NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, I don't know much about Vietnam expect that we went in to stop the spread of Communism

Is that not correct? Why did the US really need to stop the spread of communism?

I just wonder because I didn't pay attention in History class.

But you know the books were written to make the US look like Angels in everything anyway.

Plus I have so many historically saavy people here to learn from, I though I would take up the opportunity.

Was Vietnam, basically a regime change thing? Should the US have really gone in?

I was listening to a program by drafted Vietnam vets who opposed the war and had been thrown in the stockade becaue of it (they were called the something 27, I cant remember). They were tortured by the MP's worse than the Iraqis. This is what got me wondering what others thought.

Not sure..but I may be the only Vietnam Vet here..so what was it you want to know?

Did the US go into Vietnam to stop the spread of Communism? If so then why? What did it accomplish?


Do you agree with the decision to go into Vietnam?

The US went into Vietnam to stop the spread of communism, as set up by the Truman Doctrine.

Was it right? In my opinion, on paper it was right, but on the ground, it wasnt so hot.

Not regime change- quite the opposite. The U.S. intervened in order to prop up Ngo Din Diem's (sp?) southern government. The north was under Ho Chi Minh who was incredibly popular and seen as a liberator from the Japanese and French. Things really kicked off when the U.S. supported Diem's decision not to participate in elections to unite the country (it was predicted Ho would win by landslide). That prompted the forming of the NLF or Viet Cong who initiated a guerilla war. As the southern government lost control the U.S. stepped in to protect it from the north and from its own people.

Okay so the majority of people of Vietnam wanted Ho Chi mihn, but the US didnt like communism so it helped out the other unpopular side.

What was so dangerous about Communism spreading across Vietnam?

How would that harm the U.S.?

Did the US go into Vietnam to stop the spread of Communism? If so then why? What did it accomplish?


Do you agree with the decision to go into Vietnam?

Ostensibly..the buildup began with the usage of Special Forces instructors during the Kennedy years who were sent to assess the combat effectiveness of the South Vietnamese Army to meet the VietCong threat and to provide for buffer zones of independent areas of control under varioius Hmong or Montagnard tribesmen up in the Hills in the north and west of the country. Since the partition the North had been rattling sabers at the South and had helped via Soviet military assistance the VietCong movement..a movement that grew out of the VietMinh who had fought the French previously.

As for future American involvement we were merely complying with treaty obligations thru SEATO (SouthEast Asia Treaty Organization) and later with the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. The Domino Theory was a very real threat during the Cold War..Vietnam was a keystone so to speak of Southeast Asia..to the west..Laos, Cambodia, and leading into Burma and India...to the east....Japan, Phillipines, Indonesia, etc..Now whether that threat ever would truly take form...not for me to say.

I was a fresh-faced private in 1966 when I hit the ground in the Republic of South Vietnam...so larger issues aside..I was more concerned with staying alive the first 30 days.

We were not undergoing regime change..the regime was already there...now was it corrupt..hell yeah...dirty as muddy jeans after a child goes out to play.but...at least they were anti-communist and remember, during this time..taken into context..that was all that mattered. We went there because it was not believed that Saigon could have managed the war without US assistance..as it stands..two years after we left the North Vietnamese Army rolled into Saigon anyway...little stood in their path.

Do I agree...at the time...yes...I did agree..remember...it was only 5 yrs previously from the time I was in Vietnam that Kennedy asked us..."Not what has our country done for you, but what you have done for your country", and had gone to West Berlin with his famous "Ich bin ein
Berliner" speech..The West was pumped full of anti-communist rhetoric.

Do I agree with the way the politicians made us fight the war is a much better question..and that could take hours to explain to you.

Not sure..but I may be the only Vietnam Vet here..so what was it you want to know?

With all due respect.. you may have been in Vietnam fighting.. but that doesn't mean you knew or know of all the political ramifications.. you were a solider.. not a political scientist. As you have shown over and over again in many of your posts.

We had SEATO to protect, we feared China, we thought (incorrectly) that Ho would be a Chinese puppet.

Once Nixon got us on better terms with China, everything changed. If that had happened 20 years earlier, the Vietnam war would have been unncessary.

Not sure..but I may be the only Vietnam Vet here..so what was it you want to know?

With all due respect.. you may have been in Vietnam fighting.. but that doesn't mean you knew or know of all the political ramifications.. you were a solider.. not a political scientist. As you have shown over and over again in many of your posts.

And a political scientist knows squat on the ground Steph..with all due respect.

Not sure..but I may be the only Vietnam Vet here..so what was it you want to know?

With all due respect.. you may have been in Vietnam fighting.. but that doesn't mean you knew or know of all the political ramifications.. you were a solider.. not a political scientist. As you have shown over and over again in many of your posts.

And a political scientist knows squat on the ground Steph..with all due respect.

Perhaps.. but they know a hell of a lot more then your average solider.. without doubt.

Not regime change- quite the opposite. The U.S. intervened in order to prop up Ngo Din Diem's (sp?) southern government. The north was under Ho Chi Minh who was incredibly popular and seen as a liberator from the Japanese and French. Things really kicked off when the U.S. supported Diem's decision not to participate in elections to unite the country (it was predicted Ho would win by landslide). That prompted the forming of the NLF or Viet Cong who initiated a guerilla war. As the southern government lost control the U.S. stepped in to protect it from the north and from its own people.

