NationStates Jolt Archive

This is not about the the Iraq war...but about this thread..

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/opinion/01morris.html?th&emc=th
By STEPHEN J. MORRIS
Published: May 1, 2005
Washington

THE Vietnam War is universally regarded as a disaster for what it did to the American and Vietnamese people. However, 30 years after the war's end, the reasons for its outcome remain a matter of dispute.
*snip*
yes, THE Vietnam War is universally regarded as a disaster for what it did to the American and Vietnamese people.

let me repeat that... THE Vietnam War is universally regarded as a disaster for what it did to the American and Vietnamese people.
...and nothing in that nytimes article changes that Fact...

Perhaps you could have posted your response to his post in his thread instead of cluttering the forums?
Just a thought.

You'll never know the outcome of the war unless you fight it.

True, looking back, after US lost the war, Vietnam is no longer communist and is now opening up. Probably US didn't need to fight the war, and thousands didn't need to die.

Then again, if US had pushed on and won the war, it's also interesting to wonder what would have happen to Vietnam by today? Probably China would have pushed downwards to help their commie friends and thousands maybe millions would perish? Or Vietnam today would probably be a booming economy supirior to Thailand?

Perhaps you could have posted your response to his post in his thread instead of cluttering the forums?
Just a thought.
The topic of debate is just not the same.

This is not about the the Iraq war...but about this thread..

yes, THE Vietnam War is universally regarded as a disaster for what it did to the American and Vietnamese people.

let me repaet that... THE Vietnam War is universally regarded as a disaster for what it did to the American and Vietnamese people.
...and nothing in that nytimes article changes that Fact...

ok, first the US didn't start the war.... the Indochina War began in 1945 because the French wanted Indochina back and the Viet Minh didn't agree.. we got sucked into it because the Viet Minh were predominantly communist and provided arms to the French and Vietnamese Colonial forces. Then the French lost, the Geneva Accords divided up the country and the South Vietnamese refused to let Ho Chi Minh hold an election (and almost certainly win). The US then started giving arms to the South Vietnamese, the North Vietnamese gave arms to the Viet Cong, and then both North Vietnam and then the US (about the same time) intervened directly.

And the US gave up when it became clear that short of invading North Vietnam victory was going to take a lot longer than the American people were willing to put up with. Invading North Vietnam was a high risk move (concerns about triggering war with China) so it didn't happen.

Thats the short version.

Now as far as your opinion goes, well a lot of historians and the New York Times (all with very solid and extensive creditials) don't see it your way, so I would venture that the jury is still out.

You'll never know the outcome of the war unless you fight it.

True, looking back, after US lost the war, Vietnam is no longer communist and is now opening up. Probably US didn't need to fight the war, and thousands didn't need to die.

Then again, if US had pushed on and won the war, it's also interesting to wonder what would have happen to Vietnam by today? Probably China would have pushed downwards to help their commie friends and thousands maybe millions would perish? Or Vietnam today would probably be a booming economy supirior to Thailand?Im would have been willing to take my chances...
What about you?

ALSO...Im willing to take my chances with Iraq.
What is in your wallet?

ok, first the US didn't start the war.... the Indochina War began in 1945 because the French ....
Oh I see..Its all the French fault...
and I bet they surrendered at the first sigth of the Germans or Vietcongs or whatever... [/sarcasm]

Now as far as your opinion goes, well a lot of historians and the New York Times (all with very solid and extensive creditials) don't see it your way...My opinion is that the US fabricated a gunboat incident to have an excuse to attack Vietnam.

at that point the Vietnam-USA war started...We napalmed and Gases barefooted Vietnamese peasants...for years...on a CIA fabricated incident.

Fabricated wars are just Genocide.

30-year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War
By Norman Solomon 7/27/94

Thirty years ago, it all seemed very clear.

"American Planes Hit North Vietnam After Second Attack on Our Destroyers; Move Taken to Halt New Aggression", announced a Washington Post headline on Aug. 5, 1964.

That same day, the front page of the New York Times reported: "President Johnson has ordered retaliatory action against gunboats and 'certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam' after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin."

But there was no "second attack" by North Vietnam — no "renewed attacks against American destroyers." By reporting official claims as absolute truths, American journalism opened the floodgates for the bloody Vietnam War.

A pattern took hold: continuous government lies passed on by pliant mass media...leading to over 50,000 American deaths and millions of Vietnamese casualties.

The official story was that North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an "unprovoked attack" against a U.S. destroyer on "routine patrol" in the Tonkin Gulf on Aug. 2 — and that North Vietnamese PT boats followed up with a "deliberate attack" on a pair of U.S. ships two days later.

