Why United States is going to lose the War on Terror

wade said:
But these decisions are made after the fact. And the cause does not need to be just, look at the Spanish-American war. We won, but our position was hardly just. We just wanted what the Spanish were too week to hold so we took it.

And what about the Indian wars? You going to try to say this was a "just" cause? Wars are won by power and commitment, right and wrong have little to do with it.

Wade.

sighs maybe i need to make this clearer

so long as the cause is just and the people believe in it.

Vietnam deffinately was a just war. we were fighting to prevent the spread of totalitarianist regimes in Southeast asia. Problem is the people waviered in their belief in the cause. And because of that millions of people will killed because of our failure to follow through with Vietnam. Sometimes I wonder how those anti vietnam war protesters must feel to know that their actions caused the death of all those innocent people under the hands of communist thugs.
 
Avatar4321 said:
sighs maybe i need to make this clearer

Vietnam deffinately was a just war. we were fighting to prevent the spread of totalitarianist regimes in Southeast asia. Problem is the people waviered in their belief in the cause. And because of that millions of people will killed because of our failure to follow through with Vietnam. Sometimes I wonder how those anti vietnam war protesters must feel to know that their actions caused the death of all those innocent people under the hands of communist thugs.

What? We were fighting to prop up one of the worst totalitarian regimes in the history of mankind. We were fighting for the continuance of the slave-plantation system maintained by the French. Yes the people were duped by the promises of the communists, namely land reform, but don't for one instant try to claim that we were there in the intrest of the freedom of the Vietnamese people. Freedom, by it's very nature requires that the will of the people be respected, and that is something the USA was clearly not willing to do if that will was to follow Ho-Chi-Mein.

And the whole fiasco could have been avoided years before if we had just entertained Ho-Chi-Mein's desire to free his people. Our own intelligence people recommended we support him. If not for this foolish support of the oppressor nation there would never have been a communist movement in Vietnam, Ho-Chi-Mien prefered to deal with us, and only turned to the communists because we supported the french.

A lack of understanding of your opponent usually leads to defeat, and this fact was clearly made in Vietnam.

Wade.
 
David2004 said:
Kathianne- Please name the countries that 50% or more of the people support the United States war in Iraq beside the State of Israel. Here are a few nations that a greater number oppose the United States actions. Canada, Japan, Great Britain, Germany, Netherlands, Egypt, Jordan, Russia, Indonesia, India, Turkey, Italy and of course France.

David, false question. It doesn't matter what 'the people' of other countries think, to the security of our own nation. Easy for the Europeans to take a 'enlightened approach' since they have been unable to take control of their own defense for nearly 100 years now.

Name issue that impact security or financing that you get over 50% agreement on by the people of the US?
 
wade said:
What? We were fighting to prop up one of the worst totalitarian regimes in the history of mankind.

Against falling to a regime even WORSE. MILLIONS of citizens slaughtered by Communists in the region after taking control and ending the war. So tell us who was worse, becuase its EITHER one OR the other.

We were fighting for the continuance of the slave-plantation system maintained by the French.

Yeah, fighting for slavery. Got ya~

Yes the people were duped by the promises of the communists, namely land reform, but don't for one instant try to claim that we were there in the intrest of the freedom of the Vietnamese people.

Their freedom was in our interest.

Freedom, by it's very nature requires that the will of the people be respected, and that is something the USA was clearly not willing to do if that will was to follow Ho-Chi-Mein.

And we know for a fact the will of the people was not to back Ho-Chi-Min.

The will of SOME people may have been, but those in the North had NO CHOICE to express that will, while many in the South who WERE KILLED, or had all their property siezed, or simply wanted to be FREE to CHOOSE, all those are people you are blind to seeing. You express simply a trained statement learned in some Liberal meme.

And the whole fiasco could have been avoided years before if we had just entertained Ho-Chi-Mein's desire to free his people. Our own intelligence people recommended we support him. If not for this foolish support of the oppressor nation there would never have been a communist movement in Vietnam, Ho-Chi-Mien prefered to deal with us, and only turned to the communists because we supported the french.

That's ridiculous, we became involved only after Ho Chi Min was a declared communist, defeated the French, signed the UN peace treaty, and then recanted on the terms of democratic selection of the future government and began to plan insurrenction into South Vietnam.

A lack of understanding of your opponent usually leads to defeat, and this fact was clearly made in Vietnam.

And see your solution was simple, support the Communist, and we'd win, right? :poop:
 
It's been my impression that both Ho Chi Minh and Castro sought recognition and assitance form the US prior to seeking it form the Communist countries. In hind sight, wasn't it a mistake to not reward Ho Chi Minh for helping win WW11 in Southest Asia and instead returning the colonies to France?
 
dilloduck said:
It's been my impression that both Ho Chi Minh and Castro sought recognition and assitance form the US prior to seeking it form the Communist countries. In hind sight, wasn't it a mistake to not reward Ho Chi Minh for helping win WW11 in Southest Asia and instead returning the colonies to France?