As for Ho winning in a landslide..if he had won..he would have done exactly what he did during the war and afterwards....slaughter the Hmong and the Montagnard Hill people...Ho had little use for these peoples.

We were obligated to protect a treaty which allowed for Southeast Asia to do what?

Why were we obligated?

I still wonder how the spread of communism could hurt America.

I believe the US should not have gone into Vietnam. This cost many lives and, they LOST it. Anyway, you are right, what did they think they were going to acomplish. At the worst they could have triggered a nuclear war. And, what was going to happen afterwards."Horay, we have defeated a comunist nation". And nothing would happen. It would be just for its shock value, and, the USSR wouldn't be too scared, if America attacks them, they can just attack back.

I am an anti-comunist but, i still do not believe it is right to go straight in and kill everyone!

We were obligated to protect a treaty which allowed for Southeast Asia to do what?

Why were we obligated?

I still wonder how the spread of communism could hurt America.

Think of SEATO as the asian NATO..of which we were part of...just as we were obligated to protect Europe from a potential Soviet Threat, we were in Southeast to protect them from a Soviet-proxy threat...as for how the spread of communism could hurt America..this was a time of proxy wars son....both the USSR did it..and we did it...the Soviet install a government somewhere..and so we install a government elsewhere..they help a rebel movement..we help a rebel movement..tit for tat...and the world was our chessboard...each move related to another

I believe the US should not have gone into Vietnam. This cost many lives and, they LOST it. Anyway, you are right, what did they think they were going to acomplish. At the worst they could have triggered a nuclear war. And, what was going to happen afterwards."Horay, we have defeated a comunist nation". And nothing would happen. It would be just for its shock value, and, the USSR wouldn't be too scared, if America attacks them, they can just attack back.

I am an anti-comunist but, i still do not believe it is right to go straight in and kill everyone!

There are a good many of us vets who would disagree with the notion we lost...we weren't allowed to win is more like it.

Not sure..but I may be the only Vietnam Vet here..so what was it you want to know?

With all due respect.. you may have been in Vietnam fighting.. but that doesn't mean you knew or know of all the political ramifications.. you were a solider.. not a political scientist. As you have shown over and over again in many of your posts.

And a political scientist knows squat on the ground Steph..with all due respect.

Perhaps.. but they know a hell of a lot more then your average solider.. without doubt.

Not so. They have more academic knowledge, perhaps, but knowledge in general... I rather think that the knowledge gained by soldiering is a different form of knowledge, but one no less valuable than knowledge gained in a political science course. BTW, I have much respect for political scientists, a good friend of mine is a Poli. Sci. Major and he showed me some of his coursework. Ugh. It would bore the hell out of me so fast...

Not sure..but I may be the only Vietnam Vet here..so what was it you want to know?

With all due respect.. you may have been in Vietnam fighting.. but that doesn't mean you knew or know of all the political ramifications.. you were a solider.. not a political scientist. As you have shown over and over again in many of your posts.

And a political scientist knows squat on the ground Steph..with all due respect.

Perhaps.. but they know a hell of a lot more then your average solider.. without doubt.

Not so. They have more academic knowledge, perhaps, but knowledge in general... I rather think that the knowledge gained by soldiering is a different form of knowledge, but one no less valuable than knowledge gained in a political science course. BTW, I have much respect for political scientists, a good friend of mine is a Poli. Sci. Major and he showed me some of his coursework. Ugh. It would bore the hell out of me so fast...

I was in fact talking about the political side to it.. not the actual fighting..

Okay so basically we didn't want Russia to become a greater economic power? If that is the case, then thats a pretty lame excuse to send so many people to their deaths. So what if America isn't the worlds greatest economic superpower.


Also, I heard that the US had to withdraw because the GI antiwar movement got so big that the Army became unreliable or something of that nature.

Sorry if I'm not fully understanding all of the implications. And THANK YOU for responding and helping me learn :)

Not sure..but I may be the only Vietnam Vet here..so what was it you want to know?

With all due respect.. you may have been in Vietnam fighting.. but that doesn't mean you knew or know of all the political ramifications.. you were a solider.. not a political scientist. As you have shown over and over again in many of your posts.

And a political scientist knows squat on the ground Steph..with all due respect.

Perhaps.. but they know a hell of a lot more then your average solider.. without doubt.

Not so. They have more academic knowledge, perhaps, but knowledge in general... I rather think that the knowledge gained by soldiering is a different form of knowledge, but one no less valuable than knowledge gained in a political science course. BTW, I have much respect for political scientists, a good friend of mine is a Poli. Sci. Major and he showed me some of his coursework. Ugh. It would bore the hell out of me so fast...

I was in fact talking about the political side to it.. not the actual fighting..

Meh. You seemed to be devaluing a certain type of knowledge. I'm sorry I jumped on you as that was not your intention.

Okay so basically we didn't want Russia to become a greater economic power? If that is the case, then thats a pretty lame excuse to send so many people to their deaths. So what if America isn't the worlds greatest economic superpower.


Also, I heard that the US had to withdraw because the GI antiwar movement got so big that the Army became unreliable or something of that nature.

