Acting Strong. What a crock of you know what.

[Psychoblues]

We acted strong in WWII. Actually, we did quite a lot there. But, we divided the world into East and West. My children and I spent years "ducking and covering" in ignorant anticipation of the "A" blast from who knows where. The aftermath of WWII goes on to this day. Think about the veterans.

We acted strong in Korea. We still operate under an armistice there and have no assurrance whatsoever that WAR is not still to this day at immediate hand. In fact, because North Korea is part of the lately popularized "Axis of Evil" the WAR might be even beginning as I type here in USMB. Service in Korea still qualifies one for membership in the VFW, Veterans of Foreign Wars. The aftermath of the Korean War goes on to this day. Think about the veterans.

We acted strong in Viet Nam. We intensified the resolve of the people there to rule their own country. Other than slimming the ranks of eligible male American workers, I can't think of a thing that we accomplished there. Having been and fought there, I resent that circumstanse. Think about the veterans.

We acted strong in Grenada. It exists as a leftist nation encouraged by popular and economically satisfying standards. But, we ran the Cubans out of there!!!!! I went there as well. It didn't turn out as promised. Think about the veterans.

We acted strong in Panama. Outside of arresting a lowlife thug that had the ability to climb to the office of the Presidency of that country and the American willingness to turning over of it's globally important ports to the Chinese I don't remember much about it. I did some of that. As proud as I am as an American, I'm not very proud of the result. Think about the veterans.

We acted strong in Persian Gulf I, Desert Storm, the original WAR ON IRAQ. We left a tyrant in power for the people of Iraq to undermine and topple. They and we failed in that endeavor. You can bet your ass they won't fail in this most recent insurgency to rid themselves of what they perceive as their attackers, occupiers or otherwise warmongers. I served in Desert Storm. I found the general populace of Iraq as astoundingly peace-loving. They were mostly Muslims for sure. They were also very anti-interference in their own political, economic and daily lives. I am proud that I saw that truth in Iraq. The veterans there were forgotten as soon as they came home.

"Act Strong". I just heard that phrase from a very Republican apologist on MSNBC. He is so full of shit.

Psychoblues

 

[CSM]

We acted strong in WWII. Actually, we did quite a lot there. But, we divided the world into East and West. My children and I spent years "ducking and covering" in ignorant anticipation of the "A" blast from who knows where. The aftermath of WWII goes on to this day. Think about the veterans.

We acted strong in Korea. We still operate under an armistice there and have no assurrance whatsoever that WAR is not still to this day at immediate hand. In fact, because North Korea is part of the lately popularized "Axis of Evil" the WAR might be even beginning as I type here in USMB. Service in Korea still qualifies one for membership in the VFW, Veterans of Foreign Wars. The aftermath of the Korean War goes on to this day. Think about the veterans.

We acted strong in Viet Nam. We intensified the resolve of the people there to rule their own country. Other than slimming the ranks of eligible male American workers, I can't think of a thing that we accomplished there. Having been and fought there, I resent that circumstanse. Think about the veterans.

We acted strong in Grenada. It exists as a leftist nation encouraged by popular and economically satisfying standards. But, we ran the Cubans out of there!!!!! I went there as well. It didn't turn out as promised. Think about the veterans.

We acted strong in Panama. Outside of arresting a lowlife thug that had the ability to climb to the office of the Presidency of that country and the American willingness to turning over of it's globally important ports to the Chinese I don't remember much about it. I did some of that. As proud as I am as an American, I'm not very proud of the result. Think about the veterans.

We acted strong in Persian Gulf I, Desert Storm, the original WAR ON IRAQ. We left a tyrant in power for the people of Iraq to undermine and topple. They and we failed in that endeavor. You can bet your ass they won't fail in this most recent insurgency to rid themselves of what they perceive as their attackers, occupiers or otherwise warmongers. I served in Desert Storm. I found the general populace of Iraq as astoundingly peace-loving. They were mostly Muslims for sure. They were also very anti-interference in their own political, economic and daily lives. I am proud that I saw that truth in Iraq. The veterans there were forgotten as soon as they came home.

