NationStates Jolt Archive

Everyone, for some reason, wants to bring this up. So I'll pitch in about it. The Vietnam war was started for all the right reasons, and went terribly wrong afterwards.
It may sound silly these days. The evil of communism is mostly gone, and Vietnam itself is slowly distancing itself from this terrible ideaology. Yet consider the time period this started. It was the 1960s, at the height of red power. The USSR, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, pushed the world to the edge of nuclear war. Insurrections and uprisings in Eastern Europe were crushed regularly. And while the USSR and China were drifting apart, both were very powerful, and had ambitions for some sick version of world domination. It wouldn't be right to let this unspeakable evil enslave anyone else, including the people of Vietnam.
And yet, several things went wrong, both there and in the US. Among them:
1. The US failed to understand its enemy. A peasant army backed by men with big muscles is not enough to hold back a seemingly endless supply of 15 year old fanatics. I'm no military genius, but I wouldn't think that flooding a nation with hundreds of thousands of US troops doesn't always work. America was a clumsy giant: strong, but had no fine motor skills or adaptability. It needed to adapt.
2. The US never bothered going on the offensive. If it did, perhaps it'd weaken the North's morale, and given the US key bases to safeguard against China. An attack by outsiders would be impossible. They had no problem enslaving and killing their own, but they wouldn't stomach an attack on the US.
3. The home front. It seemed as if half the population turned into reds. I understand that many were angry because the war wasn't handled well, but many, many protestors were true communists, believing Stalin and Mao's empty promises of a better life. That better life those two were thinking of were probably their own. Everyone else died, if not in body, then in spirit.

The Vietnam war was a noble endevour. It had the potential to go the way the US wanted it to, but homefront ineptitude, political ill will, and tactical stupidity messed it up. It is rightfully viewed as a black mark on US history, because the US failed to save millions of people from an army of murderers.

First off the Vietnam war should have never happened . If the United States would have stood up to France and NOT returned Vietnam to French colonial rule after World War two , there is no war . Secondly if the United States would have truly supported a Democracy in South Vietnam the war would have never happened . Once the United States realised that the South Vietnamese government was a bankrupt bunch of corrupt fools they should have either changed it by force or negotiated a peace treaty with the North and left them to suffer their fate . The choice to fight the war was a noble and just one under the circumstances but it was diluted by the idiotic handling of the whole situation by the Johnson Administration. Once he screwed the pooch it was a no win situation . The United States could have at anytime reduced the North to a situation that would have forced an end to the war on favorable terms BUT there is no way that the Souths leaders could survive on their own and uniting with the North was inevitable . It should have been accomplished on terms favorable to United States interest and with the right leadership it would have been . We got the Johnson gang and his nitwits .

Lotus Puppy,
I would say your third point was the decisive one.

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view373.html#1972

"We did not lose in Viet Nam. As of 1972 we had won decisively. The North went back and built a new army, hoping that the US would eventually abandon its South Viet Nam ally, forfeit all the blood and treasure put there to defend South Viet Nam, and betray our supporters to the tender mercies of the North with concentration camps, forced emigration, and firing squads.

The US soldiers who served in Viet Nam can be proud. They won a victory. Those who betrayed them in the US, on the campuses and in the Congress, can plead that they didn't know, and perhaps convince themselves they had no duty to find out before beginning to chant Hey Hey Ho Ho. The Congress voted ARVN in 1975 20 rifle cartridges and 2 hand grenades per man as support. It wasn't enough; perhaps the Democrats can plead they did not know that would not be enough to resist a massive invasion of 150,000 men and 7 armored divisions. *Perhaps they can remain proud of their dedication to their cause; but they can remain that way only by ignoring the facts.*" (Emphasis mine).


But of course, the Democrats were moved in part by a "No enemies to the Left" philosophy and in part by the fact that they would rather see people in chains then acknowledge a political opponent to be correct. Sad but true. ~_~

"Noble Mission"?

Excuse me while I laugh.

Lotus Puppy,The US soldiers who served in Viet Nam can be proud.
Thank you.

Thank you.
Nope. You were used by politicians from both sides to further their own pathetic, simplistic, ideological agendas. I hate to say this, but any “sacrifice” that you or your brothers-in-arms made was in vain. You have nothing to be proud of.

"noble mission"?
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
The Vietnam War and its aftermath was the logical result of America's trodding of true democracy in the world. Though probably not imperialistic, the admistrations' incredible paranoia with communism lead to the enormous loss of life on both sides (by both sides I mean North and South Vietnam). Like Beer and Guns said, we sold out the Vietnamnese people when we returned them to French rule. Also, once the French were kicked out by the Vietminh, the UN offered to hold elections between the North and the South. The US initially agreed to this, but once they realized their candidate had no chance in hell of winning, we called off the elections and imposed a dictator. The subsequent "invasion" by the NVA and the Vietcong were reunification forces; if there were any invaders in this war, it would have been the US.

However, the American soldiers on the ground were just carrying their superiors' orders. The government, and the ones preaching its ideology, were the true aggressors.

Nope. You were used by politicians from both sides to further their own pathetic, simplistic, ideological agendas. I hate to say this, but any “sacrifice” that you or your brothers-in-arms made was in vain. You have nothing to be proud of.
Nor do you then. You obviously have little or no knowledge of the military, war, combat, politics or human nature. Kindly refrain from insulting me and my brothers.

EDIT: And just for your information, I was replying to Airlandia, not you.

