The advantages of the Vietnam war.

[longknife]

Leaving all the Hate America and Big Corporations Caused It arguments aside, there are a number of reason we got involved in Korea.

Japan had occupied Korea during the war and as part of the peace treaties, Korea was divided into the north with a government supporting China and communism while the south formed a democratic government siding with the allied powers. When the north invaded the south, the US and UN had no choice but to step in due to treaty obligations.

Vietnam was slightly different. They partially sided with us against the Japanese but were also part of French Indochina. During the period after WWII, European and American companies took advantage of the vast rubber plantation that had caused Japan to occupy the area in the first place. When Uncle Ho and his troops kicked the French out, there was once again a series of treaties dividing the country between a communist north and a democratic south. They US, along with other countries, were signatories to that agreement.

When the north supported small local insurgent groups, the US sent in "military advisors" to teach the south how to fight the insurgency. As the north, supported by Russian, stepped up military activity in the south, the US responded in kind.

Will it ever end?

Well, Vietnam is now unified and appears to be doing much better.

Korea is still divided and will continue to be so as long as China props up the north.

 

[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.

A fair complaint
But my history doesn't.

The guilt for that WAR however DOES start with LBJ.

The real origin of the war starts before WWII, with French colonialism if you want to play that full history game.

But the war was expanded from a pittance force of advisors under Kennedy, to over 500,000 combat troops in country under Johnson.

It's probably that JFK would not have turned that war in what it became. It seems likely he'd have gotten us out instead of digging that hole deeper.

Hence my limiting the guilt to LBJ and RMN.

Do you disagree with my assessment about the WAR and our limited involvement UNTIL LBJ made it into the mess it became?

I like your post, it is impossible to speculate which direction the war would of went, chances are great the JFK would of checked the Communist and even pushed them out of Vietnam, but that is not the history.

 

[elektra]

So your belief is that despite the fact that the Communist brutally murdered and caused the deaths of millions, that Communism's stated goal was complete rule over all people in the world, that there was never a threat?

Tens of Million dead directly because of Communism, Communists driving tanks into other countries, killing those who oppose them, and there is zero threat.

Oh, I get it, those who fled the Tyrant have no right to stop a Tyrant, we must sit quietly and watch or relatives die.

The free people of the world should just huddle in the one sanctuary from death and murder, just hide here and ignore Communism's rise to power and control, because it can never hurt us, even if it grew and kept getting more and more powerful?

If the USA never fought Communism what would the world be today, most likely we would not have this discussion, your parents or yourself would of died in the war we would of fought to prevent Communism from taking over the USA.

Communist conquering the entire World was never a threat to freedom?

America has attacked and killed just as many as communist countries have, probably more.
Please explain why American tanks wading into countries, killing thousands, were better than communist tanks doing the same.
I'm sure America saved many Cambodians from being forced into communism...when it bombed civilians to hell (Without any declaration of war).

Better dead by an American bomb than forced into communism?
Please explain how Cambodian, Indonesian and so many other civilians were better off dead than potentially communist and how it is acceptable to bomb countries without declaring war and trying to hide the fact you did so.

In fact, America is a massive threat to the world and was always a greater threat than communism.
Basically, America invaded Vietnam, killed a load of its own people in a daft war and managed to kill thousands of local while it was doing so.

So to answer my facts about Communism you make statements of opinion, some posed as questions, all vague and Howard Zinn like, you should study the great work of Marxist Howard Zinn, you know, "the peoples history of the united states", it was Howard Zinn's life's work. Howard Zinn literally took his entire life to condense our history into a revisionist marxist history of political talking points. You most likely are completely ignorant of how your opinion is the exact propaganda that Marxist such as Howard Zinn spent a life, literally, teaching you.

Thank you for the excellent example of the effectiveness of propaganda.

I like the childish gibberish you start your rant with, I say childish because your saying, "but mommy, they did it to!" Followed by "Probably". Are you not willing to say for sure?

Really, Probably? Pol Pot is responsible for Genocide, not Probably. You have zero knowledge of the crimes of Communism.

