He didn't say anything that could be fairly interpreted as implying that. You are - characteristically - engaging in a cheap strawman tactic, and then casting aspersions on your target's mental faculties on that basis. This is childish and rude.
He is arguing the North Vietnamese, the force for change, were the "aggressors". This is an insult and a slap in the face to anybody who opposes colonialism and exploitation.
Except for all the ones who didn't, of course.
Landlords and aristocrats are hardly "the people". The South Vietnamese were led by Emperor Bao Dai initially and later by business interests under the other South Vietnamese leadership. Not to mention the forces of several colonial Western powers, as well as Thai forces on behalf of royalty.
I would hardly call any of those popular or by the people. Why do you think the Viet Cong were so successful? Because they were supported by the peasant classes of Vietnam. The South Vietnamese had to ask for help
from the very same people who were previously oppressing the country. I don't know how much more obvious it can get that this was an effort of the ruling class to keep control. Ngo Dinh Diem was an autocrat who was not popular with the peasantry or the working class. The US literally propped him up.
Most non-American observers of the Vietnamese scene in 1954 considered that South Vietnam was doomed. Pres. Ngo Dinh Diem appeared to be a creation of the U.S., pulled out of the hat at the very last minute. In contrast Ho Chi Minh was the revered leader of the Vietnamese independence movement. At the time of the Geneva Treaty, the Viet Minh had considerable popular support. Combining their prestige as leading nationalists with successes at social reform in the parts of Vietnam they controlled, there was little doubt that they would be successful in the general elections to be held. As Communist-controlled North Vietnam had a majority of the population, anyway, neither the Diem government in the South nor the U.S. was willing to risk defeat. And in 1956 they refused to participate in elections.
Diem may rule in the day; but by night the Viet Minh guerillas control the countryside. Their charges of American imperialism seem, to the peasant, entirely substantiated by the presence of American military personnel in all parts of the country. And in history of American military aid to the French in the Indo-Chinese war prompts many of the Vietnamese to consider America as heir of French colonialism and the unpopular Pres. Diem as its puppet emperor.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1962/3/30/communism-and-vietnam-pin-1954-the/
South Vietnam had lesser support from the people of Vietnam. This is a rather apparent fact.
Cuba and Phillipines aren't.
Not for lack of trying. They kicked you guys out.
"Annex" here meaning they became a full-fledged state, with the same rights and privileges as any Americans, representation in the Congress, etc., just like California or New York.
It was still done at gunpoint and against the wishes of the indigenous people.
RedStar
That was the near end of French Imperialism, which the US had nothing to do with. Vietnam and the French asked us to come to their aid
No, a handful of aristocrats asked you to come to their aid. See above.
America did not attack the South Vietnamese people
No, they just attacked the much larger popular North Vietnamese movement
they just kicked the ass of the North Vietnamese invaders, but the presence of Chinese and Russian military in the Hanoi area meant ROEs that limited America's actions in that area, especially not allowing attacks on the airfields and staging areas lest we slaughter a few Communists who were the very ones who started and pushed the original invasion by the North Vietnamese in the first place.
This is a joke, right? The North Vietnamese were more popular with the vast majority of commoners than the South Vietnamese. This is a fact.
So, no, America did not attack the Vietnamese people, they defended the South Vietnamese people from a Communist invasion from the North
See above. North Vietnam won because the NVA and Viet Cong were actually popular among the regular people, and had morale: they had something to fight for. The SVA were inefficient and fighting for an unpopular government backed by [what the people perceived] as an imperial power.
All the fighting took place in South Vietnam(with excursions into Laos and Cambodia against supply trains), just how does one attack someone when that someone comes to your country(and the country you are defending)with a gun. Is it attacking some thief if you shoot him in your own house when he threatens you with a gun. That's not attacking and you are the one excusing the behavior of the Viet Cong as the aggressors and trying to rewrite history about who attacked whom in Vietnam.
No, you're the one rewriting history pretending that the South Vietnamese regime under Diem was actually the popular movement. By the way, you can think what you want to ease your conscience, but it's basically universally regarded that the Vietnam War was a complete disaster for the United States and an example of American butchery of foreign independence movements. I don't know what rubbish the military taught you, but you went over there and murdered people. It's murder.
