30th Anniversary of the Fall of Saigon

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/The-Vietnam-War-a-nightmare-still-vivid/2005/04/29/1114635749004.html



On this day 30 years ago, the US-backed Saigon government collapsed and the Vietnam War, which claimed the lives of nearly 2 million Vietnamese civilians, 1.1 million communist fighters, 224,000 South Vietnamese combatants and almost 60,000 Americans, ended. More than 500 Australians died in a war that divided the nation. For some Australians, the battle was deeply personal. Gary Tippet speaks to four whose lives were irrevocably changed by a conflict far from our shores.

The end finally came for Barry Heard when he woke from the nightmare yet found himself trapped in it. His eyes were wide open but he was back in '67. They were carrying the old Vietnamese woman to the little Bell chopper. She'd walked into their position in the jungle and they'd shot her. She was in fear and pain, oozing blood, looking at the young radioman with naked hate and screaming obscenities, shaming him with accusations about the Australians' arrogance and prejudices.

"Calling me every expletive you can think of, telling me what an ******** I was. And every word she said, I agreed with. Everything she said made perfect sense."

Suddenly Heard felt he was the one dying. And he was ready to go. He was in a warm, soft place that was bright, peaceful and beautiful. If only the pain in his chest would stop.

Then he was on the couch, a MICA paramedic on each side, and hearing the words ". . . major heart attack". After 28 years, it was his moment of clarity: "My heart's OK," he told them. "It's not my heart. It's all in my head. It's full of ****."

Heard went to Vietnam on April Fool's Day, 1967, and stayed in the country for seven months. He came home physically unhurt, but carried a deep psychological wound for almost three decades, until it suddenly bled out in a massive breakdown after one too many nightmares.



Two million civilians dead, massive trauma for those who survived the war. Was it really worth it?

[Zep]

No war is really "worth it". People can always look back after it is over and say, "You know, we could have got the same result without having to kill each other by the millions if only we realised that...[insert blindingly obvious observation here]".

However, war will continue to be around while there are people who continue to believe that the first or only solution to a problem is using a weapon on someone else.

[Skeptic]

No, it wasn't worth it. It would have much better to let the communist north just take over the democratic south WITHOUT resistance.

[imahbeng]

No, it wasn't worth it. It would have much better to let the communist north just take over the democratic south WITHOUT resistance.



What is the real motive of the war??? Free the vietnam? I am sure the US goverment would not be so dumb to send their troops to fight for the vietnam people.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Skeptic
No, it wasn't worth it. It would have much better to let the communist north just take over the democratic south WITHOUT resistance.
The democratic south? I'm no expert on Vietnam, but that's not exactly my impression. You wouldn't be using some new and until know unknown definition of the word "democratic" would you?

[dann]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/The-Vietnam-War-a-nightmare-still-vivid/2005/04/29/1114635749004.html
... two million civilians dead, massive trauma for those who survived the war. Was it really worth it?
When I visited the Memorial Wall in Washington, I wondered how long it would have had to be in order to include the names of the dead Vietnamese, Laotians etc.
I didn't ask, however, because I think that the people hosting our group of visiting Danish teachers of English would have found it impolite. Still, I had a hard time coming to terms with the horror and sense of loss that they obviously felt at the sixty thousand dead Americans, whereas the millions of dead East Asians did not seem to bother them at all.
I cannot imagine Germans (with the exception of the Neo Nazis) behaving in the same manner, only mourning the German dead and completely neglecting the millions of dead Jews and other nationalities.
But, of course, the Germans came out as the unconditional losers of that war ...

[Roadtoad]

The point has been made by both sides in the debate that the U.S. could have won the war. Our Congress chose to lose it.

But were we fighting on behalf of a "Democratic" regime? Hell, no. There was nothing "democratic" about any of the people running that country. It was simply a right-wing police state, as opposed to a left-wing one. Elections were a sham, the people were abused by both sides, and in the end, the only thing we accomplished was we looked like fools. Considering that Chairman Mao told then White House Chief of Staff Alexander Haig "Do not lose in Vietnam," spoken as a warning, I would have thought we would have listened. We didn't. We continue to pay the price.

If you're going to go to war, you go in whole-heartedly, you win it fast, you win it well, and you get the hell out. We haven't learned that lesson.

[Garrette]

Well said, RT, but I only agree with half the conclusion.

We've learned how to win militarily fast. Just not politically.

And I know I'm simplifying it, and that there is no clear demarcation between the two.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Two million civilians dead, massive trauma for those who survived the war. Was it really worth it?

Given that the issue is 30 years dead, isn't this just trolling?

[dann]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
If you're going to go to war, you go in whole-heartedly, you win it fast, you win it well, and you get the hell out. We haven't learned that lesson.
And never mind the victims. The enemy losses? Forget them, they're foreigners, and often not even white! The dead Americans? There's no denying the sentimentality of the bereaved, so let's give'em a wailing wall ...

[Garrette]

Originally posted by dann:

And never mind the victims. The enemy losses? Forget them, they're foreigners, and often not even white! The dead Americans? There's no denying the sentimentality of the bereaved, so let's give'em a wailing wall ...

That's a wildly distorted reading of what he actually said.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Two million civilians dead, massive trauma for those who survived the war. Was it really worth it? Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. It was believed that the North would confiscate property and possessions and take away freedom from those of the South. Many did not want to lose all that they had and more importantly their freedom. When Saigon fell many were murdered out of retribution. Property and possessions were seized and the people of South Vietnam lost much of their opportunity to decide for themselves what their government would be and what their future would be. Odd that we care so little for this ability but then we take it for granted.

If someone were to try and invade my country and take away my freedom and property I would hope that someone would be willing to pay a price to protect that. I know that I would.

We failed but it was absolutely worth trying, yes.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
If you're going to go to war, you go in whole-heartedly, you win it fast, you win it well, and you get the hell out. We haven't learned that lesson. The crucial lesson of Vietnam is that a war needs an objective. When you achieve it, you've won, the world moves on for better or worse. Protecting "democracy" while repeatedly failing to introduce any did not constitute an objective.

Kuwaut War objective : expel the invaders. Bada-bing, bada-boom. Iraq War objective : well, that's a bit contentious but "Getting rid of Saddam" seems the current favourite, so that's a win. And won very well, exemplary staff-work and thoroughly professional execution. Soon the "Get the hell out"? will start. Vietnam War objective : unclear.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Was it really worth it? War, of course, is not worth anything; the outcome over an extended period is the only sensible thing to value. What was the difference in outcome between the US leaving Indo-China alone after 1945 and the US intervening - first on behalf of the French, then independently? What benefit did 20 years of US involvement after Dien Bien Phu bring to the world subsequently?

The fall of Communism? Hard to spot the influence, especially in China. The Domino theory falls apart because Indo-China did fall to the Monolithic Communistic Conspiracy, and nothing happened further west. So it seems they weren't going to win anyway. Of course, if Thailand was under a Communist regime now, there'd be none of that Islamist crap going on. Ditto Indonesia. Gotta hand it to the Red Chinese, they know how to handle that kind of thing.

The advance of Capitalism? The Vietnam War killed the Bretton Woods system. In brief, I think that was a bad thing.

"Democracy" wasn't advanced one little bit.

I'm stuck to find a benefit, even for the US.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by dann
And never mind the victims. The enemy losses? Forget them, they're foreigners, and often not even white! The dead Americans? There's no denying the sentimentality of the bereaved, so let's give'em a wailing wall ...

Let's see: we helped rebuild Germany and Japan after WWII, then helped them build economies which ultimately outdid us. In spite of the anger, Ronald Reagan actually visited a cemetary where there were former SS buried, (though in his case, you could infer that it could have either been bad planning, or he thought maybe the name of the town sounded nice.) So, I guess that about the time we handed power over to Germany and Japan in the '50s, and left them as self-governing nations, yes, that would constitute a good win.

At some point, if you're going to make it easier on everyone, you go in, you kill your enemy, break his will to fight, and make it possible for him to build a better life with you, rather than wishing he could live his life without you. We did the former in Germany and Japan. We did the latter in SE Asia, in Chile, and in now in Iraq.

As to the "Wailing Wall," as you call it: Yeah, you're right about that one. And why we kept sending people to Congress who made that wall possible is beyond me.

[jay gw]

Anyone interested in Vietnam should see the Robert McNamara documentary, Fog of War. It won an Academy Award for best documentary.

It's a sort of bio/historical film about the unbelievable ignorance of the planners of the Vietnam war. McNamara is very contrite, admitting tons of mistakes. He boils them down to the "11 lessons learned" for future generations.

Vietnam does have a silver lining. The US military totally overhauled itself. The Gulf War success, astronomical success, comes directly from the people that lived through VN.

At the top of the list of McNamara's lessons, is that civilians should never, never try to manage battles. After that war, civilians would never again be allowed to entertain the idea they know more than military about winning wars.


http://www.ezydvd.com.au/g/i/p/227688.jpg

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Given that the issue is 30 years dead, isn't this just trolling?

I shall let you ponder on that question for a while, Grasshopper.

FWIW, it was on the front pages of the local newspapers. I don't know about US media.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by jay gw
Anyone interested in Vietnam should see the Robert McNamara documentary, Fog of War. It won an Academy Award for best documentary.

It's a sort of bio/historical film about the unbelievable ignorance of the planners of the Vietnam war. McNamara is very contrite, admitting tons of mistakes. He boils them down to the "11 lessons learned" for future generations.

Vietnam does have a silver lining. The US military totally overhauled itself. The Gulf War success, astronomical success, comes directly from the people that lived through VN.

At the top of the list of McNamara's lessons, is that civilians should never, never try to manage battles. After that war, civilians would never again be allowed to entertain the idea they know more than military about winning wars.


http://www.ezydvd.com.au/g/i/p/227688.jpg

I think one of the aspects of that fascinating documentary is that you aren't to take McNamara literally, but to consider his reflections on what happened.

Here is another quote.


Georges Clemenceau, prime minister of France during World War I, famously declared that "war was too important to be left to the generals".

I think the disaster of WWI bears out the truth of that statement, too. The politicians need to respect the generals, and vice versa. Eg, if we are to believe some views on the Cuba Crises, the only reason we have civilisation still is that the politicians pulled the generals into line.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I think the disaster of WWI bears out the truth of that statement, too. The politicians need to respect the generals, and vice versa. Eg, if we are to believe some views on the Cuba Crises, the only reason we have civilisation still is that the politicians pulled the generals into line.

Did the Generals find their leashes yanked back, or was there possibly the honest assessment that a first strike by the U.S. on Cuba would (correctly) be taken as the first act of war. Is it possible that the real view was that a first strike was a bad idea, particularly in light of the missles the U.S. had in Turkey at the the time, and that we ought to back the missles up and out? That the U.S. was not really prepared for the game of Brinksmanship at the time?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
No, it wasn't worth it. It would have much better to let the communist north just take over the democratic south WITHOUT resistance.
Democratic south?

[The idea]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Two million civilians dead, massive trauma for those who survived the war. Was it really worth it?
Is that question directed to the winners or the losers? Typically, from the point of view of the losing side of a war, the costs significantly exceed the benefits.

Scenario #2:

Cost: many killed in Rwanda who could have been saved
Benefit: avoidance of bad PR that might have resulted from US involvement in the conflict

Question: Is that benefit worth that cost?

Now let's return to Scenario #1:

Cost: two million civilians dead, massive trauma for those who survived the war.
Benefit: bad PR for the US

Now tell us the truth. You think that benefit is worth the cost, don't you?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by The idea
Cost: two million civilians dead, massive trauma for those who survived the war.
Benefit: bad PR for the US

Now tell us the truth. You think that benefit is worth the cost, don't you?

:clap:

I think that's among the best flames I've seen in years. :)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by The idea
Is that question directed to the winners or the losers? Typically, from the point of view of the losing side of a war, the costs significantly exceed the benefits.

Scenario #2:

Cost: many killed in Rwanda who could have been saved
Benefit: avoidance of bad PR that might have resulted from US involvement in the conflict

Question: Is that benefit worth that cost?

Now let's return to Scenario #1:

Cost: two million civilians dead, massive trauma for those who survived the war.
Benefit: bad PR for the US

Now tell us the truth. You think that benefit is worth the cost, don't you?

What worries me is that when you get enough lies such as this bandied about you at JREF, peole start to remember the lies as being what you said.

I never said it. You are creating lies. I expect a retraction.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft
:clap:

I think that's among the best flames I've seen in years. :)

Yes, pure lies and no substance. Typical of what you approve of.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Yes, pure lies and no substance. Typical of what you approve of.

On the contrary. The best flames are true.

Look, you have some reason to constantly day after day start threads to bash the United States. I don't know what it is, but clearly it's very important to you. All the Idea does here is recognize that.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Yes, pure lies and no substance. Typical of what you approve of.
The question mark on the end apparently makes it perfectly ok....you do like to be spanked while wearing a black rubber G-string don't you?

but back to the topic of the thread (now there's a refreshing change)...

