The advantages of the Vietnam war.

[NoNukes]

Well, it wasn't that the war was outright lost by the US. North Vietnam was bombed to the peace table by Nixon in 1972. The US pulled out and North Vietnam invaded again in 1975, but Congress declined to support South Vietnam. It might be a fine point to make, but the war that started in 1954 did end in 1972.

As far as a change in world order, there is an argument that fighting in places like Korea and Vietnam showed the resolve of western powers to fight Soviet expansion. The Domino Effect idea was that letting one nation fall to the Soviets and doing nothing just prompted others to do the same, so we had to fight. Given how many nations in Asia did fight Communist insurrections with only a few falling to the Communists (namely Cambodia) there may be some validity to the argument. The US certainly was involved in Central and South America in the 70s and 80s propping up various regimes with the eye on keeping them from going like Cuba.

I think the other thing to remember is that places like Vietnam and Afghanistan were proxies during the Cold War. We could fight and support our causes in places like that without actually directly fighting the Soviets (and vice versa).

Regarding your comments in the first paragraph, I agree completely.

America did not LOSE the Vietnam War, it negotiated a peace and left. When the North continued it's aggression, America chose not to fight.

It must be remembered that America signed a treaty with the South Vietnam government, which stated America would support the South completely should the North continue it's aggression. America failed to honor this treaty due to Nixon's Watergate difficulties and Ford's inability to persuade the D Party to honor the treaty.

The D Party, which controlled Congress at the time, refused to support the South and honor America's treaty obligations.

The world knows they can't trust the word of an American politician. When will Americans realize this?

The South Vietnamese government was corrupt and wanted to control the drug trade in the Golden Triangle for profit. Backing them was a huge mistake that was eventually rectified.

 

[NoNukes]

The U.S. took action when the monsters from North Vietnam invaded the peaceful South Vietnamese just as the North Korean monsters invaded peaceful South Korea and the Japanese monsters invaded Singapore and the Germans invaded France (twice). Why is that concept so hard to understand? The problem was that the new democrat party decided to revise the rules so that the US could win every battle and still lose the war.

Some people would disagree as to which Vietnamese government were the monsters.

 

[gipper]

Well, it wasn't that the war was outright lost by the US. North Vietnam was bombed to the peace table by Nixon in 1972. The US pulled out and North Vietnam invaded again in 1975, but Congress declined to support South Vietnam. It might be a fine point to make, but the war that started in 1954 did end in 1972.

As far as a change in world order, there is an argument that fighting in places like Korea and Vietnam showed the resolve of western powers to fight Soviet expansion. The Domino Effect idea was that letting one nation fall to the Soviets and doing nothing just prompted others to do the same, so we had to fight. Given how many nations in Asia did fight Communist insurrections with only a few falling to the Communists (namely Cambodia) there may be some validity to the argument. The US certainly was involved in Central and South America in the 70s and 80s propping up various regimes with the eye on keeping them from going like Cuba.

I think the other thing to remember is that places like Vietnam and Afghanistan were proxies during the Cold War. We could fight and support our causes in places like that without actually directly fighting the Soviets (and vice versa).

Regarding your comments in the first paragraph, I agree completely.

America did not LOSE the Vietnam War, it negotiated a peace and left. When the North continued it's aggression, America chose not to fight.

It must be remembered that America signed a treaty with the South Vietnam government, which stated America would support the South completely should the North continue it's aggression. America failed to honor this treaty due to Nixon's Watergate difficulties and Ford's inability to persuade the D Party to honor the treaty.

The D Party, which controlled Congress at the time, refused to support the South and honor America's treaty obligations.

The world knows they can't trust the word of an American politician. When will Americans realize this?

The South Vietnamese government was corrupt and wanted to control the drug trade in the Golden Triangle for profit. Backing them was a huge mistake that was eventually rectified.

The SV government was certainly corrupt but then all governments, throughout all of human history, are corrupt. It is merely a question of the extent of the corruption.

America should have stayed out of Vietnam just as it should have stayed out of all it's wars, not because we backed a corrupt ally, but because war is always promoted by the power elite to enrich and empower themselves at the expense of the people.

 

[FA_Q2]

The U.S. took action when the monsters from North Vietnam invaded the peaceful South Vietnamese just as the North Korean monsters invaded peaceful South Korea and the Japanese monsters invaded Singapore and the Germans invaded France (twice). Why is that concept so hard to understand? The problem was that the new democrat party decided to revise the rules so that the US could win every battle and still lose the war.