Nope. You were used by politicians from both sides to further their own pathetic, simplistic, ideological agendas. I hate to say this, but any “sacrifice” that you or your brothers-in-arms made was in vain. You have nothing to be proud of.


:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:
Jump in here, bro. Help defend an old vet! :D

Jump in here, bro. Help defend an old vet! :D

I got you the whole way! :D

Nor do you then. You obviously have little or no knowledge of the military, war, combat, politics or human nature. Kindly refrain from insulting me and my brothers.
I did not insult you. I simply feel sorry for you and other soldiers who have been brainwashed into thinking they actually bettered the world or themselves.

I have quite a bit of knowledge of the Vietnam Conflict, thank you. I know the US first got involved during the Eisenhower administration when Vietnam, a colony, rebelled against it autocratic colonial master, France. I know that the Kennedy administration got us further involved in that shit hole because of his paranoia concerning the USSR, and I know LBJ took us down a path of no return and that he is responsible for the terrible strategies of the war. I know that Nixon ended the war, though not as quickly as he should have, and I know that he signed a treaty with the North Vietnamese. I know he secretly made a promise to assist the South, should the North invade. Despite the fact that it was a mutual peace, the US people viewed it as a defeat. I know, that the entire war was fought in vain, because while Nixon was embroiled in possibility of impeachment, the commies invaded the South.

Politicians have always been willing to sacrifice the blood of soldiers and the wealth of the American people for their own selfish ends.

I admit to having no knowledge of combat, but I fail to see why a such a fortune is a bad thing.
EDIT: And just for your information, I was replying to Airlandia, not you.
Well aware of that.

I did not insult you. I simply feel sorry for you and other soldiers who have been brainwashed into thinking they actually bettered the world or themselves.

I have quite a bit of knowledge of the Vietnam Conflict, thank you. I know the US first got involved during the Eisenhower administration when Vietnam, a colony, rebelled against it autocratic colonial master, France. I know that the Kennedy administration got us further involved in that shit hole because of his paranoia concerning the USSR, and I know LBJ took us down a path of no return and that he is responsible for the terrible strategies of the war. I know that Nixon ended the war, though not as quickly as he should have, and I know that he signed a treaty with the North Vietnamese. I know he secretly made a promise to assist the South, should the North invade. Despite the fact that it was a mutual peace, the US people viewed it as a defeat. I know, that the entire war was fought in vain, because while Nixon was embroiled in possibility of impeachment, the commies invaded the South.

Politicians have always been willing to sacrifice the blood of soldiers and the wealth of the American people for their own selfish ends.

I admit to having no knowledge of combat, but I fail to see why a such a fortune is a bad thing.

Is that all you know about the war?

:eek: Yea ok....uhh...whatever :eek:

As a native Cuban I voted yes, I used to work with a lady from Vietnam, she used to tell me, I understand you, Cuba and Vietnam are the same, In my country there is no freedom, what I like best about America is the freedom,
and that in America we are all Americans, in my country if you are VIetnamese you are Vietnamese and if you are Chinese you are Chinese, but here in America, Cubans, Vietnamese, Chinese, Irish whatever you are, we are all Americans.

I think there has been enough evidence to suggest that America could have won the war, but the political will to win was not there.

The overall results of the war:

Ironically, it was during the Republican Gerald Ford administration that Vietnam finally fell to the North Vietnamese communists, the USA would only provide food and some weapons of aid, while Russia and China provided heavy military aid.

I dont know what the makeup of the congress was at the time, but Watergate, the resignation of President Nixon, the 50,000 American casualtys and the mood of the nation at that time, probably contributed to the low American response.

Over 50,000 Americans died in the war, over 400,000 South Vietnamese, and over 900,000 North Vietnamese according to my source.


Over 2,000,000 million Vietnamese boat people, fled Vietnam after the war so as not to live in under the communists, and thousands of Vietnamese were sent to Re-education camps by the communists.

As for Cuba, what I have heard and read is that Cuba provided some Cuban
interrogators that tortured some American soldiers.

Nope. You were used by politicians from both sides to further their own pathetic, simplistic, ideological agendas. I hate to say this, but any “sacrifice” that you or your brothers-in-arms made was in vain. You have nothing to be proud of.
Hey hey! I don't mind this new, ideology-free objectivist Undelia! :D

Meh, I think that to claim the war was justified is absolutely stupid. We were interfering with the policy of a sovereign nation and attempting to enforce our anti-communist political stance through a corrupt, evil goverment ten times worse than the government we opposed.

We were so obsessively anti-communist that we ourselves became an abusive super-power on the level of the soviets (and yes, we did sink to their level on many occasions). I'm not defending communism or trying to make the USSR or other communist states out to be any better than us, but I'm not willing to accept that two wrongs make a right.

I did not insult you. I simply feel sorry for you and other soldiers who have been brainwashed into thinking they actually bettered the world or themselves.

< elemetary school description of the Vietnam War snipped >

I admit to having no knowledge of combat, but I fail to see why a such a fortune is a bad thing.
It tends to make you grow up and realize that the world is a much more complicated place than you can imagine from the safety of your keyboard. If you're lucky, it makes you stronger, wiser and more aware. I seriously doubt you could pass the physical, much less survive combat.

I asked you nicely to stop insulting my brothers and me. You have chosen to ignore that request. This is therefore the last post of yours to which I will reply.