Whenever a nation gets involved in another nations civil war its always important for the outside nation to be able to take the moral high ground by awarding the black stetsons to the other side and awarding the white stetsons to the side they are backing....

We date the war from the start of our involvement. The Vietnamese date it from a lot earlier. French colonialism, Japanese occupation, partition,attempted return of french colonialism, civil war with sides backed by foriegn superpowers...the dumping of vast (mind boggling)amounts of munitions on them...final victory. They are tough people, I alternate on a weekly basis between hating and loving them...but I always respect them for the incredibly brave and resourceful people that they seem to be able to produce in huge numbers. Maybe its from a long history of living and surviving next door to the local bully (china). We paraded our shiny ships, planes, helicopters, tanks and our lavishly equipped infantry in front of them and they simply refused to throw in thier cards as we expected any rational people to do. They gave us a lesson in how to win a war in that land.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Mycroft
On the contrary. The best flames are true.

Look, you have some reason to constantly day after day start threads to bash the United States. I don't know what it is, but clearly it's very important to you. All the Idea does here is recognize that.

starting a thread on the vietnam war on the 30th anniversary of the fall of Saigon is United states bashing?

you are a pest..have a good look at yourself.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft
On the contrary. The best flames are true.

Look, you have some reason to constantly day after day start threads to bash the United States. I don't know what it is, but clearly it's very important to you. All the Idea does here is recognize that.

It's a lie, pure and simple, and you applaud it. The logic is a lie. I do find it remarkable that Vietnam is not recognised for what it is. Australia was in Vietnam too, but there appears to be more recognition of the failure that it was. The issue is not those who do see Vietnam as a problem, of which there are plenty of Americans here that seem to, but those such as you who will concede nothing at all, but just attack me for putting up rational arguments, and rebutting them with slander.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
It's a lie, pure and simple, and you applaud it.

The issue isn't Vietnam, it's you. Day after day, week after week the relentless attacks on the United States. You're not concerned with the Vietnamese, just with how bad the US is.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
...but just attack me for putting up rational arguments, and rebutting them with slander.

Except you're not putting up rational arguments. This thread: "Vietnam, look how bad the US is. Now discuss." There is no rational argument there. It's just another excuse to bash the US.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft
The issue isn't Vietnam, it's you. Day after day, week after week the relentless attacks on the United States. You're not concerned with the Vietnamese, just with how bad the US is.



Except you're not putting up rational arguments. This thread: "Vietnam, look how bad the US is. Now discuss." There is no rational argument there. It's just another excuse to bash the US.

As I said already, there are plenty of US citizens here who post topics critical of the US. And I post on many other topics, as well.

A war in which a country of only 20 million lost 3 million people is a pretty serious event. Australia was a part of that war, and asked to be a part of it.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
As I said already, there are plenty of US citizens here who post topics critical of the US.

Not like you.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
And I post on many other topics, as well.

Yeah, sometimes you target Israel or Jews.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
A war in which a country of only 20 million lost 3 million people is a pretty serious event. Australia was a part of that war, and asked to be a part of it.

And it also allows you to indulge your favorite hobby of US bashing.

[Zep]

Which segues perfectly to this observation ;): The film sequence of the North Vietnamese tank busting into the US compound in Saigon was filmed by an Australian journalist.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Yeah, sometimes you target Israel or Jews.

And it also allows you to indulge your favorite hobby of US bashing. Don't hold back now - doesn't matter that it's fiction, let him have it with both barrels!

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Mycroft
And it also allows you to indulge your favorite hobby of US bashing.
You could only think this is true because you have never seen his fine collection matchstick models.....Not to mention his string of very swift Greyhounds.

[dann]

Originally posted by The Fool
Democratic south?
No big deal. You should always remember the definition of democracy = the guy supporting/supported by the USA. Right now the king of Morocco, for instance.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by The Fool
Democratic south?

Well, comparatively. It was corrupt and weak and autocratic, sure. But it didn't have the gulags of the communist north, or the all-powerful dear leader whose word is law, or "reeducation" camps, or mass murder of "collaborators" by the tens of thousands, or the making of millions into refugees, or establish the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia to kill millions, etc., etc., etc.

The reason it is verboten, on pain of ridicule and ostracism, to say something good about the South Vietnamese among certain people is simple: after they supported the murderous war criminals of the north, the only way they can look in the mirror in the morning is to convince themselves that somehow the corrupt south Vietnamese deserved the horrid fate they enthusiastically helped bring about, or at least that the weak south was doomed anyway, and so their support of the north did not really make a practical difference.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Well, comparatively. It was corrupt and weak and autocratic, sure. But it didn't have the gulags of the communist north, or the all-powerful dear leader whose word is law, or "reeducation" camps, or mass murder of "collaborators" by the tens of thousands, or the making of millions into refugees, or establish the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia to kill millions, etc., etc., etc.
The French, having failed to reconquer the whole of Vietnam, tried to create a separate protectorate in the south. Since the only nationalist movements in the country wanted the French gone completely, they turned to gangsters and collaborators to form a government, and US funding to support it. It wasn't just corrupt, it had no legitimacy at all. It maintained itself by widespread murder and imprisonment, far greater than in the North where the government was regarded as legitimate by the population. It was also regarded as legitimate by most of the southern population, while Saigon gangsters and Vietnamese milice had no following in the north. Which explains the difference between an armed peasantry in the North - not commonly a sign of unpopular government - and the Protected Villages scheme in the south which was a desperate effort to keep a reluctant people under the government's thumb.

The Khmer Rouge was not established by the Vietnamese, but became a credible force only with the US-backed military coup of Lon Nol which saw over half the army take to the forests. Prior to that Cambodia was stable and peaceful under a popular, effective government - rather more popular than Thailand's, by all accounts. Sihanouk refused to join in the war, so Cambodia was destroyed because the US military said that would help them "win" the war.

Not even Buddhists could find anything good to say about South Vietnam. For the GI's, at least the hookers were gorgeous and cheap and the smack was ****-hot and plentiful.

[zenith-nadir]

The mistake in Vietnam was Kennedy cosying up with Ngo Dinh Diem. That's like cozying up with Kim Jong in todays context. But America hated the Soviets more than it hated Diem and his henchmen. To make matters worse after years of support America then gave the nod to Diems' overthrow... so now not only the north hated the Americans, Diem's supporters AND the south Vietnamese people Diem oppressed hated the Americans. Talk about a huge error in judgement.

Then Dallas happened and shortly thereafter the Gulf of Tonkin. America's fate was sealed...... "Was it really worth it?" No.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
It was also regarded as legitimate by most of the southern population... Popular myth belied by the fact that the South did not join the North in the Tet Offensive as the North had believed that they would.

The Tet Offensive and its Aftermath (http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~eemoise/viet8.html)

They hoped that the ARVN would disintegrate in panic and confusion, and that the civilian population would join in a mass uprising against the government. They did not achieve either of these goals, although the ARVN may have come rather close to collapsing.

After the first few hours of panic, the South Vietnamese armed forces reacted fiercely. There were hundreds of stories of brave soldiers and small units who fought their enemies with incredible courage..

A large number of those who were playing fence-sitters especially in the region around Hue City then took side with the nationalist government.

Several mass graves were found where thousands unarmed soldiers, civil servants and civilians were shot, stabbed, or with skulls mashed by clubs and buried in strings of ropes, even buried alive. A large number of VC-sympathizers who saw the horrible graves, undeniable evidence of the Communist barbarian crimes, changed side.

The most significant indication of such attitude could be observed from the figures of young volunteers. to join the army. After the first wave of Communist attacks, a great number of youth under draft age - below 20 years old - voluntarily enrolled in the army for combat units, so high that thousands of young draftees were delayed reporting for boot camps.

On the Communist side, the number of ralliers known as "chieu hoi" increased about four times. The offensive planners apparently expected the so-called "people upraising," so most secret cells were ordered to emerge. When the attacking units were crushed, cell members had to flee to the green forests. Thus the Tet offensive helped South Vietnam neutralize much of the Communist infrastructure before the Phoenix Campaign got rid of many others.

Not even Buddhists could find anything good to say about South Vietnam. At least their self-immolation was televised. Under the Communists such demonstrations were forbidden to be filmed and any and ALL such demonstrations were forever suppressed. If you think the Buddhists found nirvana under the Communists you are deluded.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by The Fool
You could only think this is true because you have never seen his fine collection matchstick models.....Not to mention his string of very swift Greyhounds.

Okay, his favorite on-line hobby. :)

[gnome]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2564.htm

A famous speech from MLK. I don't agree with everything he says here... but there is a lot of truth as well.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by RandFan
Popular myth belied by the fact that the South did not join the North in the Tet Offensive as the North had believed that they would.

At least their self-immolation was televised. Under the Communists such demonstrations were forbidden to be filmed and any and ALL such demonstrations were forever suppressed. If you think the Buddhists found nirvana under the Communists you are deluded.

There were multitudinous delusions about Vietnam. Neil Sheehan pointed out most of them, but the most egregious was allowing jingoism to become a substitute for patriotism.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
There were multitudinous delusions about Vietnam. Neil Sheehan pointed out most of them, but the most egregious was allowing jingoism to become a substitute for patriotism. I agree. And there IS a difference. The conflict cannot be reduced to simple moral lessons. The delusions exist because we want the events to mean what we believe they mean. We should instead look at the events to find the truth and accept that truth whatever it is.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Two million civilians dead, massive trauma for those who survived the war. Was it really worth it?

No, it definitely wasn't worth it. Those communists never should have killed so many people and led so many of their own to die in a fruitless pursuit of a worker's paradise that never arrived.

Of course, I know that's not the answer you're looking for.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by RandFan
Popular myth belied by the fact that the South did not join the North in the Tet Offensive as the North had believed that they would.The perimeter of the US Embassy in Saigon was breached during Tet, and fighting went on for weeks in large parts of the city, which was extensively damaged in the supression of the uprising. Areas like the Iron Triangle and parts of the Mekong Delta were outside government control anyway, and other parts were subject to the Strategic Villages system, which was intended to prevent just such uprisings. There were attacks in cities and towns all over the south, and only airstrikes, artillery and armour was able to snuff them out. The Tet Offensive in the south was an uprising. The uprising wasn't as general as the NLF hoped; many people sat it out taking neither side, and who can blame them. They had little or no control over their lives and no great stake in anything except keeping themselves and their families safe.

The failure of the Tet offensive to end the war immediately does not make it evidence of a legitimate government or state of South Vietnam.

From your link :
2) The Tet Offensive made the brutality of the war very visible to Americans. The US Air Force had been bombing South Vietnamese villages for years; during Tet the Air Force was bombing South Vietnamese cities. The ARVN had been killing prisoners for years; during Tet the American television viewing public actually got to watch a prisoner, with his hands bound behind his back, being shot through the head by a South Vietnamese general. The Communists also committed atrocities, of course; the Communists appear to have killed several thousand civilians in the city of Hue during the period they held parts of that city. That, however, did not happen within sight of American television cameras. Finding it necessary to bomb villages and cities is, to my mind, evidence of an illegitimate government.

Thus the Tet offensive helped South Vietnam neutralize much of the Communist infrastructure before the Phoenix Campaign got rid of many others. The Tet offensive was a complete surprise, because the NLF infrastructure was unknown to the US and the "government". How, then, is it possible to know how much of that infrastructure was wiped out? The Phoenix Campaign was an assassination program to eliminate thousands of suspected subservises, trade unionists, civil rights lawyers, honest judges and such on the basis of intelligence - the sort that missed Tet coming. Again, not evidence of a legitimate government in my book.


At least their self-immolation was televised. Under the Communists such demonstrations were forbidden to be filmed and any and ALL such demonstrations were forever suppressed. If you think the Buddhists found nirvana under the Communists you are deluded. Not a suggestion anyone would ever make, so I'm not surprised you came up with it yourself. Self-immolation was an extraordinary demonstration, not a commonplace such as the Communists would have to ban the filming of. Did Buddhists have such beefs in the North? Still, we've arrived at one benefit of the Vietnam War - at least self-immolating monks could get on TV.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
No, it definitely wasn't worth it. Those communists never should have killed so many people and led so many of their own to die in a fruitless pursuit of a worker's paradise that never arrived.You completely ignore the nationalist element in the war. Which is the fundamental error the US made in its policy, the one from which all the rest almost inevitable derived. The US could only see the conflict as part of a global Cold War, not as a Vietnamese issue. By 1945 Vietnamese nationalism was dominated by Ho Chi Minh and his party because they were the best organised, but nationalism existed in Vietnam before the Pacific War, during it when Vichy France (very popular with the local French, but not universally) didn't resist the Japanese, and afterward when the Brits came along to make the place safe for France again. It continued when the French came back, when they left and the US took over, and long enough to see the US leave as well. It saw off the Chinese, and saw off the Khmer Rouge to save Cambodia's ethnic Vietnamese. Vietnam is now run by Vietnamese, which was the main motivation for the conflict.