"Act Strong". I just heard that phrase from a very Republican apologist on MSNBC. He is so full of shit.

Psychoblues

I can only imagine what the world would be like if we had NOT acted strong. Maybe you relish the idea of living on your knees but I do not. As for thinking about the veterans; it absolutely galls me that you think veterans need protecting from themselves. Especially in today's military the soldiers, airmen, sailors and Marines are there because they want to be. They didn't consult you when they joined, don't ask for your view while they are in and I am betting they sure as hell wont ask you for an opinion when they get out.

Those same Muslims you mention had little to say about peace when hundreds of thousands of their own were being killed by their own leader, didn't make a peep when entire towns of Kurds were being gassed. That is not "peace-loving", that is apathetic at best and condoning at worst.

The Republican on TV may be full of shit, but he sure as hell isnt the only one.

 

[dmp]

Psycho - are you ever going to grow up and stop being a big Pussy?

 

[Avatar4321]

Funny thing is your examples are all examples of us NOT acting strong.

We acted strong in WW2, till we were tired and then we appeals the Soviets rather than dealing with them as we should have. It wasnt till we started showing strength 40 years later that we Toppled the Soviet Oppression.

We didn't show strength in Korea. We pulled back and tried to appeal the North Koreans and Chinese. We still are appeasing the North Koreans.

We didnt show strength in Vietnam. We ran away. When the North Vietnamese violated the peace treaty, overran South Vietnam, instead of defending them like we promised we were lead by politicians who would rather abandon our allies then show our strength. Because of our lack of willingness to show our strength, millions of people were slaughtered in South east Asia to the communists.

As for Granada, we did show our strength. And its better off that Cuba doesn't have interest there. What exactly is bad about that? It was the first of many nations liberated from the soviet influence in the 80s. Its not the effect alone in Granada, but the shere fact that we were actually willing to stand up for our foreign policy doctrines and willing to show the Soviets that we werent afraid to fight. We flexed our strength and they blinked.

How the heck is handing over Panama to the Chinese a exercise of strength to you? You seem to think that gestures are force are us using force. We haven't used half our strength since we fully mobilized in World War II. and unfortunately that was just till we got tired of maintaining it.

Do you honestly think we are acting strong by refusing to eliminate Saddam as a threat in the region?

No the problem isnt that we have been acting strong. Its the fact that every time we need to deal with a problem people like you bitch and moan that we are so evil for using force that we have restrain ourselves, making problems we could easily deal with by actually using our strength alot worse than they have to be.

Think of the veterans? Its people like you and the golddigger John Kerry, who i heard served in Vietnam, who are always trashing our military, always undermining our efforts and preventing us from actually accomplishing something. Its people like you who stab your fellow soldiers in the back and spit in their faces that cause the problems.

When we start actually using our strength, then you might have reason to complain. But dont start *itching about our military efforts failing when you actively try to undermine them.

 

[Diuretic]

The military can win and lose battles but they can't win and lose wars.

Battles are, militarily speaking, ends in themselves, they are part of the larger war. Military superiority in both strategy, tactics and logistics will win a battle or lose a battle.

Winning and losing wars is the province of the civilian bosses of the military. And that goes for all nations.

 

[Gunny]

Acting Strong. What a crock of you know what.

Quite right. We should all be snivelling little coward afraid of our own shadows.

Kinda' like YOU. :finger:

 

[Psychoblues]

You missed a couple or three of the points I made, CSM. You justify your ignorance, in your twisted mind, by just attacking me personally.

First off, the USA IS STRONG. We are stronger than any Army, any Nation, any political understanding or endeavor that has ever been attempted in the history of the WORLD, at least in my honest opinion.