Sorry if I'm not fully understanding all of the implications. And THANK YOU for responding and helping me learn :)

No..you've oversimplied a very difficult time...this wasn't bout economic but political power..for the first 25 yrs of it's existence..the UN went back and forth between the Western and Eastern spheres of influence. The US and the USSR having virtual control over a majority of the planet if not in fact by influence. And when you are talking bout power and who wields it...the Hungarians in 58 and the Czechs in 63? (?) would disagree with you, in both these circumstances...freedom was crushed by the use of Soviet tanks.

As for withdrawing due to the anti-war movment...it did have a huge impact..but the fact is..we could have won early in the campaign if we had taken the war directly to the VietCong's master..North Vietnam

The US Military pretty much destroyed the VietCong after Tet 68...after that the North ran the war from Hanoi..and the VietCong were sidelined bigtime....you could tell simply by the fact that we were seeing a whole lot more NVA Regular army uniforms then the trademark black pajamas of Charlie.

Okay so the majority of people of Vietnam wanted Ho Chi mihn, but the US didnt like communism so it helped out the other unpopular side.

What was so dangerous about Communism spreading across Vietnam?

How would that harm the U.S.?

I think it was more that the North wanted communism and the South didn't. At least that was the impression I got from a colleague of mine who snuck out of Vietnam with his brother just before they would have been forced to go and fight in Cambodia. When the north vietnamese did take over, they rolled in and promptly began making up offenses in order to execute all the rich people and give their belongings to generals and such. Entire towns were forced on a daily basis to go and watch hangings of people accused of "treason" (aka being rich and the government wanted their stuff). I don't think that was really the government they wanted.

We, the US went into Vietnam at the request of the french who had been the colonial power that owned Vietnam and where trying to "Give it back" The french disappeared once we got on the scene, and we were trying to keep the russian backed, not elected Comunist party. The US followed a policy of measured response. AKA, politicians decided the specifics of how to fight the war. For example, the US air force was not allowed to bomb SAM (Surface to Air Missle) sites while they were under construction, we had to wait until they were done, because other wise we might kill the russian advisors at the site. Yes, the US did lose the war due to public opinion, the Tet offensive, which was really a great victory for the US, convinced domestic opinion to get us out. Linebacker I&II, the major bomber offensives were what the US military wanted to do from the begining, and effectivly forced the North Vietnamese to give us the peace treaty we wanted. 3 years later they attacked the south and the US did nothing. This ends the Vietnam war era. If you want more info on what changes this led to in the US military PM me, it'll be a few days.

Okay so the majority of people of Vietnam wanted Ho Chi mihn, but the US didnt like communism so it helped out the other unpopular side.

What was so dangerous about Communism spreading across Vietnam?

How would that harm the U.S.?

I think it was more that the North wanted communism and the South didn't. At least that was the impression I got from a colleague of mine who snuck out of Vietnam with his brother just before they would have been forced to go and fight in Cambodia. When the north vietnamese did take over, they rolled in and promptly began making up offenses in order to execute all the rich people and give their belongings to generals and such. Entire towns were forced on a daily basis to go and watch hangings of people accused of "treason" (aka being rich and the government wanted their stuff). I don't think that was really the government they wanted.

After we left..Ho went on a rampage..his troops razed entire villages that had been loyal to either the South or the Americans....he ordered the slaughter of Vietnamese hill peoples...anything that was remotely connected to us he killed..it was sad..I had a friend of mine who was in the Marine Detachment at the embassy in Saigon shortly before it's fall, literally thousands of average Vietnamese were practically climbing the walls of the embassy compound to make it out to the last evacuation site in South Vietnam..he said he had to almost open up with his rifle to keep them on the other side of the wall while they would look at the documents of escaping South Vietnamese thru their sentry posts...anyone connected with the South Vietnamese government was allowed out..it was a sure bet Ho would have had everyone down to the last clerk executed, so we were letting in everyone we could..he wasn't on the last stick out..but he recalls with sadness as the last helo landed on the aircraft carrier..they had to push helos off (I'm sure some of you have seen video of this) the deck to make room for people.

okay Salishe thanks... so you are sayign that had they taken Vietnam, then Americas freedom was threatened?

Dempublicents.... but earlier someone said Hoochie Mihn was popular and would have won by a landslide. Was the Govt in the south not also corrupt? Is there a govt. that isnt?

Do you feel that that was a good enough reason to send so many Americans to their death?

Hmmm....

It seems that the US involvement in a French colonial war has been completely forgotten.

The US was originally sucked into involvment in Vietnam because we wanted French forces to help defend Europe against the USSR in the early 50s. Otherwise, why would the US have been paying at least half of the costs for the French occupation war in 1950.

After the French pulled out, the US was already deeply commited. The US basically had a lot of balls on the line. By 1964, the US had such a serious commitment that Johnson had to lie his way into war.

Note: I am not blaiming the French. The US got itself involved. It was stupid and shortsighted. As usual.

okay Salishe thanks... so you are sayign that had they taken Vietnam, then Americas freedom was threatened?

There was no threat to America.. it was a political war.