Was it worth it? I don't think so. Not that much destruction, death, poisoning of the land, simply for national pride. When it was realised just what the US could and would do to protect their puppet state, the North should have let it go. Of course, at each stage of escalation they couldn't predict what might come next and there was always false optimism. Not to mention the "After so much sacrifice we owe it to the dead to persevere!" syndrome.

A better policy, to my mind, would have been for the Vietnamese to demand a reasonable - but high - price for signing a deal in which the US guaranteed am honest, democratic South Vietnamese government. They could then wait for a Unionist party to win government and the job's done.
Of course, I know that's not the answer you're looking for. I wish people wouldn't do that. It contributes nothing.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
The perimeter of the US Embassy in Saigon was breached during Tet, and fighting went on for weeks in large parts of the city, which was extensively damaged in the supression of the uprising. Areas like the Iron Triangle and parts of the Mekong Delta were outside government control anyway, and other parts were subject to the Strategic Villages system, which was intended to prevent just such uprisings. There were attacks in cities and towns all over the south, and only airstrikes, artillery and armour was able to snuff them out. The Tet Offensive in the south was an uprising. The uprising wasn't as general as the NLF hoped; many people sat it out taking neither side, and who can blame them. They had little or no control over their lives and no great stake in anything except keeping themselves and their families safe.

The failure of the Tet offensive to end the war immediately does not make it evidence of a legitimate government or state of South Vietnam.[/b] This is a straw man. I never intimated that it did. It didn't make the north any more legitimate over the south either. The point was made to show that that the people in the South did not support the North. That was a popular myth. Even the North believed it and Tet proved them wrong.

Not a suggestion anyone would ever make, so I'm not surprised you came up with it yourself. Self-immolation was an extraordinary demonstration, not a commonplace such as the Communists would have to ban the filming of. Did Buddhists have such beefs in the North? Still, we've arrived at one benefit of the Vietnam War - at least self-immolating monks could get on TV. Sadly you miss the point. It would do no good for Budhists to make such a demonstration since they could not be filmed. Vietnam has taken away such freedoms. Stating that there are no such demonstrations is to play into the hands of the Communists, see they say, there are no demonstrations. What ever rights the Buddhists had is gone. I'm guessing you are not going to get that fact are you? I guess you didn't know that Bhuddism was outlawed after the fall of Saigon.

[Garrette]

CD,

I frequently disagree with your conclusions (and some premises) but I almost always find your analyses informative.

I was about to chide you for one-sidedness until you included this:

Originally posted by CapelDodger:

Was it worth it? I don't think so. Not that much destruction, death, poisoning of the land, simply for national pride. When it was realised just what the US could and would do to protect their puppet state, the North should have let it go.

One of the few applications of political standards to both sides of a conflict that I've seen on this forum.

Kudos.

{btw: the premise I disagree with on this thread is that Tet was an uprising, but I'm going to take the easy and cowardly route and not join in. Too busy responding to other threads, but thought I'd make a quick comment herre.}

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Not like you.



Yeah, sometimes you target Israel or Jews.




ignorance is not an argument



And it also allows you to indulge your favorite hobby of US bashing.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by CapelDodger

I wish people wouldn't do that. It contributes nothing.

So do I.

[demon]

dann:
"When I visited the Memorial Wall in Washington, I wondered how long it would have had to be in order to include the names of the dead Vietnamese, Laotians etc.
I didn't ask, however, because I think that the people hosting our group of visiting Danish teachers of English would have found it impolite. Still, I had a hard time coming to terms with the horror and sense of loss that they obviously felt at the sixty thousand dead Americans, whereas the millions of dead East Asians did not seem to bother them at all.
I cannot imagine Germans (with the exception of the Neo Nazis) behaving in the same manner, only mourning the German dead and completely neglecting the millions of dead Jews and other nationalities.
But, of course, the Germans came out as the unconditional losers of that war ..."

Pertinent post.

30 years after the fall of Saigon and they are eagerly encouraging us to forget a past atrocitiy to prevent it fuelling anger over a present one.
The English and Americans encourage us to dwell on the atrocities of others, but move on from theirs. Six decades after the end of World War II, barely a week passes without some new book or documentary dissecting the depths of Nazi depravity and exploring the extent of their crimes. The same applies to Japan's wartime brutality or the Soviet Gulag.
The US Army murdered a million people in Vietnam, dropping more bombs on its peasants than the whole of Europe endured from the Luftwaffe during the Second World War. But the overriding sentiment about the slaughter in Indochina, is one of a painful (for the Americans not Vietnamese) memory best left to recede into the mists of time. The American GI's who raped, tortured and butchered their way across Indochina are cast in mantle of Shakespearean tragedy, the misunderstood villains, troubled and tormented victims of circumstance, their crimes abated by psycobabble never applied to blood stained troops of non English speaking rivals.

Suggest something similar for Japan's war criminals who fought in the same region and loud, self righteous declarations of "we will never forget" would scream out from the newspapers and thunder from leader columns. When last did any major network air a documentary about the British Concentration camps in South Africa, Kenya and Malaysia, where hundreds of thousands perished for the crime of resisting British colonialism? When was the last time a detailed, informative documentary on the transatlantic slave trade was aired on British TV, explaining how for 300 years, Africa was depopulated of its fittest and best by the emerging British Bourgeoisie to lubricate the wheels of western prosperity with their sweat and blood, or how millions of African women were raped and degraded enroute to their slave camps by their white owners with tens of thousands preferring to hurl themselves into the ocean rather than than submit to the brutal and insatiable appetites of their masters.
Any documentary on how the British “city of culture� Liverpool was founded by wealth generated by the slave trade? Would the media be so silent if Berlin, Tokyo or Moscow had such a bloody secret?

But then what is history if not His….story. History would judge? That depends, said Leon Trotsky on who writes it.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by RandFan
This is a straw man. I never intimated that it did. It didn't make the north any more legitimate over the south either. The point was made to show that that the people in the South did not support the North. That was a popular myth. Even the North believed it and Tet proved them wrong.You use the phrase "people of the South" as if it's a binary digit : it supports the South, or it supports the North. The people in the south whose villages were getting bombed before Tet were people in and of the south; why were they getting bombed if they, as part of the agglomorated "people of the south", did not support the North? Before Tet the NLF had to accumulate weapons stocks, establish mortar bases and train personnel for their tasks in all the cities of the south, in the most crowded (poor) districts, and the "government" didn't twig. The NLF misread a popular reluctance to get involved by informing with a willingness to participate. The crowning motivation was not to get involved at all. At the same time, enough people of the south got involved enough for us to be discussing it 37 years later.

Sadly you miss the point. It would do no good for Budhists to make such a demonstration since they could not be filmed. Vietnam has taken away such freedoms. Stating that there are no such demonstrations is to play into the hands of the Communists, see they say, there are no demonstrations. What ever rights the Buddhists had is gone. I'm guessing you are not going to get that fact are you? I guess you didn't know that Bhuddism was outlawed after the fall of Saigon. It would do no good because they wouldn't be filmed? What was that Jesus character up to, then? What's the story there?

I'm happy with the chance for Buddhists to self-immolate on-camera rather than depend on word-of-mouth for publicity being a benefit of the Vietnam War. It doesn't weigh heavy in the scales, but at least I'm not dividing by zero in the cost/benefit calculation.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by RandFan
I guess you didn't know that Bhuddism was outlawed after the fall of Saigon.

Eh? You sure about that? Just did a google--nothing I've seen mentions Buddhism being outlawed. It would be rather difficult, a bit like the Soviets outlawing the Russian Orthodox church. (They actively discouraged it, to say the least, but they never outlawed it.)

Actually, I did find this (http://www.buddhismtoday.com/english/vietnam/country/005-VietnameseBuddhism.htm), which states that Buddhism was widely supressed by the South. It says that a Buddhist organization, the United Vietnamese Buddhist Church, was outlawed, but not Buddhism itself.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Cleon
Eh? You sure about that? Just did a google--nothing I've seen mentions Buddhism being outlawed. It would be rather difficult, a bit like the Soviets outlawing the Russian Orthodox church. (They actively discouraged it, to say the least, but they never outlawed it.)

Actually, I did find this (http://www.buddhismtoday.com/english/vietnam/country/005-VietnameseBuddhism.htm), which states that Buddhism was widely supressed by the South. It says that a Buddhist organization, the United Vietnamese Buddhist Church, was outlawed, but not Buddhism itself. That was my understanding. It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. Thanks Cleon.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
You use the phrase "people of the South" as if it's a binary digit : it supports the South, or it supports the North. You are correct. I chose my words poorly. My only point was and is to dispel the myth that you suggest, that being: Most of the people of the south supported the North. That was not true.

It would do no good because they wouldn't be filmed? What was that Jesus character up to, then? What's the story there? I'm sorry, I don't understand your point. Buddhists can't demonstrate now.

I'm happy with the chance for Buddhists to self-immolate on-camera rather than depend on word-of-mouth for publicity being a benefit of the Vietnam War. If you are doing this intentionally then I resent it. This is not my point. My point is only that such acts would not be done now because they would have no impact. In fact there are no demonstrations at all. None are permitted. Would you stop suggesting something I never intended and is certainly unwarranted? Whether it is good to self-immolate or not is besides the point. I'm not certain if you are being disingenuous but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Could you pay attention to the point and not manufacture something that is not there?

It doesn't weigh heavy in the scales, but at least I'm not dividing by zero in the cost/benefit calculation. The right to protest ought to count for something, shouldn't it?

Look, if you are so caught up with the self-immolation thing then could you just forget it and concentrate on the fact that before the fall of Saigon there was some level of political dissent and now there is none?

It is demonstrable that before the fall of Saigon there WAS international press in South Vietnam reporting on the conditions there, correct? There WAS reports of oppression and corruption, correct? Now, tell us if you will, how much of any of the abuses are freely reported now?

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by RandFan
The right to protest ought to count for something, shouldn't it? Do you think the right makes any difference to someone bent on self-immolation? "Causing a public nuisance" would be enough to make it illegal in most jurisdictions anyway.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Do you think the right makes any difference to someone bent on self-immolation? "Causing a public nuisance" would be enough to make it illegal in most jurisdictions anyway. Assuming that it did happen we would have no way of knowing now would we? The acts likely were done because they would bring attention from the international coummunity. Who wants to burn to death just to cause a nuisance. That just doesn't make any sense. Self-immolation is one of the most dramatic statements that a person can make. Not to mention painful.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
No, it definitely wasn't worth it. Those communists never should have killed so many people and led so many of their own to die in a fruitless pursuit of a worker's paradise that never arrived.

Of course, I know that's not the answer you're looking for.

Perhaps not, but it's accurate.

[Skeptic]

It's a lie, pure and simple, and you applaud it.

What, that you start USA- or israel-bashing threads day in, day out, for years, on this forum? That's not a lie, exactly. It's the truth. And, just possibly, that has something more to do with your reputation as an USA-hating antisemite in these parts than allegedly unfair criticism of your behavior.

[Skeptic]

In reply to:

I wish people wouldn't do that. It contributes nothing.

AUP wrote:

So do I.

Yes, we know.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
The point has been made by both sides in the debate that the U.S. could have won the war. Our Congress chose to lose it.

But were we fighting on behalf of a "Democratic" regime? Hell, no. There was nothing "democratic" about any of the people running that country. It was simply a right-wing police state, as opposed to a left-wing one. Elections were a sham, the people were abused by both sides, and in the end, the only thing we accomplished was we looked like fools. Considering that Chairman Mao told then White House Chief of Staff Alexander Haig "Do not lose in Vietnam," spoken as a warning, I would have thought we would have listened. We didn't. We continue to pay the price.

If you're going to go to war, you go in whole-heartedly, you win it fast, you win it well, and you get the hell out. We haven't learned that lesson.

We didn't exactly lose. Militarily, we did not lose even one significant battle. We left in 1973 with a treaty in hand (Paris Peace Accords). Two years later, in 1975, the North violated the cease fire and took Saigon.

We accomplished the original goal of SEATO, which was to keep communism out of Indonesia. Indonesia threw the Soviets out in '66 as a direct result of our involvement in the Vietnam War. The domino theory worked as advertised.

The war wasn't as simple as to identify an enemy and wipe it out. Remember the term escalation? We were fighting by what we calculated then to be the rules of the Cold War.

I'm assuming by "We haven't learned that lesson." you mean the current war:
The truth is we have learned that lesson. Look how quickly we took Baghdad. The hard part is in keeping peace and security and rebuilding the nation after that. If we were really as evil as some believe, we would have taken what we want and left without even a hundred casualties on our side. What about the sacrifice we are making right now to ensure that we don't leave Iraq in a state of civil war?

