It’s a pity that the writer didn’t elaborate on the origin of this “chant.” It’s a parody of a chant that’s originally for pulling cannons up the abyss of Dien Bien Phu. The battle alone killed at least 15,000 Vietnamese but brought decisive victory for the Vietnamese in its struggle to gain freedom from the French in 1954.
On the streets I saw some buildup dirtiness behind those edges directly below the part you touch with your mouth.
Moreover, they are cooled down during the production process in the ashes, so they are very dirty when delivered.
Tank beer (tankova) from Urquell is same but it last a week or two in the tank to my knowledge and not just 24 hours as Bia hơi. It is properly the best pilsner in the world.
I know almost nothing about Vietnam, but this article felt like I had visited.
Not quite the same but a lot closer.
There was a good thread about the brand here a while back, which your comment helped me find.
https://www.duralex.com/en https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46015379
See here for an example: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/KDIMNfsuM3s/oardefault.jpg
This is a bit misleading: Yes, strategically the U.S. was defeated in 1975, but U.S. troops had pulled out in 1973, having essentially never been beaten on the battlefield — not that it matters, of course.
Yes. I was a serving Navy officer at the time. My above comment stands.
The cope stuff of “never beaten in the battlefield” is just bullshit. The point of fighting a war is to win. The military bureaucrats tried to apply kill counts as a proxy for victory.
The army pulled out but everything didn’t just end. There was a variety of covert and semi-covert American presence remaining, both in terms of CIA people and “sheep dipped” contractors.
As software people are keenly aware, accuracy in writing is important.
> The Republic of Vietnam was a dead man walking, but it was a United States puppet state, and they finally collapsed in 1975.
I don't disagree. In hindsight, the U.S.'s political strategy was disastrous. American decisionmakers — like all of us — had to make their best judgments based on education and experience (and the often-malign influence of groupthink). Some factors were especially salient:
• As WWII ended, the "Atlanticists" in the State Department supported France's insistence on retaining their Southeast Asian colonies (IIRC, because the U.S. wanted a strong anticommunist France to help stand up to Stalin and the Red Army after Germany's surrender). Also IIRC, FDR was inclined to support Ho Chi Minh's independence movement, but he was gravely ill by then.
• The American political class was very much aware of the lessons of Munich in 1938; of Stalin's conquest of Eastern Europe in 1945; and of North Korea's invasion of South Korea in 1950. It wasn't unreasonable for them to fear the spread of totalitarian communism.
• The governing Democratic Party was acutely aware of the political impact of McCarthyism in the 1950s, including being incessantly attacked by the GOP for having "lost" China in 1949 (as if China was ours to lose).
• Douglas MacArthur's advice to President Kennedy — not to put troops on the ground in Asia — didn't carry the day. [0]
Those interested in this debacle should read David Halberstam's magisterial book The Best and the Brightest. [1]
[0] https://thediplomat.com/2018/10/a-new-take-on-general-macart...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Best_and_the_Brightest
This is not how beer works.
Surely in a communist government access would be equal to all? Why would there be elites?
