 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Off Topic » Vietnam
youngallstar
America's war in Vietnam ended more than a quarter of a century ago. It continues to divide our country. Unlike World War II, when Americans were united, Vietnam split us apart. Even Families. Thirty years after the war, the American people continue to disagree over who was responsible, whether it was a good cause or not, how it was fought, what could have been done. All high military personel had their reputations tarnished, in some cases besmirched. Any heroes we had emerged from the ranks of the Junior officers and enlisted men, and from the prisoners of war, mainly pilots.
Vietnam
September 01, 2004 at 06:40AM View BBCode
I like the recent discussions weve been having in regards to history and war. In lue of this I bring you a Vietnam discussion. I ask that no one get to heated in this discussion, thanks.America's war in Vietnam ended more than a quarter of a century ago. It continues to divide our country. Unlike World War II, when Americans were united, Vietnam split us apart. Even Families. Thirty years after the war, the American people continue to disagree over who was responsible, whether it was a good cause or not, how it was fought, what could have been done. All high military personel had their reputations tarnished, in some cases besmirched. Any heroes we had emerged from the ranks of the Junior officers and enlisted men, and from the prisoners of war, mainly pilots.
whiskybear
September 01, 2004 at 06:41AM View BBCode
Good Christ...does this thread have any chance for survival? Is the third-trimester abortion thread next?
youngallstar
September 01, 2004 at 06:44AM View BBCode
abortion doesnt fit into my war and history theme...
whiskybear
Vietnam---what a quagmire. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was an utter fabrication to give the people a reason for why we were sending more of our boys into 'Nam. We should have learned from what happened to the French in the 1950s.
That's all I got. As a member of the ANPol, or whatever the hell it's called, I refuse to type anymore. :P
September 01, 2004 at 06:53AM View BBCode
Ok...back on-topic (ironic, isn't it?)Vietnam---what a quagmire. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was an utter fabrication to give the people a reason for why we were sending more of our boys into 'Nam. We should have learned from what happened to the French in the 1950s.
That's all I got. As a member of the ANPol, or whatever the hell it's called, I refuse to type anymore. :P
Duff77
The theory of beating communism on the ground, with force, ultimately proved false. Communism was beat by economic forces. It defeated the Soviet Union and it is slowly defeating China. China is no bastion of freedom, but it heads more and more in that direction as China tries to become part of the world economy.
But nobody knew that back in the day. What was known, and what perhaps can be faulted, was that South Vietnam was not a democracy. It was a facist state. A lot of people thought fighting on the side of facism against communism was a dumb idea--we had no dog in that fight.
But I don't think it was unreasonable to believe the spread of communism was a threat. The threat may have been overestimated, but it wasn't crazy talk. The real problem with Vietnam was our inability to accept that we were being defeated. Whatever started the war, a lot of lives could've been saved if we'd realized we were beat sooner. The war should've ended in 1968.
Every Vietnam veteran is an American hero, period. Whether or not a war is stupid is no reflection whatsoever on the soldiers who fight it. They were asked to serve and they did. And the Zippo raids and other supposed crimes our soliders commited over there have more to do with the brutal nature of that war than the men who were involved. That doesn't absolve them, but it should give us pause before crucifying them.
And it should've back then. Stupid war or not, spitting on someone who risked his life because his country asked him to is wrong.
The lasting question of that war is what right do the people have to refuse service if they believe an ongoing war is wrong. That's one we're still dealing with, even now.
September 01, 2004 at 06:58AM View BBCode
Back in the day, there were lots of people who believe that the spread of Communism was a tremendous threat to the United States. Not just because their perspective was different from ours, but because the Russians were building nukes that could obliterate our cities in an instant. the thought was that the less terrority communists had, the better. Nobody wanted to see 3/4 of the world aligned under one philosophy that was against ours.The theory of beating communism on the ground, with force, ultimately proved false. Communism was beat by economic forces. It defeated the Soviet Union and it is slowly defeating China. China is no bastion of freedom, but it heads more and more in that direction as China tries to become part of the world economy.