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
We didn't exactly lose. Militarily, we did not lose even one significant battle. We left in 1973 with a treaty in hand (Paris Peace Accords). Two years later, in 1975, the North violated the cease fire and took Saigon.

As General Giap pointed out to General Westmorland, yes, we didn't lose a single significant battle, but that point is irrelevant. (Unfortunately. This is why you don't want politicians leading battles.)

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
We accomplished the original goal of SEATO, which was to keep communism out of Indonesia. Indonesia threw the Soviets out in '66 as a direct result of our involvement in the Vietnam War. The domino theory worked as advertised.

At what cost? Indonesia wound up with a Right Wing dictatorship as opposed to a Left Wing dictatorship. I'm hard pressed to see the advantage in being killed by someone who leans towards the U.S. as opposed to someone who leans towards the Soviet Union. (Although, depending on your own politics, that might make a difference as to when or if you were shot in the first place. After all, we're talking about a part of the world where your politics can have a REAL impact on your life, and not merely how likely you are to get invited to the trendiest cocktail parties.)

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
The war wasn't as simple as to identify an enemy and wipe it out. Remember the term escalation? We were fighting by what we calculated then to be the rules of the Cold War.

Which, for the most part were stupid rules designed by stupid people. When you have to ask permission to shoot back when some @$$hole is shooting at you, that's a stupid rule.

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
I'm assuming by "We haven't learned that lesson." you mean the current war:
The truth is we have learned that lesson. Look how quickly we took Baghdad. The hard part is in keeping peace and security and rebuilding the nation after that. If we were really as evil as some believe, we would have taken what we want and left without even a hundred casualties on our side. What about the sacrifice we are making right now to ensure that we don't leave Iraq in a state of civil war?

Which current war? Yes, we're doing pretty well in Iraq, all things considered, but what about Bosnia? How about the Phillipines, where we're now sending "advisors"? Do I need to go on?

We're selective about where we learn our lessons, and even more so about where we apply those lessons. And that's a damned mistake.

And BTW: as concerns McNamara, ABC World News Now had Barry Mitchell (complete with accordion) offer up the best tribute to "BoomBoom Bob." His rendition of "McNamara's Band" was sadly, but screamingly, funny.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
As General Giap pointed out to General Westmorland, yes, we didn't lose a single significant battle, but that point is irrelevant. (Unfortunately. This is why you don't want politicians leading battles.)
I suppose it would be irrelevant if one wanted to ignore the facts.

At what cost? Indonesia wound up with a Right Wing dictatorship as opposed to a Left Wing dictatorship. I'm hard pressed to see the advantage in being killed by someone who leans towards the U.S. as opposed to someone who leans towards the Soviet Union. (Although, depending on your own politics, that might make a difference as to when or if you were shot in the first place. After all, we're talking about a part of the world where your politics can have a REAL impact on your life, and not merely how likely you are to get invited to the trendiest cocktail parties.)
Tremendous cost. Kind of like one country called America, in a way; Indonesia underwent a brutal civil war. I think we were more concerned at the time about the strategic importance of Indonesia than it's people. Indonesia is finally making strides towards democracy, president Yudhoyono has been instrumental in reducing the military's role in politics, among other advances.

Which, for the most part were stupid rules designed by stupid people. When you have to ask permission to shoot back when some @$$hole is shooting at you, that's a stupid rule.
So "free fire" zones didn't exist? You want stupid things we did over there? How about supporting Diem or Lon Nol or Pol Pot? There is no doubt, and I am not disputing that the Vietnam War was a f*ed up mess. I think it is time we looked at Vietnam in a full-spectrum and honest light.

Which current war? Yes, we're doing pretty well in Iraq, all things considered, but what about Bosnia? How about the Phillipines, where we're now sending "advisors"? Do I need to go on?
Apples and oranges; Bosnia is NATO.
Should we just stand idly by and let Abu Sayaff turn Mindanao into another training state for al-Queda? And then wait for the whiners to whine about why we did nothing?

We're selective about where we learn our lessons, and even more so about where we apply those lessons. And that's a damned mistake.
Shazam! We're human.

And BTW: as concerns McNamara, ABC World News Now had Barry Mitchell (complete with accordion) offer up the best tribute to "BoomBoom Bob." His rendition of "McNamara's Band" was sadly, but screamingly, funny.
Never heard of it.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
You completely ignore the nationalist element in the war.
...
Vietnam is now run by Vietnamese, which was the main motivation for the conflict.[/B]

Sure. But just as we did not understand why they fought, they did not understand why we fought. We weren't the French. We weren't ever planning on ruling Vietnam. Had they not fought us, Vietnam would indeed have been ruled by the Vietnamese. So again, I say it wasn't worth it for them. I doubt we're really in disagreement over that.

I wish people wouldn't do that. It contributes nothing.

AUP made a post with a rather biased assumption (namely that it is US actions we should always be evaluating and preferably condemning), one which is clear to anyone familiar with his history on this message board. My statement is a reference to this. I don't appologize for calling AUP on his bias. And in the scheme of inflamatory statements made on this board, I'm really surprised that my statement even merits any notice in this regard.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Vietnam is now run by Vietnamese, which was the main motivation for the conflict. South Vietnam is no more run by the Vietnamese as they were before the fall of Saigon. The only reasonable claim that can be made is that they are re-united and THAT was the main motivation.

The truth is that the South Vietnamese have no say in their government now but then they didn't before either. Both regimes had or have Vietnamese leaders.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
I suppose it would be irrelevant if one wanted to ignore the facts.

I'm trying to NOT ignore the facts. That's what keeps getting us in trouble.

Giap's point, though, was that we walked away from Vietnam. Nixon would not, nor would Ford, hold the North accountable for their end of the Paris Peace Accords. Hence, we lost, and lost badly, as did the Vietnamese.

Another point that ought to be debunked: The U.S. was beaten by a bunch of barefoot kids. Not so. Don't forget the images that came out in the end, including columns of well dressed troops rolling through the streets of Saigon along with columns of Soviet T-72 tanks. The North was VERY well financed.

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Tremendous cost. Kind of like one country called America, in a way; Indonesia underwent a brutal civil war. I think we were more concerned at the time about the strategic importance of Indonesia than it's people. Indonesia is finally making strides towards democracy, president Yudhoyono has been instrumental in reducing the military's role in politics, among other advances.

Which ought to be commended, but his predecessors were no Princes of Populism.

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
So "free fire" zones didn't exist? You want stupid things we did over there? How about supporting Diem or Lon Nol or Pol Pot? There is no doubt, and I am not disputing that the Vietnam War was a f*ed up mess. I think it is time we looked at Vietnam in a full-spectrum and honest light.

No argument that supporting Diem, Lon Nol, or Nguyen Van Thieu was a bad, bad idea. Thieu was a joke. As long as we kept the money flowing in, he was a happy camper. (Sounds a lot like Chiang in of China. Read a bit about the pilots who flew the Burma Hump, and you'll be sickened by the amount of cargo that went to Madame Chiang.)

My suspicion, (and let's call it just that, since that's all it is), is that we blew more money keeping our "allies" happy, rather than putting our money into efforts which actually accomplished anything of long-term value. William F. Buckley was correct in saying, "We went into Vietnam to make a resonant point. We failed to make it resonantly." By looking at it in the full spectrum you're asking for, I think we can see why.

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Apples and oranges; Bosnia is NATO.
Should we just stand idly by and let Abu Sayaff turn Mindanao into another training state for al-Queda? And then wait for the whiners to whine about why we did nothing?

NATO troops are supposed to be under our leadership. Not that it means a damned thing.

And, no, we can't allow Abu Sayaff have his way. But if we're going to go in and do the work, let's get down to business, and do it.

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Shazam! We're human.

Never questioned that. Ever.

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Never heard of it.

You missed out. Mitchell even wrote "The World News Polka."

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by RandFan
South Vietnam is no more run by the Vietnamese as they were before the fall of Saigon. The only reasonable claim that can be made is that they are re-united and THAT was the main motivation.

The truth is that the South Vietnamese have no say in their government now but then they didn't before either. Both regimes had or have Vietnamese leaders.

Reunification was ultimately a vicious farce. The re-education camps are evidence of that.

Only and idiot would suggest there's anything "democratic" about Vietnam today.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Which current war? Yes, we're doing pretty well in Iraq, all things considered, but what about Bosnia? How about the Phillipines, where we're now sending "advisors"? Do I need to go on?

We are only sending "advisors" to the Phillipines because the Phillipine constitution forbids foregin troops from engaging in combat on Phillipine soil. The government cannot give us permission to do more, even if they want to, without changing the constitution. But it is THEIR failure of political will, not ours, in this case. We're just stuck operating within those constraints. It then becomes a question of whether to help them with one hand tied behind our backs, or not help them at all. I'm not actually sure what the correct course of action is, but I can certainly understand that helping them to the extent we can has so far been the prefered option. More insight into the problem here:
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2005/02/short-of-war-peculiar-problem-facing.html

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
I'm trying to NOT ignore the facts. That's what keeps getting us in trouble.

Giap's point, though, was that we walked away from Vietnam. Nixon would not, nor would Ford, hold the North accountable for their end of the Paris Peace Accords. Hence, we lost, and lost badly, as did the Vietnamese.

Another point that ought to be debunked: The U.S. was beaten by a bunch of barefoot kids. Not so. Don't forget the images that came out in the end, including columns of well dressed troops rolling through the streets of Saigon along with columns of Soviet T-72 tanks. The North was VERY well financed.



Why is is a surprise that the North had a regular Army, as did the South? They were, however, nowhere near as well financed as the US. The North made no serious attacks against the South until the US was long gone.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Sure. But just as we did not understand why they fought, they did not understand why we fought. We weren't the French. We weren't ever planning on ruling Vietnam. Had they not fought us, Vietnam would indeed have been ruled by the Vietnamese. So again, I say it wasn't worth it for them. I doubt we're really in disagreement over that.



AUP made a post with a rather biased assumption (namely that it is US actions we should always be evaluating and preferably condemning), one which is clear to anyone familiar with his history on this message board. My statement is a reference to this. I don't appologize for calling AUP on his bias. And in the scheme of inflamatory statements made on this board, I'm really surprised that my statement even merits any notice in this regard.

The problem the Vietnamese had in believing this was that Ho had asked the US for help in getting the French to leave. He was turned down flat. That was about the time he stopped trusting the US. Until that time, he believed the US was committed to ending colonialism.

As for my accusation, you will note I have already stated that Australia was a part of that war, in fact, we invited ourselvs in. The US was the driving force for war after the French had gone, however. The peace deal that was brokered after the French left specifically stated that a poll would be held, to see who ran a unified country. That promise was broken, too.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Why is is a surprise that the North had a regular Army, as did the South? They were, however, nowhere near as well financed as the US. The North made no serious attacks against the South until the US was long gone.

Viet kong were (largely) rubbish. Shoot and run irregulars and stand over men. NVA troops were fine Infantry. They both operated in the south for the entire war....However tanks were not seen in the south until the very end.

[jay gw]

The issue isn't Vietnam, it's you. Day after day, week after week the relentless attacks on the United States. You're not concerned with the Vietnamese, just with how bad the US is.

Evidence?

Except you're not putting up rational arguments. This thread: "Vietnam, look how bad the US is. Now discuss." There is no rational argument there. It's just another excuse to bash the US.

I don't know why anyone foreign bashes the US expecting Americans to care. Maybe they don't expect it, maybe they do. Whatever.

Americans tend not to believe what Europeans say on most subjects, most of all America. There are basically two reasons for it.

The first reason is historical. Americans are mostly composed of dissident Europeans. Take a wild guess as to what that means.

More recently - face the reality, if the US weren't attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbor, the Nazis would rule most of Europe. And you know what? We wouldn't give a rat's ass.

Americans can deal just as well with Hitler as with anybody. The US helped the UK a little, but never stuck it's neck out. I think despite the affection of some English for America, in the back of everyone's mind is the realization I just stated. Same with France, same with Germany.

The French were friends with America as long as America was enemies of the British. Otherwise, forget it. In between the relations were never very good.

One reason nobody brings up about the historical problems between Europe and the US is the fact that many of the residents of America were victims of imperialism and colonialism. It matters.

Second reason is philosophical/political. None of the European nations have anything like the philosophy or political system the US has. It's not Mars and Venus, but it's very different. Europe is full of the far Left, America of the far Right. One worships God and the other worships Man.

Americans are the most religious of all developed nation publics, not all but many, and of fundamentalist denominations that view Europeans as grubby pagans and atheists who can't possibly be at all decent or intelligent.

