well if usa actually focused there bomb runs on the enemy and not at civilians, then they would have won, and to be fair the terrain, was a huge and when i mean huge i mean huge disadvantage to the usa, like they had no experience fights in jungles. in modern speaking tho, usa could destroy them but it would be useless.
7:09 he is right tho, its like saying sweden was neutral in ww2 even tho sweden let germany use their trains when invading norway and russia and when getting iron ore from norway to germany
Sweden was neutral though. Denying them the train usage would be the non-neutral option. Both sides had the same access to the trains as desired. If they said no to Germany using the trains, then you could say that they weren't neutral by supporting Norway/Russia. X2 denial or X2 approval is neutral, and the latter applied.
@user-xp8wk1zt2p That context is irrelevant when it comes to being classified as neutral or not. Even if one side is grossly terrible, you're no longer neutral if you do something to help and/or stop one of the sides. It'd be like an entity C (that happens to own say a toll bridge) who doesn't care at all about entities A & B (who happen to hate each other). If entity C said B can use the bridge but A can't (or vise versa), that would not be neutral. Your point is purely morality based. Entity C probably could have just denied both A & B to be morally upstanding, but they were simply having their service utilized and profit>morals. If anything, Sweden technically would have benefited less/probably would have been at least partially taken over in the long run if Germany won overall.
6:34 I actually ask the same thing. Laos and Cambodia were neutral sovereign nations that was violated by the North Vietnamese to fund a rebellion in the South, the American government bombed those supply lines to disrupt the VietCong. So really, both the NVA and USAF are guilty of getting both Laos and Cambodia into that mess.
This Kissinger guy reminds me of someone who's committing the exact same atrocities right now as im typing this and half of the world is on board with it hmm..his name is Netanyahu
Even if Cambodia was involved, it doesn't justify the carpet bombing which kills a bunch of civilians? Also, Cambodia is neutral if they don't officially declare war with US i.e. not killing US troops, citizens.., regardless of whatever they supply to Viet Nam, even nuclear bombs. I'd assume that's the case as there's no mentioning of proofs of Cambodian military involvement in Viet Nam war prior to the carpet bombing. If US chooses to declare war on Cambodia, then that's US' issues. If US wants to involve any of Viet Nam's trading partner that hasn't done any direct harm to US' goods, the blame is still on US.
@@china_guppie5343 If you question the legitimacy of an already known fact you're indirectly defending actions that have been taken against people who were innocent, asking a question from an impartial side would be more like who set up those supply lines or if it was the government or civilians, out of other civilians necessity or etc. We know X is a contrarian with everything these days
12:10 my brother in christ you answered your own question, communism always fails its true- but when systems collapse like that- A lot of people die & other countries will get unwantingly roped in. This is because either because its spreading violence across nation borders (riots & swarms of illegal immigrants [which is only bad because they arent geting background checks when they come illegally so they could be bad people] and even wars), or because First world countries (USA & allies OR China) are forced to step in (resource wise, money, or militarily to maintain order) because there is always mass starvation and crime. We usually try to intervene to limit mass casualties. Communism kills. By the time of the 90's we realized it just wasnt worth intervening anymore unless a country was our enemy or had a resource we wanted. Korean war had been fought because 1 our enemies were attempting to expand their North Korean puppet across the peninsula, 2 North Korea was ideologically opposed to us, & 3 The Korean war had international support. The Vietnamese war was solely done for political ideology. Then our middle eastern wars were done for resources & to overthrow leaders & groups & find replacements we liked.
No? USA can’t allow any examples of socialism working because it would sew doubt into capitalist worlds when things get bad. The New Deal with FDR happened because they feared a Russian style revolution happening after the Great Depression; that is the only reason businesses got on board and agreed to be taxes more and to treat their employees better. Everything they’ve done has been to demonize socialism so that that doesn’t happen again. Capitalism is about control and exploitation, and the people in power don’t want to lose that power and that plays into why we’ve been indoctrinated our whole lives with ‘it’s the best system we have’ because it didn’t work in Russia (the entire time being under siege) so it must not work ever.
I don’t really like this guy’s vids, some of his vids are way too bias. But this one was okay I guess, but idk the history of that time lol. But he got one thing wrong tho, this isn’t what happens when you give too much power to one man, this is what happens when you give power to the wrong hands.
"Take out" huh bro thinks the US was trying to Wipeout the Vietnamese people? And those Vietnamese in the USA are mostly south Vietnamese allies of the US.
