For Obama, it’s all about HIS legacy. Who cares if it hurts or doesn’t help the people actually involved?

Quote:However, in lifting the ban against Vietnam’s ability to buy military-grade arms, many human rights groups are furious that Obama has given up what they consider a last bargaining chip with the country.

The move sends a definitive signal to China, who has had a looming presence in the region, especially the South China Sea. By lifting the embargo, Obama has ostensibly allowed Vietnam the option to better defend itself against intensifying aggression.

Human Rights Watch deputy director Phil Robertson said:

“In one fell swoop, President Obama has jettisoned what remained of U.S. leverage to improve human rights in Vietnam — and (has) basically gotten nothing for it.”

Robertson angrily tweeted what he felt was Obama’s ignorance of Vietnam’s human rights record.

http://injo.com/2016/05/612001-obama-to-...g-embargo/

because that arms embargo was doing such a good job preventing human rights abuses in nam in the first place

After a disaster of epic proportions for most of his term I think Obama may have finally started to get the hang of it in his twilight days.

This is a response to Chinese shenanigans with our ships and planes in the South China sea. A message that we can cause trouble for them too. I like it.

A couple of questions:

1) Were human rights in Vietnam a concern when the U.S. was using hundreds of millions of tons of chemical weapons, littering the country with land mines, or slaughtering entire villages of civilians?

2) If China invaded Vietnam, and Vietnam was unable to defend itself, do you think the human rights situation there would improve?

If you're truly concerned with human welfare there, donate to an organization that helps remove land mines, which still kill/maim folks in Vietnam today, or one that helps areas with water supplies still affected by Agent Orange get clean drinking water. Don't pretend to care about people when you really just want to score some cheap political points.

Im curious as why Obama felt this necessary. Does he think that by doing this the Vietnamese could possibly defend itself against a Chinese invasion? I say...follow the money here. Who is going to profit from this? I smell a rat.

(05-23-2016 10:31 PM)john01992 Wrote:  because that arms embargo was doing such a good job preventing human rights abuses in nam in the first place

Well, arming the government will certainly remedy it.

Vietnam could be armed to the teeth, and they still wouldn't last longer than a month in any war with China. Rather, it's largely a symbolic message intended for China of the continued strengthening of the Vietnamese-US relationship, and to further our weight in SE Asia (Vietnam has among the highest percentage of people who view the US favorably).

(05-24-2016 06:48 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  Vietnam could be armed to the teeth, and they still wouldn't last longer than a month in any war with China. Rather, it's largely a symbolic message intended for China of the continued strengthening of the Vietnamese-US relationship, and to further our weight in SE Asia (Vietnam has among the highest percentage of people who view the US favorably).

you are talking about a country that successfully fought five consecutive occupations in a 45 year period. three of which were against veto members of the UN security council, the fourth was WWII era Japan, and to top it off a civil war within the country.

I give nam a reasonable chance to defend themselves.

(05-24-2016 09:33 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 06:48 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  Vietnam could be armed to the teeth, and they still wouldn't last longer than a month in any war with China. Rather, it's largely a symbolic message intended for China of the continued strengthening of the Vietnamese-US relationship, and to further our weight in SE Asia (Vietnam has among the highest percentage of people who view the US favorably).

you are talking about a country that successfully fought five consecutive occupations in a 45 year period. three of which were against veto members of the UN security council, the fourth was WWII era Japan, and to top it off a civil war within the country.
I give nam a reasonable chance to defend themselves.

I wouldn't expect them to defend successfully against an all-out Chinese attack. None of those 5 "occupations" was pursued with great vigor by the other side.

But I can see them making themselves enough of a pain in the ass that China would decide not to pursue the matter. And if we can get everyone around the South China Sea to do the same, Chinese hegemony isn't going very far.

The Vietnamese are more likely to be our friends than the Chinese. I'm fine with giving them whatever they want.

(05-24-2016 09:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:33 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 06:48 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  Vietnam could be armed to the teeth, and they still wouldn't last longer than a month in any war with China. Rather, it's largely a symbolic message intended for China of the continued strengthening of the Vietnamese-US relationship, and to further our weight in SE Asia (Vietnam has among the highest percentage of people who view the US favorably).

you are talking about a country that successfully fought five consecutive occupations in a 45 year period. three of which were against veto members of the UN security council, the fourth was WWII era Japan, and to top it off a civil war within the country.
I give nam a reasonable chance to defend themselves.

I wouldn't expect them to defend successfully against an all-out Chinese attack. None of those 5 "occupations" was pursued with great vigor by the other side.

