Vietnam issues statement on Singapore PM’s speech

[Playtime]

I really think the mindset need to change. Like for the speech, really need not say too much about people accomplishment if the person already passes away. As we know when a person passes away, it will be even more sensitive issue if let's say their gang felt offended for whatever reasons like felt the information not correct, felt the speech do not speak well of the decense and etc. This to me is really very unnecessary, more so if to got to deal with forgien diplomat. If pm Lee never say out the accomplishments, nothing would had happened already. Nevermind whether it's the truth or not the truth, the most important thing is to build friendly relationships right? So why ownself go say things out which is a little bit sensitive to the decense gang? So next time they know already hor, if the person passes away and if it is some important ministers or big shot of other countries. Just keep it short and simple, no need talk too much about the decense history which may end up offend their gang.

Perhaps Vietnam should sue lee for insulting their dead leaders.. he passed laws regarding his farther too.

[PSP415]

You have absolutely nothing to worry about.

 

With the incompetent, insensitive and reckless PM that is currently leading the country, the unbearable conditions that we are living under, our liberties and freedom shot to shreds by a government that cares not an iota, since we are leading miserable lives while looking at our other more fortunate and free ASEAN neighbours with overpowering envy (secretly, lest we be arrested), just as Vietnam intervened and liberated the pitiful people of Cambodia, any nation that comes will be liberating us from oppression and a living hell. What invasion? What armed conflict? They will rightly be welcomed as the angels from heaven that they are.

 

You just have to identify yourself clearly as someone who sees them as saviours and liberators and you will be ok, your arms and your legs will be perfectly intact. Holding up the SAF100 that you have torn up helps.

 

You got to make sure you queue early though, many others here will be like you falling over themselves to run into the open arms of the new regime. It doesn't matter who the new leader is, anyone who is still breathing is better than the current PM, any day of the week including Sundays. Or perhaps we don't even need someone that breaths and we will still be better off, because the current PM is just! The! Absolute! Worst!

[Beregond]

He wants to step down liao and hand over to ah Heng but also no need to anyhow talk.

exactly why he need to talk now.

 

he need to protect his interest in china

Edited June 8, 2019 by Beregond

[Sosaria]

ððð

 

Good one bro. I like the part where ppl are falling over themselves to run into the arms of the new regimeð

 

Communist regime. Beats the carp, i mean crap out of democracy anytime. Everything belongs to the state, brain washed and so called equality until work 9 hours or 3 hours same minimal pay. No need to bother about self improvement.

 

Hehe....other than pushing little red book doctrine, all else is rubbishð.

 

Thanks. Had a good laugh as the images of what communist China did to its ppl and the effects still subtlely disguised. Vietnam is not at all a far distance.

 

Have a nice weekend. Safe ride.

Cheers

He is just being sarcastic lah.

 

Well, either that, or he'll be receiving lots of daily "sermons" soon in his inbox.

Edited June 8, 2019 by Sosaria

[Evillusion]

He is just being sarcastic lah.

 

Well, either that, or he'll be receiving lots of daily "sermons" soon in his inbox.

can post in love letter thread for entertainment.....

[PSP415]

He is just being sarcastic lah.

 

Well, either that, or he'll be receiving lots of daily "sermons" soon in his inbox.

Of cos. I know he was. Thats why i told him its good.

 

 

[Kb27]

It appears this PM does not carry much weight.

He can't say the "hard truths" that his father can and get away with it.

So, he should be careful and diplomatic with the words he used.

Bend truth a little.

Bcuz you're nobody.

[Weez911]

Let's clarify a few doubts I have since event happened decades ago:

 

1) Were Cambodia and Vietnam already fighting before the "invasion" took place? More specifically, who threw the first punch?

 

2) Were there Cambodians fighting alongside the Vietnamese "invaders" to "invade" their own country?

 

3) Wasn't Khmer Rouge a communist regime? Wasn't Pol Pot a hardcore communist?

 

4) Did Vietnam invade Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore after Cambodia, as Singapore thought it might? Sorry this is rhetorical...

Edited June 8, 2019 by Weez911

[Thaiyotakamli]

Let's clarify a few doubts I have since event happened decades ago:

 

1) Were Cambodia and Vietnam already fighting before the "invasion" took place? More specifically, who threw the first punch?

 

2) Were there Cambodians fighting alongside the Vietnamese "invaders" to "invade" their own country?