 

[Indofred]

Well, Vietnam is now unified and appears to be doing much better.

Yes, that's what happens when America gets kicked out but......
Korea is still divided and will continue to be so as long as America props up the south.

 

[NoNukes]

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.

How are people who dodged the draft for moral reasons Socialists?

They did not Dodge for moral reasons they were PUNKS

And you have little idea what you are talking about.

 

[MDiver]

The west was forseeing a domino effect as some nations fell to communist aggression and ideology. When France lost to the North Vietnamese, the U.S. felt it could stem communist aggression into South Vietnam and to get us into the war, the "Gulf of Tonkin" lie was generated, claiming that North Vietnamese forces attacked our warship.
In any case we technically didn't lose that war, but rather, left because the american public was sick of seeing the war carnage in their living rooms via the television and huge protests pressured the government to pull out. In actuality, we had completely destroyed the Viet Cong and had pushed the North Vietnamese troops back, but public pressure in the U.S. doomed the ongoing conflict.
Since then, you see the imbedded reporters in our conflict restricted on what they can film, so as to not undermine the conflicts.

 

[Indofred]

So to answer my facts about Communism you make statements of opinion,

Really, Probably? Pol Pot is responsible for Genocide, not Probably. You have zero knowledge of the crimes of Communism.

Yes, I stated my opinion about communism being a pile of old shit that can never work.
Now you get stupid. Pol pot, whilst a beginner by Stalin's standard, managed a massive killing spree in his short time in power.
I'm amazed you think there's any question about this.

However, back in reality and without needed to make shit up and try to make out another poster actually said it, I didn't defend communism, just stated America has done as bad or worse as far as wars go.
America, in its defence, has used its troops to murder far fewer of its civilians than most communist states managed.

 

[elektra]

So to answer my facts about Communism you make statements of opinion,

Really, Probably? Pol Pot is responsible for Genocide, not Probably. You have zero knowledge of the crimes of Communism.

Yes, I stated my opinion about communism being a pile of old shit that can never work.
Now you get stupid. Pol pot, whilst a beginner by Stalin's standard, managed a massive killing spree in his short time in power.
I'm amazed you think there's any question about this.

However, back in reality and without needed to make shit up and try to make out another poster actually said it, I didn't defend communism, just stated America has done as bad or worse as far as wars go.
America, in its defence, has used its troops to murder far fewer of its civilians than most communist states managed.

You have your opinion, I will keep to the facts.

 

[FA_Q2]

Well, Vietnam is now unified and appears to be doing much better.

Yes, that's what happens when America gets kicked out but......
Korea is still divided and will continue to be so as long as America props up the south.

True. It is also true that a divided Korea is FAR BETTER than a unified one for the southern half. So, if we left Korea would certainly be unified in suffering. Everyone would be doing terrible rather than simply the northern, China supported region.

The two statements – Korea would be unified if China stopped supporting the North and Korea would be unified if the USA stopped supporting the south – are not equivalent.

 

[editec]

So to answer my facts about Communism you make statements of opinion, some posed as questions, all vague and Howard Zinn like, you should study the great work of Marxist Howard Zinn, you know, "the peoples history of the united states", it was Howard Zinn's life's work. Howard Zinn literally took his entire life to condense our history into a revisionist marxist history of political talking points. You most likely are completely ignorant of how your opinion is the exact propaganda that Marxist such as Howard Zinn spent a life, literally, teaching you.


WRONG.