I think the answer is to observe Vietnam today. By all reports it is a nation of happiness and peace. A nation that is prospering economically. A nation of environmental beauty. A nation with little or no dissent. A nation of satisfied people. The people of Vietnam won after unneeded years of struggle and death with France and the US.

The US fought a war to bring it's ideals to a people with a different culture and different goals. When Vietnam's goals were reached they found an inner peace. Unfortunatly, the US was less kind to Cambodia and Laos than to Vietnam. They continue to suffer because of a wierd sense of global stratigy that led to the war.

Could the US have won? There are two ways to win a guerilla war. 1. Kill every supporter of the fighters....old, young, women, everyone. 2. Put in enough troops to take every inch of ground and hold it forever. (US soldiers could/can take any inch of ground in the world, the problem is holding it.) Make it a colony. Continue to bleed against small uprisings, forever. Or at least long enough to change the culture of the natives.

Both stratigies were tried at times in Vietnam. The US population didn't have the stomach for the mass death needed to cut the support of the fighters. It didn't have the incentive to occupy the land.

The final plan of Vietnamization was to: 1. Develop a government. 2. build and train an army. 3. Arm them to the teeth. 4. leave with dignity.

Unfortunatly, the people didn't support the puppet government. They wanted a united Vietnam. The army had no desire to fight. They took the arms and left. They jumped into the helicopters and instead of flying into battle, they flew to US carriers. Brand new helicopters were landed in the water when they were denied permission to land on the ships. Then when it became clear they were not going to use the equipment to fight, they were allowed to land on the ships. So many fled from battle that brand new helicopters were pushed off the decks into the sea to make room for more. At the same time the tanks came south with no opposition. The North was welcomed into Siagon as the US had never been welcomed.

The US soldiers did their best. (The US soldiers did not lose one major battle) They are to be honored with all respect. It was wrong they did not get that respect when they should have gotten it. But the decisions of the US government were WRONG. It was a war fought for NO reason. (The US people and government were lied to about the Gulf of Tonkin) It was not a war about capitalism or communism. It was a war about a people longing to be free of outside domination. When that outside domination left, the war ended and the people (after a very short period of revenge) live as they wanted.

Is that all you know about the war?

:eek: Yea ok....uhh...whatever :eek:
I know that the US government lied about casualties, both civilian and military. I know the protestors vilified the ones they should be feeling sorry for. I know that nothing good came from it. Not even the traditional “well at least we learned something.” One needs only look at Iraq to see that we did not learn that we are not equipped to, nor do we need to violate the sovereignty of another nation.
Hey hey! I don't mind this new, ideology-free objectivist Undelia! :D
You’re out of it for a few months and some stuff is bound to change. Incidentally, you played a small role in it because of that quote you carry around in your sig, much to my irritation. Not that I want it taken out. It reminds me of the inconsistent person I used to be, that I would be willing to compromise free trade on a whim.

You’re out of it for a few months and some stuff is bound to change. Incidentally, you played a small role in it because of that quote you carry around in your sig, much to my irritation. Not that I want it taken out. It reminds me of the inconsistent person I used to be, that I would be willing to compromise free trade on a whim.
I took it out a few days back...
I always thought it irritating that you would on one side oppose all government involvement to help out people who happen to be unlucky (or lazy), yet then let feeble nationalism taint the picture when it came to free trade.
Good thing that this has been cleared up. Only remember that Objectivism is first and foremost about not having an ideology - about making decisions based on rational thinking. Stick to that, and I reckon there's some fun to be had... :p

I know that the US government lied about casualties, both civilian and military. I know the protesters vilified the ones they should be feeling sorry for. I know that nothing good came from it. Not even the traditional “well at least we learned something.” One needs only look at Iraq to see that we did not learn that we are not equipped to, nor do we need to violate the sovereignty of another nation.

How old are you? 15?

Don't be saying shit about the vets from that war...my god some of them came home and what the fuck did they get? They got spit on!!! People actually sank so low as to spit on them!!! If you went overseas and fought a war for 2/3 years as a solider and when you returned a bunch of pot smoking hippies spit on you and said your brainwashed just because you served for your country how would you feel? Please...don't answer this.

And I'm not calling you a pot smoking hippie.

... remember that Objectivism is first and foremost about not having an ideology
Makes a great argument for ignoring the shit out of "Objectivism!" :mad:

How old are you? 15?

Don't be saying shit about the vets from that war...my god some of them came home and what the fuck did they get? They got spit on!!! People actually sank so low as to spit on them!!! If you went overseas and fought a war for 2/3 years as a solider and when you returned a bunch of pot smoking hippies spit on you and said your brainwashed just because you served for your country how would you feel? Please...don't answer this.

And I'm not calling you a pot smoking hippie.
I believe I said “the protesters vilified the ones they should be feeling sorry for.” It just doesn’t make sense to spit on people who were drafted or brainwashed by the media, which luckily eventually turned against the war. However, those that willingly joined the armed services during Vietnam (the National Guard doesn't count), with full awareness that they would be killing for a cause that was obviously unjust, perhaps deserved a little of what they got. Most got enough in Vietnam, though.

How old are you? 15?

Don't be saying shit about the vets from that war...my god some of them came home and what the fuck did they get? They got spit on!!! People actually sank so low as to spit on them!!! If you went overseas and fought a war for 2/3 years as a solider and when you returned a bunch of pot smoking hippies spit on you and said your brainwashed just because you served for your country how would you feel? Please...don't answer this.

And I'm not calling you a pot smoking hippie.