There was also all that sweet, sweet heroin.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not espousing a massive conspiracy theory. This is my "predictability of human nature" theory. The international heroin trade was, and is, immensely lucrative. We're talking billions, if not trillions of dollars. Officials are set to investigate and prevent this trade. But how long can you stand looking at a roaring river of $$$ without feeling tempted to stick out your hand and scoop some up for yourself? And if you felt that one major source of all that money might get cut off, you would move heaven and earth behind the scenes, arguing and lobbying and campaigning about the pressing need for America to fight against the threat.

This has nothing to do with accusations that the CIA were deliberately flooding the ghettoes with smack or anything like that; it was just a small bunch of guys protecting their investments and managing their retirement funds. It's not the whole reason, of course, or even the main reason -- but the SE Asia poppy fields were one cause that the American army was, quite unwittingly, fighting and dying for.

Quick quiz

Who was the 1st US casualty in the Vietnam conflict and (more importantly) what year was he killed in?

I bet not one person who has yet posted in this thread can answer that in the next 10 minutes.

That might be hard to answer because it depends on how you define the beginning of the war. We had advisors in there, risking their lives, back in the 50's, and it gradually escalated. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution comes at a late date; we had been in combat for some time at that point.

Here's one learned professor's synopsis, from a college newspaper:

The University Record, September 28, 1992

Fine: ‘Vietnam one of the great tragedies of American history’
By Mary Jo Frank

The Vietnam War was a “presidents’ war,” history Prof. Sidney Fine told his students Sept. 18.

The class—several hundred alumni and friends on campus for the Campaign for Michigan kickoff—included many of Fine’s former students who came up before and after the presentation to shake hands and express their appreciation to one of the U-M’s best known teachers for the past four decades.

Fine, the Andrew Dickson White Professor of History, offered insights into the war that he described as the “nation’s most misunderstood war, and one that keeps haunting us.”

Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon all made fateful errors in handling affairs in Indochina, missing several opportunities that could have prevented or halted U.S. involvement, Fine said.

Roosevelt, who held an anti-imperialist position in World War II and originally opposed letting the French resume their colonial rule in Indochina, favored placing Indochina under an international trusteeship in preparation for independence. The British and the State Department opposed this, and Roosevelt backed off.

Eisenhower is the “most inaccurately praised president for his alleged restraint in dealing with Vietnam,” according to Fine. Almost as soon as he took office, Eisenhower gave South Vietnam its first U.S. military support. He sent 200 Air Force mechanics to service U.S. bombers. By 1954 the United States was paying 80 percent of the cost of the war.

Eisenhower made two critical errors, Fine said. The 1954 Geneva Conference provided for a truce in which the military forces of the two sides would regroup, with the 17th parallel separating them. Elections were to be held in 1956 to establish an all-Vietnamese government, and it was assumed that Vietnamese national leader Ho Chi Minh would win.

“The United States could probably have walked away from Vietnam at that time,” Fine said. Instead, Eisenhower decided to support the South Vietnamese regime of Ngo Dinh Diem, who was later assassinated in a military coup.

Eisenhower’s second critical error came in 1957, when he rejected a Soviet Union suggestion that North and South Vietnam join the United Nations.

The U.S. buildup in Vietnam began under Kennedy. The number of advisers there grew from 692 when Eisenhower left office to 15,500, making it much harder for Johnson to get out of Vietnam. Also, since the Kennedy administration had connived in the coup that overthrew Diem, the United States government was left with some responsibility regarding the successor regimes in the South.

“Full scale Americanization of the war,” Fine said, began under Johnson. His major concern was “that if South Vietnam fell, he would be blamed and his real love, the Great Society, would go down the tubes.”

When Nixon took office, he introduced “Vietnamization”—the gradual removal of our troops accompanied with massive aid to build up the South Vietnamese army so it could hold its own for a “decent interval” after the U.S. withdrawal.

However, the South Vietnamese army was not a real military force. It was a political force that could prop up a regime, not an army that could really fight a war, Fine explained.

In January 1973 Nixon accepted peace terms in Paris that ensured South Vietnam’s defeat: the United States would withdraw all of its troops from South Vietnam but the North Vietnamese could keep its troops there.

Under President Gerald R. Ford, the North Vietnamese launched a full scale conventional attack on South Vietnam. The South Vietnamese army collapsed.

“Vietnam was one of the great tragedies of American history,” Fine said, citing loss of life, increased problems for the U.S. military, division in the country as a whole, and the 1.5 million refugees who fled Vietnam.

“Yes, the war was a tragedy. We wreaked terrible destruction on Vietnam, on Laos, and on Cambodia, and we inflicted serious damage on ourselves.”



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok thanks everyone! that gave me a lot to chew on.

It's interesting to see the different sides. I wish school showed Vietnam in such a light rather than whatever one-sided bullcrap they said that I didn't feel was worth listening too. Mostly it was names and dates and not much story. Thats how all history was in my crappy public schools. :(

ok, thread closed :P :lol:

kidding, please keep me a-learnin'

Ok thanks everyone! that gave me a lot to chew on.

It's interesting to see the different sides. I wish school showed Vietnam in such a light rather than whatever one-sided bullcrap they said that I didn't feel was worth listening too. Mostly it was names and dates and not much story. Thats how all history was in my crappy public schools. :(

ok, thread closed :P :lol:

kidding, please keep me a-learnin'

I went to a public school in Texas. Class of 86. And all this was covered. Multiple times. (6th grade, 8th grade, 9th grade, and 10th grade).