The truth was very different.

Rather than being on a routine patrol Aug. 2, the U.S. destroyer Maddox was actually engaged in aggressive intelligence-gathering maneuvers — in sync with coordinated attacks on North Vietnam by the South Vietnamese navy and the Laotian air force.

"The day before, two attacks on North Vietnam...had taken place," writes scholar Daniel C. Hallin. Those assaults were "part of a campaign of increasing military pressure on the North that the United States had been pursuing since early 1964."

On the night of Aug. 4, the Pentagon proclaimed that a second attack by North Vietnamese PT boats had occurred earlier that day in the Tonkin Gulf — a report cited by President Johnson as he went on national TV that evening to announce a momentous escalation in the war: air strikes against North Vietnam.

But Johnson ordered U.S. bombers to "retaliate" for a North Vietnamese torpedo attack that never happened.

Prior to the U.S. air strikes, top officials in Washington had reason to doubt that any Aug. 4 attack by North Vietnam had occurred. Cables from the U.S. task force commander in the Tonkin Gulf, Captain John J. Herrick, referred to "freak weather effects," "almost total darkness" and an "overeager sonarman" who "was hearing ship's own propeller beat."

One of the Navy pilots flying overhead that night was squadron commander James Stockdale, who gained fame later as a POW and then Ross Perot's vice presidential candidate. "I had the best seat in the house to watch that event," recalled Stockdale a few years ago, "and our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets — there were no PT boats there.... There was nothing there but black water and American fire power."

In 1965, Lyndon Johnson commented: "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there."

But Johnson's deceitful speech of Aug. 4, 1964, won accolades from editorial writers. The president, proclaimed the New York Times, "went to the American people last night with the somber facts." The Los Angeles Times urged Americans to "face the fact that the Communists, by their attack on American vessels in international waters, have themselves escalated the hostilities."

We probably shouldn't have let the french back into the region.

We probably shouldn't have let the french back into the region.
I agree, the Vietnamese were on their way to forcing the French out. The USA should not have helped the French imperialists.

You'll never know the outcome of the war unless you fight it.

True, looking back, after US lost the war, Vietnam is no longer communist and is now opening up. Probably US didn't need to fight the war, and thousands didn't need to die.

Then again, if US had pushed on and won the war, it's also interesting to wonder what would have happen to Vietnam by today? Probably China would have pushed downwards to help their commie friends and thousands maybe millions would perish? Or Vietnam today would probably be a booming economy supirior to Thailand?

It's unlikely the Chinese would have jumped in like they did in Korea. China's relationship with Vietnam was much different than its relationship with Korea.

I agree, the Vietnamese were on their way to forcing the French out. The USA should not have helped the French imperialists.

We helped the Vietnamese against the French. We supported both sides.

We helped the Vietnamese against the French. We supported both sides.
I'm not surprised. If what you say on this forum is true, the US supported both sides of every conflict it was involved in. They often even supported the enemy they were fighting, didn't they!

I'm not surprised. If what you say on this forum is true, the US supported both sides of every conflict it was involved in. They often even supported the enemy they were fighting, didn't they!

Yup. For example, during the Vietnam War, LBJ (and later Nixon) massively stepped up trade with the U.S.S.R. (and LBJ removed over 400 items from the 'strategic' list of things that could not be traded to the Soviets), even though 80-85% of North Vietnam's supplies from the U.S.S.R.

I'm not surprised. If what you say on this forum is true, the US supported both sides of every conflict it was involved in. They often even supported the enemy they were fighting, didn't they!


We gave aid to Ho Chi Mihn (of northern vietnam) before he turned to communism.. then we supported France (money and weapons) until they had their asses handed to them... then we put in troops... we didnt help the viet cong before they went commie

We gave aid to Ho Chi Mihn (of northern vietnam) before he turned to communism.. then we supported France (money and weapons) until they had their asses handed to them... then we put in troops... we didnt help the viet cong before they went commie

We gave aid to Ho Chi Minh before 1920? I find that hard to believe.

Oh I see..Its all the French fault...
and I bet they surrendered at the first sigth of the Germans or Vietcongs or whatever... [/sarcasm]

nope, the cream of the French officer corps served in Indochine (as the French called it) and a lot of them died heroically. The French novels "the Centurians" and "the Praetorians" (written early 1960s) are excellent accounts of what the French officer corps thought about it.

