Obama lifts US embargo on lethal arms sales to Vietnam

[Eliseus]

Other than not being willing to fulfill your fantasies about the US being a world bully that spits in the faces of other country's leaders, and assuming your ranting is true and interpreted exactly how you are claiming, what harm is being done here?

Because while he's supposedly going around apologizing to everyone and making us super weak he's also killing scores of ISIS leaders and leading something like 7 military conflicts in the middle east.

I don't think you understand how the majority of the planet views leadership. It doesn't matter how YOU think leadership should be, what Obama has done shows a sign of weakness among numerous allies and enemies to the US. At the point Obama has reached it would be no surprise if he just allows some other country to invade the US merely off the principal we somehow screwed up in the past and they deserve part of it.

Obama is killing ISIS? Lawls.

It's funny how many people in this thread have used the term "US is a bully". This is what will destroy the US. This mentality that this isn't okay. Your liberal agenda won't fly around the planet. Not saying it isn't a preferred way to live life, but is obvious you think it is a way of life that will prevent any conflict with any other country.

[Bollocks]

Yeah and Vietnam didnt do anything horrible and were totally innocent

Well, the war would have not started if not for the us. And even the things Vietnam did cannot be compared to the damage the us has done. From raping, mass murder of civilians, destructionof entire landscapes and permanently damaging Vietnamese descendence.

[Skroe]

Well, the war would have not started if not for the us. And even the things Vietnam did cannot be compared to the damage the us has done. From raping, mass murder of civilians, destructionof entire landscapes and permanently damaging Vietnamese descendence.

But who cares? Really. Nobody cares. Nobody important. What is to be gained about fighting 50 year old battles in which all the participants are old or dead? It doesn't matter. It's probably never mattered.

It's 2016 and we all have much bigger fish to fry.





Our future cooperation with Vietnam to block China's ambitions should not be sullied by a stupid war that ended 40 years ago.

[Deleted]

You're right skroe. You better start working again to make sure all that stuff that happened happens again. Just to refresh our memory.

[Skroe]

You're right skroe. You better start working again to make sure all that stuff that happened happens again. Just to refresh our memory.

Keep your whining to Russia. In Asia-Pacific, like Europe, this is happening no matter what you think. Go stage a protest or something.

Here is Obama and the President of Vietnam Tran Dai Quang watching the CEO of Boeing and Vietjet's CEO ink a deal for 100 737 Max 200s for $11.3 billion.



This is how the game is played Djalil. How times as changed in South East Asia.

[Deleted]

You still have this weird notion that "what's happening" should define what people think. Are you unable to process independent thoughts of your own?

[Skroe]

You still have this weird notion that "what's happening" should define what people think. Are you unable to process independent thoughts of your own?

No. It shouldn't define what people think.

I'm just enjoying rubbing your particular face in your helplessness at the inability to change that outcome.

People can think whatever the damn well they like. I rather enjoy though that generally speaking, my beliefs nicely dovetail with how the policy has unfolded. What we're doing to china now, I've wanted for a decade. And we're finally here.

So don't mistake "this is happening" with me thinking people should agree. They won't. That's fine. That's me taking a small bit of satisfaction about the failure of the alternative to policy I agree with.

[Deleted]

No. It shouldn't define what people think.

I'm just enjoying rubbing your particular face in your helplessness at the inability to change that outcome.

People can think whatever the damn well they like. I rather enjoy though that generally speaking, my beliefs nicely dovetail with how the policy has unfolded. What we're doing to china now, I've wanted for a decade. And we're finally here.

So don't mistake "this is happening" with me thinking people should agree. They won't. That's fine. That's me taking a small bit of satisfaction about the failure of the alternative to policy I agree with.

Skroesec, the inability to change the outcome is something I dealt with like most people did at the age of 16 when I realized that no matter what, I DID have to do math in school and nothing I said could change that.
You obviously didn't go through the same process considering the fact that you think "what's happening" does in any way affect my ideas or the "inability to change the outcome" somewhat... "disappoints" me?
I mean it's absurd... I'm a man, how can I change the outcome of major international policies? I stopped caring about achieving major changes (once again like most people ) in my teens.

150 people just died in two suicide bombings in Syria. The meat grinder you're so happy about that you want to recreate anywhere in the world you find appropriate.
Do you SERIOUSLY think, as a human being, that is the path ahead for the US foreign policy or are you just afraid of your ideas being "unable to change the outcome"?

[Skroe]

Skroesec, the inability to change the outcome is something I dealt with like most people did at the age of 16 when I realized that no matter what, I DID have to do math in school and nothing I said could change that.
You obviously didn't go through the same process considering the fact that you think "what's happening" does in any way affect my ideas or the "inability to change the outcome" somewhat... "disappoints" me?
I mean it's absurd... I'm a man, how can I change the outcome of major international policies? I stopped caring about achieving major changes (once again like most people ) in my teens.

150 people just died in two suicide bombings in Syria. The meat grinder you're so happy about that you want to recreate anywhere in the world you find appropriate.
Do you SERIOUSLY think, as a human being, that is the path ahead for the US foreign policy or are you just afraid of your ideas being "unable to change the outcome"?