Yes, Vietnam vets were treated horribly. That doesn't make them sacrosanct. A lot of people have terrible, terrible shit happen to them. That doesn't mean that they can't be wrong. You need to grow out of the guilt complex and understand you can be sorry for something without giving up what you beleive.

Makes a great argument for ignoring the shit out of "Objectivism!" :mad:
It's an interesting idea though. It certainly isn't for everyone (I reckon you need a certain emotional detachment from the world to really get into it), but at least it's internally consistent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_philosophy
His gripe, if I can take a punt, is with the US Government
a) even existing
b) having these goals based on ideology and emotion
c) forcing those goals on other people, often against their will.

Yes, Vietnam vets were treated horribly. That doesn't make them sacrosanct. A lot of people have terrible, terrible shit happen to them. That doesn't mean that they can't be wrong. You need to grow out of the guilt complex and understand you can be sorry for something without giving up what you beleive.

Show me anywhere were I said they were not wrong...

Yes, Vietnam vets were treated horribly. That doesn't make them sacrosanct. A lot of people have terrible, terrible shit happen to them. That doesn't mean that they can't be wrong. You need to grow out of the guilt complex and understand you can be sorry for something without giving up what you beleive.
Well, at least that explains the "Kinda" in your nation's name. :rolleyes:

Grow up. Seriously. Yes, Vietnam vets were treated horribly. That doesn't make them sacrosanct. A lot of people have terrible, terrible shit happen to them. That doesn't mean that they can't be wrong. You need to grow out of the guilt complex and understand you can be sorry for something without giving up what you beleive.

Nothing like offering your life for your country and then comming home to a punk ass dickhead slacker fool spitting on you . Treated horribly doesnt begin to describe the shamefull way our veterans were treated .
To some people honor and duty are more than just words . Its a shame our politicions do not always reflect this simple concept .

It's an interesting idea though. It certainly isn't for everyone (I reckon you need a certain emotional detachment from the world to really get into it), but at least it's internally consistent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_philosophy
His gripe, if I can take a punt, is with the US Government
a) even existing
b) having these goals based on ideology and emotion
c) forcing those goals on other people, often against their will.
d) Insulting those who fought in a war that was rendered "unpopular" by a constant barrage of communist propaganda support from the left and the leftist media.

It's an interesting idea though. It certainly isn't for everyone (I reckon you need a certain emotional detachment from the world to really get into it), but at least it's internally consistent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_philosophy
I wouldn’t call myself an Objectivist. Though, I agree with it, there is bound to be some conclusion drawn from it that I don’t like and that I will encounter someday. No ideology is perfect.

d) Insulting those who fought in a war that was rendered "unpopular" by a constant barrage of communist propaganda support from the left and the leftist media.
I don't get it. You need to have a good look at what was said, and make a decision on whether some natural defence-reflex might have just taken over there.

I agree that the Vietnam war didn't make anyone better off, other than those that made money from it and the ruling classes in the totalitarian South.
I disagree when he says that you didn't better yourselves in war - that is certainly possible.

Nonetheless, to think that Vietnam Vets actually bettered the world somehow is probably wrong.

Nothing like offering your life for your country and then comming home to a punk ass dickhead slacker fool spitting on you . Treated horribly doesnt begin to describe the shamefull way our veterans were treated .
To some people honor and duty are more than just words . Its a shame our politicions do not always reflect this simple concept .

Hey, I'm not saying that what happened was right or ok, but I am saying that it doesn't mean that vets are immediately excepted from critisicm.

Well, at least that explains the "Kinda" in your nation's name. :rolleyes:

Why? Because I don't immediately bow and scrape at the altar of the military? I apologize for being cynical enough to not believe anyone is exempt from critisicm.


Show me anywhere were I said they were not wrong...

The impression I got was that you were saying he insulted the soldiers when he said they were wrong to beleive the war was fought for the right. If that impression is wrong, I apologize.

d) Insulting those who fought in a war that was rendered "unpopular" by a constant barrage of communist propaganda support from the left and the leftist media.
Well you aren’t replying to me anymore, (I’m so upset), but what the hell.
Though the media tends to be a tad left of the American center and supportive of collectivism in general, it is by no means communist.

Saying that the U.S. intervention in the Vietnam war was right, is like saying Hitler's random attack on Europe was right. The "evils of Communism" are no worse than the "evils of capitalism" in some people's eyes.

I think some people are letting their emotions get in the way of looking at the entire debacle of Viet Nam objectively.

Nothing like offering your life for your country and then comming home to a punk ass dickhead slacker fool spitting on you . Treated horribly doesnt begin to describe the shamefull way our veterans were treated .
To some people honor and duty are more than just words . Its a shame our politicions do not always reflect this simple concept .

If honor and duty were a reflection of US politicos, then the US wouldn't have been involved in at least half or more of the wars it's had it's hands in.

Note: Honor includes saying that you'd abide by election results and not turning around and backstabbing people when the guy you don't like wins. Chavez anyone?

Saying that the U.S. intervention in the Vietnam war was right, is like saying Hitler's random attack on Europe was right. The "evils of Communism" are no worse than the "evils of capitalism" in some people's eyes.

Some people are indeed sociopaths. :rolleyes:

But did you ever notice that none of these "some people" aka "useful idiots" ever put their money where their mouth is by moving to North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba or China? Kinda shows what "some people" are worth, doesn't it? :p


I agree that the Vietnam war didn't make anyone better off, other than those that made money from it and the ruling classes in the totalitarian South...