What is up with schools these days?

I was class of '92 and I dunno..

but I know public school funding is based on its surrounding land value. So rich neighborhoods get more money in their public schools.

I always lived in poor neighborhoods. I always got top grades and honors though.

Ok thanks everyone! that gave me a lot to chew on.

It's interesting to see the different sides. I wish school showed Vietnam in such a light rather than whatever one-sided bullcrap they said that I didn't feel was worth listening too. Mostly it was names and dates and not much story. Thats how all history was in my crappy public schools. :(

ok, thread closed :P :lol:

kidding, please keep me a-learnin'

I went to a public school in Texas. Class of 86. And all this was covered. Multiple times. (6th grade, 8th grade, 9th grade, and 10th grade).

So did I. Class of 02.

What is up with schools these days?

Drugs, apathy.

That might be hard to answer because it depends on how you define the beginning of the war.

Sorry. Wrong answer.

September 26, 1945: A. Peter Dewey becomes first American casualty in Vietnam. (http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/apdewey.htm)

WWII Veteran was First American MIA in War Against Ho Chi Minh's Forces

Lt. Col. Peter Dewey of the U.S. Office of Strategic Services (OSS), became the first American MIA in Vietnam on September 26, 1945, when he was ambushed by Ho Chi Minh's forces (Vietminh). During World War II, the OSS, predecessor of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), trained and armed Vietminh guerrillas in the jungles of northern Vietnam to fight the Japanese.

Ho had just organized a "broad" communist front of "patriots of all ages and all types, peasants, workers, merchants and soldiers," to drive both the Japanese and French out of Vietnam. His new organization, led by communists, appealed to many Vietnamese with nationalist sentiments. After the Japanese surrendered, Ho used the Vietminh as a power base for a Vietnamese nationalist movement to prevent the French from reestablishing colonial rule. Dewey, the son of a conservative Republican Congressman from Chicago, (Charles S. Dewey) was the head of a detachment of seven OSS agents assigned to Saigon to search for and liberate Allied prisoners of war still being held by the Japanese.

He alienated the French and British hierarchy by making contact with the Vietminh. Major General Douglas D. Gracey, commander of a British force in Vietnam assigned there to disarm the Japanese, suspected Dewey of "conniving" with the Vietminh and ordered him out of the country.

Before leaving, Dewey summed up the situation in Vietnam: "Cochinchina is burning, the French and British are finished here, and we [the United States] ought to clear out of Southeast Asia." Dewey and a colleague, Captain Herbert J. Bluechel, headed for the Saigon airport in a jeep with Dewey driving.

Dewey took a shortcut past the Saigon golf course, where he encountered a barrier of logs and brush blocking the road. After braking to swerve around it, he noticed three Vietnamese in the roadside ditch. He shouted angrily at them in French. Presumably mistaking him for a French officer, the Viet Minh replied with a burst of bullets that, according to Bluechel, blew off the back of Dewey's head. Bluechel, unarmed, ran from the scene with a bullet knocking off his cap as he fled. Dewey's body was never recovered. French and Viet Minh spokesmen blamed each other for his death.

We were there well before the 50s. Dewey knew we should not have been there.

I was class of '92 and I dunno..

but I know public school funding is based on its surrounding land value. So rich neighborhoods get more money in their public schools.

I always lived in poor neighborhoods. I always got top grades and honors though.

How did you manage top grades? Honestly, anyone not knowing this would not have had top grades where I went to school. And I did not go to a great school.
If it really is drugs and apathy, as HotRodia suggests, I would be totally surprised.

I learned the bland facts they said we had to know for the tests and regurgitated them when asked (and I forgot them soon after).

I was in honors classes and Vietnam wasn't covered for very long. Especially not in multiple grades, but only 9th grade.

After we left..Ho went on a rampage..
Correct me if I'm wrong but Ho was dead by the time you left.

I was class of '92 and I dunno..

but I know public school funding is based on its surrounding land value. So rich neighborhoods get more money in their public schools.

I always lived in poor neighborhoods. I always got top grades and honors though.

How did you manage top grades? Honestly, anyone not knowing this would not have had top grades where I went to school. And I did not go to a great school.
If it really is drugs and apathy, as HotRodia suggests, I would be totally surprised.

Prepare to be surprised, Daisy! :wink: I have attended and worked at poor, middle-class, and upper-class public schools. The main problems for all of those were apathy(at least academic apathy) and drug use. Sometimes the apathy had a different cause than in other schools, but it was still there. At least in terms of the student population. The structural problems are the excessive bureaucracy that takes teachers away from teaching and creates needless strain and bitterness in the students that will certainly not benefit them, and the lack of resources for the poorer schools.

So what ever happened to the original Daistallia anyway?

DP

okay Salishe thanks... so you are sayign that had they taken Vietnam, then Americas freedom was threatened?

Dempublicents.... but earlier someone said Hoochie Mihn was popular and would have won by a landslide. Was the Govt in the south not also corrupt? Is there a govt. that isnt?

Do you feel that that was a good enough reason to send so many Americans to their death?