Secondly, we undermine and even shame our Veterans as we deny them the promises that WE made for them. Check out all the legislation that has passed under Republican administrations that directly affect Veterans since 1968. Pay particular attention to legislation since 2001. I don't find it as any mystery as to why our recruiting goals are not being met and that stop-gap legislation is now required in the ranks.

Thirdly, the very GOOD NATURE of the American people is being usurped by the peoples and orgnaizations that stand to profit the most. You read the news and so do I. I can only draw this conclusion. The profitteers of WAR now control us and will do so for generations to come.

Psychoblues

I can only imagine what the world would be like if we had NOT acted strong. Maybe you relish the idea of living on your knees but I do not. As for thinking about the veterans; it absolutely galls me that you think veterans need protecting from themselves. Especially in today's military the soldiers, airmen, sailors and Marines are there because they want to be. They didn't consult you when they joined, don't ask for your view while they are in and I am betting they sure as hell wont ask you for an opinion when they get out.

Those same Muslims you mention had little to say about peace when hundreds of thousands of their own were being killed by their own leader, didn't make a peep when entire towns of Kurds were being gassed. That is not "peace-loving", that is apathetic at best and condoning at worst.

The Republican on TV may be full of shit, but he sure as hell isnt the only one.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You missed a couple or three of the points I made, CSM. You justify your ignorance, in your twisted mind, by just attacking me personally.

First off, the USA IS STRONG. We are stronger than any Army, any Nation, any political understanding or endeavor that has ever been attempted in the history of the WORLD, at least in my honest opinion.

Secondly, we undermine and even shame our Veterans as we deny them the promises that WE made for them. Check out all the legislation that has passed under Republican administrations that directly affect Veterans since 1968. Pay particular attention to legislation since 2001. I don't find it as any mystery as to why our recruiting goals are not being met and that stop-gap legislation is now required in the ranks.

Thirdly, the very GOOD NATURE of the American people is being usurped by the peoples and orgnaizations that stand to profit the most. You read the news and so do I. I can only draw this conclusion. The profitteers of WAR now control us and will do so for generations to come.

Psychoblues

Maybe bush is a war profiteer. If your insane party would get off this naive and suicidal "war is never the answer" crap, maybe you could be trusted in office again. Just a thought.

 

[CSM]

You missed a couple or three of the points I made, CSM. You justify your ignorance, in your twisted mind, by just attacking me personally.

First off, the USA IS STRONG. We are stronger than any Army, any Nation, any political understanding or endeavor that has ever been attempted in the history of the WORLD, at least in my honest opinion.

Secondly, we undermine and even shame our Veterans as we deny them the promises that WE made for them. Check out all the legislation that has passed under Republican administrations that directly affect Veterans since 1968. Pay particular attention to legislation since 2001. I don't find it as any mystery as to why our recruiting goals are not being met and that stop-gap legislation is now required in the ranks.

Thirdly, the very GOOD NATURE of the American people is being usurped by the peoples and orgnaizations that stand to profit the most. You read the news and so do I. I can only draw this conclusion. The profitteers of WAR now control us and will do so for generations to come.

Psychoblues

Man, Psycho is the right name for you. Your original post in this thread was denigrating the US stance and "acting strong. When I call you on it, you wander into the weeds about Veterans Affairs, the evils of the military industrial complex, and recruiting. You cannot seem to maintain coherent thought.

By the way, the day I "justify" myself to you or any other wacko is never going to come....get over it.

 

[theHawk]

He is so full of shit.

Psychoblues

The stinch may be coming from you sir, not the T.V.

 

[1549]

We didn't show strength in Korea. We pulled back and tried to appeal the North Koreans and Chinese. We still are appeasing the North Koreans.

We didnt show strength in Vietnam. We ran away. When the North Vietnamese violated the peace treaty, overran South Vietnam, instead of defending them like we promised we were lead by politicians who would rather abandon our allies then show our strength. Because of our lack of willingness to show our strength, millions of people were slaughtered in South east Asia to the communists.

