the Vietnam War and the American Revolution

[elvis]

It has been pointed out to me that the Viet Cong were terrorists during the Vietnam War. I agree with that. Their tactics were similar to what has been used in Iraq against Americans. If we believe the Patriot, it appears the Americans used similar tactics against the British in the American Revolution. However, if you call them terrorists, someone might crack your head open. Were the tactics really similar, and if so, why were the americans not terrorists, but the Viet Cong were?

 

[Xenophon]

The tactics were not similar, even if the goal was, independance.

 

[editec]

It has been pointed out to me that the Viet Cong were terrorists during the Vietnam War. I agree with that. Their tactics were similar to what has been used in Iraq against Americans. If we believe the Patriot, it appears the Americans used similar tactics against the British in the American Revolution. However, if you call them terrorists, someone might crack your head open. Were the tactics really similar, and if so, why were the americans not terrorists, but the Viet Cong were?

Because one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, in many respects.

Now clearly there are degrees of terrorism which are so far beyond the pale that nobody (probably) except the terrorists themselves supports them. The Berner-Meinhoff gang might be a good example of that kind of so called "terrorist"

But we live in an age where the struggle for the moral high ground is often fought on the battleground of semantics, don't we?

 

[mightypeon]

its Baader Meinhoff, but yes, one mans freedom fighter is, was, and always will be another mans terrorist.

I dont know a lot about the revolutionary war tactics, but what the Vietcong did was fairly basic (and fairly well done) Guerillia stuff. A difference would be treatmeant of (same race, the continentals were not nice to Indians) prisoners, if I would be a German mercenary (there were quite a couple of them in the French phase of Vietnam, at that time the foreign legion spoke German) I would rather be captured by the revolutionary americans than by the Vietcong.
On the defense of the Vietcong, treating prisoners well becomes more difficult against an enemy with air superiority and aerial mobility.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Show me a war that is not terrible or terrifying to someone involved and I'll show you a warrior who is not a terrorist to anyone.

-Joe

 

[Gunny]

It has been pointed out to me that the Viet Cong were terrorists during the Vietnam War. I agree with that. Their tactics were similar to what has been used in Iraq against Americans. If we believe the Patriot, it appears the Americans used similar tactics against the British in the American Revolution. However, if you call them terrorists, someone might crack your head open. Were the tactics really similar, and if so, why were the americans not terrorists, but the Viet Cong were?

Because one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, in many respects.

Now clearly there are degrees of terrorism which are so far beyond the pale that nobody (probably) except the terrorists themselves supports them. The Berner-Meinhoff gang might be a good example of that kind of so called "terrorist"

But we live in an age where the struggle for the moral high ground is often fought on the battleground of semantics, don't we?

Sad, but true.

 

[Gunny]

It has been pointed out to me that the Viet Cong were terrorists during the Vietnam War. I agree with that. Their tactics were similar to what has been used in Iraq against Americans. If we believe the Patriot, it appears the Americans used similar tactics against the British in the American Revolution. However, if you call them terrorists, someone might crack your head open. Were the tactics really similar, and if so, why were the americans not terrorists, but the Viet Cong were?

Terrorism is a word like torture. It's all in the way the word is being twisted to suit one's argument.

The VC were in fact South Vietnamese who resisted Diem's government, and by extension, the US because we supported him. It should be noted that originally they were completely separate from North Vietnam and did no tshare the same goals.

The North used the VC to do its dirty work with little cost to its own military assets. They allowed the VC to be crushed from existence during Tet 68.

The VC was in fact, a group of insurgent rebels set on ousting the South Vietnames regimes which were made up of former French colonial puppets, and patterned their government after the French colonial governments.

Ideologically, we supported the wrong side in the Vietnam War based on fear of the spread of communism. That overrode any and all logic, facts and common sense.

Ho Chi Minh came to US first. He was labeled a commie and told to go pound sand. Only then did he turn to the Soviet Union for help. We instead supported a class bigot and snob, and ruthless authoritarian dictator against a nationalist who fought for independence and unification of his nation.