 

3) Wasn't Khmer Rouge a communist regime? Wasn't Pol Pot a hardcore communist?

 

4) Did Vietnam start to invade Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore after Cambodia, as Singapore thought it might?

For number 4, china did attack vietnam in response of cambodia investment

[Weez911]

For number 4, china did attack vietnam in response of cambodia investment

But Vietnam didn't withdraw from Cambodia after the pressure from China also..

 

Vietnam also knew that China has an understanding with US and Russia that this will not be a full scale attack on Vietnam. Vietnam could count on Russia since they have Russia's support.

 

If Vietnam is set on their "expansionary" drive, they still could go ahead.

Edited June 8, 2019 by Weez911

[Evillusion]

Let's clarify a few doubts I have since event happened decades ago:

 

1) Were Cambodia and Vietnam already fighting before the "invasion" took place? More specifically, who threw the first punch?

 

2) Were there Cambodians fighting alongside the Vietnamese "invaders" to "invade" their own country?

 

3) Wasn't Khmer Rouge a communist regime? Wasn't Pol Pot a hardcore communist?

 

4) Did Vietnam invade Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore after Cambodia, as Singapore thought it might? Sorry this is rhetorical...

bro...its a proxy war between the west and the eastern bloc. Cambodia was armed by China and Vietcong during the Vietnam war and committed genocide against its own. Vietnam invaded to 'pevent' but committed their own genocide against the khmer rouge. They chased the khmer rouge right into Thai territory.....thats how the clashes between the Thais and Vietnam started. The West see it as a communist expansion exercise and had to contain them at the Thai borders and if Thailand got into a mess.....Malaysia and Singapore would follow soon. Its a cold war scenario which the west doesnt want to deal with if the outcome will not be in their favor especially with lessons learnt from the Vietnam war.

[Mockngbrd]

Tok so much shit. Ccb pap

[Weez911]

bro...its a proxy war between the west and the eastern bloc. Cambodia was armed by China and Vietcong during the Vietnam war and committed genocide against its own. Vietnam invaded to 'pevent' but committed their own genocide against the khmer rouge. They chased the khmer rouge right into Thai territory.....thats how the clashes between the Thais and Vietnam started. The West see it as a communist expansion exercise and had to contain them at the Thai borders and if Thailand got into a mess.....Malaysia and Singapore would follow soon. Its a cold war scenario which the west doesnt want to deal with if the outcome will not be in their favor especially with lessons learnt from the Vietnam war.

My understanding of proxy war between communists and anti-communists is the Korean war and Vietnam war. Both Khmer Rogue and Vietnam were communists then, so what proxies are we talking about here? Maybe they had slightly differemt interpretation of communist ideals, but both communists no doubt.

 

It is more of a proxy war between the different communist ideologies from Soviet Union and China...

 

This topic is about Vietnam-Cambodia war right?

Edited June 8, 2019 by Weez911

[Fcw75]

Just keep his mouth shut la, keep blabbering the wrong things.

 

MFA have to do fire fighting liao.

[inlinesix]

Just keep his mouth shut la, keep blabbering the wrong things.

 

MFA have to do fire fighting liao.

You sure MFA do fire fighting now?

[Evillusion]

My understanding of proxy war between communists and anti-communists is the Korean war and Vietnam war. Both Khmer Rogue and Vietnam were communists then, so what proxies are we talking about here? Maybe they had slightly differemt interpretation of communist ideals, but both communists no doubt.

 

It is more of a proxy war between the different communist ideologies from Soviet Union and China...

 

This topic is about Vietnam-Cambodia war right?

I really dont know how Cambodia and Vietnam had a fall-out after the Vietnam war but Vietnam claimed it was to prevent a genocide by its neighbour against its own. This was the Cold War era......US and its Allies against the Soviet-backed Eastern bloc (Communist). We are just caught in the peripheral as China doesnt wants its immediate neighbours to be allied to the west. The west wants communism to contained away from Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia as this area is a major trade route so they supplied weapons and tactics to the Thais in the hope that Vietnam can be halted at the borders. Vietnam stooped its aggression as soon as the Berlin wall collapse marking the collapse of the Soviet Union and its bloc and communism in general. Only recently with the rise of China does Russia tries to spread it influence again in the Baltic and middle east.

