• xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        2 years ago

        The Vietnam War was fought almost entirely because of some dumb political theory that’s total bullshit.

        But if you want a less depressing answer, then look up the Pig War between the US and Britain.

        • ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 years ago

          Successful communist government would encourage more communist revolutions. It’s not completely mad.

          The US largely fought in Vietnam to keep France in NATO. It stayed after France gave left because it didn’t want communism to spread.

          • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 years ago

            The US largely fought in Vietnam to keep France in NATO.

            Interesting. What’s the story there? NATO treaty limits it so that it wouldn’t have included Vietnam

            • ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 years ago

              France wanted to maintain its empire. This is costly and expensive, so they wanted help to do this. They used the risk of them becoming neutral in the cold war to push the US into supporting them in Vietnam. They didn’t use the NATO alliance to force assistance, this wasn’t clear in my comment. NATO country’s like the UK didn’t get involved in Vietnam, even with the US offering trying to pay them to send troops (UK was uniquely adapt at Jungle fighting relative to other western powers).

              It may not seem like it today but early cold war post world war 2 the west wasn’t as unified as it is today. British and France seriously consider themselves being a third way, continuing their imperial past. Not communist like Russia or Liberal like the US. Eventually the US through influence and might pushed them into fully liberal countries. America’s liberal constitution/history made it’s politicians and political culture anti imperialist. But they were far more anti-fascist and anti-communist, so they accepted western Europe as allies.

              America’s anti-communist actions often had it labelled as the anti-imperialist imperialist. But their ‘empire’ usually consisted of getting locals to get the country running again with US military and finical backing. This resulted in the US becoming strong allies with their conquered countries despite those countries having completely independent control of their nation and foreign policy. Like Japan and Korea (it could have been possible with Afghanistan if the Taliban didn’t immediately take over).

    • Bassman1805@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      It was an Indian man, but I’m aware of any evidence he was an operative of the Indian government.

      Edit: Dumbass me, commenting before reading the article.

  • naturalgasbad@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 years ago

    Naturally, our closest ally did what it does best and told us children (Canada and India) to stop fighting because they had more important interests in Asia.

    More important than the literal fucking assassination of Canadian citizens on Canadian soil by a foreign power, apparently. More important than supporting it’s single largest trading partner in the world. More important than supporting the country that forms the other half of NORAD.

    Then again, the US DOJ literally pushed Bombardier (a Canadian jet aircraft company and massive Canadian employer) to insolvency because it might compete with Boeing. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

    • rbesfe@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 years ago

      Bombardier killed itself through the incompetence of its management and C-suite, DOJ might not have helped but a good aircraft company should be able to survive without military contracts

      • naturalgasbad@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        It wasn’t military contracts that killed Bombardier. It was the DOJ blocking Bombardier sales to the US under claims of “dumping”

  • GutsBerserk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 years ago

    Just do whatever you want to, kill whoever you want to… the key word to whitewash everything is “terrorist”!

  • lustyargonian@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    India be like “we didn’t do it but if we did then it was probably coz separatism is terrorism”