[rayiner]

> Laos also isn't getting the same attention as its neighbors like Thailand and Vietnam by the West almost as if it holds no strategic value to the West.

This is a really offensive mindset. As if developing countries can only progress by getting "attention ... from the west." Thailand and Vietnam haven't been getting "attention ... from the west" because of their "strategic value" or any special humanitarian concerns. It's because those countries have been building up their financial systems and industry. And countries in this region are progressing by aligning with Russia and China often in opposition to what Western countries would want.

[esturk]

Apparently, you disregarded the entire first part of my point which was that they were bombed so heavily that set them back decades. They need outside investment to jump start development. Just like Japan and Germany did after WW2.

You speak as if Thailand and Vietnam didn't hold important geopolitical values that the West and China want to exploit which makes them attractive to investments.

Those same countries still need to court outside investments to build out infrastructure and industries like recent efforts to move manufacturing to southeast Asia.

[gedy]

I think we need to quit blaming the utter failure of communist systems and corruption on "American bombs" 50 years ago.

[wolverine876]

How long do the effects of warfare last, particularly in a poor country?

[pr0zac]

I'm not exactly a fan of authoritarian communism but the point you're trying to make here fails considering Vietnam, one of the countries used as a successful example, has the exact same governing system as Laos.

Also the point made that the main difference between which countries recover and which don't post-war is whether they receive economic investment doesn't seem to be relevant to communism or who exactly did the previous bombing at all.

[wolverine876]

Beyond a doubt, political, economic, and military support (including access to major international markets), from from the wealthy countries of the world has a major impact on development, and opposition from the same can crush development. Since the Cold War, over 30 years ago, the great majority of wealth and power has been in the democratic, capitalist countries. Russia is a shell, and China only recently has enough money to become an economic force (though they've politically alienated most of their neighbors).

In particular, Thailand has long been tied to the US, and Vietnam is to a signiicant degree aligning with the US as protection from China. They also have other relationships, of course.

If the merits are so strong in your argument, why this tired sophistry of victimhood, and attacking the parent comment?