The books "Street Without Joy" and "Hell in a very small place" are the best accounts of the French Indochina War (and were written by a French newspaperman who saw the whole thing)

Amusingly enough, a large number of Germans actually fought in Indochina too, as part of the Legion Estranger (Foreign Legion).. they also died gloriously a lot

by the way, that is a pretty big slur on the Viet Minh... they earned their victory over the French by shedding a lot of blood to get it and the Battle of Dien Bein Phu is rather well known as is the Viet Minh victory there.

We gave aid to Ho Chi Minh before 1920? I find that hard to believe.

yep, the OSS (World War II forerunner of the CIA) gave arms and sent advisors to assist Ho Chi Minh in 1944 and one was present when the Japanese surrendered in Indochina alongside the Vietnamese guerillas...

an oppertunity missed sad to say... we could have ended up with a Vietnam similar to Yugoslavia (communist but neutral) but the French demanded to return and Truman, concerned about other issues the French were having, agreed not to oppose the French move. Later on, when the Reds (as they were called then) won in China, the US got worried and fell into the trap of believing in the monolithic communist front (it never was, but it took decades to figure that out) and funded the French war in the general Cold War strategy before shifting aid to the South Vietnamese after the French pulled out.

Barbara Tuchman's "March of Folly", it has 5 sections, each about how a nation does it's best to work against it's own best interest. In particular, the Viet Nam and British role in the US Revolutionary War are telling.

BTW- Yes, the US did help Ho before and during WW2. This is why the Viet Namese Constitution is a virtual copy of the American one.

However, Kennedy first helped the French to retain them in NATO (which didn't really work), then Johnson expanded the US role (after Kennedy had been killed in Dallas).

At no time did the US support the Viet Namese against the French.

Was the Gulf of Tonkin fabricated? Probably.

yep, the OSS (World War II forerunner of the CIA) gave arms and sent advisors to assist Ho Chi Minh in 1944 and one was present when the Japanese surrendered in Indochina alongside the Vietnamese guerillas...

an oppertunity missed sad to say... we could have ended up with a Vietnam similar to Yugoslavia (communist but neutral) but the French demanded to return and Truman, concerned about other issues the French were having, agreed not to oppose the French move. Later on, when the Reds (as they were called then) won in China, the US got worried and fell into the trap of believing in the monolithic communist front (it never was, but it took decades to figure that out) and funded the French war in the general Cold War strategy before shifting aid to the South Vietnamese after the French pulled out.

I never knew WWII took place before 1920.

At no time did the US support the Viet Namese against the French.

Yes, they did. Read Background to Betrayal by Hilaire du Berrier.

I never knew WWII took place before 1920.

chuckle.. I misread.... although Ho Chi Minh was at the Versaille Conference and actually met Woodrow Wilson according to some historians...

didn't help him much, poor guy took the "Self Determination of all peoples" statement in the 14 Points seriously... at the time, Wilson almost certainly meant "self determination for all Europeans" (and apparently not all Americans as he sat on his ass while a lot of nasty Jim Crow legislation went into effect in the South)..

but thats another thread too

chuckle.. I misread.... although Ho Chi Minh was at the Versaille Conference and actually met Woodrow Wilson according to some historians...

didn't help him much, poor guy took the "Self Determination of all peoples" statement in the 14 Points seriously... at the time, Wilson almost certainly meant "self determination for all Europeans" (and apparently not all Americans as he sat on his ass while a lot of nasty Jim Crow legislation went into effect in the South)..

but thats another thread too

The guy above said we supported Ho Chi Minh "after he turned to communism." He was a communist since at least 1920. He was one of the founders of the French Communist Party.

We gave aid to Ho Chi Mihn (of northern vietnam) before he turned to communism.. then we supported France (money and weapons) until they had their asses handed to them... then we put in troops... we didnt help the viet cong before they went commie
What are you on about? Ho Chi Minh had been communist since at least the 1930s.

What are you on about? Ho Chi Minh had been communist since at least the 1930s.

Since at least 1920.

Yes, they did. Read Background to Betrayal by Hilaire du Berrier.

I'm not sure I want to read anything published by The John Birch Society... and that's selling for $0.47 on Amazon. Doesn't quite give it the validity of academia, somehow. ;)

I'm not sure I want to read anything published by The John Birch Society... and that's selling for $0.47 on Amazon. Doesn't quite give it the validity of academia, somehow. ;)

A)It wasn't published by the John Birch Society;
B)The author himself spent several years in Indochina;
C)Many of the sources in the bibliography are French

The guy above said we supported Ho Chi Minh "after he turned to communism." He was a communist since at least 1920. He was one of the founders of the French Communist Party.

ironic considering later events isn't that? I merely wanted to mention US aid to the Viet Minh during World War 2... a little known fact

ironic considering later events isn't that? I merely wanted to mention US aid to the Viet Minh during World War 2... a little known fact

I knew about. We aided lots of communists during World War II. Not surprising, considering who the President was at the time.