Example -- One look at the British royal family reminds Americans exactly why, a long while ago, people got on boats and left. It's sort of funny, but European monarchies are valued by the publics in Europe as reminders of their past, but are precisely why Americans are glad not to be European anymore.

So many Americans consider what Europeans say about America, any of them, no your nationality is completely irrelevant despite what you might believe, with lots of skepticism.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
I'm trying to NOT ignore the facts. That's what keeps getting us in trouble.

Giap's point, though, was that we walked away from Vietnam. Nixon would not, nor would Ford, hold the North accountable for their end of the Paris Peace Accords. Hence, we lost, and lost badly, as did the Vietnamese.
Er... don't you mean held accountable by the "International Commission of Control and Supervision"?

Another point that ought to be debunked: The U.S. was beaten by a bunch of barefoot kids. Not so. Don't forget the images that came out in the end, including columns of well dressed troops rolling through the streets of Saigon along with columns of Soviet T-72 tanks. The North was VERY well financed.
You are the first person I've heard make this point, so I guess it's fair if you debunk it. The Soviets did put on some really good parades in those days.

No argument that supporting Diem, Lon Nol, or Nguyen Van Thieu was a bad, bad idea. Thieu was a joke. As long as we kept the money flowing in, he was a happy camper. (Sounds a lot like Chiang in of China. Read a bit about the pilots who flew the Burma Hump, and you'll be sickened by the amount of cargo that went to Madame Chiang.)
I'm not going to engage in self-flagellation over events from 1940-something. Not tonight, anyway.

My suspicion, (and let's call it just that, since that's all it is), is that we blew more money keeping our "allies" happy, rather than putting our money into efforts which actually accomplished anything of long-term value. William F. Buckley was correct in saying, "We went into Vietnam to make a resonant point. We failed to make it resonantly." By looking at it in the full spectrum you're asking for, I think we can see why.
I have the same suspicion, however; distortions about Vietnam have been told over and over for the last 30 years or so without challenge. It may have been a dark hour for the US and Vietnam, but it seems to have been the finest hour for some others.

NATO troops are supposed to be under our leadership. Not that it means a damned thing.
Another story for another day on another thread...

And, no, we can't allow Abu Sayaff have his way. But if we're going to go in and do the work, let's get down to business, and do it.

Abu Sayyaf (http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/asc.htm) is a group, not a person. The reality is that we are limited in what we can do and when. It is like when some complain that we aren't doing enough to capture Bin Laden. We may have blown our opportunity in Afganistan, but what should we do now... invade Pakistan?

[a_unique_person]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155091,00.html

Even Fox is saying things are getting better



Posters and flags are everywhere to commemorate the event. But so are massive billboards promoting American firms and those from other developed nations.

The contrast is stark, and despite the patriotic theme of the 30th anniversary celebrations, Vietnam’s leaders know they need the outside world to help them.

America is now Vietnam’s most important trading partner, and the newfound prosperity it has brought to this country is noticeable on the streets of Saigon.

But Vietnam has a population of 81 million now, and it is growing. Two out of three people in this country weren’t even born when the war ended. Finding jobs for them is going to be the biggest challenge the government will face in the future.

The other big challenge for the leaders in Hanoi is fighting corruption. Speaking to American businessmen here, they say it’s difficult to win large contracts without bribes. Vietnam’s leaders seem to understand the problem, and I’m told they are trying to deal with it.

When I talk to people here, they seem happy that they now have a unified country that has opened up to the outside world.



Not perfect by any means, but at least the issue of a civil war is behind them, and the leadership has opened up to the outside world, with wealth growing. Like China, democracy is inevitable.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155091,00.html

Even Fox is saying things are getting better

Not perfect by any means, but at least the issue of a civil war is behind them, and the leadership has opened up to the outside world, with wealth growing. Like China, democracy is inevitable. Something which could, perhaps, have happened 20 years earlier if the US hadn't got involved after the French were beaten. (Can't agree with your last point, though. Only death and taxes ...)

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Sure. But just as we did not understand why they fought, they did not understand why we fought. We weren't the French. We weren't ever planning on ruling Vietnam. Had they not fought us, Vietnam would indeed have been ruled by the Vietnamese. So again, I say it wasn't worth it for them. I doubt we're really in disagreement over that. We certainly disagree about the reasons. I'm pretty sure we'd disagree as to whether the American Rebellion was worth it, but best not go there ...

The Vietnamese nationalists knew they had the French beaten and an agreement with them for Vietnam-wide elections in 1956. They knew that instead the French established a puppet government in the south, with overt US support and funding, which proceeded to imprison and kill thousands of nationalists, trade unionists, democrats, suspect persons, rival gangsters and unarmed demonstrators. They came to realise that the international community - the UN - was not going to pressure France and the US into honouring the agreement, and that force was the only way to achieve independence in all of Vietnam. They didn't know how hard it would be, of course, since they didn't expect the US to get directly involved and the puppet-government was paper-thin. There was always a "one last push will do it" feeling, good money chasing bad.

The Vietnamese knew why the US was fighting, the US was very vocal about it. It was part of their Cold War struggle with the Soviet Union. Lots of Americans still seem to think so. The Vietnamese couldn't do anything to change that, but they could last it out, which they did.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
The Vietnamese nationalists knew they had the French beaten and an agreement with them for Vietnam-wide elections in 1956. They knew that instead the French established a puppet government in the south, with overt US support and funding, which proceeded to imprison and kill thousands of nationalists, trade unionists, democrats, suspect persons, rival gangsters and unarmed demonstrators.

So, what, instead of thousands being imprisoned by a puppet government, they replace that with a communist government that puts hundreds of thousands through reeducation camps, tortures and kills those same democrats, and spreads havoc and violence throughout the country on an even larger scale, and stifled any future prospects for economic growth and freedom - and that's better because it's home-grown rather than imported? I'm not even sure what you're really trying to argue: whatever the motivations of the communists, it doesn't really change the fact that the communist takeover wasn't worth it to the Vietnamese at large. And that, at the end of the day, is really my point.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Mycroft
The issue isn't Vietnam, it's you. Day after day, week after week the relentless attacks on the United States. You're not concerned with the Vietnamese, just with how bad the US is.
Surely he is only following your own fine example of starting huge numbers of threads with the general themes of Muslims, Muslim groups, Muslim countries and Islam.

Yeah verily ye shall be known by your true believers.

By the way, we're all here for you big fella, whenever you need us.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
AUP made a post with a rather biased assumption (namely that it is US actions we should always be evaluating and preferably condemning), one which is clear to anyone familiar with his history on this message board. My statement is a reference to this. I don't appologize for calling AUP on his bias. And in the scheme of inflamatory statements made on this board, I'm really surprised that my statement even merits any notice in this regard. Inflamatory is one thing, petty hectoring is another. It only serves to personalise things, distract from the issue at hand and create the sort of atmosphere attractive to the more egregious "We know what you are! Nyaah, nyaah!" types such as Mycroft. Like graffiti in the neighbourhood attracting dealers. Zero-tolerance of rudeness from ourselves is, I think, a good policy.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
So, what, instead of thousands being imprisoned by a puppet government, they replace that with a communist government that puts hundreds of thousands through reeducation camps, tortures and kills those same democrats, and spreads havoc and violence throughout the country on an even larger scale, and stifled any future prospects for economic growth and freedom - and that's better because it's home-grown rather than imported? I'm not even sure what you're really trying to argue: whatever the motivations of the communists, it doesn't really change the fact that the communist takeover wasn't worth it to the Vietnamese at large. And that, at the end of the day, is really my point. I was arguing against your opinion that the Vietnamese didn't know why the US was fighting. Vietnam is just another obscure place to the US, while the US is, well, the US. Unless they were lying, everyone knew what the US was fighting for - to stop the armed spread of communism by a Monolothic Communist Bloc intent on conquering the world.

If they were instead intent on spreading freedom, they could have done it a lot more easily in Central America and the Arabian Peninsula. No great progress on that front even in Kuwait (you guys really did have the place, you could have made it your bitch or a beacon of democracy, at your whim.). It took a lot of effort to buy that one, especially if you were Vietnamese or Cambodian.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
We accomplished the original goal of SEATO, which was to keep communism out of Indonesia. Indonesia threw the Soviets out in '66 as a direct result of our involvement in the Vietnam War. The domino theory worked as advertised. That was not how the domino theory was advertised, and there was not a Communist threat in Indonesia. Indonesia did not go through a terrible Civil War, a military coup was followed by mass slaughter of the Chinese community under the pretext of them being Communist. In fact, they dominated the merchant, banking and finance sectors and their alliance with Communism was as risible as the Jewish-Communist conspiracy of the Nazis. When vociferously non-aligned Indonesia treated with the Soviet Union just as they would with the US the threat wasn't Communism, as was amply demonstrated, the threat was from subversion of the military by a foreign power.

The domino theory tells us that once Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia had fallen to the Monolithic Communistic Onslaught, Thailand and points west would be next. Which didn't happen. All it takes is one counter-example to falsify, and that was it. No attempts at re-definition - I am old, and was around at the time - will resurrect the Domino Theory.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
The reality is that we are limited in what we can do and when. It is like when some complain that we aren't doing enough to capture Bin Laden. We may have blown our opportunity in Afganistan, but what should we do now... invade Pakistan?

You know, there are times when I absolutely enjoy reading your posts, but there are other times when I feel like you and I are less than the diameter of the hair in the middle of the zit on a gnat's @$$ in agreement on some matters, and it's that difference which creates pointless friction.

On this point, for example, (and thanks for the 411 on Abu Sayyaf), part of my opinion, (if it can be called that), was based on my own ignorance.

You and I are also in agreement on the misconceptions of Vietnam. Consider that for the most part, in spite of Peter Arnett's reports for CNN, the U.S. military conducted itself far better than its opponent in SE Asia. Maj. James Rowe, for example, described having a metal rod jammed down his throat, and having his captors bend him back, all in an effort to force him to make "confessions" to war crimes commited in the name of the United States. He described incredible misery while being held by the North Vietnamese, up until he took his mosquito netting and managed to flag down a Huey helicopter, which dropped in and picked him up. (Interesting moment in his book, Five Years to Freedom, when, in his first night back with Americans, he could not sleep in his bed on a "capitalist/imperialist" mattress. He wound up arranging his bedding on the floor.)

It should also be remembered the abuse suffered by other POWs, such as Sen. John McCain, at the hands of his captors. Keep in mind, they offered McCain a chance to go home early because of the future senator's family connections, but he chose to remain with his fellow POWs. It's something I think Rush Limbaugh chooses to forget, sometimes, unless it makes a point in his favor.

The North Vietnamese leaders were not good people. They tacitly authorized their people to wrap children and infants in explosives, and willingly used them to trap American servicemen. I thought it was a fluke when I heard about my father, while out on a patrol with American infantry, having to take cover when a Vietnamese woman took her child, threw it towards the Americans, only to have an American SP4 catch the child and be killed when the C4 wrapped around the child's body exploded. I've lost track of the number of times Vietnam vets told me of that happening to them. It's become something of an obscene cliche.

They used children to place grenades and explosives on American equipment, then shrugged and said it was evidence of how much people hated the Americans. (Funny, isn't it, how so many of those folks took to the water and tried their damndest to reach the United States. Not Thailand, not Indonesia, but the U.S.) The reality, whether people want to admit to it or not, is that My Lai type incidents were far more rare in their occurance than we are supposed to believe.

We failed in a lot of ways, and we're still learning the bitter lessons. No, I don't think we'll be going into Pakistan any time soon. Mullah Muhammed Omar, according to Time, has taken to phoning in his orders to the remainder of the Taliban. They're still damned dangerous, but they're considerably weakened. I'm surprised they haven't tried for their own "Battle of the Bulge," yet, (or perhaps they have, and got their @$$es whupped, which would explain why the media has yet to report on it), but the handwriting is on the wall; they're finished. It's only a matter of time.

There are critical differences between Hamid Karzai and Nguyen Van Thieu. Karzai actually seems to be building support from within his nation, and is actually willing to work to stand on his own. Thieu was willing to take the lead, as long as we were willing to keep the money coming in. (Did anyone ever manage to track down much of the millions we paid to keep their military going? And how much of it actually made it down to pay for things like rifles, grenades, bullets, tanks, planes, and such?) There was no interest, it seems, or at least very limited interest, on the part of the South Vietnamese to take responsibility for preserving their own liberty.

We went in with what seemed, at the time, good intentions of preserving the liberties of the People of South Vietnam. There was a failure. You can blame the execution, but you cannot entirely blame the intent.

Your turn.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
That was not how the domino theory was advertised, and there was not a Communist threat in Indonesia. Indonesia did not go through a terrible Civil War, a military coup was followed by mass slaughter of the Chinese community under the pretext of them being Communist. In fact, they dominated the merchant, banking and finance sectors and their alliance with Communism was as risible as the Jewish-Communist conspiracy of the Nazis. When vociferously non-aligned Indonesia treated with the Soviet Union just as they would with the US the threat wasn't Communism, as was amply demonstrated, the threat was from subversion of the military by a foreign power.

