Vietnam

[Danoff]

or more specifically, this thread is about the US - Vietnam conflict.

I think this is a particularly timely topic since Nixon is in the news recently. Lots of people have been wanting to talk about Nnam because of Iraq. For example... one of pupik's recent posts concerning Iraq had this in it:

and my uncle served 2 years in Vietnam.... it was nothing remotely related to protecting our nation.

So rather than start out with questions, I'll just get right into the argument.

1) Vietnam was all about protecting our nation from the spread of communism. I understand that people aren't worried about communism now because we're voluntarily voting ourselves into it. But back in the 60's when a good portion of our society cared about freedom, we wanted to stop Russia and the spread of communism. That's what 'Nam was about.

2) Vietnam was started by President Kennedy (who happens to be a favorite of the press), and made drastically worse by President Johnson. Then, it was solved in the only way that it could be properly solved by President Nixon (who happens to be hated by the press).

3) Peace, love, and happiness didn't make Mother Russia go away, it (along with being scared of Russia) helped convince our wimpy congressmen to fight the war badly and sacrifice tens of thousands of American lives needlessly because they were too afraid to take a stand and really fight. Nixon had the cantelopes to make an executive order in spite of congress to lay the smack down on charlie and end the conflict.

Who sees it differently?

 

[Solid Lifters]

Start. The Vietnam War gave the US the opportunity to fight with Russia again. Vietnam were the poor schlubs that allowed it to be fought in their country. It was also an opportunity for the US to stop the progression of communism in south east Asia. Finaly, it gave the opportunity for big US companies to make a buck, or two. So, the Vietnam War was fought for opportunities. Finish.

 

[vat_man]

Originally posted by danoff
2) Vietnam was started by President Johnson, and made drastically worse by President Kennedy (who happens to be a favorite of the press). Then, it was solved in the only way that it could be properly solved by President Nixon (who happens to be hated by the press).

Uh - wasn't Johnson president after Kennedy was assassinated? This would have made it somewhat difficult for Kennedy to worsen the conflict.

...and as for Nixon, well, the goings-on of that particular administration are very well documented.

 

[ledhed]

Actually US involvement in Vietnam began with WW2 when we enlisted Ho Chi Mien and friends to help fight against Japan with the promise that we would support there independence. In fact they issued a declaration of independence based on the same words we used in ours.
The reason they fell into the Rusian sphere of influence is that the US screwed them by supporting the French after WW2 in there effort to regain what the French considered a lost "possesion".
Eisenhower sent the first advisors to south Vietnam after the french nitwits got thrown out.
kennedy continued the show he was left with.
Johnson decided to expand the war and increased the US presence and expanded our involvement to direct conflict.
Nixon enabled us to bug out.
The mistakes of the Vietnam experiance are legion. Looking back its hard to believe we had such stupid leadership. Johnson especially . What made him think he could run the war from the white house is still an unanswered question.
At any rate history will show that if anything the US was willing to spend blood and treasure to stop the spread of communism and eventually that resolve is what finally bankrupted the Soviets.
Its said that the next war is always faught with the last wars thinking. Unfortunately for the soldiers who had to put their lifes on the line the last war in the case of Vietnam was KOREA and we tried to fight the same kind of limited one hand behind the back conflict to keep the thing from going nuclear. looking back it remarkable that we did as well as we did for so long.
my biggest impression of my life was growing up and every day hearing the news broadcast the list of casualties and seeing the black bunting go up on my nieghbors house's and counting the days till it was my turn to go register for the draft.
I'll never forget how our leadership really failed us big time. The biggest bunch of peterheads that ever lived lead by Robert MacNamara and lydon Johnson .

 

[87chevy]

well danoff i think you just opened a huge can of worms. Another thread for ignorant idiots to post there niave(sp?) anti-war mumbo-jumbo horse ****.

Well, first, vatman is right, your presidential order is a little bass ackwards.

Now, once again ledhed is dead on. And Ho Chi Men is another great example of what i stated in another thread: The US government has a history of supporting wackos who are fighting other wackos that, at the time, we deem more threatening, and 40 years later, we end up calling the guy we supported our enemy and wonder how they got to power.

The biggest disgrace about Vietnam was dished out by the American public. To blame the young innocent men who had to fight for all the mistakes of the administration is disgraceful. I'm glad that we have learned better. I think it's wonderful how everyone, well everyone who has their head on straight, supports the troops wether they like the Administration or not.

 

[DQuaN]

Didn't the president make a promise to South Vietnam that if they were ever attacked, the US would help? And when the North Attacked, the President had no choice but to fullfull his promise. That was my understanding anyway.