A)It wasn't published by the John Birch Society;
B)The author himself spent several years in Indochina;
C)Many of the sources in the bibliography are French

A) type "Background to Betrayal +Hilaire du Berrier" (no quotes) into google and read link #2. It was published by their sister publishing house.

B) So did Bob Hope.

C) Great... and that proves what? The French would know if the US was giving aid to the Viet Namese at the same time? For what possible purpose? The US had NOTHING to gain by seeing the French lose!

A) type "Background to Betrayal +Hilaire du Berrier" (no quotes) into google and read link #2. It was published by their sister publishing house.

B) So did Bob Hope.

C) Great... and that proves what? The French would know if the US was giving aid to the Viet Namese at the same time? For what possible purpose? The US had NOTHING to gain by seeing the French lose!

A)The JBS was the only organization that told the truth about the Vietnam War. While the media was glorifying Ngo Dinh Diem, the JBS told the truth about his brutality from the very beginning.

C)The French would know, and they did know.

C2)The U.S. has nothing to gain by trading with the Soviets, either. What's your point?

"and British role in the US Revolutionary War are telling"


I'd love to know more on that, a little OT but it caught my eye! Sorry :headbang:

A)The JBS was the only organization that told the truth about the Vietnam War. While the media was glorifying Ngo Dinh Diem, the JBS told the truth about his brutality from the very beginning.

C)The French would know, and they did know.

C2)The U.S. has nothing to gain by trading with the Soviets, either. What's your point?

A) Aha. So you've switched from they didnt publish it, to they're the only ones telling the truth.

C) I'm to take this on your say-so? I don't think it likely, given you've already backtracked on whom published the book. And they're a major conspiracy theory operation, IMHO.

C2) Huh? I'm not getting that one at all. The US trading *what*, and *when*?
My point was very clear: why should the US support the French (their ally in Europe as well as in Nam), and at the same time work against them, only to go fight the North Viet Namese anyway? Doesn't make any sense.

"and British role in the US Revolutionary War are telling"


I'd love to know more on that, a little OT but it caught my eye! Sorry :headbang:

I can't really do it justice, but Tuchman (also author of "Guns of August") proves her point perfectly. I highly recommend buying it, or getting it from a library. It's a fairly well known book, so it should be easy to get.

First of all we didn't loose the Vietnam War I repeat we didn't loose the fucking Vietnam War. The South Vietmanese lost it.

What sticks in the throats of right wingers is that the assumption that we could settle anything with large bombs was proven wrong. It's as wrong as the assumption that we can settle anything with smart bombs.

I can't really do it justice, but Tuchman (also author of "Guns of August") proves her point perfectly. I highly recommend buying it, or getting it from a library. It's a fairly well known book, so it should be easy to get.

"The March of Folly" is damned good, I also recommend it... I like how she starts off with the example of Troy and that damned horse...

First of all we didn't loose the Vietnam War I repeat we didn't loose the fucking Vietnam War. The South Vietmanese lost it.

What sticks in the throats of right wingers is that the assumption that we could settle anything with large bombs was proven wrong. It's as wrong as the assumption that we can settle anything with smart bombs.

yes, we kind of did lose the war.... we pulled out and left the South Vietnamese to their fate... with NVA forces still inside South Vietnam too...and our ally, who we spent nearly 60,000 lives defending, was overrun a couple of years later as the NVA had a lot of Soviet help (lots of Russian tanks for one thing) and we simply watched and took in some refugees.

Not our finest hour.

Correct, we forgot the first rule of warfare. Never back the French in any conflict unless the british are involved as well.

yeah, ok. So we got our ass kicked. But thats because of 3 reasons
1. Politicans put to many limits on the military, they should've left the stragety to generals
2. We were fighting an enemy who doesnt play by the rules of War. If they wanna plan booby-traps and such, let em. But, then it "take no prisoners" for us and
3, Hippies. Dammed hippies gave no support for anything because they were too high on weed, and they just hung out boys out to dry.