The domino theory tells us that once Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia had fallen to the Monolithic Communistic Onslaught, Thailand and points west would be next. Which didn't happen. All it takes is one counter-example to falsify, and that was it. No attempts at re-definition - I am old, and was around at the time - will resurrect the Domino Theory.

The Suharto period ushered in a protracted time of massive corruption, dictatorship, imperialism and human rights offenses.

Perhaps the left wing Sukarno would have been no better, but it is hard to imagine him being much worse, either.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
You know, there are times when I absolutely enjoy reading your posts, but there are other times when I feel like you and I are less than the diameter of the hair in the middle of the zit on a gnat's @$$ in agreement on some matters, and it's that difference which creates pointless friction.

On this point, for example, (and thanks for the 411 on Abu Sayyaf), part of my opinion, (if it can be called that), was based on my own ignorance.

You and I are also in agreement on the misconceptions of Vietnam. Consider that for the most part, in spite of Peter Arnett's reports for CNN, the U.S. military conducted itself far better than its opponent in SE Asia. Maj. James Rowe, for example, described having a metal rod jammed down his throat, and having his captors bend him back, all in an effort to force him to make "confessions" to war crimes commited in the name of the United States. He described incredible misery while being held by the North Vietnamese, up until he took his mosquito netting and managed to flag down a Huey helicopter, which dropped in and picked him up. (Interesting moment in his book, Five Years to Freedom, when, in his first night back with Americans, he could not sleep in his bed on a "capitalist/imperialist" mattress. He wound up arranging his bedding on the floor.)

It should also be remembered the abuse suffered by other POWs, such as Sen. John McCain, at the hands of his captors. Keep in mind, they offered McCain a chance to go home early because of the future senator's family connections, but he chose to remain with his fellow POWs. It's something I think Rush Limbaugh chooses to forget, sometimes, unless it makes a point in his favor.

The North Vietnamese leaders were not good people. They tacitly authorized their people to wrap children and infants in explosives, and willingly used them to trap American servicemen. I thought it was a fluke when I heard about my father, while out on a patrol with American infantry, having to take cover when a Vietnamese woman took her child, threw it towards the Americans, only to have an American SP4 catch the child and be killed when the C4 wrapped around the child's body exploded. I've lost track of the number of times Vietnam vets told me of that happening to them. It's become something of an obscene cliche.

They used children to place grenades and explosives on American equipment, then shrugged and said it was evidence of how much people hated the Americans. (Funny, isn't it, how so many of those folks took to the water and tried their damndest to reach the United States. Not Thailand, not Indonesia, but the U.S.) The reality, whether people want to admit to it or not, is that My Lai type incidents were far more rare in their occurance than we are supposed to believe.

We failed in a lot of ways, and we're still learning the bitter lessons. No, I don't think we'll be going into Pakistan any time soon. Mullah Muhammed Omar, according to Time, has taken to phoning in his orders to the remainder of the Taliban. They're still damned dangerous, but they're considerably weakened. I'm surprised they haven't tried for their own "Battle of the Bulge," yet, (or perhaps they have, and got their @$$es whupped, which would explain why the media has yet to report on it), but the handwriting is on the wall; they're finished. It's only a matter of time.

There are critical differences between Hamid Karzai and Nguyen Van Thieu. Karzai actually seems to be building support from within his nation, and is actually willing to work to stand on his own. Thieu was willing to take the lead, as long as we were willing to keep the money coming in. (Did anyone ever manage to track down much of the millions we paid to keep their military going? And how much of it actually made it down to pay for things like rifles, grenades, bullets, tanks, planes, and such?) There was no interest, it seems, or at least very limited interest, on the part of the South Vietnamese to take responsibility for preserving their own liberty.

We went in with what seemed, at the time, good intentions of preserving the liberties of the People of South Vietnam. There was a failure. You can blame the execution, but you cannot entirely blame the intent.

Your turn.

:clap:

Well said.

Bravo.

I'm not going to spoil it with any further blather on my part.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
That was not how the domino theory was advertised, and there was not a Communist threat in Indonesia. Indonesia did not go through a terrible Civil War, a military coup was followed by mass slaughter of the Chinese community under the pretext of them being Communist. In fact, they dominated the merchant, banking and finance sectors and their alliance with Communism was as risible as the Jewish-Communist conspiracy of the Nazis. When vociferously non-aligned Indonesia treated with the Soviet Union just as they would with the US the threat wasn't Communism, as was amply demonstrated, the threat was from subversion of the military by a foreign power.

The domino theory tells us that once Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia had fallen to the Monolithic Communistic Onslaught, Thailand and points west would be next. Which didn't happen. All it takes is one counter-example to falsify, and that was it. No attempts at re-definition - I am old, and was around at the time - will resurrect the Domino Theory.

A) Throw the Noam Chomsky books in the trash.

B) You fail to recognize the effect of time. The Vietnam War blocked the path for ten years. That bought Thailand and points west the needed time to disengage from communism.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
A) Throw the Noam Chomsky books in the trash.

B) You fail to recognize the effect of time. The Vietnam War blocked the path for ten years. That bought Thailand and points west the needed time to disengage from communism.

But it brought it to Cambodia? How did that happen?

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
A) Throw the Noam Chomsky books in the trash.

You mean people haven't done that already? Hell, I thought they were tossed out years ago.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
But it brought it to Cambodia? How did that happen?

I thought the political vacuum in Cambodia had already been discussed here, and elsewhere.

Once you have a near complete lack of effective political leadership, people are going to be more than willing to go with whatever force seems able to deliver civil order. This was, in part, how the Taliban managed to gain leadership in Afghanistan.

[Orwell]

I believe that, on the whole, America's intentions were good when it got involved in Vietnam. When I mean "good", I mean good from a western point of view: we all like to believe that everyone around the world wants to be like us. But it seems to me that the US has an unfortunate tendency to destroy people in order to "save" them.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
A) Throw the Noam Chomsky books in the trash.

B) You fail to recognize the effect of time. The Vietnam War blocked the path for ten years. That bought Thailand and points west the needed time to disengage from communism. I'm not the sort of person who depends only on one source. Nor do I depend on anybody for how I interpret what I find out. I don't think that information becomes invalid when an author quotes it. I certainly don't think that there was ever any Communist threat to Thailand, and I'm wondering where you get your information from. Thailand engaged with Communism? Under which king? And coincidentally needing just those ten years to solve the problem, by actions which I'm unaware of despite actually knowing something of South-East Asian history. It looked to most people that the US pulled out of Indo-China for domestic political reasons, not because the job was done in Thailand and Indonesia.

When South Vietnam blew away like the chaff it was in 1975 Vietnam had an enormous army, much of it the latest American kit. If the Domino Theory had anything to it, that army would have been used to spread Communism further. In practice, Vietnam had a war with China and swept away the Khmer Rouge maniacs in Cambodia because they were annihilating Cambodia's ethnic Vietnamese. That was it. No Domino Effect, no Domino Theory.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
I thought the political vacuum in Cambodia had already been discussed here, and elsewhere.

Once you have a near complete lack of effective political leadership, people are going to be more than willing to go with whatever force seems able to deliver civil order. This was, in part, how the Taliban managed to gain leadership in Afghanistan. There was no political vacuum in Cambodia before the Lon Nol coup, which was prompted, organised and funded by the US. As widely attested to by the people involved - gotta love that First Amendment, and these people were proud of what they did. Sihanouk refused to get his people involved in a war with their neighbours at the behest of people from across the Pacific who didn't have a clue what was going on. For that he was removed, and chaos resulted. A direct result of the Vietnam War.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
So, what, instead of thousands being imprisoned by a puppet government, they replace that with a communist government that puts hundreds of thousands through reeducation camps, tortures and kills those same democrats, and spreads havoc and violence throughout the country on an even larger scale, and stifled any future prospects for economic growth and freedom - and that's better because it's home-grown rather than imported? I'm not even sure what you're really trying to argue: whatever the motivations of the communists, it doesn't really change the fact that the communist takeover wasn't worth it to the Vietnamese at large. And that, at the end of the day, is really my point. Havoc and violence on a larger scale? The US used Agent Orange to deforest vast areas - reverse terra-forming. They deliberately destroyed water-management systems that had been developed over centuries, if not thousands of years. They turned Cambodia from a prosperous food-exporting country with an ancient and rather splendid history into the Killing Grounds. They destroyed villages to save them. They bombed cities to rescue them. The US expended as much materiel on Vietnam as in all of WW2. There really is no "larger scale" example of havoc than that in history.

Future economic growth has happened despite the destruction of hope, which is cheering in a way. Corruption and disparity of wealth are the big problems at the moment, as in China. It'll be interesting to see how the different regimes respond, given their very different ideological backgrounds and mutual history. The Vietnamese have been in conflict with China for much longer and more recently than they have with the US, let us not forget. A Vietnam-Taiwan entente would be ... interesting.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
I thought the political vacuum in Cambodia had already been discussed here, and elsewhere.

Once you have a near complete lack of effective political leadership, people are going to be more than willing to go with whatever force seems able to deliver civil order. This was, in part, how the Taliban managed to gain leadership in Afghanistan.

The Kingdom was quite stable, till the war started impacting. The fight to stop the dominoes created one.

[kimiko]

I always get my dad's input on VN things since he was there. He doesn't think it was worth it; most of the people he knew died.

My last boyfriend's dad was a child soldier in Vietnam. He won't even talk about it. His family that still live in Vietnam doesn't seem to have any problems- they're middle class and educated and they come to the US to visit sometimes.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by kimiko
I always get my dad's input on VN things since he was there. He doesn't think it was worth it; most of the people he knew died.

My last boyfriend's dad was a child soldier in Vietnam. He won't even talk about it. His family that still live in Vietnam doesn't seem to have any problems- they're middle class and educated and they come to the US to visit sometimes. And we should conclude what from this? My wife's brother served and he thought it was worth it. He is sad that we failed. He knew Vietnamese who were afraid of what would happen if the Communists took over. He has to date never heard from them. He knows that many people died and that many lost their businesses.

But thanks for the anecdote. Perhaps we could swap a bunch of them. You know, dueling anecdotes. I'm not sure what that would prove though.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
I'm not the sort of person who depends only on one source. Nor do I depend on anybody for how I interpret what I find out. I don't think that information becomes invalid when an author quotes it. I certainly don't think that there was ever any Communist threat to Thailand, and I'm wondering where you get your information from. Thailand engaged with Communism? Under which king? And coincidentally needing just those ten years to solve the problem, by actions which I'm unaware of despite actually knowing something of South-East Asian history. It looked to most people that the US pulled out of Indo-China for domestic political reasons, not because the job was done in Thailand and Indonesia.
I was being lazy and just repeating the perspective you had given me "The domino theory tells us that once Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia had fallen to the Monolithic Communistic Onslaught, Thailand and points west would be next. " And no, I don't really believe you rely on one source. One viewoint, perhaps, but not one source.

When South Vietnam blew away like the chaff it was in 1975 Vietnam had an enormous army, much of it the latest American kit. If the Domino Theory had anything to it, that army would have been used to spread Communism further. In practice, Vietnam had a war with China and swept away the Khmer Rouge maniacs in Cambodia because they were annihilating Cambodia's ethnic Vietnamese. That was it. No Domino Effect, no Domino Theory.
Even Chumpsky had his own domino theory, something like "threat of a good example" or some such goofy idea. The fact remains that communism was spreading at a rate that would have made Adolph Hitler proud, until we took a stand in Vietnam.
Not related? Maybe the recent democratic reforms in Middle East countries have nothing to do with Afganistan or Iraq, either. I realize this is a skeptic's forum and coincidence is more likely to be taken on faith than cause and effect.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by RandFan
And we should conclude what from this? My wife's brother served and he thought it was worth it. He is sad that we failed. He knew Vietnamese who were afraid of what would happen if the Communists took over. He has to date never heard from them. He knows that many people died and that many lost their businesses.

But thanks for the anecdote. Perhaps we could swap a bunch of them. You know, dueling anecdotes. I'm not sure what that would prove though. I realize anecdotes are never ever ever used on this board. No one ever argues in generalities either, like your first post in this thread about property being confiscated and people killed in retribution. No, no, its all thoroughly sourced with supporting documents- pure skepticism. Perhaps I'm silly for thinking the feelings of former soldiers have value in deciding whether the action they served in was worth it, but I like to consider it. For the people who agree, there's a few more perspectives to file into their brain.