A People's History of the United States was written in 1980

his lifes works include

LaGuardia in Congress (1959) OCLC 642325734.
The Southern Mystique (1962) OCLC 423360.
SNCC: The New Abolitionists (1964) OCLC 466264063.
New Deal Thought (editor) (1965) OCLC 422649795.
Vietnam: The Logic of Withdrawal (1967) OCLC 411235.
Disobedience and Democracy: Nine Fallacies on Law and Order (1968, re-issued 2002) ISBN 978-0-89608-675-3.
The Politics of History (1970) (2nd edition 1990) ISBN 978-0-252-06122-6.
The Pentagon Papers Senator Gravel Edition. Vol. Five. Critical Essays. Boston. Beacon Press, 1972. 341p. plus 72p. of Index to Vol. I–IV of the Papers, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, editors. ISBN 978-0-8070-0522-4.
Justice in Everyday Life: The Way It Really Works (Editor) (1974) ISBN 978-0-688-00284-8.
Justice? Eyewitness Accounts (1977) ISBN 978-0-8070-4479-7.
A People's History of the United States: 1492 – Present (1980), revised (1995)(1998)(1999)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2010) ISBN 978-0-06-052837-9.
Playbook by Maxine Klein, Lydia Sargent and Howard Zinn (1986) ISBN 978-0-89608-309-7.
Declarations of Independence: Cross-Examining American Ideology (1991) ISBN 978-0-06-092108-8.[94]
A People's History of the United States: The Civil War to the Present Kathy Emery and Ellen Reeves, Howard Zinn (2003 teaching edition) Vol. I: ISBN 978-1-56584-724-8. Vol II: ISBN 978-1-56584-725-5.
Failure to Quit: Reflections of an Optimistic Historian (1993) ISBN 978-1-56751-013-3.
You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train: A Personal History of Our Times (autobiography)(1994) ISBN 978-0-8070-7127-4
A People's History of the United States: The Wall Charts by Howard Zinn and George Kirschner (1995) ISBN 978-1-56584-171-0.
Hiroshima: Breaking the Silence (pamphlet, 1995) ISBN 978-1-884519-14-7.
The Zinn Reader: Writings on Disobedience and Democracy (1997) ISBN 978-1-888363-54-8; 2nd edition (2009) ISBN 978-1-58322-870-8.
The Cold War & the University: Toward an Intellectual History of the Postwar Years (Noam Chomsky (Editor) Authors: Ira Katznelson, R. C. Lewontin, David Montgomery, Laura Nader, Richard Ohmann,[95] Ray Siever, Immanuel Wallerstein, Howard Zinn (1997) ISBN 978-1-56584-005-8.
Marx in Soho: A Play on History (1999) ISBN 978-0-89608-593-0.
The Future of History: Interviews With David Barsamian (1999) ISBN 978-1-56751-157-4.
Howard Zinn on War (2000) ISBN 978-1-58322-049-8.
Howard Zinn on History (2000) ISBN 978-1-58322-048-1.
La Otra Historia De Los Estados Unidos (2000) ISBN 978-1-58322-054-2.
Three Strikes: Miners, Musicians, Salesgirls, and the Fighting Spirit of Labor's Last Century (Dana Frank, Robin Kelley, and Howard Zinn) (2002) ISBN 978-0-8070-5013-2.
Terrorism and War (2002) ISBN 978-1-58322-493-9. (interviews, Anthony Arnove (Ed.))
The Power of Nonviolence: Writings by Advocates of Peace Editor (2002) ISBN 978-0-8070-1407-3.
Emma: A Play in Two Acts About Emma Goldman, American Anarchist (2002) ISBN 978-0-89608-664-7.
Artists in Times of War (2003) ISBN 978-1-58322-602-5.
The 20th century: A People's History (2003) ISBN 978-0-06-053034-1.
A People's History of the United States: Teaching Edition Abridged (2003 updated) ISBN 978-1-56584-826-9.
Passionate Declarations: Essays on War and Justice (2003) ISBN 978-0-06-055767-6.
Howard Zinn On Democratic Education Donaldo Macedo, Editor (2004) ISBN 978-1-59451-054-0.
The People Speak: American Voices, Some Famous, Some Little Known (2004) ISBN 978-0-06-057826-8.
Voices of a People’s History of the United States (with Anthony Arnove, 2004) ISBN 978-1-58322-647-6; 2nd edition (2009) ISBN 978-1-58322-916-3.
A People's History of the Civil War: Struggles for the Meaning of Freedom by David Williams, Howard Zinn (Series Editor) (2005) ISBN 978-1-59558-018-4.
A Power Governments Cannot Suppress (2006) ISBN 978-0-87286-475-7.
Original Zinn: Conversations on History and Politics (2006) Howard Zinn and David Barsamian.
A People's History of American Empire (2008) by Howard Zinn, Mike Konopacki and Paul Buhle. ISBN 978-0-8050-8744-4.
A Young People's History of the United States, adapted from the original text by Rebecca Stefoff; illustrated and updated through 2006, with new introduction and afterword by Howard Zinn; two volumes, Seven Stories Press, New York, 2007.
Vol. 1: Columbus to the Spanish-American War. ISBN 978-1-58322-759-6.
Vol. 2: Class Struggle to the War on Terror. ISBN 978-1-58322-760-2.
One-volume edition (2009) ISBN 978-1-58322-869-2.
The Bomb (City Lights Publishers, 2010) ISBN 978-0-87286-509-9.
The Historic Unfulfilled Promise (City Lights Publishers, 2012) ISBN 978-0-87286-555-6.