South Vietnam was hardly an ally. In fact it had only been a country for 15 years when we started sending troops. Before then, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia formed French Indochina.

We put a puppet in control of the government in South Vietnam (Diem) otherwise the South Vietnamese would have likely elected Minh as their communist dictator.

You call South Vietnam an ally when we actually ended up allowing Diem to be executed (we told those overthrowing him that we would not interfere) because he was a terrible leader and he was exacerbating the situation.

As far as being tough:

In 1968 Minh delivered the biggest slap in the face in U.S. history, when his army attacked 58 towns and 6 cities in south vietnamese city. They even took over the U.S. embassy.

They killed 4300 allied soldiers, and wounded 16,000. We were tough: they lost 45,000 and Minh said the casualties to his army were so enormous that it prevented the Vietcong from using conventional warfare for the remainder of the war.

That does not matter though, because for years we had been bombing North Korea, and 'pacifying' village after village losing American sodiers along the way. Yet when they wanted to, the North Vietnamese were able to infultrate any location in South Vietnam.

So in a war like that, what do you mean by we didn't get tough? Are soldiers were tougher than any other on the planet. They were so frustrated that incidents like My Lai occurred.

The fact is that we could not win that war and we had no business being there in the first place. If we had allowed South Vietnam to elect Minh it would have saved hundreds of thousands of people.

That is what paranoia does. The domino effect was stupid and cost America in numerous ways, including the lives of many young men.

Don't make a statement like 'we weren't tough' so we left...it really had nothing to do with that:
-We owed South Vietnam nothing
-We had no business being there
-Thousands and thousands of people were dying in an un-winnable war

It was a matter of common sense.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

B-b-b-but...if we hadn't stood tough against North Vietnam, they would have come over on boats and occupied america! We'd all be speaking Vietnamese by now! As powerful as they are now, just imagine what a threat they'd be if we hadn't put up a good fight.

 

[theim]

Don't make a statement like 'we weren't tough' so we left...it really had nothing to do with that:
-We owed South Vietnam nothing
-We had no business being there
-Thousands and thousands of people were dying in an un-winnable war

It was a matter of common sense.

We don't owe anybody anything, we were in Vietnam because it was our in our interests to halt Communism. Period. Also, if you want ot be taken seriously avoid comments like "We had no business being there." International, world-scale politics are slightly more complicated than Kindergarten ethos: "Now Timmy, be nice to Billy and he'll be nice to you." Doesn't work that way. And the war was perfectly winnable. The soldiers won every single engagement, but the pols at home pussed out.

To Psycho:

Capitalizing RANDOM words extremely sparingly adds dramatic FLAIR, but DOING IT too OFTEN looks TACKY.

 

[Gunny]

South Vietnam was hardly an ally. In fact it had only been a country for 15 years when we started sending troops. Before then, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia formed French Indochina.

We put a puppet in control of the government in South Vietnam (Diem) otherwise the South Vietnamese would have likely elected Minh as their communist dictator.

Incorrect. "We" did not put Diem in power. Diem played ball in the local, French controlled government prior to the separation of Norht and South Vietnam by the UN.

You call South Vietnam an ally when we actually ended up allowing Diem to be executed (we told those overthrowing him that we would not interfere) because he was a terrible leader and he was exacerbating the situation.

We called S Vietnam an ally because the Government of South Vietnam took a stand against the communist North. That was at the heighth of the Cold War.

As far as being tough:

In 1968 Minh delivered the biggest slap in the face in U.S. history, when his army attacked 58 towns and 6 cities in south vietnamese city. They even took over the U.S. embassy.

They killed 4300 allied soldiers, and wounded 16,000. We were tough: they lost 45,000 and Minh said the casualties to his army were so enormous that it prevented the Vietcong from using conventional warfare for the remainder of the war.