[Evillusion]

It's a proxy war between China and Russia. In China, they called it a "war against the revisionists", 反修鬥爭. Khmer Rouge was backed by China, and the Cambodian King was held in Beijing for many years. Vietnam was backed by Russia.

 

Before the invasion, China fired bombs onto Kinmen (ROC) as warning shots against any intervention from CKS. China already gave US the heads-up before invading Vietnam, and got the nod (this was explicitly documented by Henry Kissinger in his memoir, and other accounts

 

000cf1a48f870bd7a7d008.jpg).

ah....i see! I always see it as western allies against the communist bloc! In Europe it was East/West Germany....in the Balkans it was Yugoslavia/chechs vs Italy/France (Nato), and Pakistan/India in South Asia. Of course SEA was Thai, Cambodia and Vietnam.

Didnt know China was at odds with Russia as Russia takes China as the Iron Curtain....so was East Germany and the rest of the Eastern bloc

[1fast1]

Let's clarify a few doubts I have since event happened decades ago:

 

1) Were Cambodia and Vietnam already fighting before the "invasion" took place? More specifically, who threw the first punch?

 

2) Were there Cambodians fighting alongside the Vietnamese "invaders" to "invade" their own country?

 

3) Wasn't Khmer Rouge a communist regime? Wasn't Pol Pot a hardcore communist?

 

4) Did Vietnam invade Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore after Cambodia, as Singapore thought it might? Sorry this is rhetorical...

1) Difficult to say. Pol Pot's regime has been portrayed as making pre-emptive strikes against Vietnam, and the Vietnamese invasion as a countermeasure, but it's very difficult to say with these things, just like in the Middle East right now. What is incontrovertible is that Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were intent on killing lots of their minorities, especially those of Viet origin (along with a lot of other innocent people like their intellectuals). A commonly quoted figure is that they killed 25 percent of their own population. Let that sink in. A full quarter. Not even Hitler came close.

 

2) Every tyranny will have insurgents and revolutionaries, the so called fifth column, so I'm guessing the answer is yes, but I'm not sure. I believe Hun Sen came to power by becoming a Viet sympathiser, so that's one obvious example.

 

3) KR was commie in both manifesto and practice, but it was sympathetic to, and supported by China. Vietnam was supported by the USSR. The China and the USSR simply couldn't stand each other, even though they were both commie. But since Communism is so ideologically intensive, they had to paint their simple enmity and rivalry as a matter of ideological difference too. Anyway, the Cambodia-Vietnam conflict is proxy warfare- basically two tigers facing off against each other using lesser beasts as their proxies.

 

4) No. But Vietnam expected to be feted as conquering heroes who put an end to genocide. Instead, they were shunned and punished by the United Nations led by supposed democracies like Thatcher's UK and the US (the US was more low key than the UK if memory serves). China was also successful in lobbying heavily against Vietnam. Only Russia, Czechoslovakia and then India were in their corner. Thailand (the dead general who started all this controversial crap) warmly welcomed the Khmer Rouge leadership in exile (and North Korea had been prepared to do the same). More countries recognised the genocidal government in exile than the new one in place. Meanwhile Vietnam also found their aid cut by the Soviets as they (the USSR) found it difficult to make ends meet. So they made compromises to win international favour, culminating in the restoration of the monarchy. Basically my point is that Vietnam didn't do all those things Pinky implied ASEAN was worried about, but Vietnam was also hampered by world opinion and sanctions and the cutting off of aid by their erstwhile allies. No one knows what might have gone down if the dice had fallen differently.

 

Personally, I have a saying. "There are no Good Guys, but there very well might be Bad Guys". In world politics, there's no point in virtue signalling and pretending that you have might of right on your side unless it's a cynical demagogical tool (as it most often is - a petty vote-grubbing exercise to inflate one's apparent importance on the world stage just prior to a national election, for instance). Take, for example, the whole Soviets versus Nazis thing - just because Stalin brought Hitler's war effort to a decisive end, are we supposed to glorify him? That's what I mean by "no good guys". Nations and peoples are often driven by self-interest rather than high-minded altruistic principles, no matter what they may claim.

 

But, after recognising the simple truth of the above, what's most important is to let sleeping dogs lie. Don't pick at old wounds, especially when they're not that old and not that well-healed. There's no profit to be had here, especially when one has no skin in the game. There is, however, plenty of downside.

Edited June 8, 2019 by Turboflat4