 

[Infidel]

Well, Vietnam is now unified and appears to be doing much better.

Yes, that's what happens when America gets kicked out but......
Korea is still divided and will continue to be so as long as America props up the south.

The North just has to surrender. Pretty simple really.

 

[Indofred]

However, back in reality and without needed to make shit up and try to make out another poster actually said it, I didn't defend communism, just stated America has done as bad or worse as far as wars go.
America, in its defence, has used its troops to murder far fewer of its civilians than most communist states managed.

You have your opinion, I will keep to the facts.

SOUTH DAKOTA 1890 (-?) Troops 300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee.
IDAHO 1892 Troops Army suppresses silver miners' strike.
CHICAGO 1894 Troops Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed.
DETROIT 1943 Troops Army put down Black rebellion.

These uses of your military to kill your own civilians are quite old examples but you still execute your own citizens without trial.

The list of countries you've attacked and murdered civilians in is far too long to bother posting but I've give the link and one example.

CAMBODIA l969-75 Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.

You never declared war, just carpet bombed civilians in a decade long terror campaign.
Sorry, America isn't a terrorist nation, you must have been attacking terrorists.

History of U.S. Military Interventions since 1890

Basically, the United states has mass murdered in a wide variety of countries for years and, as is common with killer countries, you've never so much as tried to take your murderers to court.
How do those facts suit you?

 

[Indofred]

Which is how they knew there was nothing worthwhile to attack again.

Actually, you got busted in public so were forced to stop.
One of your murderers was shot down and, to save his own skin, kept all his ID and mission documents, against his standing orders.
I'm happy you think America murdering innocent Christian civilians, on their way home from church, is funny.
Personally, I think you're a silly fucker.

No, you're just confused, we were talking about armies.

Sorry, American CIA covert forces, fully equipped with bomber aircraft, aren't an army.
Just a terrorist group.

 

[Picaro]

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

It's not such a simple issue, as the reasons start way back in the 1930's, with Franklin Roosevelt and others at the onset of the Depression who foresaw the end of colonial empires and a world thrown into chaos by the coming of the likes of Mussolini, Stalin, and Hitler, all wannabee imperialists who saw military conquest and political destabilization of their neighbors as viable options for expanding their power and wealth.



WW II was inevitable in their minds, and the isolationist U.S. fantasy was a serious threat to stability, and of course they were right. Isolationism never worked for the U.S., and was an impossibility given the vast improvements in transportation technology and industrial capabilities; it was a much smaller world in the 20th century than it was in the 18th and early 19th centuries. Appeasing the likes of Wilhelm II proved the old world not only crumbling but making it a much more dangerous place, no matter where you were.

but, regardless of the reasons for it,you lost and went home.

Actually the Soviets lost, and we went home because there was no longer a compelling reason to stay there, thanks to Nixon and Kissinger's diplomacy with China. The physical occupation of Viet Nam wasn't necessary after those agreements were reached. The Soviets were faced with U.S. alliance against them in SE Asia, not a situation they could successfully counter.