It wasn't just American freedom...but the potential threat to the west as a whole...for better or worse the world had been divided between the West and the East and neither side was willing to let the other side have anything without a fight

After we left..Ho went on a rampage..
Correct me if I'm wrong but Ho was dead by the time you left. Do you mean by the time the US or I personally left?

After we left..Ho went on a rampage..
Correct me if I'm wrong but Ho was dead by the time you left. Do you mean by the time the US or I personally left?...let me rephrase. After our invovlment with Vietnam ended and we withdrew...the Hmong and Montagnard hill tribes who had sided with the US, as well as a sizeable amount of South Vietnamese were slaughtered by the North Vietnamese.

Prepare to be surprised, Daisy! :wink: I have attended and worked at poor, middle-class, and upper-class public schools. The main problems for all of those were apathy(at least academic apathy) and drug use. Sometimes the apathy had a different cause than in other schools, but it was still there. At least in terms of the student population. The structural problems are the excessive bureaucracy that takes teachers away from teaching and creates needless strain and bitterness in the students that will certainly not benefit them, and the lack of resources for the poorer schools.

So what ever happened to the original Daistallia anyway?

Guess I was spoiled. Plus 18 years out makes for a lot of forgetfulness as to what students were like.

:::wanders in leaning on a cane:::
Yep. I 'member dem good ole' days. Back when all men were men, all women were gorgeous, and teachers could whale the crap out of ya for lookin' at 'em funny.
(And that isn't really too much of a joke... :()


(The original Daisy still exists, but is in semi retirement due to certain RP effects.)

Oh, and if the schools are really as bad as all that, the US may have just lost a good teacher. I always intended to come home. One avenue of interest was teaching. If the schools are as crap as described, I may go for other options instead....

Prepare to be surprised, Daisy! :wink: I have attended and worked at poor, middle-class, and upper-class public schools. The main problems for all of those were apathy(at least academic apathy) and drug use. Sometimes the apathy had a different cause than in other schools, but it was still there. At least in terms of the student population. The structural problems are the excessive bureaucracy that takes teachers away from teaching and creates needless strain and bitterness in the students that will certainly not benefit them, and the lack of resources for the poorer schools.

So what ever happened to the original Daistallia anyway?

Guess I was spoiled. Plus 18 years out makes for a lot of forgetfulness as to what students were like.

:::wanders in leaning on a cane:::
Yep. I 'member dem good ole' days. Back when all men were men, all women were gorgeous, and teachers could whale the crap out of ya for lookin' at 'em funny.
(And that isn't really too much of a joke... :()

I don't suppose you had to walk to school in the snow, without shoes, uphill both ways? :wink:

(The original Daisy still exists, but is in semi retirement due to certain RP effects.)

Ah.

Oh, and if the schools are really as bad as all that, the US may have just lost a good teacher. I always intended to come home. One avenue of interest was teaching. If the schools are as crap as described, I may go for other options instead....

Those schools need good teachers to come and help, not people who are afraid to become teachers because the schools suck. :cry:

I don't suppose you had to walk to school in the snow, without shoes, uphill both ways? :wink:

Actually I have walked to school in the snow to teach. To unappreciative, stupid students. (Japanese students can be worse that US students in those respects in my experience...)

And I am still teaching. So do not give up on me yet.
:D

okay Salishe thanks... so you are sayign that had they taken Vietnam, then Americas freedom was threatened?

Dempublicents.... but earlier someone said Hoochie Mihn was popular and would have won by a landslide. Was the Govt in the south not also corrupt? Is there a govt. that isnt?

Do you feel that that was a good enough reason to send so many Americans to their death?

It wasn't just American freedom...but the potential threat to the west as a whole...for better or worse the world had been divided between the West and the East and neither side was willing to let the other side have anything without a fight

In Vietnam, they refer to it as the "American War." Not, mind you, a civil war, but the American War. They mean this wholeheartedly today.

Over time, I started to notice that people have been busily redefining how the Vietnam War is viewed and taught about. Not all in the same way, but ten years ago, public sentiment about the Vietnam War was different than it is today. Even five years ago, it looked different; now that Vietnam vets are aging away, the older leaders who were in charge of the war have died off, and the protesters of the age have settled into age, apathy, or conservative views with age, it's been getting easier and easier to redefine what the Vietnam War was, what it was really about, and whether or not the USA won or lost the war.

It seems difficult to believe that stepping in to support a dictator and squelching elections was the right thing to do. It seems reprehensible that our official justification - the Tonkin Gulf Resolution - seems largely bogus under the light of history. It seems difficult to believe that the United States won a war fought with the purpose of keeping South Vietnam a separate nation from North Vietnam when today there is only one Vietnam.

Today, I hear people say that the USA won the Vietnam War, and that it was the right thing to do, and that anybody who says bad things about it is an unpatriotic traitor to the country.

The assassination of Diem was at least tacitly supported by the US and the CIA in particular.

Something few Americans understood was that the Vietnamese Communist Party, Chinese Communist Party, and Soviet Communist Parties were very different entities which often did not get along.

The primary effect of the Vietnam War domestically was to effectively kill the draft for an indefinite length of time. The wars a democratically elected government can afford to carry out with conscripted troops are limited - more limited than our government has been willing to consider. The United States government has wished to keep its options open for military action in cases where the United States isn't directly threatened and where the morality of intervention is murky.