Nonetheless, to think that Vietnam Vets actually bettered the world somehow is probably wrong.

The Vietnam War, in spite of the Left's betrayal, bought an extended decade of freedom for the people of South Vietnam. It bled the Soviet Union of supplies they needed elsewhere for that same period of time and hastened its eventual collapse at the hands of Ronald Reagan. Last but not least, it exposed the moral leprosy of the liberals and of the Left. No matter what they do the karma of what they did then remains with them and all the perfumes of Arabia will not wash the spot of their betrayals from their hands.

The interesting thing is the way they themselves feel compelled to remind people of Vietnam in the same way that the Ancient Mariner was forced to confess his sins over and over and over again. And each time they do so they remind the American people that 30 years ago the Democrats lost the right to ever be trusted by the American people again. The Albatross of Guilt is still around their necks and they flee in vain the Erinyes within their mind. So in the end the Vietnam vets did indeed better the world and their sacrifice was not in vain. :)

...bought an extended decade of freedom for the people of South Vietnam...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Diem

Ah Vietnam... Something I think that America hasn't gotten over and probably never will till those who were invloved in it are dead (Eut, before you jump on me for that statement, I mean pass away peacefully due to ripe (and in your case VERY ripe ;) ) old age).

A noble idea to start with, but... in the end, I think the the nation attempted to go with the notion that the ends justified the means.

Some of the actions committed by America have never been, or will ever be, forgiven. Cancling democratic eclections when it became aparent that Ho Chi Min would win.

Support for the goverment of South Vietnam, which to say they were a corrupt lot would be a massive understatment. That famous photo of the Vietcong being exicuted by the chief of Saigon's police was, I am told, standard practice.

Gulf of Tonkin, a made up event used to justify full scale undeclared war.

US use of napalm and chemical defolients that killed not only Vietnamese (enemy and non, but our own men).

Some of US actions, including My Lai, are some of the darkest chapters of US military history.

Poltical control of the war instead of leaving to, say, the generals, led to some damn strange and inefective tactics.

Mass drafts that were obviously rigged to allow the rich and connected to escape.

And finally, withdrawing from Vietnam without making damn sure that we could account for every man and woman lost in that country.

No, it was not a wise or right decision. We won the major battles, but we lost the war.

Some people are indeed sociopaths. :rolleyes:

But did you ever notice that none of these "some people" aka "useful idiots" ever put their money where their mouth is by moving to North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba or China? Kinda shows what "some people" are worth, doesn't it? :p



The Vietnam War, in spite of the Left's betrayal, bought an extended decade of freedom for the people of South Vietnam. It bled the Soviet Union of supplies they needed elsewhere for that same period of time and hastened its eventual collapse at the hands of Ronald Reagan. Last but not least, it exposed the moral leprosy of the liberals and of the Left. No matter what they do the karma of what they did then remains with them and all the perfumes of Arabia will not wash the spot of their betrayals from their hands.

The interesting thing is the way they themselves feel compelled to remind people of Vietnam in the same way that the Ancient Mariner was forced to confess his sins over and over and over again. And each time they do so they remind the American people that 30 years ago the Democrats lost the right to ever be trusted by the American people again. The Albatross of Guilt is still around their necks and they flee in vain the Erinyes within their mind. So in the end the Vietnam vets did indeed better the world and their sacrifice was not in vain. :)

I had to buy you a beer for that . ;)

My whole opinion is that if we pledge our support to an ally, we are bound by honor to protect them any way we can. Whether we should have allied ourselves with Viet Nam or taken the political steps we did with them is not clear to me, and I doubt it ever will be. I don't worry myself with these crucial details because I'm not a polisci major or particularly hung up on Viet Nam. But Viet Nam was our ally, and I believe that if it came under attack, it was our duty to come to their aid. Because of this, I don't believe we should have needed to cook up the incident with Maddox and Turner Joy in order to get involved. Our alliance and the VC aggression should have been enough.

I am proud of all of the men of all nationalities who struggled and sacrificed in the attempt to defend Viet Nam, and I deeply regret not only their loss, but our inability to protect Viet Nam.

If honor and duty were a reflection of US politicos, then the US wouldn't have been involved in at least half or more of the wars it's had it's hands in.

Note: Honor includes saying that you'd abide by election results and not turning around and backstabbing people when the guy you don't like wins. Chavez anyone?

Did you miss something ?
Its a shame our politicions do not always reflect this simple concept .

Did you miss something ?

No. Just pointing out that not very many of the wars that America fought in were exactly for honourable reasons, or very good ones at that. Politics and honor don't mix. So you have to watch out for doublespeak and outright lies when politicians try to sell the public on something. It tends to be gloss to cover what they really want.

I personally, have the utmost respect for Vietnam Veterans.
However, that does not mean that the cause they fought for, was in anything but vain.

Over 58,000 men gave their lives, not for our country, but someone elses.
These men fought for thier country, when it asked it of them, and for that, they must be honored.
However, to truly honor those men, it is necessary to admit that those lives were wasted.

Vietnam was a terrible comedy of errors from the start.
The soldiers, were not allowed to fight such a war, as it should have been fought.
America was not willing to pay the high cost in terms of casualties, and money, it would have taken to win such a war, in such conditions.

Worse yet was the fact that allowing Vietnam to become communist controlled inevitably did not harm the US, or its interests.
As this event happened anyway, the entire cause was in vain.

So, in essence those lives were needlessly thrown away.

