are in debt its better to scare the person than to pay him. Basically, US lives off the rest of world's money.

 

I don't think you're deranged, or arrogant, and there is certainly a mountain of credible evidence to support the essential theory of containment.

Regarding Vietnam, however, with its particular history of colonial aggression, it isn't at all clear to me that America wasn't viewed, north and south, as just another in a line of colonial aggressors, for over 1000 years - China, France, us, I don't think many Vietnamese saw a difference. Though we may not like it, I think Ho Chi Minh struck a likely resonant chord when he tossed the word "nationalism" into the national culture.

 

We turn around and waste a lot of it on foreign aid or to educate and provide other services for people that arent citizens here. It's a vicious circle.

 

South Vietnam was an independent country and attacked by North Vietnam with the aid of China and the Soviet Union. All three should pay compensation to South Vietnam.

 

If everyone pays compensation to South Vietnam, South Vietnam will become the richest "country" in the world.

 

Saigon at one time was the 'pearl of the east'