WHAT slap in the face? The BS one Walter put out to the American people? The US stomped the snot out of both the VC and NVA. It was a "loss" only to those without the resolve to finish what we started. The shame, if there is ANY, is on THEM.

That does not matter though, because for years we had been bombing North Korea, and 'pacifying' village after village losing American sodiers along the way. Yet when they wanted to, the North Vietnamese were able to infultrate any location in South Vietnam.

So in a war like that, what do you mean by we didn't get tough? Are soldiers were tougher than any other on the planet. They were so frustrated that incidents like My Lai occurred.

The fact is that we could not win that war and we had no business being there in the first place. If we had allowed South Vietnam to elect Minh it would have saved hundreds of thousands of people.

That is what paranoia does. The domino effect was stupid and cost America in numerous ways, including the lives of many young men.

Don't make a statement like 'we weren't tough' so we left...it really had nothing to do with that:
-We owed South Vietnam nothing
-We had no business being there
-Thousands and thousands of people were dying in an un-winnable war

It was a matter of common sense.

Hogwash. We came out of WWII THE power in the free world. If not on us, then WHO?

We left Vietnam because the MSM and lying left had the people of the US convinced we couldn't win with nothign but false accusations and contrived "truthes," just as they do now.

The war was winnable. All we had to do was fight it like a war.

 

[trobinett]

I'm in late, but a good thread, and an interesting read.

I come down on the side, that what we did from WWII onward, we did for all the right reasons, and though it could be argued, that mistakes were made. We did have a plan, and fought the good fight.

The world would look a lot different, and our role in the world would be quite different, if we hadn't stood up to world communism.

 

[1549]

We don't owe anybody anything, we were in Vietnam because it was our in our interests to halt Communism. Period. Also, if you want ot be taken seriously avoid comments like "We had no business being there." International, world-scale politics are slightly more complicated than Kindergarten ethos: "Now Timmy, be nice to Billy and he'll be nice to you." Doesn't work that way. And the war was perfectly winnable. The soldiers won every single engagement, but the pols at home pussed out.

We got involved in Vietnam because we feared that South Vietnam would elect Minh during free elections. Remember that South Vietnam and North Vietnam were the same country until French-Indochina war that followed WWII.

The global politics really were not that complicated when it comes to Vietnam. They were granted free elections to unify the country by the Geneva conference. We had no business interest, no alliance to support. As you said, we feared the spread of communism, so we basically stripped them of free elections and supported a dictator. This made war pretty much inevitable.

I think the Domino Theory over complicated the matter. It was a crock of shit that led to lots of deaths. A lot of south vietnamese people supported communism. That fact hurt us during the war. We should have allowed them to elect Minh. There is no indication that he had any aspirations of becoming a conquerer, and it is unlikely communism would have made a leap from Vietnam to Japan. They are completely different cultures.

Hogwash. We came out of WWII THE power in the free world. If not on us, then WHO?

We left Vietnam because the MSM and lying left had the people of the US convinced we couldn't win with nothign but false accusations and contrived "truthes," just as they do now.

The war was winnable. All we had to do was fight it like a war.

We were the power of the free world after WWII. And we were still the power of the world after Vietnam. In the midst of Vietnam, if the Vietcong wanted to come out of there holes and fight us head on we would have obliterated them. The fact is even powers can fall victim to home-field advantage.

As far as "fight it like a war":

We bombed North Vietnam without mercy. We bombed neighboring cambodia, we bombed neighboring laos. We resorted to chemical warfare. We did things that are very illegal in war on purpose (Operation Phoenix) and on accident (My Lai). We used an estimated 3.1 million service members in the Vietnam war.

Every aspect of the war was designed by McNamara's whiz kids to increase the military's killing efficiency. The M-16 for example became the official gun of the military despite using .22 caliber bullets (critics enjoyed guns with more fire power). Using formulas of kills produced per bullet fired, the M-16 would kill at a higher rate by getting off more rounds in a shorter time period.