I don't know anything about this guy. But as Lex Friedman said: if both sides are against you, you are probably right. Also if both sides support you, you are probably right.
RIP BOZO, WONT BE MISSED
🧢
Will be missed
Ironic that he cozied up to dictators but fled Germany because of one.....
This is what happens when you give someone who was bullied ultimate power
@@Sceptonic doesn’t give an excuse to keep the cycle going.
@@ChequeTwice agreed
Imagine dropping 10K bombs and still lose to Vietnam 😂😂😂
Didnt think about it like that🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Sounds way too small to be honest, I don't think people understand how massive that jungle is.
Well most of them were dropped blindly into forests and jungles🤓👆
well if usa actually focused there bomb runs on the enemy and not at civilians, then they would have won, and to be fair the terrain, was a huge and when i mean huge i mean huge disadvantage to the usa, like they had no experience fights in jungles. in modern speaking tho, usa could destroy them but it would be useless.
@@L8yf why in the hell would USA specifically target civilians, that make no sense tactically, it's just waisting ammo for no reason.
7:09 he is right tho, its like saying sweden was neutral in ww2 even tho sweden let germany use their trains when invading norway and russia and when getting iron ore from norway to germany
Sweden was neutral though. Denying them the train usage would be the non-neutral option. Both sides had the same access to the trains as desired. If they said no to Germany using the trains, then you could say that they weren't neutral by supporting Norway/Russia. X2 denial or X2 approval is neutral, and the latter applied.
@@mystic95 ah good to know that you arent neutral by denying an foreign army to pass through ur country to invade ur neighbour country 👍
@user-xp8wk1zt2p That context is irrelevant when it comes to being classified as neutral or not. Even if one side is grossly terrible, you're no longer neutral if you do something to help and/or stop one of the sides. It'd be like an entity C (that happens to own say a toll bridge) who doesn't care at all about entities A & B (who happen to hate each other). If entity C said B can use the bridge but A can't (or vise versa), that would not be neutral. Your point is purely morality based. Entity C probably could have just denied both A & B to be morally upstanding, but they were simply having their service utilized and profit>morals. If anything, Sweden technically would have benefited less/probably would have been at least partially taken over in the long run if Germany won overall.
@@user-xp8wk1zt2pavarage juicer IQ you have 😂 only neutral if on USA side is your argument 😂
@@user-xp8wk1zt2p You got shit on dipshit, take the L
Holy shit X's chat is legitimately braindead sometimes...
If his chat typed their real age they would get banned.
"sometimes"😂
Lil bro asked a genuine questions and they said he was justifying war crimes 😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹 brainrot liberal depressed twitch chat
sometimes Clueless
@@COWPto be fair it's probably ironic. It's like when chats type CmonBruh and say "racist!!!" after the streamer simply says the word "black".
I thought the title was "was harry kissing a war criminal" and just thought who tf is harry?
Harry bawls
DEFEND THE WAR CRIMINAL DEFEND THE WAR CRIMINAL
he is literally not defending anyone
@@ultratronger ik, im joshin
6:34 I actually ask the same thing. Laos and Cambodia were neutral sovereign nations that was violated by the North Vietnamese to fund a rebellion in the South, the American government bombed those supply lines to disrupt the VietCong. So really, both the NVA and USAF are guilty of getting both Laos and Cambodia into that mess.
This Kissinger guy reminds me of someone who's committing the exact same atrocities right now as im typing this and half of the world is on board with it hmm..his name is Netanyahu
Bibi living rent free inside your head lil bro
Classic Mullah comment
both are jews
Hamas bot
@@chnb517So?
RIPBOZO
oh boy x lost the plot after hang out with destiny LMFAO
Even if Cambodia was involved, it doesn't justify the carpet bombing which kills a bunch of civilians?
Also, Cambodia is neutral if they don't officially declare war with US i.e. not killing US troops, citizens.., regardless of whatever they supply to Viet Nam, even nuclear bombs. I'd assume that's the case as there's no mentioning of proofs of Cambodian military involvement in Viet Nam war prior to the carpet bombing. If US chooses to declare war on Cambodia, then that's US' issues. If US wants to involve any of Viet Nam's trading partner that hasn't done any direct harm to US' goods, the blame is still on US.