Many people at home showed great disrespect to returning soldiers, as some of our forum regulars can attest to.
This was a particular shame, becuase these men and women, when asked, did what thier country required them to. Not all of us can say that.
The issue should be raised at what our country is asking us to do for it not at those who have the courage to serve.

This does not mean you must like war, or killing.
This doesnt mean you have to tolerate what the government does.
It means, quite simply, that you should respect our soldiers, and question the government.
ALWAYS question authority.

The Vietnam War, in spite of the Left's betrayal, bought an extended decade of freedom for the people of South Vietnam. It bled the Soviet Union of supplies they needed elsewhere for that same period of time and hastened its eventual collapse at the hands of Ronald Reagan. Last but not least, it exposed the moral leprosy of the liberals and of the Left. No matter what they do the karma of what they did then remains with them and all the perfumes of Arabia will not wash the spot of their betrayals from their hands.

So in the end the Vietnam vets did indeed better the world and their sacrifice was not in vain. :)
?????I'm sorry but I was there and I don't remember any "extended decade of freedom for the people of South Vietnam". Unless you mean watching men, women and children being killed at random under a puppet govenment and an unwanted outside force. If that's your idea of "freedom" .......I just don't know what planet you were on in the '60's.

The Soviets bled during Vietnam? It wasn't their national treasure that was being spent. If any war took them down it was Afganistan not Vietnam.

Moral Leprosy? If you think there was morality in the way Vietnam was fought, or for the reasons it was fought, (The Gulf of Tonkin was a lie to the people and to congress.) you need to state what it was.

The better world was created when we left and Vietnam could live in it's own way. Look at it today and tell me they would be better off with continued killing.

God bless the soldiers, but the devil may have the decision makers.

God bless the soldiers, but the devil may have the decision makers.

Except for the ones who were responsible for My Lai and similar incidents. Soldiers were the ones responsible there.

God, where do I begin? Let me try a general post.

Today, the Vietnam war looks silly because Vietnam turned out fine. But this is an exception to the rule. Think of Ukraine, where a fourth of the nation was starved by Stalin. Think of China, where "The Great Leap Forward" destroyed the economy and left millions dead. Think of Cambodia, which, yes, the US did help to power in the poorly executed Vietnam war. Why let the Vietnamese have these same horrors, and at the same time, strenghten Brezhnev and his ilk?

I also think I put too much emphasis on the home front, and gave the wrong impression. The social problems of the sixties would've definatly produced conflict, and the Vietnam war was simply a punching bag for the anger of America. However, this didn't start until sometime later in the war. The war began in 1964. If the idiot officers were smart enough to fight this war correctly, the Vietnam war would be over much more quickly, perhaps sparring it from the legions of protests, and preventing such horrors as Kent State. The Romans used decimation on their officers to keep them in line. I don't suggest that anyone die, but can't the US have an equivilant, like breaking underpreforming generals to privates?

bump

If the idiot officers were smart enough to fight this war correctly, the Vietnam war would be over much more quickly, perhaps sparring it from the legions of protests, and preventing such horrors as Kent State. The Romans used decimation on their officers to keep them in line. I don't suggest that anyone die, but can't the US have an equivilant, like breaking underpreforming generals to privates?
It wasn't so much the idiot officers as the idiot politicians. From what I have read, the war wasn't directed out of the regional headquaters or even the Pentigon, but the White House with the President and his advisors directing.

This wasn't a case of the President making a broad policy outline, and making the rules, then letting the military figure out how they were going to do it. President Johnson was actually picking the targets for bombs and setting the actual tactics to be used.

They were the ones who limited the US responce out of fear of provoking either a Chinese or Russian responce.

It wasn't so much the idiot officers as the idiot politicians. From what I have read, the war wasn't directed out of the regional headquaters or even the Pentigon, but the White House with the President and his advisors directing.

This wasn't a case of the President making a broad policy outline, and making the rules, then letting the military figure out how they were going to do it. President Johnson was actually picking the targets for bombs and setting the actual tactics to be used.

They were the ones who limited the US responce out of fear of provoking either a Chinese or Russian responce.
That was mostly the Nixon Administration, I bet. But still, the initial reaction was poorly executed. What use are thousands of tanks and bombers against a shadow army? None, but no one could understand that. It was up to the officers to recognize that a new kind fo military was needed for Vietnam.
The British successfully repelled an insurgency in Malaya not long beforehand. They used some political tactics (which the US failed to do), plus reinventing their military in the region. If the US did that, Ho Chi Minh would be begging for asylum in Moscow.

That was mostly the Nixon Administration, I bet. But still, the initial reaction was poorly executed. What use are thousands of tanks and bombers against a shadow army? None, but no one could understand that. It was up to the officers to recognize that a new kind fo military was needed for Vietnam.
The British successfully repelled an insurgency in Malaya not long beforehand. They used some political tactics (which the US failed to do), plus reinventing their military in the region. If the US did that, Ho Chi Minh would be begging for asylum in Moscow.
Nixon wasn't afraid of shit. Look at Operations Linebacker 1 & 2! He wanted to win that war, and I believe he was our last, best hope. Too bad he couldn't do it. :/

Nixon wasn't afraid of shit. Look at Operations Linebacker 1 & 2! He wanted to win that war, and I believe he was our last, best hope. Too bad he couldn't do it. :/
Nixon really was in a position of loosing, but he had one advantage that Ho Chi Minh's thugs did not: nukes. Henry Kissenger talked him out of a nuclear strike, fearing a Soviet reaction. But I feel that all the Soviets could do would be to bitch. They wouldn't dare enter into a war with the US without being directly provoked.