This war was not a half ass effort, it used pretty much everything except for nukes.

Lastly you mention the lying left:

JFK and his staff were liberals, but not by today's standards. JFK was a "cold warrior" and believed in fighting communism at all costs. The pentagon papers reveal however that even the governments staunchest supporters of the war (like McNamara) became doubtful the US could win.

 

[Gunny]

We got involved in Vietnam because we feared that South Vietnam would elect Minh during free elections. Remember that South Vietnam and North Vietnam were the same country until French-Indochina war that followed WWII.

We got involved in Vietnam as UN peacekeepers. We supported the south to stop the spread of communism. There was never any fear that Ho would be eleceted in any free elections.

The global politics really were not that complicated when it comes to Vietnam. They were granted free elections to unify the country by the Geneva conference. We had no business interest, no alliance to support. As you said, we feared the spread of communism, so we basically stripped them of free elections and supported a dictator. This made war pretty much inevitable.

You need a new history book. Yours is broke. The North refused to participate in free elections and NOTHING about them was free anything.

I think the Domino Theory over complicated the matter. It was a crock of shit that led to lots of deaths. A lot of south vietnamese people supported communism. That fact hurt us during the war. We should have allowed them to elect Minh. There is no indication that he had any aspirations of becoming a conquerer, and it is unlikely communism would have made a leap from Vietnam to Japan. They are completely different cultures.

The Domino Theory was NOT a crock of shit, and has played itself out over and over again under various guises.

The South Vietnamese did NOT support communism. Now THAT is a crock of shit. What hurt us during the war was that they did not support the South Vietnamese government; which, does not automatically mean they support communism.

Ho was a Nationalist. He wanted an independent and unified Vietnam, HIS way. "Conqueror" by any other name.



We were the power of the free world after WWII. And we were still the power of the world after Vietnam. In the midst of Vietnam, if the Vietcong wanted to come out of there holes and fight us head on we would have obliterated them. The fact is even powers can fall victim to home-field advantage.

We didn't fall victim to "home field advantage." We fell victim to this arbitrary set of rules for waging war which the enemy did not adhere to.
As far as "fight it like a war":

We bombed North Vietnam without mercy. We bombed neighboring cambodia, we bombed neighboring laos. We resorted to chemical warfare. We did things that are very illegal in war on purpose (Operation Phoenix) and on accident (My Lai). We used an estimated 3.1 million service members in the Vietnam war.

Every aspect of the war was designed by McNamara's whiz kids to increase the military's killing efficiency. The M-16 for example became the official gun of the military despite using .22 caliber bullets (critics enjoyed guns with more fire power). Using formulas of kills produced per bullet fired, the M-16 would kill at a higher rate by getting off more rounds in a shorter time period.

This war was not a half ass effort, it used pretty much everything except for nukes.

No, we did not fight a war to win. We fought a limited war to achieve political success. We had the enemy on his knees more than once during that war and refused to deliver the final blow.

The M-16 was designed to provide a lighweight assault weapon with automatic capability based on battlefield reality rather than target shooting at the range. It's predecessor, the M-14, was basically a ramped-up version of the M-1, a pre-WWII rifle which was outdated by the time Vietnam rolled around.

McNamara was a typical lib. He tried to fight a war with a computer and slide-rule.
Lastly you mention the lying left:

JFK and his staff were liberals, but not by today's standards. JFK was a "cold warrior" and believed in fighting communism at all costs. The pentagon papers reveal however that even the governments staunchest supporters of the war (like McNamara) became doubtful the US could win.

I was not referring to JFK, nor Johnson. I was referring to the counter-culture hippies, war protestors and in general anyone who was or is willing to accept defeat just to win a political victory.

At the time, they and the Democrats were separate entities.

And nobody could win a war McNamara's way. He was incompetent at his job. Simple as that.

 

[1549]

We got involved in Vietnam as UN peacekeepers. We supported the south to stop the spread of communism. There was never any fear that Ho would be eleceted in any free elections.