And my stance on most of the recent wars is "Support the troops, not the leaders"

 

[Danoff]

Uh - wasn't Johnson president after Kennedy was assassinated? This would have made it somewhat difficult for Kennedy to worsen the conflict.

Yup, corrected.

 

[Danoff]

I'll never forget how our leadership really failed us big time. The biggest bunch of peterheads that ever lived lead by Robert MacNamara and lydon Johnson .

Failed us by getting us in to the war or failed us by fighting it badly.

I would argue that we should definitely have been in Vietnam, but that we went about it the wrong way. Nixon had the right idea, the way he ended that conflict was the way it should have been fought all along.

Its easy to sit there and say that wars should never be fought, but sometimes its required. Who knows, we might all be speaking Russian and calling each other comrade if we hadn't gone in to Vietnam.


Edit:

kennedy continued the show he was left with.

Wasn't Kennedy the first one to send troops?

 

[boone_501]

I agree with 87CHEVY, it was a disgrace the way returning soldiers were treated.
when our (australian) troops came home (i cant remember the year early 70's) the welcome they recieved was deplorable.
one of the worst insults to there bravery and honour i think is that out returning vet's didnt recieve public aknolodgement and a welcome home parade untill 1987!!! over ten years later!!

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by danoff
Nixon had the cantelopes to make an executive order in spite of congress to lay the smack down on charlie and end the conflict.

Who sees it differently?

Nixon was viewed by the public as tough on communism. Had Johnson ended the war (not that he could've), he would've been viewed as soft on communism - but Nixon's perception in the public allowed him to end the war while not looking soft. Remember, Nixon visited China for the same reason - he was the tough-on-communism leader who could visit a communist country and not come out looking like he'd just consorted with the enemy.

 

[ledhed]

The US had advisors/troops left over when Kennedy took over he could have decided not to continue to support a corrupt and unpopular despot but it was reasoned "at least he's our despot" as usual it backfired and thats the real reason South Vietnam fell to the communist . WE BACKED THE WRONG HORSE. Instead of admitting it we just kept them propped up and lost our legitimacy in the proccess. We could have at any time conquered the north and owned Vietnam but that would have been un American. Instead we fought along with the soviet union a proxy war. Just like we did all over the world during the cold war. hell look at Afghanistan the UNIVERSITY of Al Quada. If it wasn't for the godless communist invading that country and Uniting Arabs and muslims from around the world where would Osama be now ? At any rate that was the soviets backing the wrong horse. We backed the horse that won and got the world trade center blown up for our efforts. So now we are back fixing up after the Taliban and using Vietnam as a brake on the Chinese..its hard to be an American these days..hard to keep up with the program at any rate.

 

[Jetboy.]

ledhead is a genius

 

[Kent]

Sorry, this is the edit of a horrible post that included links to geno-cide reports by communist countries, as well as "my own thoughts" on the "condition" of America and the world related to the U.S.
Instead, this will be on a different note.

We should honor all those that were involved in this event. It was another step in the history of the fight between the communist and the rest of us. ... not to mention the little countries that are always left out.

America went through a great deal thanks to this war and in the end, both good and bad came out of it.

I want to think about the good that came out of vietnam more than the bad.
(Later on I might come and talk about the American experience points in the real life rpg rts. )

Honoring the people of my country's service is part of me, and that is what I hope to do all of my life.

Memorial day is coming up monday and the sunday after that it will be june 6th d-day.


In honor of the good people who served.

That's really about all I want to say.
History is for my education and right now, I think I want to let that go.

btw, ledhed, you did well... but, it should be pointed out that ho was fighting with the chinesse at that point in time, and the french were more than just thrown out. Many french-men never left the land of vietnam.
I'm also glad to see so many well formed post. 👍

 

[Danoff]

I'd like to comment slightly to my first post here. Even though I'm no fan of Kennedy or Johson, I don't want to make it seem like they totally screwed up the situation and that I blame them for the death of the 60,000 or so that we lost.

I don't think we were wrong to be in Vietnam. I think it was a poor idea to be intimidated enough by Russia to fight the war with "one hand tied behind our back", but I think that fear is understandable.

A lot of people seem to think that we had no business being over there, and that we have no business being in Iraq now. A lot of people point to the number of lives lost, the fact that we pulled out in the end, and that Russia fell later and say that those were 60,000 lives we didn't have to lose. The way I understand it, 'Nam was fairly crucial, or at least, taking a stand in 'Nam was fairly crucial rather than letting communism run rampant. I think we had less diplomatic reason for being in Vietnam than we do Iraq, but the threat was greater.