And America would have been better off if it had avoided ALL those wars and followed a policy of non-intervention.

Allowing corrupt political elites to take America to war is ALWAYS a mistake that leads to terrible death, destruction, and lots of debt...along with growing the size and power of government, which constrains individual liberty.

War is the power of the State...and the State, run by politicians who are nothing more than scammers and racketeers, is never to be trusted.

‘all those wars?’

I would have to interject that war is sometimes necessary and there is simply no way around that. If we had abstained indefinitely from WWII, we would be living under a German totalitarian government right now.


Had Japan not bombed Pearl Harbor and we stayed isolationist do you really think that we would be better off?

 

[usmcstinger]

Well, it wasn't that the war was outright lost by the US. North Vietnam was bombed to the peace table by Nixon in 1972. The US pulled out and North Vietnam invaded again in 1975, but Congress declined to support South Vietnam. It might be a fine point to make, but the war that started in 1954 did end in 1972.

As far as a change in world order, there is an argument that fighting in places like Korea and Vietnam showed the resolve of western powers to fight Soviet expansion. The Domino Effect idea was that letting one nation fall to the Soviets and doing nothing just prompted others to do the same, so we had to fight. Given how many nations in Asia did fight Communist insurrections with only a few falling to the Communists (namely Cambodia) there may be some validity to the argument. The US certainly was involved in Central and South America in the 70s and 80s propping up various regimes with the eye on keeping them from going like Cuba.

I think the other thing to remember is that places like Vietnam and Afghanistan were proxies during the Cold War. We could fight and support our causes in places like that without actually directly fighting the Soviets (and vice versa).

Regarding your comments in the first paragraph, I agree completely.

America did not LOSE the Vietnam War, it negotiated a peace and left. When the North continued it's aggression, America chose not to fight.

It must be remembered that America signed a treaty with the South Vietnam government, which stated America would support the South completely should the North continue it's aggression. America failed to honor this treaty due to Nixon's Watergate difficulties and Ford's inability to persuade the D Party to honor the treaty.

The D Party, which controlled Congress at the time, refused to support the South and honor America's treaty obligations.

The world knows they can't trust the word of an American politician. When will Americans realize this?

The South Vietnamese government was corrupt and wanted to control the drug trade in the Golden Triangle for profit. Backing them was a huge mistake that was eventually rectified.

Where is your viable source that backs up " South Vietnamese wanted to control the drug trade trade"

 

[usmcstinger]

Politics don't fully explain the war.
In fact, the only reason I can see is cash.
The U.S. arms industry made a fortune.

Agreed. That was the real reason for the war. However it was disguised by the Domino Effect propaganda promoted by the power elite, to dupe the American people into another disastrous war.

The power elite continues to dupe the American people into funding a huge military industrial complex. Even today when Obama is requesting extremely modest cuts to Defense (if only he would cut the rest of government), many pols and commentators are demanding it be stopped.

Ike warned about the heinous nature of the military industrial complex, though he did nothing to curtail it during his presidency, but no one listened. One would think Ike would have been more outspoken, particularly after it murdered his successor.

It was Democratic President L B Johnson who started the War in Vietnam and Congress gave its full support except for one member. The Democrats had the majority in the House and the Senate during his Administration. Composition of Congress Since 1867 Say what you want about tricky Dick, he did get our Armed Forces out of Vietnam.
Laos is a single-party socialist republic. It espouses Marxism and is governed by a single party communist politburo dominated by military generals.
Cambodia had a number of Governmental changes.
In 1975, the Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot executed about a million and a half people between 1975 and 1979..
North Vietnam took control of areas of Cambodia that were strategic to their war against the US.
There is much more about the governmental history of Cambodia The link below details all of it.

Cambodia: History | Infoplease.com

 

[editec]

I think the mistake many make in POLITICS is assuming that there is ONE motive for policies.

Generally policies that get passed get passed because it serves MANY masters.

The War in Viet Nam served many masters in America.

It was a complete and utter waste of this nations blood and gold. It tore the nation apart both by generation AND class, too.

It STARTED us down the road going from the world's wealthiest creditor nation to the worlds largest debtor nation.

Thank you very much Lyndon Johnson and later Richard Nixon.

Hopefully the Christians are right and you will both burn in hell for that war.