From what I have read it was a given that Ho would have won the election in the South. That is why elections were not allowed to proceed.

The South Vietnamese did NOT support communism. Now THAT is a crock of shit. What hurt us during the war was that they did not support the South Vietnamese government; which, does not automatically mean they support communism.

You are right that some were simply anti-Diem. You are wrong that many south vietnamese did not support Minh. As I said, it was a given that he would have won an election.

If you are talking about Saigon, yes mostly anti-Diem but still not communist. When you get to the rural villages it was very pro-Minh. And of course, the battles were not lost in Saigon and southern cities...we were defeated in the jungles and the rice fields.

The Domino Theory was NOT a crock of shit, and has played itself out over and over again under various guises.

It is a crock of shit because it would have never had a significant impact. The

We didn't fall victim to "home field advantage." We fell victim to this arbitrary set of rules for waging war which the enemy did not adhere to.

The tactics of the Vietnamese certainly hurt the United States. There is the classic story of the little kid running to a helicopter. The helicopter did not take off, thinking the little kid needed help. Instead he tossed a grenade killing all of the American on the helicopter.

But homefield advantage was decisive in Vietnam. They had Jungle to hide in, trails to deliver supplies and troops across the north/south and through other countries, and they had their infamous tunnels.

We could overcome this sort of warfare in the islands of Japan because they were Islands. In the end there were only so many places the enemy could hide on island. Not so in Vietnam.

Even if we had used Goldwater's suggestion of nukes...it likely would not have helped. The enemy was anyone, anywhere. Plus you have to ask yourselves, is a nuke worth it in this instance. And of course, it is not.

The M-16 was designed to provide a lighweight assault weapon with automatic capability based on battlefield reality rather than target shooting at the range. It's predecessor, the M-14, was basically a ramped-up version of the M-1, a pre-WWII rifle which was outdated by the time Vietnam rolled around.

You can criticize McNamara and his team for their use of statistics and what not, but they are one of the reasons we have the M-16.

The military rejected its design, built versions of the gun wrong so that it would fail tests and eventually rejected it as the successor of the M-14. A gun company purchased then purchased the gun for commercial sale. It was then recognized by an Air force general, sent through the channels, and eventually picked up by McNamara and his team and given the title M-16..

 

[Diuretic]

Just one thing that has always bugged me about the reasoning for going into Vietnam. If the Domino Theory is valid, then why didn't Communism sweep from Vietnam through the rest of South-East Asia when the North Vietnamese won?

Obviously I don't think it was valid. I might be being a bit simplistic here but it seems to me that communism has never flourished in a developed society. It finds root in developing or not fully developed societies but in particular those societies with corrupt systems. South Vietnam was a prime example. Thailand never went communist even when Vietnam did. Thailand is a developed economy with a functioning democracy (okay its had its troubles but it was never badly unstable or massively corrupt) and a poulation that is satisfied with its system.

Communism isn't imposed, it grows from within, that's why I think the Domino Theory was always suspect.

 

[1549]

Just one thing that has always bugged me about the reasoning for going into Vietnam. If the Domino Theory is valid, then why didn't Communism sweep from Vietnam through the rest of South-East Asia when the North Vietnamese won?

Obviously I don't think it was valid. I might be being a bit simplistic here but it seems to me that communism has never flourished in a developed society. It finds root in developing or not fully developed societies but in particular those societies with corrupt systems. South Vietnam was a prime example. Thailand never went communist even when Vietnam did. Thailand is a developed economy with a functioning democracy (okay its had its troubles but it was never badly unstable or massively corrupt) and a poulation that is satisfied with its system.

Communism isn't imposed, it grows from within, that's why I think the Domino Theory was always suspect.

I agree, a country with a developed steady economy and governement is not going to fall victim to communism.

As a threat to America I think it was very exagerrated...an outgrowth of paranoia.