Anyway, I started this thread because I wanted to combat the idea that Vietnam was some kind of universally recognized waste of life, an unsightly blemish on US history in which we screwed up royally and got lots of innocent people including our own killed. I think we could have handled the situation better sooner (thank you Nixon) but the fight was real, the threat was real and the cause was real and we needed to get our rear ends over there to do something about it. The American public (especially media) still refuses to see that.

 

[HareTurtle]

Originally posted by danoff
Its easy to sit there and say that wars should never be fought

It's also easy to sit there and say that wars should be fought; by someone else. My ass may not look like much, but IMHO it bears little resemblance to what Robert McNamara or Paul Wolfowitz would term an "acceptable loss". I was a few lottery numbers away from being drafted for Vietnam. While I know, and knew, a good many Vietnam vets, some of whom did not return, and have a world of respect and admiration for them, I'm fairly certain that had push come to shove, I'd not have gone. If the USA were threatened or attacked, I'd be first in line, but there was nothing at stake in Vietnam that was worth all those American lives.

 

[Danoff]

I'm fairly certain that had push come to shove, I'd not have gone.

That's pathetic. I would have gone if it were my turn to serve. I wasn't born when Vietnam happened, but I think that its sad that people failed to see the importance of what was going on over there. Even without living through it I can understand the threat. I'm surprised that you can't.

Have you ever played chess? If you have then you know that the strategy is to set up your peices for the kill, and then strike when you've calculated that you'll win.

What you just described is that we should have waited until Russia knew tha they would win, and then tried to defend ourselves. If that had happened, the numbers of dead might have been 6,000,000 instead of 60,000 and we might have lost our country. Sure lots of people would have been ready to defend her, but they would have been up against a much tougher adversary.

Use your head. Happy Memorial Day.

 

[Solid Lifters]

Originally posted by danoff

Anyway, I started this thread because I wanted to combat the idea that Vietnam was some kind of universally recognized waste of life, an unsightly blemish on US history in which we screwed up royally and got lots of innocent people including our own killed. I think we could have handled the situation better sooner (thank you Nixon) but the fight was real, the threat was real and the cause was real and we needed to get our rear ends over there to do something about it. The American public (especially media) still refuses to see that.

The only people who think Vietnam was a complete waste are the stupid Hippies, and the children of these stupid Hippies.

 

[87chevy]

Originally posted by Solid Lifters
The only people who think Vietnam was a complete waste are the stupid Hippies, and the children of these stupid Hippies.

I need an aplauding smilie!!! oh well, these will have to do
👍

 

[milefile]

 

[HareTurtle]

Originally posted by danoff
Have you ever played chess? If you have then you know that the strategy is to set up your peices for the kill, and then strike when you've calculated that you'll win.

What you just described is that we should have waited until Russia knew tha they would win, and then tried to defend ourselves. If that had happened, the numbers of dead might have been 6,000,000 instead of 60,000 and we might have lost our country. Sure lots of people would have been ready to defend her, but they would have been up against a much tougher adversary.

The notion of a monolithic comminist block intent on conquest of the United States is an overly simplistic assessment of the situation which is not supported by historical documentation. By the mid 60's the seeds of what would later be referred to as "detente" were already well established. As you won't likely believe me, let Lyndon Johnson explain it, in this quote contained in THE VIETNAM WAR AND SOVIET-AMERICAN RELATIONS, 1964-1973::

"Both Johnson and, after January 1969, his successor Richard M. Nixon were convinced that Moscow would press Hanoi to agree to open negotiations, once Washington: 1) demonstrated to the Soviet Union that the Vietnam War was hardly in its interests; 2) seduced it by the promise of cooperation with the United States; or, better still, 3) warned it that if Soviet cooperation were not forthcoming the United States might resort to rapprochement with China--or some optimal combination of all those approaches. When in retirement, Johnson disclosed his calculations as president in a conversation at his Texas ranch with Soviet citizens that was reported to the Kremlin leadership by the KGB in December 1969. The USSR could be instrumental in helping the United States to bring the Vietnam War to a conclusion, Johnson argued, for "if we take Soviet strategic, not tactical, interests, the end of the Vietnam War fully accords with the Soviet Union's interests," considering that, "after all, it is the United States, not Vietnam, which is the main partner of the USSR.""

(bold emphasis added)

Hardly sounds like Johnson was much worried about beating the Soviets back from the beaches of California.