Anyone can know "that many people died", but that's just an abstraction. I've never seen the carnage of war in person, so I ask people who have, and get their perspective. That takes it from sterile numbers to subjective human experience, which is the primary way we judge worth, unless the value of a person is put into monetary terms. We could do that- calculate the worth of a southern Vietnamese civilian, northern Vietnamese civilian, southern VN soldier, Viet Cong soldier, American soldier, Aussie soldier, French soldier, etc and add it all up for the different sides. Add the cost of conducting the war to that. Then propose a measure for judging the value of democratic experience related to physical quality of life and code the relative value of the Vietnamese under communism versus the possibilities of what they would have had we won. Compare the worth of the different scenarios and we'd have our answer. It doesn't look like anyone in this thread is going to attempt such an undertaking though.

But since you're being the skeptic police for this thread, why don't you support your points- how many people were killed in retribution and would they would have been killed without the war? Support how many businesses and how much property was confiscated. Provide testimony about the motivation of the Buddhist self-immolation and the relative likelihood it even would have happened without US involvment.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
I was being lazy and just repeating the perspective you had given me "The domino theory tells us that once Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia had fallen to the Monolithic Communistic Onslaught, Thailand and points west would be next. " And no, I don't really believe you rely on one source. One viewoint, perhaps, but not one source.


Even Chumpsky had his own domino theory, something like "threat of a good example" or some such goofy idea. The fact remains that communism was spreading at a rate that would have made Adolph Hitler proud, until we took a stand in Vietnam.
Not related? Maybe the recent democratic reforms in Middle East countries have nothing to do with Afganistan or Iraq, either. I realize this is a skeptic's forum and coincidence is more likely to be taken on faith than cause and effect.

Utter piffle. Read up on the "Malaya Emergency". Communists in Malaya were beaten relatively easily with very little western help. No US army of hundreds of thousands required, no deaths in the millions, and before the Vietnam war.

[Giz]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Utter piffle. Read up on the "Malaya Emergency". Communists in Malaya were beaten relatively easily with very little western help. No US army of hundreds of thousands required, no deaths in the millions, and before the Vietnam war.

Britain no longer counts as western?

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
And no, I don't really believe you rely on one source. One viewoint, perhaps, but not one source.I consider the subject, like all others, on the basis of the facts, not just how things look from one perspective. I'm not trying to find reasons why the Vietnam War was wrong, any more than I'm trying to find reasons why it was right. There is certainly no shortage of material from the latter perspective, but it tends to be short on facts and high on unsubstantiated claims and inaccuracies.


Even Chumpsky had his own domino theory, something like "threat of a good example" or some such goofy idea.Frankly, I don't care, the Domino Theory of Kissinger et al was the one that had an effect. If it were a valid theory it could be put in the "benefits" column, but it clearly wasn't. This is demonstrated by events subsequent to the unification of Vietnam. Real events carry more weight than claims of what would have happened. The fact remains that communism was spreading at a rate that would have made Adolph Hitler proud, until we took a stand in Vietnam. Not related?Eastern Europe in the years after the war, within the agreed "sphere of interest" of the USSR. China 1949 at the end of a conflict dating back to the 20's. North Korea (a sphere of occupation by the USSR). Cuba 1959 after a popular revolution. Where's this frantic rate of expansion?
Maybe the recent democratic reforms in Middle East countries have nothing to do with Afganistan or Iraq, either. I realize this is a skeptic's forum and coincidence is more likely to be taken on faith than cause and effect. Very little is likely to be taken on faith on a skeptic's forum, when you think about it. :)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Giz
Britain no longer counts as western?

"Little" in relation to what happened in Vietnam. Australia was there too. The the major difference was that there was nowhere near the popular support for the communists that the Vietnamese had.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
I consider the subject, like all others, on the basis of the facts, not just how things look from one perspective. I'm not trying to find reasons why the Vietnam War was wrong, any more than I'm trying to find reasons why it was right. There is certainly no shortage of material from the latter perspective, but it tends to be short on facts and high on unsubstantiated claims and inaccuracies.

Not that you need it, but I'll take this at face value. I would, however, contend that when my dad went to Vietnam in 1968, he was going to help prevent what happened when tanks from the North began rolling into Saigon in 1975, which included the re-education camps, the open execution of those who had helped the U.S., and any number of other abuses. And, yes, we were even hoping we'd keep Vietnam and China from one another's throats.

This is not unsubstantiated. A number of essays and books have been written stating such. Sadly, much of the content is wrapped around the notion, "If only we'd done this instead of that..." If memory serves, that was part of the reason Daniel Ellsberg handed over the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times, but I'm not certain about that. Someone with better info will have to speak to that point.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Frankly, I don't care, the Domino Theory of Kissinger et al was the one that had an effect. If it were a valid theory it could be put in the "benefits" column, but it clearly wasn't. This is demonstrated by events subsequent to the unification of Vietnam. Real events carry more weight than claims of what would have happened.

The "Domino Theory" came from Richard Nixon. So, first of all, there's a clue as to what was wrong with it... :p

Second, I suspect Vietnam was the exception which proved the rule.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Eastern Europe in the years after the war, within the agreed "sphere of interest" of the USSR. China 1949 at the end of a conflict dating back to the 20's. North Korea (a sphere of occupation by the USSR). Cuba 1959 after a popular revolution. Where's this frantic rate of expansion?

Don't forget what was happening in El Salvador and Nicaragua. Also, you should remember what happened in South America. There were many nations which were looking to turn to Communism. Much of that was slowed, or halted from many different factors, not the least of which was the ineptitude of Marxist operatives in those nations, as well as some successful efforts on the part of the CIA, (alluded to, though not detailed in E. Howard Hunt's book, Undercover.) Considering we're discussing history, I would call that rather frantic. Very few political movements had the successful acceptance as Marxism.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Very little is likely to be taken on faith on a skeptic's forum, when you think about it.

Good. I wouldn't learn a damned thing, otherwise.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Not that you need it, but I'll take this at face value. I would, however, contend that when my dad went to Vietnam in 1968, he was going to help prevent what happened when tanks from the North began rolling into Saigon in 1975, which included the re-education camps, the open execution of those who had helped the U.S., and any number of other abuses. And, yes, we were even hoping we'd keep Vietnam and China from one another's throats. There was open execution of political opponents in South Vietnam, prison camps, torture. This wasn't the kind of thing was was advertised to your father, I suspect. Did your father, or the American public in general, really know much about Vietnam and the background to the war, beyond what they were told by a pretty mendacious government PR machine? I don't question the motives of the foot-soldiers, if you'll pardon the term, but the decision-makers knew better and chose their sons-a-bitches rather than the other guy's sons-a-bitches. (Nixon again.)

I don't think there's enough appreciation of how vicious the South Vietnamese regimes were. The North had gulags, the south had prison camps for subversives. The North executed political opponents, the South had Operation Phoenix. There's a lot in the presentation.

The "Domino Theory" came from Richard Nixon. So, first of all, there's a clue as to what was wrong with it...

One of Tricky Dickie's from the Vice-Pres days? I didn't know that.
Don't forget what was happening in El Salvador and Nicaragua. There's a scale disjunction between those examples and Hitler's wilder dreams. Also temporal, political and just about every other aspect bar the species involved. But let's not get side-tracked. Also, you should remember what happened in South America. There were many nations which were looking to turn to Communism. Much of that was slowed, or halted from many different factors, not the least of which was the ineptitude of Marxist operatives in those nations, as well as some successful efforts on the part of the CIA, (alluded to, though not detailed in E. Howard Hunt's book, Undercover.) Considering we're discussing history, I would call that rather frantic.
There were many people in Latin America who were looking to socialism as an alternative to the sorts of government they had, and the best hope of a better life for people. They'd given up on US assistance, just as the independence movements in the Portuguese Empire did. Marxism-Leninism provided not only a political structure but principles of military strategy, and the avowedly Marxist powers were prepared to give them some assistance. Nothing in comparison to the assistance the US provided to the established dictatorships and oligarchies, of course, but something. It's entirely natural that oppressed people will turn to Marxism, because the only oppression that influences US policy is Marxist oppression.
Very few political movements had the successful acceptance as Marxism. Makes you wonder, doesn't it? It's not as if the US is a bad advertisement for how to do things, or it hasn't gone to a lot of trouble to spread the word. Or to spread the word about how awful Marxism is. But for some reason the world's reaction is deep cynicism. The US invented mass marketing; what's the problem?

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
"Little" in relation to what happened in Vietnam. Australia was there too. No sign of the bloody French though. Oh no, too much to ask.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by kimiko
Then propose a measure for judging the value of democratic experience related to physical quality of life and code the relative value of the Vietnamese under communism versus the possibilities of what they would have had we won. Compare the worth of the different scenarios and we'd have our answer. It doesn't look like anyone in this thread is going to attempt such an undertaking though. A little harsh, perhaps ..?
War, of course, is not worth anything; the outcome over an extended period is the only sensible thing to value. What was the difference in outcome between the US leaving Indo-China alone after 1945 and the US intervening - first on behalf of the French, then independently? What benefit did 20 years of US involvement after Dien Bien Phu bring to the world subsequently?
I've been skirting around the subject which is crucial, but has all the attractions of the Grimpen Mire : how did life for the Ordinary Joe compare under the Northern and Southern regimes? I'm of the opinion that life under the nothern regime was less oppressive, and life under the southern regime more, than is commonly believed. Rather than get into justifying that in ever-increasing detail, I'd prefer to leap to "not much different", and by whatever measure, I cannot imagine a positive total that outweighs the devastation, dislocation, death and poisoning that happened. The US did not fight the Vietnam War against Vietnamese (no Aussies or South Koreans on their side) for the benefit of the Vietnamese people, so it's no surprise they didn't benefit from it.

Nor did the US, by any measure I can think of. Australia is too obscure even for me to have an opinion, and South Korea too exotic but I suspect that dollar-flow had quite an impact on future developments. The Japanese, Taiwanese and Philippine economies did well out of the exercise, with no obvious down-side. Now they're funding the US economy, but is that a good thing from an American perspective?

It's a tricky calculation.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Not that you need it, but I'll take this at face value. I would, however, contend that when my dad went to Vietnam in 1968, he was going to help prevent what happened when tanks from the North began rolling into Saigon in 1975, which included the re-education camps, the open execution of those who had helped the U.S., and any number of other abuses. And, yes, we were even hoping we'd keep Vietnam and China from one another's throats.

This is not unsubstantiated. A number of essays and books have been written stating such. Sadly, much of the content is wrapped around the notion, "If only we'd done this instead of that..." If memory serves, that was part of the reason Daniel Ellsberg handed over the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times, but I'm not certain about that. Someone with better info will have to speak to that point.



The "Domino Theory" came from Richard Nixon. So, first of all, there's a clue as to what was wrong with it... :p

Second, I suspect Vietnam was the exception which proved the rule.



Don't forget what was happening in El Salvador and Nicaragua. Also, you should remember what happened in South America. There were many nations which were looking to turn to Communism. Much of that was slowed, or halted from many different factors, not the least of which was the ineptitude of Marxist operatives in those nations, as well as some successful efforts on the part of the CIA, (alluded to, though not detailed in E. Howard Hunt's book, Undercover.) Considering we're discussing history, I would call that rather frantic. Very few political movements had the successful acceptance as Marxism.



Good. I wouldn't learn a damned thing, otherwise.

Wasn't Hunt's book just a self serving work of fiction to try to redeem him from Watergate?

The acceptance of Marxism was that it appeared to offer deliverance from Colonialism, which was every bit as bad.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Wasn't Hunt's book just a self serving work of fiction to try to redeem him from Watergate?

The acceptance of Marxism was that it appeared to offer deliverance from Colonialism, which was every bit as bad.

Actually, I got the feeling from Hunt that he felt betrayed by Nixon, by the man's pettiness, his paranoia, and her personal greed. (It's been said that Nixon was the first president to ever use the office to become wealthy. I question that, but I wouldn't put it past the f***ing son-of-a-bitch.) In fact, Hunt took far more heat for his work, particularly from his fellow "Plumber," G. Gordon Liddy, who felt that even though Hunt had lost any and all spirit to fight when his wife died in that plane crash, he still should have kept going. Liddy felt, at one point, that Hunt had betrayed his fellow operatives, when, in fact, Hunt felt that he'd been played, that they'd all been played, and the end result was one of the worst Constitutional crises in the Nation's history.

As to Marxism, the most accurate desctiption I've read is that it's a dream of justice betrayed.

One of the great mistakes we make in American History is that we forget to tally the dead from Capitalism. Capitalism has created its own martyrs, much the same as Marxism has. We accomplish the exact opposite of what we desire when we fail to recognize their loss. It only provides fuel to our enemies. And that's damned stupid.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Roadtoad

The "Domino Theory" came from Richard Nixon. So, first of all, there's a clue as to what was wrong with it... :p


Domino Theory actually dates back to Eisenhower and perhaps an earlier essay by George Kennan ... just a little thing called the X Article which started the cold war off with a ... er ... well, you can't start a cold war with a bang, can you? A whimper then...