 

[gipper]

The U.S. took action when the monsters from North Vietnam invaded the peaceful South Vietnamese just as the North Korean monsters invaded peaceful South Korea and the Japanese monsters invaded Singapore and the Germans invaded France (twice). Why is that concept so hard to understand? The problem was that the new democrat party decided to revise the rules so that the US could win every battle and still lose the war.

And America would have been better off if it had avoided ALL those wars and followed a policy of non-intervention.

Allowing corrupt political elites to take America to war is ALWAYS a mistake that leads to terrible death, destruction, and lots of debt...along with growing the size and power of government, which constrains individual liberty.

War is the power of the State...and the State, run by politicians who are nothing more than scammers and racketeers, is never to be trusted.

‘all those wars?’

I would have to interject that war is sometimes necessary and there is simply no way around that. If we had abstained indefinitely from WWII, we would be living under a German totalitarian government right now.


Had Japan not bombed Pearl Harbor and we stayed isolationist do you really think that we would be better off?

I do not believe Nazi Germany ever intended to conqueror the USA and had no ability to do it. Hitler's plans all along were to destroy the Soviet Union.

Secondly, FDR set up events leading to Pearl Harbor by purposely putting Japan in an untenable position. This does not excuse Japan for their aggression, it merely points to the fact that allowing a corrupt politician like FDR, who was compromised and desperate for war, is a much bigger problem. Had FDR been a peacemaker rather than a warmonger, WWII would have been much different.

 

[elektra]

I think the mistake many make in POLITICS is assuming that there is ONE motive for policies.

Generally policies that get passed get passed because it serves MANY masters.

The War in Viet Nam served many masters in America.

It was a complete and utter waste of this nations blood and gold. It tore the nation apart both by generation AND class, too.

It STARTED us down the road going from the world's wealthiest creditor nation to the worlds largest debtor nation.

Thank you very much Lyndon Johnson and later Richard Nixon.

Hopefully the Christians are right and you will both burn in hell for that war.

If your history of Vietnam starts with Johnson, not Kennedy, you do not know much about history.

 

[elektra]

Yes, the USA should never of lifted a finger to fight against Communist aggression, never.

The USSR would of won WW II all by themselves, The USSR would of did as they did in History, except without the USA to stop or check the conquering of Europe, Asia, and the Americas, we could now proudly claim we are Communists.

The war in Vietnam, Korea, the cold war, sure messed up the world. Had only we let the Communist win.

 

[racewright]

War hummm
The people of the USA do not have the stomach for war.
War requires a goal and a winner.
If you fight a war with the only goal to be some half assed political bullshit then you are not fighting a war but wasting lives.

Wars are fought to have one group (or nation) defeat and conquer THE OTHER. any other reason is wrong.
If you are not capable of realizing this then you have no justification for loosing lives for some other nation.

Its nothing but a guess as to how much good the USA did with any war but if we were to finish any war to its conclusion then maybe the reasons for wasting lives and finances would equal out.

 

[westwall]

I'm having a little trouble trying to work out why America went into Vietnam.
I was assured it was to save the democratic world from the evil communist threat but, regardless of the reasons for it, you lost and went home.
After that withdrawal, there was no change at all in the world order.

Given that, can anyone explain why the United States went to Vietnam, spent a massive pile of your taxpayers' money, and killed a load of your own people?

So that LBJ, Robert Strange McNamara, and a whole passel of elites could make a ton of money. Same as always.

 

[Indofred]

Yes, the USA should never of lifted a finger to fight against Communist aggression, never.

The USSR would of won WW II all by themselves, The USSR would of did as they did in History, except without the USA to stop or check the conquering of Europe, Asia, and the Americas, we could now proudly claim we are Communists.

The war in Vietnam, Korea, the cold war, sure messed up the world. Had only we let the Communist win.

But, the communists did win in Vietnam.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes, the USA should never of lifted a finger to fight against Communist aggression, never.

The USSR would of won WW II all by themselves, The USSR would of did as they did in History, except without the USA to stop or check the conquering of Europe, Asia, and the Americas, we could now proudly claim we are Communists.

The war in Vietnam, Korea, the cold war, sure messed up the world. Had only we let the Communist win.

But, the communists did win in Vietnam.

That is not an argument that we should have not intervened though. That is simply a statement that we failed in that endeavor.

There is a difference.

 

[racewright]

Yes, the USA should never of lifted a finger to fight against Communist aggression, never.

The USSR would of won WW II all by themselves, The USSR would of did as they did in History, except without the USA to stop or check the conquering of Europe, Asia, and the Americas, we could now proudly claim we are Communists.