He really does try to defend anything doesn't he
he literally didnt defend anything lmao
Asking a question=defending. Bros restarted everyone knows that, shit he knows that, so he ask questions so he doesn’t say something dumb
@@china_guppie5343 If you question the legitimacy of an already known fact you're indirectly defending actions that have been taken against people who were innocent, asking a question from an impartial side would be more like who set up those supply lines or if it was the government or civilians, out of other civilians necessity or etc. We know X is a contrarian with everything these days
can't tell if you're trolling or just retarded @@IssaMeZane
Cia Harris
"German of course"
5:41 HOLY CHAD
12:50 ,Ironically funny and true statement
is this a re-upload or DejaVu?
Packwatch
We all know ur crying behind behind that comment
12:10 my brother in christ you answered your own question, communism always fails its true- but when systems collapse like that- A lot of people die & other countries will get unwantingly roped in.
This is because either because its spreading violence across nation borders (riots & swarms of illegal immigrants [which is only bad because they arent geting background checks when they come illegally so they could be bad people] and even wars), or because First world countries (USA & allies OR China) are forced to step in (resource wise, money, or militarily to maintain order) because there is always mass starvation and crime.
We usually try to intervene to limit mass casualties. Communism kills. By the time of the 90's we realized it just wasnt worth intervening anymore unless a country was our enemy or had a resource we wanted. Korean war had been fought because 1 our enemies were attempting to expand their North Korean puppet across the peninsula, 2 North Korea was ideologically opposed to us, & 3 The Korean war had international support.
The Vietnamese war was solely done for political ideology.
Then our middle eastern wars were done for resources & to overthrow leaders & groups & find replacements we liked.
No? USA can’t allow any examples of socialism working because it would sew doubt into capitalist worlds when things get bad.
The New Deal with FDR happened because they feared a Russian style revolution happening after the Great Depression; that is the only reason businesses got on board and agreed to be taxes more and to treat their employees better. Everything they’ve done has been to demonize socialism so that that doesn’t happen again. Capitalism is about control and exploitation, and the people in power don’t want to lose that power and that plays into why we’ve been indoctrinated our whole lives with ‘it’s the best system we have’ because it didn’t work in Russia (the entire time being under siege) so it must not work ever.
Lmao hissan bots and NPCs in chat thinking communism works😂😂😂
WHY TF YALL POSTIN AT 4:45 AM
sorry bro, we forgor that 8 billion ppl live in your time zone
Australia pilled
its only like 9-10PM in Aus i wonder where that kids from
It's like 4.45 PM for me wtf how is it possible that its 4.45 am??
It's 7pm for me
Kissinger was so skibidi
I love reacting❤
Well well well
i love your reactions mr xqc reacts. how do i donate?
Is carpet bombing a non-combatant nation a war-crime?
who tf is spamming gigachad
Me
@@canadianrage5224 you lost lol
@@znn4125 I know, as a Canadian I’m so sad we lost😔
@@canadianrage5224 Damn i’m so sorry you’re Canadian, i hope you get cured one day 🙏
Based
I don’t really like this guy’s vids, some of his vids are way too bias. But this one was okay I guess, but idk the history of that time lol. But he got one thing wrong tho, this isn’t what happens when you give too much power to one man, this is what happens when you give power to the wrong hands.
Thousands of bombs and yet the US still couldn't take out Vietnam, now we have thousands of Vietnamese living in Texas as American citizens lol
They’re probably not communists anymore tho, that’s what the US was scared of
What does the war have to do with vietnamese in texas, the war involves government not civilians. Idiota
"Take out" huh bro thinks the
US was trying to Wipeout the Vietnamese people? And those Vietnamese in the USA are mostly south Vietnamese allies of the US.
Yeah well if you ruin someone's land and make it unlivable chances are those people will migrate to your land to survive
@@h.n.r_funi3324 Non of that happened, those people are the South Vietnamese allies, seriously have non of you guys ever watched a war documentary?
yes 🤯
rip to my role model 🐐
RIP KING
hmm......
I don't know anything about this guy. But as Lex Friedman said: if both sides are against you, you are probably right. Also if both sides support you, you are probably right.
No the guy is just an evil war criminal nothing more.
So white supremacy is right because both sides are against it? 🤔🤔🤔
Yo bro TH-cam hid 2 replies lol
@@ohnonono9310 is it hiding or youtube bugging out
@@Buggolious probably deleted.
Of course he is a juicer
GIGACHAD
If he was alive and in power right now imagine what he would have dropped on palastine. since he is also a jew.
Ъъ.
first
ez
rip legend. you will be missed
Warmonger andy
nobody is missing him lil bro.
only thing missing is money in yo pockets 💀get some bread you poor fuck
legend in losing wars to Vietnamese farmers 😭
@@itsjammbiwar ended with a treaty
kissinger the goat. fly high king