Talk:Vietnam War

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I dispute using Rummel as a reliable source for casualty figures. The man is a loon. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Rummel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.J._Rummel#Political_views

He has also argued that there is a leftist bias in some parts of the academic world that selectively focus on problems in nations with high political and economic freedom and ignores much worse problems in other nations. Related to this, he has also criticized the tenure system. Rummel has been very critical of Barack Obama, alleging that Obama is seeking to destroy liberal democracy in the United States. He believes that global warming is "a scam for power", and has opposed Obama's carbon-trading scheme. He believes that Obama has killed off a democratic peace that Clinton and Bush had been pursuing. Following the death of Edward Kennedy, Rummel condemned the media reaction as too benign and stated "the post-war blood of millions is on Kennedy's hands". Rummel believes that Kennedy's opposition to the Vietnam War helped to facilitate the state killings in Cambodia and Vietnam during the 1970s.

Someone explain to me why are made up numbers from this loon used by RW? Typhoon (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Checking the page history, it was added by an editor who also added similar things the Saddam article and was reverted, looks like it stayed here.Тyrannosaurs 22:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Numbers aside, I still maintain that there's an argument to be made that some of the related historical events (Cambodia, the Sino-Vietnamese war, etc etc) could be accounted for in this article. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 22:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that an "aftermath" section is highly desirable. This current attention makes me proud of my 20 month old comment above, though. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm fine with such a section as long as it: 1. Mentions the aftermath of the war both in south-east Asia AND the USA. 2. Isn't almost as long as the section about the war itself. See the wikipedia article for an example of a good aftermath section. Typhoon (talk) 08:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Tet and Johnson/Nixon administration incompetence

Would it be a good idea to create separate sections for both to address any wingnut historical revisionism - that it was possible to win the war (aside from nuking the entire penninsula) without the presence of an anti-war "hippie" opposition in the US? There's still many that believe it could have actually been done (similar to the "stay the course for another 20 years" hawks in Iraq). Osaka Sun (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support