I don't suppose you had to walk to school in the snow, without shoes, uphill both ways? :wink:

Actually I have walked to school in the snow to teach. To unappreciative, stupid students. (Japanese students can be worse that US students in those respects in my experience...)

And I am still teaching. So do not give up on me yet.
:D

Good. We need good teachers to shape good people. :D

The spead of Communism had the potantial to hurt the US in the place it can least stand to be hurt: in the wallet. Quite aside from ideological concerns, creeping Communism could be seen as a threat to capitalistic trade. Obviously, the M-I complex wanted none of this. Not a reason I've seen expounded upon too much, but I think it mgiht be worthwhile to consider wars as excercises in economics. Certainly post-WWII to present. Look at the conflicts in the Middle East...

You are still ignoring the French causes for US involvement....

Again, not to blaim the French. The US got involved for its own reasons. But well before anyone here is giving credit for.

You are still ignoring the French causes for US involvement....

Again, not to blaim the French. The US got involved for its own reasons. But well before anyone here is giving credit for.

Ike was supposedly credited with keepin us out of Vietnam, but we did have special forces there during his tenure, I know.

I certainly wasn't aware of anything in the 40's.

You are still ignoring the French causes for US involvement....

Again, not to blaim the French. The US got involved for its own reasons. But well before anyone here is giving credit for.

The orgins may indeed be deeper then that...back in WW2..Ho was actually a Nationalist fighting the Japanese occupation forces..the OSS even assisted Ho in fighting them...when the Japanese were overthrown, Ho naturally assumed the US would recognize an independent Vietnam (back then Indo-China), but then we screwed him over and allowed the French to waltz right back there without so much as a by your leave. Ho gets ticked..throws in with the Soviets who were all to willing to assist him in creating an independent Vietnam.....and the rest is history.

The end :lol:

The end :lol:

Where?

You are still ignoring the French causes for US involvement....

Again, not to blaim the French. The US got involved for its own reasons. But well before anyone here is giving credit for.

The orgins may indeed be deeper then that...back in WW2..Ho was actually a Nationalist fighting the Japanese occupation forces..the OSS even assisted Ho in fighting them...when the Japanese were overthrown, Ho naturally assumed the US would recognize an independent Vietnam (back then Indo-China), but then we screwed him over and allowed the French to waltz right back there without so much as a by your leave. Ho gets ticked..throws in with the Soviets who were all to willing to assist him in creating an independent Vietnam.....and the rest is history.

The US not only allowed France to walk back in, it supported it financially. By 1950, the US was paying 50% of French costs (http://servercc.oakton.edu/~wittman/chronol.htm) and by 1954 it was 80% (http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch26.htm). This was partly because Truman and Ike wanted to prop up France as part of the Cold War efforts in Europe, as well as to stop the spead of communism.

I've seen a lot of mentions of "stop the spread of comunism" in this thread, but I see no full explinations of what that might mean.

The "domino effect" theory played a part in convincing US policy makers to go to war by stating that for every nation that (either willingly or by force) became a communistic nation would create a momentum of sorts of "Revolutionary" overthrows of current neutral or allied nations. This means that just as Vietnam and Korea were battlegrounds between communists and the US, all SE Asian and South American nations could potentially be made into enemies should the US fail to defend them.

This cause no small amount of concern in the US policy planners. So to prevent the spread of communism and thus retard its growth as a world movement, the US fought for a poorly-ruled and corrupt S. Vietnamese goverment to keep the N. Vietnamese from establishing a beachhead for further communist invasions of SE Asian nations nearby. The eventual dragging in of Laos and Cambodia into the war can be seen as the extension of the "domino effect" theory at work.

The pathetic part of the "domino effect" theory is that it drove US policy in a direction that made the US a horrible force for chaos in many people's eyes. In order to prevent nations from becoming enemies and to secure real or percived "vital" areas the US backed dictators and corrupt governments. Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, Vietnam, Panama, and many, other nations were "interfered with" by US power during the cold war.

Okay, I left a ton of stuff out. I know, but I don't want to be writing this all night. A lot of the theories and concepts are kinda thrown out there so I hope you know what I'm talking about. Domino theory; big part of why we went to Vietnam. Look it up sometime.

Why did the US go into Vietnam?

Because they like vietnamese cooking. Which is why I suspect they will invade China anytime soon. :(

The early years had more to do with Kennan's containment theory than Domino theory.

I really appreciate that you are all taking the time to explain this stuff.

So why was communism so popular? How did they advertise it? Did the US try to use the same tactic of spreading democracy?

Was the US afraid of beconing a communist nation then?

:shock:

Just out of curiosity, how old are you? (I ask wondering if you just have yet to cover this in school. No insuklt intended.)

Communism was popular for a very wide variety of reasons - it was seen as a means for poor countries to develop, a reaction to capitalism, a way to be fair to everyone, and many other reasons.

It was not advertised. Nor was capitalism. (And note both are being touted today, as you can see from posters here.) The cold war was seen by both sides as a war of good vs evil. at the same time there was a lot of nationalism and history involved. There was a very exagerated fear of the US going communist.

Ho was a nationalist, a bright, charismatic man. I think he picked up Communist ideas while in Paris; there's still an active party there, and it has always been strong in the universities.
I also think communism fits better with the more collective eastern mentality than it does with the west. That's an unsubstantiated personal opinion.