Nixon did seem to like the term a lot.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Wasn't Hunt's book just a self serving work of fiction to try to redeem him from Watergate?


Have you considered reading it?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by kimiko
But since you're being the skeptic police for this thread... I'm sorry if I come off that way. I do hope for and would like to expect a higher level of debate. I admit that I fail myself often to live up to my own standards.

...why don't you support your points- how many people were killed in retribution and would they would have been killed without the war? Support how many businesses and how much property was confiscated. Provide testimony about the motivation of the Buddhist self-immolation and the relative likelihood it even would have happened without US involvement. I'm not sure about your point about the priests. I'll make my point one more time and apologize if I'm failing to communicate it. The Buddhists are unhappy with the current regime in Vietnam. They don't have religious freedom. An act of self-immolation would be worthless because there is no press there to televise it. Again, that seems like a pretty simple concept but I guess that it isn't as simple as I thought it was.

As far as the rest of my points, I'm not really interested in defending them at the moment. I don't necessarily concede them in particular. Also I reserve the right to argue these points in the future. However I will concede that I perhaps have not made a convincing argument and perhaps have not carried the day. If it helps I apologize for making the argument and you and others may consider yourself having won the debate. I appreciate your input and look forward to future discussions.

I hope you will note that I didn't simply ignore your point.

Thanks again,

RandFan

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Domino Theory actually dates back to Eisenhower and perhaps an earlier essay by George Kennan ... just a little thing called the X Article which started the cold war off with a ... er ... well, you can't start a cold war with a bang, can you? A whimper then...

Nixon did seem to like the term a lot.

That he did. But it was part of the Nixon Doctrine, concocted while he was Veep, so perhaps Kennan was the guy he plagiarized for it. (Funny thing being that Nixon copped a lot of stuff like that, and gave little credit for any of it.)

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
That he did. But it was part of the Nixon Doctrine, concocted while he was Veep, so perhaps Kennan was the guy he plagiarized for it. (Funny thing being that Nixon copped a lot of stuff like that, and gave little credit for any of it.) I'm no expert on Nixon, but I get the impression that he represented the military-industrial complex that Ike warned against. Which was well-served by the Domino Theory. Indo-China saw it blossom into the military-industrial-intelligence complex which produced the environment that brought Nixon down. Ironic really.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
That he did. But it was part of the Nixon Doctrine, concocted while he was Veep, so perhaps Kennan was the guy he plagiarized for it. (Funny thing being that Nixon copped a lot of stuff like that, and gave little credit for any of it.)

Nixon was definitley not my favorite guy, but to be fair, that was a horrid time to be elected president.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Randfan
I do hope for and would like to expect a higher level of debate.
Based on your own behaviour I find this very hard to believe. In a 'debate' with a person whio used personal abuse as a subsititute for rational argument you came in to abuse the abused. Hardly the mark of someone who claims they want a higher level of debate.

[E.J.Armstrong]

[I]oiginally posted by Road Toad[/I
Consider that for the most part, in spite of Peter Arnett's reports for CNN, the U.S. military conducted itself far better than its opponent in SE Asia.

From http://hnn.us/articles/11001.html
'U.S. Policy in Viet Nam and Iraq

Torture was certainly an integral part of U.S. policy in the Viet Nam war. We paid for it through our "Public Safety" program. Our advisors taught "better methods" and were often present helping with "suggestions" during the torture. But as a general policy, our soldiers turned their prisoners over to the Vietnamese police for torture. Just as with U.S. policy-makers on Iraq, the U.S. developed rationale to claim that the prisoners we took were not covered by the Geneva Convention (the U.S. authorities claimed they were all "criminal prisoners").'

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3206180.stm.
'Based on interviews with former Tiger Force soldiers it estimated the unit killed hundreds of unarmed people.
In one incident, two partially blind men found wandering in a valley were shot dead, records show.'
from

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
From http://hnn.us/articles/11001.html
'U.S. Policy in Viet Nam and Iraq

Torture was certainly an integral part of U.S. policy in the Viet Nam war. We paid for it through our "Public Safety" program. Our advisors taught "better methods" and were often present helping with "suggestions" during the torture. But as a general policy, our soldiers turned their prisoners over to the Vietnamese police for torture. Just as with U.S. policy-makers on Iraq, the U.S. developed rationale to claim that the prisoners we took were not covered by the Geneva Convention (the U.S. authorities claimed they were all "criminal prisoners").'

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3206180.stm.
'Based on interviews with former Tiger Force soldiers it estimated the unit killed hundreds of unarmed people.
In one incident, two partially blind men found wandering in a valley were shot dead, records show.'
from

I also don't know what is civilised about using air warfare against cities, villages, etc. Just because you are pressing a button from a distance and not doing the deed face to face, you are just as responsible for the deaths.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by aup
I also don't know what is civilised about using air warfare against cities, villages, etc. Just because you are pressing a button from a distance and not doing the deed face to face, you are just as responsible for the deaths.

Couldn't agree more. A dead wedding party is still a dead wedding party, whether you machine gun the children individually or bomb them from 30,000 feet.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Couldn't agree more. A dead wedding party is still a dead wedding party, whether you machine gun the children individually or bomb them from 30,000 feet.

Yes, but when you bomb them from 30,000 feet you get to use the "Oops" factor.

Oops, we didn't mean to do that. Better luck next time!

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by KelvinG
Yes, but when you bomb them from 30,000 feet you get to use the "Oops" factor.

Oops, we didn't mean to do that. Better luck next time!

Yeah, but when you machine gun the children individually, you feel like you've accomplished something for the day.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
I'm no expert on Nixon, but I get the impression that he represented the military-industrial complex that Ike warned against. Which was well-served by the Domino Theory. Indo-China saw it blossom into the military-industrial-intelligence complex which produced the environment that brought Nixon down. Ironic really. I don't find this true at all. Paranoia and stupidity brought Nixon down. Nixon wasn't all too keen on the war. Like his predecessors he didn't want to be the first President to surrender and lose a war. Hardly a legacy building act. Nixon did not start the conflict nor did he create the atmosphere that you describe. I can't find anything in your post that even remotely resembles the truth.

Oh well, thanks I suppose.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I also don't know what is civilised about using air warfare against cities, villages, etc. Just because you are pressing a button from a distance and not doing the deed face to face, you are just as responsible for the deaths. There is NOTHING civilized about war. It is brutal and destructive to all who are involved. It is thought and hoped however that the more "civilized" nations would not kill innocent civilians. It's also thought that nations would adhere to certain rules to keep the madness to a minimum. I for one think we should follow those rules. Tell that to Roosevelt or Truman. Both ordered the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and caused them to live in fear. BTW, it's not too awfully civilized to lock up an entire race of people (Japanese) in internment camps.

Crimes have been committed by many Western leaders including some of the most beloved of American leaders. Those crimes were wrong. There is no justification IMO. There is perhaps some level of understanding but that is all.

[RandFan]

FWIW,

Someone sent me a PM informing me that someone on my ignore list is claiming that I refuse to respond to something or another. If anyone feels that I have acted in inappropriate way or avoided an important point please post it in this thread, start a new thread or PM. I have never, ever, consciously ignored any post (besides those on my ignore list). I have labored hard to respond even when I found the response was difficult due to my own pride. I find that I, from time to time, must apologize for rude behavior. I hate apologizing and often have to stew about it before I can. My ego doesn't like doing it.

I do so because it is what I want and expect from others. There are many on this forum who will refuse to admit to being wrong. Claus Larsen comes to mind. He refuses to answer question and refuses to admit it when he is demonstrably wrong.

I have 3 people on my ignore list. To make my ignore list you must be devoid of any interesting comments and you must rise to a certain level of intellectual dishonesty.

So, please by all means ask me any question or ask me to respond to a specific point and see if I don't respond. If anyone feel slighted I am more than willing to apologize if you are correct and my post could even be construed as rude.

I should note that many of the people that I personally admire on this forum do NOT share my ideology. I personally like AUP even though I find him maddening at times. He has responded in an honest fashion to a number of questions and he is willing to discuss open and candidly when pressed to do so.

I don't think my thoughts are superior to anyone else's. In any event this rant has gone on long enough and is certainly off topic. I will gladly accept any criticism of it.

Thanks,

RandFan

[The idea]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
What worries me is that when you get enough lies such as this bandied about you at JREF, people start to remember the lies as being what you said.

I never said it. You are creating lies. I expect a retraction.
If you read carefully, you will see that I asked a question about what you think. I didn't claim that you had actually said such a thing.

Also, I never thought that you think what I suggested you think. If I say, "You ate about ten pounds of cake yesterday, didn't you?", I am saying you ate too much cake. The obvious falseness of the "ten pounds" has to be understood if one is to get the "too much" message.

However, if you were genuinely offended, then I do owe you a retraction. I can't prevent myself from having asked the offensive question (and if I could, wouldn't that deprive Mycroft of something?) so I suppose the least I can do is retract it.

My question/insinuation is hereby retracted.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by RandFan
I don't find this true at all. Paranoia and stupidity brought Nixon down. Nixon wasn't all too keen on the war. Like his predecessors he didn't want to be the first President to surrender and lose a war. Hardly a legacy building act. Nixon did not start the conflict nor did he create the atmosphere that you describe. I can't find anything in your post that even remotely resembles the truth.

Oh well, thanks I suppose. I'm not claiming that Nixon alone started the Vietnam War. Since the Domino Theory was the professed justification for the war and Nixon seems to have had a part in promulgating that in the 50's, it's ironic that he ended up being the President that gave up on it. As I recall, he Vietnamised the war and gained Peace With Honour rather than surrendering and losing. And paranoia and stupidity seems to characterise the mentality of the "intelligence" branch of the military-industrial-intelligence complex. Nixon may not have liked the war, but he expended a lot of effort (and ordnance) on trying to "win" it before he gave up.

Apart from that, I take your point.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
I'm not claiming that Nixon alone started the Vietnam War. Since the Domino Theory was the professed justification for the war and Nixon seems to have had a part in promulgating that in the 50's, it's ironic that he ended up being the President that gave up on it. As I recall, he Vietnamised the war and gained Peace With Honour rather than surrendering and losing. And paranoia and stupidity seems to characterise the mentality of the "intelligence" branch of the military-industrial-intelligence complex. Nixon may not have liked the war, but he expended a lot of effort (and ordnance) on trying to "win" it before he gave up.

Apart from that, I take your point. Damn, we agree.

[E.J.Armstrong]

FWIW,

Someone sent me a PM informing me that someone on my ignore list is claiming that I refuse to respond to something or another. If anyone feels that I have acted in inappropriate way or avoided an important point please post it in this thread, start a new thread or PM. I have never, ever, consciously ignored any post (besides those on my ignore list). I have labored hard to respond even when I found the response was difficult due to my own pride. I find that I, from time to time, must apologize for rude behavior. I hate apologizing and often have to stew about it before I can. My ego doesn't like doing it.

I do so because it is what I want and expect from others. There are many on this forum who will refuse to admit to being wrong. Claus Larsen comes to mind. He refuses to answer question and refuses to admit it when he is demonstrably wrong.

I have 3 people on my ignore list. To make my ignore list you must be devoid of any interesting comments and you must rise to a certain level of intellectual dishonesty.

So, please by all means ask me any question or ask me to respond to a specific point and see if I don't respond. If anyone feel slighted I am more than willing to apologize if you are correct and my post could even be construed as rude.

I should note that many of the people that I personally admire on this forum do NOT share my ideology. I personally like AUP even though I find him maddening at times. He has responded in an honest fashion to a number of questions and he is willing to discuss open and candidly when pressed to do so.

I don't think my thoughts are superior to anyone else's. In any event this rant has gone on long enough and is certainly off topic. I will gladly accept any criticism of it.

Thanks,

RandFan

If you really must insist in posting humungus piles of vainglorious and imaginary excreta such as this feel free but at least be honest about your claims. You came onto another thread and claimed I was on your ignore list. I then went to a different thread and posted. You replied.

When you claim to have taken your ball home please be honest about it and do what you claim.

I must point out that I am proud to be on the ignore list of factually incompetent windbags, of which you sir are the absolute doyennne (sic) and herewith order you never to take me off your ignore list again as I just can't take the tedious pedantry any more.

;)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by The idea
If you read carefully, you will see that I asked a question about what you think. I didn't claim that you had actually said such a thing.

Also, I never thought that you think what I suggested you think. If I say, "You ate about ten pounds of cake yesterday, didn't you?", I am saying you ate too much cake. The obvious falseness of the "ten pounds" has to be understood if one is to get the "too much" message.

However, if you were genuinely offended, then I do owe you a retraction. I can't prevent myself from having asked the offensive question (and if I could, wouldn't that deprive Mycroft of something?) so I suppose the least I can do is retract it.

My question/insinuation is hereby retracted.

Thank you.