Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2017 August 25

= August 25 =

Why didn't the US support Portugal in colonial wars in Africa against communist backed nationalists?
Around the same time the US was pouring support in Indochina to fight Soviet and Chinese backed North Vietnam, in Portuguese Africa the nationalists movements were receiving overt Soviet support (one rebel group even had a Soviet supplied Mig squadron), but the US didn't lend assistance to Portugal to fight those Soviet backed nationalist movements, going so far as to condemn Portugal at the UN for expanding the country across borders. Seems contradictory especially given US support for anti-communism in Indochina would eventually reach one million soldiers. Muzzleflash (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The US took an anti-colonialist stance following WW2, not even supporting it's WW2 allies of France and the UK in the Suez crisis. And, in this case that was probably the best choice, as the Vietnam war didn't go very well.  You really can't fight communism while presenting continued colonialism as the alternative.  You won't win many hearts and minds that way.  The better alternative seems to have been to let the communists win, then the people will get sick of their mismanagement of the economy in a generation or two, then they will throw the communists out on their own or the communists will gradually increase economic freedoms.  So far only North Korea has defied this pattern completely.  Venezuela seems to be about ready to eject it's incompetent socialist government. StuRat (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The colonial wars in the Portuguese colonies did not really start in earnest until after the Vietnam War had become a major domestic problem in the United States, and after the Domino Theory had proved itself a sham. So the domestic appetite for more foreign entanglements was at a low ebb. Plus, the areas where these wars were fought were not particularly strategic for American interests. Still, there were defenders of UNITA pushing the U.S. to provide support to Jonas Savimbi in Angola however. The article U.S. support for FNLA and UNITA has more on this. --Xuxl (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You might want to double-check that assumption that the Domino Theory is a "sham," given that (a) our article doesn't support that assessment, and (b) Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore didn't become communist after the US prevented a rapid collapse of South Vietnam long enough for China's Cultural Revolution to die out. DOR (HK) (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Without branching into a separate discussion about the domino theory, I think it's sufficient to note for the this discussion that it was a widely held idea in the US foreign policy establishment at time of the Vietnam War and Portuguese colonial wars in Africa. Sturat points out another instance where the US did not back a colonial power due to its post-WWII anti-colonialist stance. However, the US has been involved in dozens of Cold War era conflicts, by backing or even instigating the anti-communist side, so the not only hands off but open condemnation of the colonial power in Portuguese colonial wars in the face of overt Soviet backing of Portugal's adversary was unusual. Xuxl raises the point that the wars were not in strategic locations. West and Central Africa might well be the biggest backwater in US foreign policy so this is a possibility. But I wonder how high Southeast Asia then ranked in US strategic policy. More important than West/Central Africa but by how much? I certainly can't imagine the disparity in importance was so great to justify 1 million men in Vietnam in contrast to open condemnation of Portugal in its African wars. Maybe both instances are extreme examples on each end of the spectrum of US responses to Soviet backed movements. That brings me back to the question, how does this huge contrast in responses make any sense according to the logic at the time within US foreign policy? Muzzleflash (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * South Vietnam was strategically located, as was Malaya (we did not oppose Britain and Australia's management of the Malaya Emergency, although several military commentators, including the Delta Force's founder Col. Charles Beckwith, US Army (ret.) remarked on the parallels and disparate outcomes of the Malaya Emergency and the Vietnam conflict). The point has been made by many who fought and observed the Vietnam conflict close-hand (for example, the French journalist Bernard Fall, whose book From the Jaws of Victory is a scathing indictment of the conduct of that war, and Col. David Hackworth, US Army (ret.) who remarked in his autobiographical book About Face how the legacy of French colonialism in Vietnam created a corrupt state in the South which lacked the required popular support and perceived legitimacy to defend itself effectively from North Vietnam).
 * It's not the difference between Angola's colonial government and insurgency and Vietnam's post-colonial government and insurgency/conflict with Communist North Vietnam, but the similarities between Angola and Vietnam that led to the US's failure to tender more than small logistical support to UNITA and FNLA against the Marxist insurgents and Cuban/Soviet forces which moved into to secure the Communist beachhead there. The US Congress would never have paid for more support of the non-Communist rebels than they did, directly after Vietnam, to prop up still another failed European colony. loupgarous (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 'how the legacy of French colonialism in Vietnam created a corrupt state in the South' Jeez. After WW 2 the US was determined that France should not reassert control and viewed the communists in Vietnam as their friends. How was any sort of planned handover to take place? It was only after it was obvious what was happening in China that they changed their mind but by then the whole place was a mess. Millions ran from the north, who ran to it? What kind of popular support is that? Dmcq (talk) 13:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Oil Change, how much required?
Any idea how much oil I need for an oil change on my 2007 Renault Clio 3 Diesel?

Most shops sell either like a 1 litre bottle or a 4 or 5ish litre bottle? Will one suffice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.41.143.98 (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * See RENAULT CLIO 3 ENGINE OIL CAPACITY. I just copied your question into the Google search bar and BINGO! There it was. Alansplodge (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * (EC) I just found the same page. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * You will need to know the engine size to use the chart. You apparently have lost your owner's manual, and they often are written for multiple engines, anyway, so you might look at the engine directly to see if it's written on it (or the cowling over it). StuRat (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Or it may be on your vehicle registration documents (not sure if that's true for Korea). Alansplodge (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * My drain pan has quart markings in it. When I drain the oil, I can see how much came out. That is a clue as to how much to put back in. It isn't the real purpose of it though. I just thought you could check your drain pan to see if it is marked - and I am heavily implying that you should use a drain pan. Don't let the oil just run off into the street drain. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * If the car was low on oil then this method would refill it with the same low level. StuRat (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * When I did my own oil changes, I just bought the five-litre size, and kept any spare for later top-ups. If you don't know the capacity, put in three litres, wait a while for it to settle, then see if the oil level has reached the bottom of the dip stick.  Keep adding small amounts (half-litre or less) until the level reaches just below the top mark on the dip-stick (allowing for a small amount to drain in later).  If you happen to have a two-litre engine then you might need to buy an extra litre.  I assume that you are changing the oil filter at the same time.  It holds some of the oil.    D b f i r s   18:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * You need the VIN for asking Renault or oil dealer who does not need the last digit due identifying the model, not the sample and owner. In the user manual check the manufacturers oil specification, not the viscosity, SAE type and ACEA type, only! The equipped with diesel particle filter, use 5W30, not 5W40 for longer life of the filter. Replacing the oil filter needs more oil. Depending on the engine type up to 4.5 literes in total for the Clio III. Do not exceed the oil service interval to prevent damages to diesel particle filter and turbo bearings. It is recommended to add same oil type of refill when the engine eats oil between service intervals. -- Hans Haase (有问题吗) 11:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)