However bad the Vietnam War might have been - it definitely has the best soundtrack ever! Gotta love the 60s, man!

yes, we kind of did lose the war.... we pulled out and left the South Vietnamese to their fate... with NVA forces still inside South Vietnam too...and our ally, who we spent nearly 60,000 lives defending, was overrun a couple of years later as the NVA had a lot of Soviet help (lots of Russian tanks for one thing) and we simply watched and took in some refugees.

Not our finest hour.

You can't win or loose a civil war for another country. We found that out in Vietnam and Russia found that out in Afghanistan. Mind you at the time of these conflicts Russia and America were the world's Super Powers, the greatest militaries on the planet.

Incidentally the NVA had lots of American tanks, artillery, helicopters, and jets. The NVA was not known as the finest most motivated fighting force on the planet. They were know as being corrupt, incompetent, and cowardly. There was no way to win a war with an ally who will not fight for his own survival.

In the closing days of the war the NVA clasped they were not beaten. The left their arms and ammunition in the field. Billions of dollars worth of tanks, jeeps, artillery, jets, helicopters, uniforms, boots, and rifles stipped off as the all went home or tried to bug out of the country.

You can't win or loose a civil war for another country. We found that out in Vietnam and Russia found that out in Afghanistan. Mind you at the time of these conflicts Russia and America were the world's Super Powers, the greatest militaries on the planet.

Incidentally the NVA had lots of American tanks, artillery, helicopters, and jets. The NVA was not known as the finest most motivated fighting force on the planet. They were know as being corrupt, incompetent, and cowardly. There was no way to win a war with an ally who will not fight for his own survival.

In the closing days of the war the NVA clasped they were not beaten. The left their arms and ammunition in the field. Billions of dollars worth of tanks, jeeps, artillery, jets, helicopters, uniforms, boots, and rifles stipped off as the all went home or tried to bug out of the country.

I think you mean the ARVN in this case.. in their defense, they fought very well at times (their stand at Xun Loc was pretty impressive) but overall they were war weary and outpowered in the final offensive. Yes they did collapse as an overall organization, but individual units, even divisions, fought very well indeed. James Dunnigan's book on Vietnam and the Time Life series on 1975 both are full of examples of gallant and ultimately hopeless ARVN last stands.

The civil war aspect of the Vietnam War was pretty much over after Tet in 1968, and the insurgency had been pretty much destroyed. Which is why the NVA had to commit most of their army to keep the fighting going. In the end, it was a conventional combined arms (tank and motorized infantry) invasion that brought the NVA to the gates of Saigon, not the guerilla war. The guerilla fighting however was critical in drawing things out long enough to weaken US resolve.

The supply situation in South Vietnam was getting pretty bad by the final NVA assault. They were reduced to reusing field dressings, were running out of spares for all of their US equipment and having to cannabalize a lot of it to keep it going, and they didn't have nearly the air support needed to fight off the armored invasion.

Because the US Congress cut repeatedly the military assistance budget to them. The Paris Peace Accords were signed by the South Vietnamese because they were certain the US would launch massive airstrikes in the event of another major NVA offensive (like we did in 1972, and in that year, very few American units were in country, nearly all the fighting was by the South Vietnamese and they did rather well....read the book "The Easter Offensive")... no such help came in 1975 and this time they were overwhelmed.

I think you mean the ARVN in this case.. in their defense, they fought very well at times (their stand at Xun Loc was pretty impressive) but overall they were war weary and outpowered in the final offensive. Yes they did collapse as an overall organization, but individual units, even divisions, fought very well indeed. James Dunnigan's book on Vietnam and the Time Life series on 1975 both are full of examples of gallant and ultimately hopeless ARVN last stands.

The civil war aspect of the Vietnam War was pretty much over after Tet in 1968, and the insurgency had been pretty much destroyed. Which is why the NVA had to commit most of their army to keep the fighting going. In the end, it was a conventional combined arms (tank and motorized infantry) invasion that brought the NVA to the gates of Saigon, not the guerilla war. The guerilla fighting however was critical in drawing things out long enough to weaken US resolve.

The supply situation in South Vietnam was getting pretty bad by the final NVA assault. They were reduced to reusing field dressings, were running out of spares for all of their US equipment and having to cannabalize a lot of it to keep it going, and they didn't have nearly the air support needed to fight off the armored invasion.

Because the US Congress cut repeatedly the military assistance budget to them. The Paris Peace Accords were signed by the South Vietnamese because they were certain the US would launch massive airstrikes in the event of another major NVA offensive (like we did in 1972, and in that year, very few American units were in country, nearly all the fighting was by the South Vietnamese and they did rather well....read the book "The Easter Offensive")... no such help came in 1975 and this time they were overwhelmed.