Not one of the US's brighter moments in history.

 

[mightypeon]

Show me a war that is not terrible or terrifying to someone involved and I'll show you a warrior who is not a terrorist to anyone.

-Joe

German Danish war, Austro Prussian war. (1862 and 1864 IIRC)

Both were "cabinett wars" between "equal civilised powers" where not that much (some real estate or some political power, but the national survival was guaranteed in both cases on both sides) was at stake. Both wars were carried out under significant international scrunity too. Also, both wars were very short.
Last but not least, none of the war parties had any interest in leveling the countryside.

 

[Amanda]

Also, speaking of Ho Chi Minh...

We had a deal with him and we broke it, we shouldn't have. We told him we'd help Vietnam become independent of French rule if he helped us against the Japanese in WW2. He helped, and we handed Vietnam back over to the French when WW2 was over.

We should have kept to the deal. We would have had an ally in the region and the French haven't been much help to us since then anyway so it wouldn't have really mattered if we pissed them off. Besides they lost Vietnam to Japan, so why should they have got their colony back?

I've always felt the fear of communism was unfounded, but then I didn't live through those times so I don't know what it was really like. It seems to me if you just let communism run it's course it collapses on it's own. It's just not realistic, it looks so warm and fuzzy on paper but theory and reality are different.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Show me a war that is not terrible or terrifying to someone involved and I'll show you a warrior who is not a terrorist to anyone.

-Joe

German Danish war, Austro Prussian war. (1862 and 1864 IIRC)

Both were "cabinett wars" between "equal civilised powers" where not that much (some real estate or some political power, but the national survival was guaranteed in both cases on both sides) was at stake. Both wars were carried out under significant international scrunity too. Also, both wars were very short.
Last but not least, none of the war parties had any interest in leveling the countryside.

If nobody was wounded it wasn't a war. If someone was wounded, someone was terrified.

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

It has been pointed out to me that the Viet Cong were terrorists during the Vietnam War. I agree with that. Their tactics were similar to what has been used in Iraq against Americans. If we believe the Patriot, it appears the Americans used similar tactics against the British in the American Revolution. However, if you call them terrorists, someone might crack your head open. Were the tactics really similar, and if so, why were the americans not terrorists, but the Viet Cong were?

Terrorism is a word like torture. It's all in the way the word is being twisted to suit one's argument.

The VC were in fact South Vietnamese who resisted Diem's government, and by extension, the US because we supported him. It should be noted that originally they were completely separate from North Vietnam and did no tshare the same goals.

The North used the VC to do its dirty work with little cost to its own military assets. They allowed the VC to be crushed from existence during Tet 68.

The VC was in fact, a group of insurgent rebels set on ousting the South Vietnames regimes which were made up of former French colonial puppets, and patterned their government after the French colonial governments.

Ideologically, we supported the wrong side in the Vietnam War based on fear of the spread of communism. That overrode any and all logic, facts and common sense.

Ho Chi Minh came to US first. He was labeled a commie and told to go pound sand. Only then did he turn to the Soviet Union for help. We instead supported a class bigot and snob, and ruthless authoritarian dictator against a nationalist who fought for independence and unification of his nation.

Not one of the US's brighter moments in history.

Two posts that have the history straight. Nice!

Joe

 

[Annie]

It has been pointed out to me that the Viet Cong were terrorists during the Vietnam War. I agree with that. Their tactics were similar to what has been used in Iraq against Americans. If we believe the Patriot, it appears the Americans used similar tactics against the British in the American Revolution. However, if you call them terrorists, someone might crack your head open. Were the tactics really similar, and if so, why were the americans not terrorists, but the Viet Cong were?

Terrorism is a word like torture. It's all in the way the word is being twisted to suit one's argument.

The VC were in fact South Vietnamese who resisted Diem's government, and by extension, the US because we supported him. It should be noted that originally they were completely separate from North Vietnam and did no tshare the same goals.

The North used the VC to do its dirty work with little cost to its own military assets. They allowed the VC to be crushed from existence during Tet 68.