But nobody knew that back in the day. What was known, and what perhaps can be faulted, was that South Vietnam was not a democracy. It was a facist state. A lot of people thought fighting on the side of facism against communism was a dumb idea--we had no dog in that fight.
But I don't think it was unreasonable to believe the spread of communism was a threat. The threat may have been overestimated, but it wasn't crazy talk. The real problem with Vietnam was our inability to accept that we were being defeated. Whatever started the war, a lot of lives could've been saved if we'd realized we were beat sooner. The war should've ended in 1968.
Every Vietnam veteran is an American hero, period. Whether or not a war is stupid is no reflection whatsoever on the soldiers who fight it. They were asked to serve and they did. And the Zippo raids and other supposed crimes our soliders commited over there have more to do with the brutal nature of that war than the men who were involved. That doesn't absolve them, but it should give us pause before crucifying them.
And it should've back then. Stupid war or not, spitting on someone who risked his life because his country asked him to is wrong.
The lasting question of that war is what right do the people have to refuse service if they believe an ongoing war is wrong. That's one we're still dealing with, even now.
youngallstar
September 01, 2004 at 06:59AM View BBCode
Each side learned something differant. The Doves can say that is is possible for the United States to live in peace with a unified, communist-run Vietman; that the world is not divided into two blocs. The hawks were persuaded that if America is going to fight a war, do it. We should have sent in more troops and firepower, though it is impossible to imagine more bombs, and we should have invaded North Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. If the United States had stayed in the struggle and prevailed, South Vietnam would be a far better place today--an apt comparison, the hawks say, is North Korea and Sout Korea. They believe the war effort was undermined by the dissenters at home.
youngallstar
September 01, 2004 at 07:07AM View BBCode
The war taught many military lessons, such as firepower does not always prevail. The Americans and their South Vietnamese allies had far more firepower than the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese army, firepower from the air, from the sea, on the ground, but it was not enough. We also learned that the power to destroy is not the power to control. And the wisdom of one of Eisenhower's fovorite maxims: Never send a battalion to take a hill if you have a regiment available. That was the lesson applied by President George H. W. Bush in Operation Desert Storm
Duff77
You know it's like sending guys with flamethrowers to kill every rat in New York City. You can't do it. They just keep coming back. Perhaps THE lasting lesson from Vietnam is that United States can't simply do ANYTHING and be good at it.
September 01, 2004 at 07:09AM View BBCode
But it wasn't. Nixon won the election. He didn't run on ending the war--he ran on winning it. Most people back home supported the war. Even at their zenith, the war protesters had little impact on military operations. I just don't buy it. They had the troops they needed, they had the material--they just got beat.You know it's like sending guys with flamethrowers to kill every rat in New York City. You can't do it. They just keep coming back. Perhaps THE lasting lesson from Vietnam is that United States can't simply do ANYTHING and be good at it.
whiskybear
...and he still failed to oust Saddam. But that, my friends, is a topic for a different thread and a different time. And I bid you, respectfully, a good night.
September 01, 2004 at 07:12AM View BBCode
Originally posted by youngallstar
And the wisdom of one of Eisenhower's fovorite maxims: Never send a battalion to take a hill if you have a regiment available. That was the lesson applied by President George H. W. Bush in Operation Desert Storm
...and he still failed to oust Saddam. But that, my friends, is a topic for a different thread and a different time. And I bid you, respectfully, a good night.
youngallstar
September 01, 2004 at 07:16AM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
Ousting Saddam wasnt his goal in that war. His goal was to liberate Kuwait and he succeeded
Unclescam777
September 01, 2004 at 12:33PM View BBCode
A lot can be said about Vietnam, but I don't have time so I won't say anything. But have any of you noticed that Vietnam and The War on Terror are both "wars"(or conflicts as they call them) which divided our country? We were divided with Vietnam and we lost, we're divided today and winning doesn't look guarenteed anymorePages: 1