Your right ARVN not NVA, how the the memories do mesh over time.

Your flogging a long dead horse on this one. No one wanted to continue that war Democrats, Republicans, and most importantly the American people. The war backrupted this country forceing Nixon to take the dollar off the gold standard and devalue it like we were a South American Bannana Republic.

The ARVN collasped and left their stuff in the field, stuff we're still paying for.

"The March of Folly" is damned good, I also recommend it... I like how she starts off with the example of Troy and that damned horse...

That's what we're talking about... (look up a few posts). :)

I've actually read all of her books over the past decade, excepting the Stillwell one. (Haven't gotten to it yet). She's one of my favorites, along with AJP Taylor, BH Lydel Hart and a few others...

Correct, we forgot the first rule of warfare. Never back the French in any conflict unless the british are involved as well.

No no no... that's the SECOND rule: ;)

1) "French armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman."
(Joan of Arc, Napoleon? Ok...)

2. We were fighting an enemy who doesnt play by the rules of War. If they wanna plan booby-traps and such, let em. But, then it "take no prisoners" for us and

Rules of War? Agent Orange and Napalm is "take prisoners"-tactics?

That's what we're talking about... (look up a few posts). :)

I've actually read all of her books over the past decade, excepting the Stillwell one. (Haven't gotten to it yet). She's one of my favorites, along with AJP Taylor, BH Lydel Hart and a few others...

"The American Experience in China" about Stilwell is really, really depressing

Keegan is always worth reading as well

Best book on Vietnam is "365 Days" and the Time Life Series is very thorough

Rules of War? Agent Orange and Napalm is "take prisoners"-tactics?

actually Napalm was used in World War 2 and Korea as well, not to mention several other conflicts fought by other nations... its nasty stuff but falls within the Geneva guidelines.

Agent Orange was used to clear away vegetation around roads, not as a chemical agent to directly attack people, and in the military's defense, the military thought it was safe to use. That turned out to be wrong, but it took a few years to figure out.

The US and ARVN took prisoners routinely (the whole point after all was to get the Viet Cong to give up, and NVA troops were considered regular soldiers under the rules of war). So did the NV forces in North Vietnam. In South Vietnam the NVA and VC took few prisoners, as they lacked the facilities to handle them and troops to move them north.

It was a pretty rough war in that respect.

What does everybody think about 'Hanoi' Jane Fonda?

This is not about the the Iraq war...but about this thread..

yes, THE Vietnam War is universally regarded as a disaster for what it did to the American and Vietnamese people.

let me repeat that... THE Vietnam War is universally regarded as a disaster for what it did to the American and Vietnamese people.
...and nothing in that nytimes article changes that Fact...

The Vietnam War was started by the Democratic Party, and nothing in the history books changes that fact, either.

... the Geneva guidelines.

Agent Orange was used to clear away vegetation around roads, not as a chemical agent to directly attack people....
so says the Pentagon...they even say they thougth it was harmless...

they also said that the Vietnamese attacked the US at tonking...and that they are figthing to free their peoples...Then again they say that in every war...

But the "dancing and Roses" where there only in France (WW2)...

actually Napalm was used in World War 2 and Korea as well...the rules of War were broken thousands of times in WW2...by both sides.

what is your point?

the rules of War were broken thousands of times in WW2...by both sides.

what is your point?
Using napalm against troops is not a violation of the rules of war.

Try again.

Genuinely curious, must have passed me by, but when was napalm used in WW2?

I would google it but... :p

If I remember correctly the French handed over their Asian colonies to the Japanese without firing one single shot. After the war they wanted their stuff back, which is silly (they even were present at the Japanese surrender in Tokyo bay, for a reason I don't really understand, they didn't do anything in the pacific theater), since they didn't defend them in the first place. It'd been better if Brits or Americans would have taken that stuff over.

Of course the locals weren't too happy and started to fight against them (can't blame them, it's nothing new, same happened in India). The French got kicked out after getting butchered at Dien Bien Phu (which was one of those battles were you wonder why they even happen; the Viet Minh had it easy there, they just fired from higher positions into the French camp, makes you wonder where the French CO learned his job). Etc etc etc... Of course the Americans back then were scared of the evil evil demon of communism.

And well, I wouldn't say that the US lost the war. Not on the battlefield. The war just became extremly unpopular (also thanks to traitors like John Flipper Kerry (think what you want, but I consider someone ,who goes ahead and says ALL soldiers committed warcrimes, a traitor)), thus, they had to move out eventually. And well, not a surprise that South Vietnam got steamrolled when the Americans started to retreat (wasn't there the joke "Want to buy a rifle from the South Vietnamese army? Never fired, only dropped once").