The VC was in fact, a group of insurgent rebels set on ousting the South Vietnames regimes which were made up of former French colonial puppets, and patterned their government after the French colonial governments.

Ideologically, we supported the wrong side in the Vietnam War based on fear of the spread of communism. That overrode any and all logic, facts and common sense.

Ho Chi Minh came to US first. He was labeled a commie and told to go pound sand. Only then did he turn to the Soviet Union for help. We instead supported a class bigot and snob, and ruthless authoritarian dictator against a nationalist who fought for independence and unification of his nation.

Not one of the US's brighter moments in history.

Subsistiute Mao for Mihn and you are onto something. He wanted US backing, they were too wrapped up with Chiang Kai-shek, while certainly not a communist, was a lousy leader for his people. Reminds me of the story of 'for want of a screw...'

 

[editec]

Also, speaking of Ho Chi Minh...

We had a deal with him and we broke it, we shouldn't have. We told him we'd help Vietnam become independent of French rule if he helped us against the Japanese in WW2. He helped, and we handed Vietnam back over to the French when WW2 was over.

We should have kept to the deal. We would have had an ally in the region and the French haven't been much help to us since then anyway so it wouldn't have really mattered if we pissed them off. Besides they lost Vietnam to Japan, so why should they have got their colony back?

I've always felt the fear of communism was unfounded, but then I didn't live through those times so I don't know what it was really like. It seems to me if you just let communism run it's course it collapses on it's own. It's just not realistic, it looks so warm and fuzzy on paper but theory and reality are different.

You know why we betrayed Ho?

Because we were forging NATO and France made getting Viet Nam back a condition for their support.

Not exactly a day to be proud day for French patriots, either.

And we're bascially still making the same boneheaded mistakes right now in the midEast.

Sad, isn't it?

 

[Gunny]

Also, speaking of Ho Chi Minh...

We had a deal with him and we broke it, we shouldn't have. We told him we'd help Vietnam become independent of French rule if he helped us against the Japanese in WW2. He helped, and we handed Vietnam back over to the French when WW2 was over.

We should have kept to the deal. We would have had an ally in the region and the French haven't been much help to us since then anyway so it wouldn't have really mattered if we pissed them off. Besides they lost Vietnam to Japan, so why should they have got their colony back?

I've always felt the fear of communism was unfounded, but then I didn't live through those times so I don't know what it was really like. It seems to me if you just let communism run it's course it collapses on it's own. It's just not realistic, it looks so warm and fuzzy on paper but theory and reality are different.

The fear if communism itself spreading manifested itself in this country via McCarty. The fear of the USSR and/or China spreading communism through force of arms was a real enough threat following WWII, founded on the USSR's enslavement of satellite nations. The USSR would back pretty-much any so-called "communist" revolutionary and we would back any so-called "democratic" government. They were used as proxies to fight wars of "good vs evil" in several countries ... Korea, Vietnam and Cuba being the main ones.

While a real enough threat, the only actual threat to the US was from within, and it wasn't communism that threatened us but fear based on a LOT of misinformation.

 

[KittenKoder]

The tactics used in the revolutionary war were considered bad at the time because back then everyone who fought "properly" stood in lines and marched on an open field while mowing each other down until the opponents all died or retreated. Which basically means that the side with the most people wins no matter how smart or well trained you were. Our side had no other choice but to use their brains instead of just walking to their own slaughter.

 

[editec]

The tactics used in the revolutionary war were considered bad at the time because back then everyone who fought "properly" stood in lines and marched on an open field while mowing each other down until the opponents all died or retreated. Which basically means that the side with the most people wins no matter how smart or well trained you were. Our side had no other choice but to use their brains instead of just walking to their own slaughter.

Yes, most of us men who aren't large have probably noted how often bullies complain when their intended victims won't play by their rules.

Odd how often people define a "fair fight" as that fighting style which give them every advantage, isn't it?

Or...maybe not.

 

[xotoxi]

The American Patriots were not terrorists because we are Americans.

The same applies for the argument that waterboarding is not torture. We are Americans, so it is not considered torture.