Of course I think that this reprents the path ahead of US policy.

I mean let's state the obvious here.

13 years of War in Vietnam right? What was achieved? Basically nothing. But here we are. 40 years later, making new best friends.

During the Cold War the United States deposed unfriendly governments, propped up far right dictatorships, armed insurgencies and terrorists, and slugged it out with the Soviet Union across the third world. Oh and it also built like 25,000 nuclear weapons.And yet it emerged from the cold war the World's Only Superpower.

Historically the United States' approach, even when it is drenched in blood, has been validated in it's effectiveness. Thats not to say there haven't and won't be major misfires. But on the balance, it has come out way, way ahead. The US paid no long term international political price for Vietnam. Hell 15 years after Vietnam was the triumph of the Gulf War, and then the fall of the USSR a year later.The US paid no long term international political price for the Iraq War. ISIS is basically pest-control level for us and the US is still opening bases along the arc of instability.

It's hard to want to "change course" when I see, in the big picture, plain success.

We both represent different, mutually exclusives perspective Djalil. All I'm saying is, I do take satisfaction in my perspective being represented in a policy I support and consider a success, and yours is not. I'm sure if the shoe were on the other foot, and peace broke out with Russia in Europe and the US lost it's international power, you'd feel the same.

[Deleted]

Of course I think that this reprents the path ahead of US policy.

I mean let's state the obvious here.

13 years of War in Vietnam right? What was achieved? Basically nothing. But here we are. 40 years later, making new best friends.

During the Cold War the United States deposed unfriendly governments, propped up far right dictatorships, armed insurgencies and terrorists, and slugged it out with the Soviet Union across the third world. Oh and it also built like 25,000 nuclear weapons.And yet it emerged from the cold war the World's Only Superpower.

Historically the United States' approach, even when it is drenched in blood, has been validated in it's effectiveness. Thats not to say there haven't and won't be major misfires. But on the balance, it has come out way, way ahead. The US paid no long term international political price for Vietnam. Hell 15 years after Vietnam was the triumph of the Gulf War, and then the fall of the USSR a year later.The US paid no long term international political price for the Iraq War. ISIS is basically pest-control level for us and the US is still opening bases along the arc of instability.

It's hard to want to "change course" when I see, in the big picture, plain success.

We both represent different, mutually exclusives perspective Djalil. All I'm saying is, I do take satisfaction in my perspective being represented in a policy I support and consider a success, and yours is not. I'm sure if the shoe were on the other foot, and peace broke out with Russia in Europe and the US lost it's international power, you'd feel the same.

I just find extremely controversial for someone that believes his country would be pivotal for the evolution of human society, to think that spreading civil wars and destabilisation across the globe is the right path for to achieve it.

[Skroe]

I just find extremely controversial for someone that believes his country would be pivotal for the evolution of human society, to think that spreading civil wars and destabilisation across the globe is the right path for to achieve it.

How's it controversial? It's pragmatic.

Do you recall what I wrote about two years ago in the early Russia threads about the INF Treaty? I said at the time that as grave as Russia's illegal actions in Ukraine are, the INF Treaty violation is much worse. It was the only treaty to ban an entire class of nuclear weapons, period. No exceptions. If Global Zero - global abolition of nuclear weapons - is to be a thing, it would look very much like the INF Treaty.

The Russians had us live the Global Zero counter argument, it's worst nightmare. What happens if ONE country, 20 years after the treaty is signed, has a change in government and decides the treaty no longer suits its interest. What happens if it cheats? What then? Global Zero would fail, just like that. It assumes a kind of timelessness, a kind of honesty, that no treaty can possibly ensure. ANd it's not like the US has been reckless in trying to keep INF in force. It's tried to carrot-stick and cajole the Russians, since 2007, and has been super discrete about it, only really going public in the last year.

The INF Treaty violation makes Global Zero, conceptually, look delusional.

Whats my point about this? Because the path to world peac... the evolotuon of human society as you put it... can happen two ways. Way one is by international agreement. Way too is by, essentially, having one party controlling or demolishing the variables that could upset its vision for that. I subscribe to the latter. I think the former, the INF Treaty path, will only hold until, 20 years later, a powerful country decides that the agreements are no longer in it's interests, and the rest of the world is slow react, trying to keep the peace rather than acting decisively to bring about compliance. In the latter model, there is no competition. There is no system based on hope of compliance, rather those who would break the world order are too weak, too isolated, and too surrounded, to do it. It's more sustainable. It counts on the worst of human nature, not the best.

It's the same argument about arms sales really. Whats the best way to control the spread of arms? Ban them? Or become the dominant seller, put everyone else out of business, and control who you sell them to? I think it's the latter.

I don't trust Russia. Nobody should. Nobody should trust America either. But I do trust self-interest, and also "fear" it. If we, like we are in East Asia, play to everyone's self interest, and make alliance with the US tantalizing beyond belief, then we'll create a peace-enforcement framework that will be far more enduring and stronger than one in which we come halfway with China, until 20 years later China decides it wants the entire pie, which has been, by the way, the story of the rise of China up to this point.