.. (wasn't there the joke "Want to buy a rifle from the South Vietnamese army? Never fired, only dropped once").I though that kind of joke was reserved for the French.

I wouldn't say that the US lost the war.

denial

... traitors like John Flipper Kerry (think what you want, but I consider someone ,who goes ahead and says ALL soldiers committed warcrimes...All soldiers? did he say that?
I dont think so.

And (texas AirGuard) Bush is a Coward compared to Kerry.

First of all we didn't loose the Vietnam War I repeat we didn't loose the fucking Vietnam War. The South Vietmanese lost it.

What sticks in the throats of right wingers is that the assumption that we could settle anything with large bombs was proven wrong. It's as wrong as the assumption that we can settle anything with smart bombs.

we could have solved that conflict (it is not, and never has been, considered a war by the US) by simply blowing the big levy they've got (forget the name of it...).

And... big bombs would have solved that conflict... if we'd peppered the North with nukes, it would have been game over.

(of course this would have been stupid and evil, but if we had really wanted to WIN DECISIVELY, we could have)

a few points...

Texas Air National Guard service.... although I have voted against Bush twice (sob) I will give him a little credit for his service as a pilot. Back in the 1960s and 1970s flying fighter jets even in peacetime was pretty damned risky. The book "The Right Stuff" puts the death rate of military pilots in peacetime (not the test pilots, just the regular pilots) at a high level, roughly a 1 in 5 chance each year of getting killed. They were better later on, but to give an example, Dean Martin's son (the movie star/singer) flew jets for the Arizona National Guard during the same time frame and was killed in a training accident. Its not like combat but it was a lot riskier than sitting at home or a college deferement. (which Bush easily could have obtained)

Napalm was used against the Japanese for the first time at Okinawa (battlefield use) and before that was used against Japanese cities. The RAF used a version as a target marker bomb for night bombing raids beginning in 1943 (see Len Deighton's book "Bomber"). Watch any old war movie set in the Pacific and almost every time you will see actual footage of Marine Corsairs dropping napalm on Japanese positions.

A vignette from the book "Nam" describes a Operation Ranch Hand pilot / instructor so confident that Agent Orange was safe that he drank the stuff (god help the poor bastard). As far as the troops knew, and the local commanders, it was safe. Then again, we thought radiation was no big deal during the nuclear testing days of the 1950s so maybe trusting the military when they tell you something is safe isn't the best idea because it seems they don't have any idea either.

at Dien Ben Phu the Viet Minh took extremely heavy casualties, probably close to around 20,000 or more as they took several positions via ground assault. The Vietnamese paid for their victory and it sure wasn't an easy one.

The French fought very bravely in Indochina, as did the ARVNs, and as did the Viet Minh, VC and NVA... saying anything else degrades them. True the ARVNs frequently collapsed, and had severe leadership, morale and training problems and did run away on many occasions. They also fought very well on many occasions.

The Gulf of Tonkin consisted of two incidents. The first has been confirmed by multiple sources. A US Navy destroyer was covering an ARVN special operations raid into North Vietnam, the North Vietnamese responded with torpedo boats, and shots were exchanged and torpedoes were launched (and nobody seems to have hit anything).

The second incident occured a few days later, and the crew of the USS Turner Joy reported that they were being fired on by torpedoes based on their sonar and radar data. This has never been confirmed and very likely didn't occur but everyone thought it did. On this occasion the US ship was not engaged in anything other than routine patrolling and no other military activity was in the area. Check with the Time Life series, James Dunnigans book "Dirty Little Secrets of the Vietnam War" and the classic book "The 10,000 Day War" for details.

LBJ then went of half cocked, Congress stupidly agreed (only 2 dissents) and the massive US committment began.

"The American Experience in China" about Stilwell is really, really depressing

Keegan is always worth reading as well

Best book on Vietnam is "365 Days" and the Time Life Series is very thorough

More depressing that "The Proud Tower"?

I'll check them out. Thanks. :)

Texas Air National Guard service....in peacetime roughly a 1 in 5 chance each year of getting killed.
Denial.

Denial.
Yes, keep denying that the Vietnam War was a Democratic Party war.