The U.S. escalations by Johnson bankrupted the Soviets, along with other setbacks elsewhere, in the ME and Africa, by 1973, and removed the threat of a major Soviet naval base astride key shipping lanes in Asia, something China was not happy about seeing either.



Viet Nam was a SEATO alliance operation, not just a U.S. one, by the way. So, it was a strategic success for the U.S. And our Asian allies, as well as China, which was no friend of the Soviets in that era, and probably headed off a war between the Soviets and China as well.

After that withdrawal, there was no change at all in the world order.

There was major change in world order; the Soviets went into the oil crisis and the concurrent global food shortage in a severely weakened condition, which led to the 'Detente' agreements and the Soviets depending on U.S. Grain shipments and technology transfers for developing its oil and gas industry, to name two. They never recovered from the drain of the VN war, and finally collapsed.

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?

Internal corruption doesn't invalidate the containment policy and its general success; it was a domestic problem for the U.S., as it is in all countries, even Sweden and Russia today.
Our military performed very well in Viet Nam, especially considering the number of draftees. The failure of the South Vietnamese government to win a civil war despite all the aid is on their shoulders, not the U.S. If it were about the U.S. Imperialism' myth popular in propaganda memes, Hanoi would be a Disney theme park today.



Maybe if Kennedy hadn't approved the assassination of Diem because he and his brother were exploring a unilateral agreement with Ho things would have turned out differently, but Kennedy was more concerned with his image as an 'anti-communist' and how bad it would look for him in the next election if Diem and Ho made peace to spend any time thinking about anybody but himself, and making it necessary for Johnson to escalate the U.S. presence there.

Viet Nam is not now a Chinese province, the Soviets ended up with a tiny refueling station, and our SEATO alliance is still intact for the most part; I don't see any 'defeat' here, except on the Soviet side, whatever the trendy fashionable rhetorical spin is attempting to achieve with fantasy nonsense.

 

[darroll]

We went to war in Viet Nam because our friend (The President) asked us to help their country defeat communism.
Later we found out the country was about 80% communist.

 

[Infidel]

Actually, you got busted in public so were forced to stop.
One of your murderers was shot down and, to save his own skin, kept all his ID and mission documents, against his standing orders.
I'm happy you think America murdering innocent Christian civilians, on their way home from church, is funny.
Personally, I think you're a silly fucker.

No, you're just confused, we were talking about armies.

Sorry, American CIA covert forces, fully equipped with bomber aircraft, aren't an army.
Just a terrorist group.

Because a fucking rice gobbler like you can spot CIA covert forces a mile away?

 

[High_Gravity]

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?

Whats this wierd fetish you have with Vietnam?

 

[Infidel]

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?

Whats this wierd fetish you have with Vietnam?

Chicks faces in Nam aren't as flat as in Indonesia.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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?

We lost? The Nation brought us home following North Vietnam's promise-by treaty-that it would stop attacking South Vietnam. South Vietnam lost because Congress cut RSVN's supply line while N. Vietnam continued to be resupplied by the USSR and Red China.

From our POV Vietnam was a part of the Cold War and we won the Cold War.

 

[Bill Angel]

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?

We lost? The Nation brought us home following North Vietnam's promise-by treaty-that it would stop attacking South Vietnam. South Vietnam lost because Congress cut RSVN's supply line while N. Vietnam continued to be resupplied by the USSR and Red China.

From our POV Vietnam was a part of the Cold War and we won the Cold War.

That's an interesting point about Congress cutting RSVN's supply line versus N. Vietnam continued to be resupplied by the USSR and Red China. An excellent book about WW II is

Inferno: The World at War, 1939-1945
by Max Hastings
See http://books.google.com/books/about/Inferno.html?id=YqwtuAAACAAJ
The author stresses the importance of the battle that each side fought to get their supplies through to the forces that they were supporting, while fighting to cripple the enemy's ability to do the same. Cutting the enemy's supply lines was of greater importance in achieving victory than the various tactical situations that played out on the battlefields.