[Thunderball]

Obviously US wants a slice of that delicious defence spending pie. Not gonna get anything anytime soon, though. The market has been divided long time ago and major US contractors doesnt have any good stuff to offer right now. Would be interesting to see US companies make any customized offers though, Vietnam is definetely that kind of a market right now.

[Deleted]

How's it controversial? It's pragmatic.

Do you recall what I wrote about two years ago in the early Russia threads about the INF Treaty? I said at the time that as grave as Russia's illegal actions in Ukraine are, the INF Treaty violation is much worse. It was the only treaty to ban an entire class of nuclear weapons, period. No exceptions. If Global Zero - global abolition of nuclear weapons - is to be a thing, it would look very much like the INF Treaty.

The Russians had us live the Global Zero counter argument, it's worst nightmare. What happens if ONE country, 20 years after the treaty is signed, has a change in government and decides the treaty no longer suits its interest. What happens if it cheats? What then? Global Zero would fail, just like that. It assumes a kind of timelessness, a kind of honesty, that no treaty can possibly ensure. ANd it's not like the US has been reckless in trying to keep INF in force. It's tried to carrot-stick and cajole the Russians, since 2007, and has been super discrete about it, only really going public in the last year.

The INF Treaty violation makes Global Zero, conceptually, look delusional.

Whats my point about this? Because the path to world peac... the evolotuon of human society as you put it... can happen two ways. Way one is by international agreement. Way too is by, essentially, having one party controlling or demolishing the variables that could upset its vision for that. I subscribe to the latter. I think the former, the INF Treaty path, will only hold until, 20 years later, a powerful country decides that the agreements are no longer in it's interests, and the rest of the world is slow react, trying to keep the peace rather than acting decisively to bring about compliance. In the latter model, there is no competition. There is no system based on hope of compliance, rather those who would break the world order are too weak, too isolated, and too surrounded, to do it. It's more sustainable. It counts on the worst of human nature, not the best.

It's the same argument about arms sales really. Whats the best way to control the spread of arms? Ban them? Or become the dominant seller, put everyone else out of business, and control who you sell them to? I think it's the latter.

I don't trust Russia. Nobody should. Nobody should trust America either. But I do trust self-interest, and also "fear" it. If we, like we are in East Asia, play to everyone's self interest, and make alliance with the US tantalizing beyond belief, then we'll create a peace-enforcement framework that will be far more enduring and stronger than one in which we come halfway with China, until 20 years later China decides it wants the entire pie, which has been, by the way, the story of the rise of China up to this point.

A modern Golden Horde.
Not sure once again what's the difference between you and the terrorists.

[Orlong]

Who cares?

They're useful now. That's all that matters.

Its called holding a grudge, and continuing to punish them for their misdeeds

- - - Updated - - -

Well, the war would have not started if not for the us. And even the things Vietnam did cannot be compared to the damage the us has done. From raping, mass murder of civilians, destructionof entire landscapes and permanently damaging Vietnamese descendence.

No, the war wouldnt have happened had they not defied us and provoked us. We simply put our foot down and laid down the law

[Skroe]

Its called holding a grudge, and continuing to punish them for their misdeeds

BOY That's remarkably useless and pointless.

[Orlong]

But who cares? Really. Nobody cares. Nobody important. What is to be gained about fighting 50 year old battles in which all the participants are old or dead? It doesn't matter. It's probably never mattered.

It's 2016 and we all have much bigger fish to fry.

Funny how that reasoning never works every time slavery and reparations are brought up. Nobody who owned a slave in the US is still alive and no former slaves are living either, but I would expect no less from the hippies on the left

[Skroe]

Funny how that reasoning never works every time slavery and reparations are brought up. Nobody who owned a slave in the US is still alive and no former slaves are living either, but I would expect no less from the hippies on the left

You mean like the 10 people in the US that are actually serious about that?

Slavery Reparations are another "who gives a monkey's crap what those people thing. It's never going to happen".

Having Axes to grind (and it sounds like you got lots) is rather pointless.

[Gorgodeus]

They are allies. The main reason the US did not win the Vietnam war was because of a fear of China intervening. Same type of scenario with why we allowed North Korea to still exist. :P They are communists states. Which look at human rights as rubbish western ideology.

They are no longer allies. In fact Vietnam is one of the countries disputing China's island-building and claims in the South China Sea.

[Deleted]

No, the war wouldnt have happened had they not defied us and provoked us. We simply put our foot down and laid down the law

and... erm.... got beaten

[Orlong]

Keep your whining to Russia. In Asia-Pacific, like Europe, this is happening no matter what you think. Go stage a protest or something.

Here is Obama and the President of Vietnam Tran Dai Quang watching the CEO of Boeing and Vietjet's CEO ink a deal for 100 737 Max 200s for $11.3 billion.



This is how the game is played Djalil. How times as changed in South East Asia.

Which is bullshit, Our president should never visit Vietnam and embargoes should still be enforced preventing US companies from doing business with Vietnamese companies until they remove all of those damn Ho Chi Minh statues like the one they are standing in front of and renounce communism