That was mostly the Nixon Administration, I bet. But still, the initial reaction was poorly executed. What use are thousands of tanks and bombers against a shadow army? None, but no one could understand that. It was up to the officers to recognize that a new kind fo military was needed for Vietnam.
The British successfully repelled an insurgency in Malaya not long beforehand. They used some political tactics (which the US failed to do), plus reinventing their military in the region. If the US did that, Ho Chi Minh would be begging for asylum in Moscow.

Not Nixon...Johnson and McNamara and Gen. Westmoreland .

Nixon wasn't afraid of shit. Look at Operations Linebacker 1 & 2! He wanted to win that war, and I believe he was our last, best hope. Too bad he couldn't do it. :/

Those two air campaigns were to bring the North back to Paris to talk peace . Nixon nor any other President ever considered using nukes in Vietnam . The whole idea was to limit the war not to let it spread .

Those two air campaigns were to bring the North back to Paris to talk peace . Nixon nor any other President ever considered using nukes in Vietnam . The whole idea was to limit the war not to let it spread .
Never said they did :P

Nixon really was in a position of loosing, but he had one advantage that Ho Chi Minh's thugs did not: nukes. Henry Kissenger talked him out of a nuclear strike, fearing a Soviet reaction. But I feel that all the Soviets could do would be to bitch. They wouldn't dare enter into a war with the US without being directly provoked.

Rubbish. The use of thermonuclear weaponry have until now been strictly for retaliatory use only. It just wasn't MAD that the US was worried about, it most likely did not want to send a signal to the Soviets that the rules had changed, that using nuclear weapons for conventional wars was now the game plan. The US wanted to contain the Soviet Union and the spread of communism. Using a nuclear weapon as part of any war would have turned that idea into a pile of scrap.

You think the SU wasn't engaged in their own game of "lets support our idealogical brethren" and "if we want it bad enough, lets invade"?

For the former, no, they wouldn't trust them with nukes (quite paranoid). For the former however, no amount of stinger missiles would have made a difference if the SU wanted to really hold on to Afghanistan and used nukes.

In short, neither side wanted to use nukes for any reason other than testing because they feared the other side would then copy them. Not quite MAD, but definitely one step closer.

Rubbish. The use of thermonuclear weaponry have until now been strictly for retaliatory use only. It just wasn't MAD that the US was worried about, it most likely did not want to send a signal to the Soviets that the rules had changed, that using nuclear weapons for conventional wars was now the game plan. The US wanted to contain the Soviet Union and the spread of communism. Using a nuclear weapon as part of any war would have turned that idea into a pile of scrap.

You think the SU wasn't engaged in their own game of "lets support our idealogical brethren" and "if we want it bad enough, lets invade"?

For the former, no, they wouldn't trust them with nukes (quite paranoid). For the former however, no amount of stinger missiles would have made a difference if the SU wanted to really hold on to Afghanistan and used nukes.

In short, neither side wanted to use nukes for any reason other than testing because they feared the other side would then copy them. Not quite MAD, but definitely one step closer.
It would simply change a few rules of nuclear engagement. I myself believe that it'd lead to more competition in tactical nuclear devices, but for the most part, it wouldn't undermine MAD.
BTW, the Soviets did consider several times nuking Afghan positions in the mountains. I don't know the specifics of why they backed down, but I could guess that having little experience in tactical nukes, they probably felt like they couldn't adapt.

It would simply change a few rules of nuclear engagement. I myself believe that it'd lead to more competition in tactical nuclear devices, but for the most part, it wouldn't undermine MAD.
BTW, the Soviets did consider several times nuking Afghan positions in the mountains. I don't know the specifics of why they backed down, but I could guess that having little experience in tactical nukes, they probably felt like they couldn't adapt.
the point of the post, I think, is that changing the rules that way would put our own troops in danger from tac-nukes, and that's something we didn't want to deal with, even if it meant having the same advantage.

If the idiot officers were smart enough to fight this war correctly .... ... can't the US have an equivilant, like breaking underpreforming generals to privates?
For the last time ... it wasn't the Armed Forces that lost Vietnam. The war was lost on the home front by a constant drumbeat of propaganda, and by gutless politicians. To all intents and purposes, the military won the war in Vietnam. The frakking protestors and cowardly politicians GAVE the war away!

It would simply change a few rules of nuclear engagement. I myself believe that it'd lead to more competition in tactical nuclear devices, but for the most part, it wouldn't undermine MAD.