The war in Vietnam, Korea, the cold war, sure messed up the world. Had only we let the Communist win.

But, the communists did win in Vietnam.

The communists didn't win shit. It was never a war in the first place. The college kids and relocates to Canada new it was a bullshit happening by the political scumbags.
Part of me (the 67/68 soldier) hates the activist's Hanoi Jane's that protested the war
and part of me applauds them as it is possible that we might still be loosing lives there if left up to the scumbag full of shit leaders. Just like now as the big O who said we will get out of Afghanistan. I'll believe that when I see it and just like all other countries we went in to--- we never leave but only make ya think we did...
Uh when I leave somewhere if you look at where I was I'm not there.

 

[Indofred]

Yes, the USA should never of lifted a finger to fight against Communist aggression, never.

The USSR would of won WW II all by themselves, The USSR would of did as they did in History, except without the USA to stop or check the conquering of Europe, Asia, and the Americas, we could now proudly claim we are Communists.

The war in Vietnam, Korea, the cold war, sure messed up the world. Had only we let the Communist win.

But, the communists did win in Vietnam.

That is not an argument that we should have not intervened though. That is simply a statement that we failed in that endeavor.

There is a difference.

Not if the aim was to defend against communism, thus protecting the U.S. mainland.
That failed war would, had the excuse been valid, had led to disaster for America.

It did not, thus, the excuse for war was bullshit.

 

[Autodidact_33]

From what I gathered, the historical origins of the Vietnam War was an attempt to preserve the last vestiges of French colonial rule. Now most films about that war show it from the perspective of the American grunt; but that was not really the truth. America attempted to win that war by a massive air bombing campaign which resulted in the deaths of conservatively of two million Vietnamese civilians. Though war is not as simple as fiction where it can be simplified as good versus evil, the human cost of that war for both American soldiers and the people of Vietnam was high. North Vietnam was not or ever was a threat to the United States, but they paid a very high cost in the lives of their people for a conflict between to much larger global powers. Though Communism was an oppressive, totalitarian influence in the second half of the twentieth century, is it wrong to say that a nation has a right to decide by what ideology their country should be governed without foreign interference.

 

[usmcstinger]

Those of us who served in Vietnam did not lose squat. We never lost a major battle. We just left. In 1969, the entire 3rd Marine Division went to Okinawa. As of March 29, 1973, all American Troops were gone from Vietnam.

I have no regrets and make no apologies for my combat service in Vietnam.

I suggest you read A VIETNCONG MEMOIR by Truong Nhu Tang and FOLLOWING HO CHI MINH by Bui Tin

It appears most of you experts were not yet born or too young to serve in Vietnam. Let us not forget the Socialists who dodged the draft.

 

[FA_Q2]

But, the communists did win in Vietnam.

That is not an argument that we should have not intervened though. That is simply a statement that we failed in that endeavor.

There is a difference.

Not if the aim was to defend against communism, thus protecting the U.S. mainland.
That failed war would, had the excuse been valid, had led to disaster for America.

It did not, thus, the excuse for war was bullshit.

Not really.

The fight against communism took place on a dozen battlefields. Just because you lost one such incident does not mean that you didn't win the overall conflict. The west won in most of the other locations so even that line of logic really does not stand up.

 

[elektra]

From what I gathered, the historical origins of the Vietnam War was an attempt to preserve the last vestiges of French colonial rule. Now most films about that war show it from the perspective of the American grunt; but that was not really the truth. America attempted to win that war by a massive air bombing campaign which resulted in the deaths of conservatively of two million Vietnamese civilians. Though war is not as simple as fiction where it can be simplified as good versus evil, the human cost of that war for both American soldiers and the people of Vietnam was high. North Vietnam was not or ever was a threat to the United States, but they paid a very high cost in the lives of their people for a conflict between to much larger global powers. Though Communism was an oppressive, totalitarian influence in the second half of the twentieth century, is it wrong to say that a nation has a right to decide by what ideology their country should be governed without foreign interference.

Vietnam was not a threat, Communism was. Communism is and was the opposite of freedom.

The deaths of the Vietnamese was a direct result of Communism. If the USA did not intervene its impossible to say if the death toll would of been higher. There is not one Country in the world where the people embrace and celebrate Communism. To assume in Vietnam that Communism would be accepted peacefully is an opinion ignorant of the facts of History.

Communism in Vietnam resulted in the deaths of whatever number of people you care to attribute to the USA.