Soviet support for Vietnam was predicated more on a desire to counter the regional influence of China, with whom they had engaged in a dangerous border war in 1968, than on a desire to spread communism. Ho Chi Minh, intent primarily on securing Vietnam for the Vietnamese (though his desire to reverse the legacy of colonialism through agrarian land reform may have been inherently "collectivist") initaially had offered to maintain Vietnamese neutrality in exchange for independence. Throughout the war, the Vietnamese skillfully played off the Russians against the Chinese to maintain military support from both parties. The US made the unfathomable decision to support a corrupt, unpopular, and neo-colonial government in the face of fierce indigenous opposition, for reasons that smack more of greed and venality than any desire to contain communism.

If you are interested in more background on the war, from a historical perspective, you might consult the
Cold War International History Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Search their "Virtual Archives" for "Vietnam" and you'll turn up a wealth of resources.

BTW, what I think is pathetic (and please don't take this personally danoff) are those who naively buy the notion that some grand cause is worth killing and dying for. Thence come genocide, suicide bombers, and the innumerable ethnic, religious and ideological wars that have plagued mankind for millenia.

Originally posted by Solid Lifters
The only people who think Vietnam was a complete waste are the stupid Hippies, and the children of these stupid Hippies.

Thanks for your well-reasoned and informative contribution.

 

[Carl.]

*insert a truckload of approbatives smiley here*

Thank you HareTurtle. This couldn'be better said.

Danoff, I fail to understand the "communist menace" Vietnam posed to America or the western world. Following that theory, shouldn't something really wrong have happened when the US bailed out? What gains would have been attained by these "necessary" human losses had we won the war? What were those collateral damages worth for?

 

[Danoff]

BTW, what I think is pathetic (and please don't take this personally danoff) are those who naively buy the notion that some grand cause is worth killing and dying for.

It is sad that you cannot conceive of something more worthwhile than your own life. What an amazingly conceited and narrow view of the world.

Danoff, I fail to understand the "communist menace" Vietnam posed to America or the western world

The idea behind the containment policy toward communism that was played during vietnam, was a direct lesson from WWII. It was an attempt to prevent Russia from gaining support from the nearby countries. The thought was that Russia was doing something very similar to what germany had done during WWII, sucking up nearby countries to increase resources. We fought the spread of communism where we could to prevent the entire eastern world from uniting under one communist agenda.

It doesn't really matter what happened when we pulled out. We showed the world that we were serious about preventing the spread of communism, that we were not blind to expansion policies and we would fight hard in response - discouraging the spread of communism.

To think that this was just about the vietnam (as your post suggests) ignores all of the facts. Every history book will tell you that it was a staging point for a much larger conflict.

 

[HareTurtle]

Originally posted by danoff

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, what I think is pathetic (and please don't take this personally danoff) are those who naively buy the notion that some grand cause is worth killing and dying for.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is sad that you cannot conceive of something more worthwhile than your own life. What an amazingly conceited and narrow view of the world.

Oh Lord... Please don't let me be misunderstood. Nowhere have I said that there is nothing more worthwhile than my life, nor did I intend to imply that there are no causes worth dying for. What I was saying, and perhaps I should have been more clear, is that way to many people are way to easily convinced that way to many causes are worth it, when they really are not, resulting in a vast amount of death, destruction, and unnecessary human misery.

As I am no more likely to convince anyone who believes otherwise that the war in Vietnam was unnecessary than they are to convince me of the opposite, I'll leave this thread with Robert McNamara's thoughts following the war:

"I have proposed to Hanoi that ... we engage in examining what I think were missed opportunities for each of us, for them and us, to have avoided the war or to have terminated it earlier, with less loss of life, without any adverse effects on the geopolitical situations of either one of us. I very much hope those discussions will take place. We have much to learn from them that can be applied to the world of today and tomorrow. How to avoid these conflicts is something the human race has to learn. This century will go down as the bloodiest century in all of human history. We'll have lost 160 million people, killed by conflict. Is that what we want in the 21st century? I don't think so. If we want to avoid it, we have to learn from our mistakes in this century. Vietnam was one of those."

 

[Solid Lifters]

Originally posted by HareTurtle

Thanks for your well-reasoned and informative contribution.

It wasn't well-reasoned, nor informative you stupid Hippie.

(Relax, I know you were being sarcastic.)

 

[Danoff]

We'll have lost 160 million people, killed by conflict. Is that what we want in the 21st century?

The amazing part is that a huge number of those people killed were Russians killed in WWII. They lost an increadible number of people. Their losses in WWII put American losses in any war, including the civil war, in perspective.

What I was saying, and perhaps I should have been more clear, is that way to many people are way to easily convinced that way to many causes are worth it

Yea, that's really not what your original post says.

 

[HareTurtle]

Originally posted by Solid Lifters
It wasn't well-reasoned, nor informative you stupid Hippie.

I am not a Hippie!