I am assuming that was what he was referring to. The US mistakenly thought, not the first or last time, that Chiang Kai-shek would emerge as the leader. Ho kept his eye on the prize, where Chiang kept his hand in the cookie jar. Our bad!
 
dilloduck said:
It's been my impression that both Ho Chi Minh and Castro sought recognition and assitance form the US prior to seeking it form the Communist countries. In hind sight, wasn't it a mistake to not reward Ho Chi Minh for helping win WW11 in Southest Asia and instead returning the colonies to France?

There were a host of players to choose to support after the war. Ho Chi Minh was simply not the only faction in Vietnam to expect eventual loyalty from.

I believe the biggest problem with Vietnam following the war was as France began to resume its traditional role in the are, not particularly willing to pass that influence to the USA. France turned Ho Chi Mihn against themselves and obviously that meant we wouldn't support him under that alignment...

France is one of our greatest allies!
:D
 
dilloduck said:
It's been my impression that both Ho Chi Minh and Castro sought recognition and assistance form the US prior to seeking it form the Communist countries. In hind sight, wasn't it a mistake to not reward Ho Chi Minh for helping win WW11 in Southeast Asia and instead returning the colonies to France?

I have studied and read on Vietnam A LOT. Ho Chi Min was NOT a communist. He was a nationalist and only turned to communism after we refused to assist him expel all foreign powers from Vietnam. He tried in the 20's to have an audience with Woodrow Wilson while he was attending, if I recall correctly, Harvard, but Wilson refused to meet with him. So even BEFORE WWII, Ho was seeking our help in getting rid of the French and Brits in Indo-China.

When the first US Soldiers where killed in Vietnam, it was in an ambush on a BRITISH convoy. When Ho found out, he personally sent a telegram to the president of the USA to apologize.

Ho was NOT anti-American. We were just anti-Ho (actually, I think we were trying to suck up to the French who were also anti-Ho. About the time we started seriously getting involved in Indo-China, is about the same time France first started blowing their horn about dropping out of NATO).

Did you know that Ho wrote Vietnam's first Constitution based 100% on the US Constitution?
 
Kathianne said:
I am assuming that was what he was referring to. The US mistakenly thought, not the first or last time, that Chiang Kai-shek would emerge as the leader. Ho kept his eye on the prize, where Chiang kept his hand in the cookie jar. Our bad!

My bad. Mixing up Ho and Mao! :spank3:
 
Kathianne said:
I am assuming that was what he was referring to. The US mistakenly thought, not the first or last time, that Chiang Kai-shek would emerge as the leader. Ho kept his eye on the prize, where Chiang kept his hand in the cookie jar. Our bad!

I think that's another whole situation in China, which is also relevant to the same issues in post-war Vietnam.

What you're thinking is Chiang vs. Mao, right?
 
Kathianne said:
My bad. Mixing up Ho and Mao! :spank3:

Hehe, good catch, right before I could nail you, Damn!

But you raised another good point.

We were supporting Chiang and therefore could not support Ho Chi Mihn for various geographical and ideological reasons as well, even before we bring in France as Ho Chi Mihn's enemy later.
 
Comrade said:
I think that's another whole situation in China, which is also relevant to the same issues in post-war Vietnam.

What you're thinking is Chiang vs. Mao, right?

Yup. If the US had not miscalculated, because Chiang was 'educated', perhaps we could have avoided not only Vietnam, but in all likelihood Korea.
 
freeandfun1 said:
I have studied and read on Vietnam A LOT. Ho Chi Min was NOT a communist. He was a nationalist and only turned to communism after we refused to assist him expel all foreign powers from Vietnam. He tried in the 20's to have an audience with Woodrow Wilson while he was attending, if I recall correctly, Harvard, but Wilson refused to meet with him. So even BEFORE WWII, Ho was seeking our help in getting rid of the French and Brits in Indo-China.

When the first US Soldiers where killed in Vietnam, it was in an ambush on a BRITISH convoy. When Ho found out, he personally sent a telegram to the president of the USA to apologize.

I'd never see a reason for America to EVER give support to an enemy of our greatest allies from WWII.

Ho was NOT anti-American. We were just anti-Ho (actually, I think we were trying to suck up to the French who were also anti-Ho. About the time we started seriously getting involved in Indo-China, is about the same time France first started blowing their horn about dropping out of NATO).

Well this makes sense, but we also know our allies were trying to extricate themselves from each of of their colonies after WWII, as a policy, and did so as reasonably as they could, without leaving behind a mess or so-called friendly 'revolutionaries'. If they were attacking those same people like the UK who freed them from Japan, mere months afterwards, I think that's something to consider.

Did you know that Ho wrote Vietnam's first Constitution based 100% on the US Constitution?

Well that's odd though, since he never lived up to a single shred of it even after he had total control.

Which just proves he was full of shit!
 
Kathianne said:
Yup. If the US had not miscalculated, because Chiang was 'educated', perhaps we could have avoided not only Vietnam, but in all likelihood Korea.

Our problem was not because we supported him instead of Moa (a declared Communist), but because we didn't support him enough.
 
Comrade said:
Our problem was not because we supported him instead of Moa (a declared Communist), but because we didn't support him enough.