But I can see them making themselves enough of a pain in the ass that China would decide not to pursue the matter. And if we can get everyone around the South China Sea to do the same, Chinese hegemony isn't going very far.

since when does 50K lives and dropping more bombs than europe in WWII not count as "pursued with great vigor?"

(05-24-2016 09:42 AM)john01992 Wrote:  since when does 50K lives and dropping more bombs than europe in WWII not count as "pursued with great vigor?"

When coupled with the rules of engagement that were in effect in Vietnam.

Pursuing it with great vigor would have ended it far sooner, with fewer lives and fewer bombs expended.

Just like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Never fight a war that you don't intend to win.

(05-24-2016 09:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:42 AM)john01992 Wrote:  since when does 50K lives and dropping more bombs than europe in WWII not count as "pursued with great vigor?"

When coupled with the rules of engagement that were in effect in Vietnam.

Pursuing it with great vigor would have ended it far sooner, with fewer lives and fewer bombs expended.

Just like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Never fight a war that you don't intend to win.

when people ask me why I think libertarians are total f***ing idiots, this right here is why.

(05-24-2016 09:47 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:42 AM)john01992 Wrote:  since when does 50K lives and dropping more bombs than europe in WWII not count as "pursued with great vigor?"

When coupled with the rules of engagement that were in effect in Vietnam.

Pursuing it with great vigor would have ended it far sooner, with fewer lives and fewer bombs expended.

Just like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Never fight a war that you don't intend to win.

when people ask me why I think libertarians are total f***ing idiots, this right here is why.

So when does this clown get banned?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(05-24-2016 09:47 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:42 AM)john01992 Wrote:  since when does 50K lives and dropping more bombs than europe in WWII not count as "pursued with great vigor?"

When coupled with the rules of engagement that were in effect in Vietnam.
Pursuing it with great vigor would have ended it far sooner, with fewer lives and fewer bombs expended.
Just like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Never fight a war that you don't intend to win.

when people ask me why I think libertarians are total f***ing idiots, this right here is why.

You have a much higher opinion of me than I do of you.

(05-24-2016 06:48 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  Vietnam could be armed to the teeth, and they still wouldn't last longer than a month in any war with China. Rather, it's largely a symbolic message intended for China of the continued strengthening of the Vietnamese-US relationship, and to further our weight in SE Asia (Vietnam has among the highest percentage of people who view the US favorably).

If China were to go to all out war with Vietnam you're right. But it's not in China's best interest to create a Tibet situation in a neighbor who has repeatedly repelled their aggression for the past couple of millennia.

Because even if China did roll into Vietnam *holding* the nation would be a whole different matter and I don't think their economy could stomach the expense.

That being said I agree that a big part of this is to "surround" China and specifically the south China Sea with US pseudo-surrogates.

(05-24-2016 09:47 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:42 AM)john01992 Wrote:  since when does 50K lives and dropping more bombs than europe in WWII not count as "pursued with great vigor?"

When coupled with the rules of engagement that were in effect in Vietnam.

Pursuing it with great vigor would have ended it far sooner, with fewer lives and fewer bombs expended.

Just like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Never fight a war that you don't intend to win.

when people ask me why I think libertarians are total f***ing idiots, this right here is why.

Why? It's well know that the US couldn't actually invade the NV, thus limiting the options of attack.

People said we would walk all over the Vietnamese. Sometimes that just doesn't happen.

It's not smart to underestimate the little guy that has taken care of business time after time.

(05-23-2016 10:47 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  After a disaster of epic proportions for most of his term I think Obama may have finally started to get the hang of it in his twilight days.

This is a response to Chinese shenanigans with our ships and planes in the South China sea. A message that we can cause trouble for them too. I like it.

That's a rather backhanded complement.

(05-24-2016 10:02 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:47 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:42 AM)john01992 Wrote:  since when does 50K lives and dropping more bombs than europe in WWII not count as "pursued with great vigor?"

When coupled with the rules of engagement that were in effect in Vietnam.

Pursuing it with great vigor would have ended it far sooner, with fewer lives and fewer bombs expended.

Just like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Never fight a war that you don't intend to win.

when people ask me why I think libertarians are total f***ing idiots, this right here is why.

Why? It's well know that the US couldn't actually invade the NV, thus limiting the options of attack.

given the OP made reference to the same issues holding us back in nam were present in iraq and afghanstan and his "rules of engagement" comment it's pretty clear to me that the issue he is talking about has little to do with NV vs SV but the way in which we directly fight the war with combatants and civilians.