Anybody who would consider using nukes for anything other than MAD really doesn't understand the world. The nations (well.... the original nations) that hold nukes understand that the genie is out of the bottle, but no one has any wishes because it would open up world-wide nuke use. Right now nukes are spreading because they are the only option that insures your country won't be invaded. Because the rules have changed to no cause invasion without nukes, but negotiations if you have nukes, There is no doubt that we will see Syria, Jordan, several of the "stans" and several SE Asia countries joining the club. Why would a government that has "superpower" enemies not now see a need for nukes? As bad as Johnson and Nixon were at fighting war, they did not spread nukes, that legacy is now being made.
The legacy of Vietnam should have been to never fight the people who live on the land. Fighting invaders is one thing, fighting the entire demographic of a nation is another. England and America should have learned that lesson in the late 18th century. The second thing that should have been learned is: "The Winner Does NOT Decide When A War Is Over----The LOSER determines when a war is over". You can win every battle and lose a war as we did in Nam. And third, CULTURE determines when someone gives up. US people think short term. (Even more now than in the 60's) A year to the US is a lifetime. In other cultures a lifetime is but a year. The Jews said "Next year in Jerusalem" for 2000 years. The Palistinians have fought for 60 years, and have not considered admiting defeat. Generations and individuals mean nothing. The goal of the tribe is the goal of everyone. There are advantages to the US "individualism", but fighting a guerilla war is not one of them. A guerilla war is all about the "group". Suicide bombers show how little value "individualism" has.
There are two ways to defeat a guerilla force:
1. Kill all the support, ie, kill the old, women, young, everyone who supports the fighters. Mi Lai (sp) wasn't isolated, just the one that had a camera handy. We tried this but the civilians didn't have the stomach for it.
2. Put in enough soldiers to take and hold every inch of land. Hold it until the culture changes. Be prepared to take losses for decades. The US did this in Puerto Rico, but failed in the Philippines. Fighting continues in the Philippines a hundred years later. Would the US public be that patient today? In Nam, we took an area then gave it back only to take it again, and give it back. Sort of like the fighting on the Syrian border today.

US civilians were very patient in Nam but neither strategy was effectively used.

For the last time ... it wasn't the Armed Forces that lost Vietnam. The war was lost on the home front by a constant drumbeat of propaganda, and by gutless politicians. To all intents and purposes, the military won the war in Vietnam. The frakking protestors and cowardly politicians GAVE the war away!
I believe that blaming the protestors is an extremely weak argument and totally evades the much stronger arguments as to why the war was lost.

Why Did America Lose? (http://www.learnhistory.org.uk/vietnam/usdefeat.htm)

It would simply change a few rules of nuclear engagement.

Change them in a bad way. It would allow for the use of nuclear weapons as conventional weapons. From there, the line between tac-nukes for military use and MAD becomes blurred to the point of non-existence. For example, any of the largely industrial cities in the US. The British created the doctrine of striking at enemy production by mass bombing of the cities. If Soviet forces and US forces clashed at any one point of time, how would the use of nuclear weapons not be justified as another war act simply by glassing said cities?

Or even if that is not the case, as pointed out by Osutoria-Hangarii, the use of nukes on military targets in a conventional war would mean US forces would face annihilation in a nuclear exchange the next time Soviet Russia and the US went at loggerheads. Just like how a US invasion force would have been glassed if they had landed in Cuba. Remember, the local Soviet commanders there had full control over their medium range missiles but not the ICBMs. The Soviets later rescinded that idea for obvious reasons. The same way US policy makers did.


I myself believe that it'd lead to more competition in tactical nuclear devices, but for the most part, it wouldn't undermine MAD.

The problem is that tactical nuclear devices blur the line between conventional weapons and MAD. It wouldn't take very much to cross it.


BTW, the Soviets did consider several times nuking Afghan positions in the mountains. I don't know the specifics of why they backed down, but I could guess that having little experience in tactical nukes, they probably felt like they couldn't adapt.

More likely they felt the same way the US policy makers did. If they used nukes, the next time they went at loggerheads with the US, they'd be facing it too.

I think a lot of you are fail to realize what the mindset was at the time.

In light of such events as the 'Red Scare' and 'Cuban Missile Crisis', there was this little thing called the 'Domino Theory'. Since US politicians were scared to death of communism, the fear was that if one country were to fall under the communist banner, then it would only be a matter of time before the next fell...and the next...and the next.

It was this paranoid mindset that kept us in Vietnam longer than we should, and we can thank the all knowing US politicians, who refused to let the military run its own war.

It's easy for a lot of us who weren't alive at the time to look back and say that the cause was 'silly' or 'worthless', but many took the 'communist threat' seriously, and really believed that communism was going to consume the world if allowed to spread.

It's easy for a lot of us who weren't alive at the time to look back and say that the cause was 'silly' or 'worthless', but many took the 'communist threat' seriously, and really believed that communism was going to consume the world if allowed to spread.

We can also thank the politicians for not looking at examples when they worked, just not by US hands. It was pointed out some time ago that the British and the local Malayan government of the time were also facing a problem with communists guerillas. A lot less heavy artillery and arbitary slaughter was used and look what happened to the communists. They either gave up or died.

Look at Thailand. They too had their problems with communists. What did the government do? They fought true, but not as harshly as the US did. They also employed methods to cut off the reasons why people joined the communists groups and gave the communists a way out that didn't involve a lenghty jail term or bullet in the head. Did Thailand become communists? Hardly.

But of course, the US politicians have only one method of dealing with these things, because they want to look good to their voter base. Which is if you have a problem, shoot it or bomb it. As for fearing the red scare, well, the politicians themselves have only themselves to blame for that. Looking at the propoganda they were churning out back then, it's pretty obvious that they weren't really interested in knowing about something rather than blowing it up.

The Thai, the British, and the Malaysians took it on a different tack and got along fine enough.

What does that tell us?

Note: Honor includes saying that you'd abide by election results and not turning around and backstabbing people when the guy you don't like wins. Chavez anyone?
Not just Cuba, in the Cold War America didnt like no commies near their sphere of infulence. Lots of propping up of corrupt cruel dictators in South America,just cause they were pro-america. course Soviets were just the same with the iron curtain. The idea that the Vietnamese war was noble is ridciulous, it was done out of self-serving intrests, same as all the actions, russian and amerian in the Cold War.