Hmm, I disagree. Mao kept the idea of getting rid of the Japanese, which he did. Chaing was always arguing that he needed more 'money,' or men or something. (kinda reminds me of Lincoln's generals at the beginning of the war.)

When our leaders saw which the 'people' were backing, they should have heeded.
 
Kathianne said:
Hmm, I disagree. Mao kept the idea of getting rid of the Japanese, which he did. Chaing was always arguing that he needed more 'money,' or men or something. (kinda reminds me of Lincoln's generals at the beginning of the war.)

When our leaders saw which the 'people' were backing, they should have heeded.


I'm not sure what you mean. I agree he was more popular and competent but Mao was a devoted Marxist, with adjustments to use the peasant class to establish the revolution instead of the working class.

But did we have any reason to support him based on pretty consistent anti-Communist opposition going forward from that time?
 
Comrade said:
I'm not sure what you mean. I agree he was more popular and competent but Mao was a devoted Marxist, with adjustments to use the peasant class to establish the revolution instead of the working class.

But did we have any reason to support him based on pretty consistent anti-Communist opposition going forward from that time?


But Mao had the sense to put aside his aspirations for revolution to work for the removal of the Japanese, without the funding that Chiang had. Because of that, he 'earned' the respect of the peasants, who were being slaughtered by the Japanese. The US definately needed an Einstein moment here, they should have backed Mao or at least his way of setting aside ideology to accomplish the goal. We wouldn't have 'earned' the distrust of the Chinese people if we had backed the one that was helping them.

I'm not arguing that China wouldn't have gone Communist, don't get me wrong.
 
Kathianne said:
But Mao had the sense to put aside his asperations for revolution to work for the removal of the Japanese, without the funding that Chiang had. Because of that, he 'earned' the respect of the peasants, who were being slaughtered by the Japanese. The US definately needed an Einstein moment here, they should have backed Mao or at least his way of setting aside ideology to accomplish the goal. We wouldn't have 'earned' the distrust of the Chinese people if we had backed the one that was helping them.

I'm not arguing that China wouldn't have gone Communist, don't get me wrong.


I didn't understand you were talking about support pre-1945... I think you have a good point especially since it DID go Communist eventually. In the final year of the war I know what you are talking about with Chiang's forces ran away and sometimes being even killed by the peasants for doing so!

I also know Chiang was intentionally reserving his strenght to fight the certain final battle with the Communists in the north, who at THAT stage were holed up and were not agressively attacked by the Japanese, and who had the luxury of reserving their stength.

It's hard to deal with alternatives like this. Since the reason the Japanese attacked Chiang's forces in 1944-45 was because we were supporting him and also establishing air bases in his area. If we hadn't brought on the late Japanese push where alot of that sentiment was created to Chiang but instead to Mao (assuming we based from there), could we have said the same effect would have been the same years down the line? Who knows!

All I'm saying is we have to support someone we want to win, not someone we expect to win.
 
Comrade said:
I didn't understand you were talking about support pre-1945... I think you have a good point especially since it DID go Communist eventually. In the final year of the war I know what you are talking about with Chiang's forces ran away and sometimes being even killed by the peasants for doing so!

I also know Chiang was intentionally reserving his strenght to fight the certain final battle with the Communists in the north, who at THAT stage were holed up and were not agressively attacked by the Japanese, and who had the luxury of reserving their stength.

It's hard to deal with alternatives like this. Since the reason the Japanese attacked Chiang's forces in 1944-45 was because we were supporting him and also establishing air bases in his area. If we hadn't brought on the late Japanese push where alot of that sentiment was created to Chiang but instead to Mao (assuming we based from there), could we have said the same effect would have been the same years down the line? Who knows!

All I'm saying is we have to support someone we want to win, not someone we expect to win.

I may be goofy, history and all, but it seems to me that much of what has happened in our lifetimes, including those born as late as 1980's, is directly related to decisions made during and after WWI AND WWII. The fact that we did work with Stalin in WWII, in spite of his earlier alliance with Hitler, probably went a long way to keeping the Cold War relatively cold, at least in the writ large sense. Why the US chose so differently with China I don't know, but I would guess it probably involved prejudice against the Asians, since those 'leading' the war were raised in the post-RR era. (Just a hunch.)
 
Kathianne said:
I may be goofy, history and all, but it seems to me that much of what has happened in our lifetimes, including those born as late as 1980's, is directly related to decisions made during and after WWI AND WWII. The fact that we did work with Stalin in WWII, in spite of his earlier alliance with Hitler, probably went a long way to keeping the Cold War relatively cold, at least in the writ large sense. Why the US chose so differently with China I don't know, but I would guess it probably involved prejudice against the Asians, since those 'leading' the war were raised in the post-RR era. (Just a hunch.)

I hear ya. I thought I read about a close friendship between Chiang's wife and the first Lady, but I can't recall details to be sure. It could have been with another wife of a big shot in the US admin.. If that kind of thing was going on you bet the President would get an ear full don't you think, lol!
 

Forum List

Back
Top