Yes, keep denying that...
he says "1 in 5 chance each year of getting killed in peacetime".

he is posting ridicule numbers in order to excuse the Bushio Draft Dodger.

of course im going to deny it...everytime.

he says "1 in 5 chance each year of getting killed in peacetime".

he is posting ridicule numbers in order to excuse the Bushio Draft Dodger.

of course im going to deny it...everytime.

The election is over. Bush won.

As for the Vietnam War, we can place the blame for that entire war squarely on the Democrats.

The election is over. Bush won.Bush can win 12 elections on a roll...

That does not change the way he eluded the Viernam War..

Bush can win 12 elections on a roll...

That does not change the way he eluded the Viernam War..

So did Clinton.

Bush can win 12 elections on a roll...

That does not change the way he eluded the Viernam War..

Lots of guys went in without going to Vietnam, Oceandrive-not everyone was in a front-line unit. Bush could qual as a fighter-jock, so he got into TANG. There were NG units flying over vietnam, the TANG just wasn't one of them. Unlike some people who were planning their Presidential Candidacy at age 19, Bush didn't volunteer, then short-serve and turn on his men. On the whole, life as a fighter-pilot is better than life as an infantryman, if you can qualify for it, you grab it (chicks dig fighter jerks, ghod knows why.)

A 'Dodge' would've been joining the ANG then getting a Pentagon assignment, or using a unit with no chance of deployment (Nike Hercules, Pershing, Honest-John units...), Texas ANG had F-106's, which aren't the nicest birds to fly ever built. I suppose he could have asked for a transfer to USAF Regulars in the TAC, but it would not necessarily mean deployment to Vietnam-even if he asked for it, which, given that he wasn't a lunatic, he didn't .

'Dodge' would also be shorting his National Guard committment to go be a Rhodes Scholar in Britain (no draft there), or running to Canada, or...

OTOH, Bush was a mediocre jet-jock with a problem (the Sauce) that meant it was probably a relief for his commander when he asked for detatched duty (opens up a slot for a more veteran pilot) to go to Alabama. It was nigh-on-impossible to remove an Officer with flight qualification at that time-having one remove himself from the promotion-chain and position-of-responsibility that flying an Interceptor tasked with coastal patrol (so soon after the Cuban Crisis-there was real concern that the Soviets would put a serious airbase on Cuba) without damaging the limited budgets, absorbing time in the unit, or requiring separation action under UCMJ...

he says "1 in 5 chance each year of getting killed in peacetime".

he is posting ridicule numbers in order to excuse the Bushio Draft Dodger.

of course im going to deny it...everytime.

Er... Bush didn't dodge the draft, though I question how he got into the National Guard in the first place.

The only one close to having been a draft dodger was Clinton.

Oceandrive... before ranting about the numbers did you notice I stated I voted against Bush twice? Geez, check the facts before making statements.

The Texas Air National Guard flew F101 Voodoo Interceptors until about the early 1970s, then transitioned to F4 Phantoms before switching again in the early 1980s to F16s.. they used to fly over my house all the time. He flew F4s according to his campaign stuff (from what I remember).

He got into the Air National Guard pilot training program because of the good ole boy network of which his Dad was a part... the National Guard has a long history of that going back to its days of colonial militia, so its not new by any means.

Several Air National Guard squadrons and a couple of National guard brigades and battalions got sent to Vietnam... he just got lucky.

Oceandrive... before ranting about the numbers did you notice I stated I voted against Bush twice?what is your point?

that since you say that you voted againsts Bush...it somehow gives you more credibility?

what is your point?

that since you say that you voted againsts Bush...it somehow gives you more credibility?

actually yes as it implies that I am not a Bush defender, along with the fact that I cited as a source a best selling book called "The Right Stuff" which can be easily found and is also a good read.

actually yes as it implies that I am not a Bush defenderFYI, not everyone that voted against bush is automatically smarter...

culd be a lucky vote...or a mistake..or that you dont know how to read a ballot, etc.

Or, you could all stop the flaming shit and realise that it doesn't matter. Bush is and asshole. Kerry is an asshole. Gore and Clinton are assholes. Now, go out and find a real politician to vote for. He/she won't be in either party. Back to the matter at hand...

actually yes as it implies that I am not a Bush defender, along with the fact that I cited as a source a best selling book called "The Right Stuff" which can be easily found and is also a good read.

The Right Stuff is an excellent book... i don't know how it is now, but apparently in the earliest days of our space program, we weren't sending necessarily our best pilots into space.

our best pilots were test pilots at places like Edwards (think it's Edwards) and Patuxent River

...Now, go out and find a real politician to vote for. He/she won't be in either party. Back to the matter at hand...what is you definition of "real politician"