Ho was a nationalist, a bright, charismatic man. I think he picked up Communist ideas while in Paris; there's still an active party there, and it has always been strong in the universities.
I also think communism fits better with the more collective eastern mentality than it does with the west. That's an unsubstantiated personal opinion.

I would also say it is a bit racist, to tell the truth...

Ho was a nationalist, a bright, charismatic man. I think he picked up Communist ideas while in Paris; there's still an active party there, and it has always been strong in the universities.
I also think communism fits better with the more collective eastern mentality than it does with the west. That's an unsubstantiated personal opinion.

I would also say it is a bit racist, to tell the truth...

If it does, I am sorry.

I feel I have great respect for eastern cultural traditions, which in many ways are superior to those of the west.

I do feel that cultural and intellectual traditions in the west have made much of the individual, while the traditions of the orient have given more pride of place to the family and the nation.

An exemplary individual in France would make his own decisions, be a free man, think for himself, and have individual achievements which could justify the erection of a statue in his honor. An exemplary follower of Confucius, Master Kung Fu, would be the best possible representative of his family, and of his place in society. Not that this second person could not also think for himself, but simply that he would have different priorities.

that is all I meant to say.

Lumping all "eastern" cultures together is silly and ignorant. Sorry, but the "Orient" is more diverse culturally and ethnically than Europe or the West. Just think about it - do the multitude of Chinese, Indian, Arab and Persian cultures really resemble each other that much? Even within their own countries and regions? What of SE Asia? Or Japan and Korea?

Lumping all "eastern" cultures together is silly and ignorant. Sorry, but the "Orient" is more diverse culturally and ethnically than Europe or the West. Just think about it - do the multitude of Chinese, Indian, Arab and Persian cultures really resemble each other that much? Even within their own countries and regions? What of SE Asia? Or Japan and Korea?

What's the difference?

Lumping all "eastern" cultures together is silly and ignorant. Sorry, but the "Orient" is more diverse culturally and ethnically than Europe or the West. Just think about it - do the multitude of Chinese, Indian, Arab and Persian cultures really resemble each other that much? Even within their own countries and regions? What of SE Asia? Or Japan and Korea?

What's the difference?

Sorry? I do not understand your question. Whats the difference between what and what?

Lumping all "eastern" cultures together is silly and ignorant. Sorry, but the "Orient" is more diverse culturally and ethnically than Europe or the West. Just think about it - do the multitude of Chinese, Indian, Arab and Persian cultures really resemble each other that much? Even within their own countries and regions? What of SE Asia? Or Japan and Korea?

What's the difference?

Sorry? I do not understand your question. Whats the difference between what and what?

The two generalisations.

? All I said was that saying all Asians think alike was silly and that Asia spans more cultures and ethnic groups than Europe. Where is the gerneralization there, contradictory or not?

I would rule out all the Islamic nations. As for the others, look at the great influence of Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and SHinto. These four ancient traditions all fit the description I gave.

:shock:

Just out of curiosity, how old are you? (I ask wondering if you just have yet to cover this in school. No insuklt intended.)

Communism was popular for a very wide variety of reasons - it was seen as a means for poor countries to develop, a reaction to capitalism, a way to be fair to everyone, and many other reasons.

It was not advertised. Nor was capitalism. (And note both are being touted today, as you can see from posters here.) The cold war was seen by both sides as a war of good vs evil. at the same time there was a lot of nationalism and history involved. There was a very exagerated fear of the US going communist.

30 years old

like I said before i graduated in '92 and it was from a public school in a very poor area. Hence the school itself receive little funds. What they taught us was brief and it was crap. So, I learned only what I had to for the test and forgot it all a week later. Noone told me why I should care about it. Noone told me any good stories or why it was so important. Just names and dates.

My high school had only one good teacher and he taught Honors English. I learned a lot from him and was always excited to participate in his class. He had to bring us learning material of his own because he was dissattisfied with what the school had.

what I meant by "how was it advertised?" was how did word of communism spread? And so fast? People heard about Russia doing it on the news and thought it would be kuhl?

I know that communism was supposed to keep wealth distributed evenly and that it sounded good to poor people. Did the idea just fail because of the corrupt people in charge or was it also because those against it did everything they could to discredit and sabotage it?

I wanted to know also if America tried to spread the idea of Capitalism in the worlds different media outlets to gain support for it that way.

Do you believe that it was necessary to go to war? Do you think that war kept the US from turning Communist?

Okay so the majority of people of Vietnam wanted Ho Chi mihn, but the US didnt like communism so it helped out the other unpopular side.

What was so dangerous about Communism spreading across Vietnam?

How would that harm the U.S.?
While it never happened, the potential geopolitical effects would be quite great. Communism would spread across SE Asia, popularly termed as the "Domino Effect". It'd deprive the US of ever having a key ally, and enriching the Soviet Union with all that SE Asia had to offer. Everything from a large market to prop up the Soviet's centralized government, to oil, to important international trade routes. At the time, it was a no-man's land, and the US was interested in keeping it that way.
Fortunatly, the domino effect never did happen. Unfortunatly, 40,000 of our boys perished because of that miscalculation.