The history channel right now

Nothing was awesome about Vietnam. It was a war we had no buisness being in. So many lives lost for no reason.

------------------
In order to be a success in life, you need 2 things:
1. Don't tell everything you know.

 

Amen Finn....and thanks for saying it.


------------------
Save our children from the TAAS test:
TAAS test report card
TAAS test fact sheet

 

To paraphrase BobFinn, there was nothing profound, admirable, or respectful about our country's involvement with Vietnam. I lost a cousin over there, and another was physically and emotionally scarred for life. I watched my parents live in fear of my brother's number being called.

The footage was realistic..that's the best I can give you, SSG.

------------------
Save our children from the TAAS test:
TAAS test report card
TAAS test fact sheet

 

I also am not arguing the political ramifications of our involvement in Vietnam. But I am saying that war caused deep emotional scars on all that fought there and the families as well. The footage that inspires awe in you opens old wounds and brings sadness to me. You are telling me why I should watch the show. I am saying why I will not...ever.



------------------
Save our children from the TAAS test:
TAAS test report card
TAAS test fact sheet

 

As my parents came from that country and so I guess I'm indirectly a part of that "entanglement" (from the US perspective?) - civil war (from the local perspective), I actually do think that it's admirable that the US came, for whatever reasons, to help the South in their ultimately bleak struggle against the Socialist North. I think that it's admirable and awe-inspiring, because I for one am thankful that I, like many others, get the privilege of being an American citizen, and that while a tragic number of Americans died in a country they probably could not locate on a map, more Vietnamese died because they wanted a free country on a map, and more Vietnamese people lived because US soldiers were over there to fight, supposedly, for a greater cause. And I'd like to think that American lives were sacrificed for a reason that was worthy of their fight... but that's just my opinion.

Sorry for making this thread into any more than an observation, SSG.

------------------

 

Could you fill me in on what that greater cause was, because our government sure as hell never told us what it was.


Sorry SSG, that was my last one on the subject.

------------------
Save our children from the TAAS test:
TAAS test report card
TAAS test fact sheet

 

I don't thingk the the U.S. going to war in Vietnam in itself was a bad thing. Stopping the spread of Communism was something our government decided to take on. Public support was, in fact, strong in the beginning. It wasn't until the casualties started to mount and the horrifying images of war were brought back via news reporters that the people of the U.S. started to change their mind.

I believe the war was run poorly, and that there was never truly an attempt to "win" it. They never sent in a large enough force to put down the North Vietnamese army. It's like they were trying to kill an alligator by feeding it to death.

The size, skill, and support of the opposition was vastly underestimated, which was the first mistake. But, that could've easily been overcome.

Men still would've died, and families still would've been torn apart. But, I believe had it been done a little differently the result would've been better, and the loss of U.S. lives would've been less.

-----------------------------

beauford,

I've never heard a person with Vietnamese heritage give their opinions on the Vietnam War. Probably, because I don't know very many Vietnamese (or any Asians) people, which is my loss. But, I find your view interesting, and definitely did not expect you to sympathize with the U.S. on that matter. Mainly, because every "Nam" movie I've seen has painted many of our own soldiers and bloody killers. And, the media hasn't done much to disprove that image in the documentaries I have seen on the subject.

-----------------------------

By the way, my father did not get drafted to go to Vietnam. Well, actually he did. He got the letter (or whatever you get), and tried everything he could think of to keep from going. He was as "hippie" as they come. First he told them that he was a drug addict, they said that didn't matter. Then he told them he was gay, they said that didn't matter. I'm sure he said he was crazy, among other things, but nothing worked.

Then, as a last ditch appeal, he asked the person signing them up (or whatever) to wait until his baby was born before he was enlisted and shipped off.

That baby was me! The army enlister-guy actually had a heart and agreed. I was born in early January of 1970. But, my Dad never was contacted by the army again. Of course, he knew plenty of people who did go. Many didn't come back, and most of those who did, didn't function well back in society.

I thank God every time I think of that incident. I most likely would've never had my two brothers or sister had my father gone to Vietnam.

 

I've studied the Vietnam War, and I definitely feel that the USA should never have gotten involved. I've taken the liberty to write a miniature essay on it, with a few quotes I had ompiled for a web page I was creating.
It's 12:30 now, so I hope it's coherent enough.

Why?

Before looking at the moral implications, I think that we have to look at what the United States was willing to do. In other words, were they going to do what was necessary?

When Lyndon Johnson decided to wage war against the Communists of Vietnam, he was prepared to several things to help the South. First of all, he was willing to bomb selected targets in North Vietnam. He was also willing to send in US ground troops. Another significant thing he was willing to do was supply the Republic of South Vietnam with weapons. Was this enough?
The answer is no. He was not willing to do what some considered necessary to win the war. He was not willing to bomb Hanoi or Haipong, as he feared Chinese intervention. He was also unwilling to wage total war on the Communists.
For the Vietnamese Communists, it was a total war. It was a war, which they had to win. It was their country, their lives at stake. Johnson did not know this about the Vietnamese. Has anyone read Stanley Karnow's book? One thing that he said was that LBJ misjudged the enemy's capacity to withstand pain.
Therefore, however many men the US killed, whatever the ratio was between both camps, it didn't matter. The USA was not willing to go all out, while the Vietnamese obviously were.
General Westmoreland tried to convince the public the war was being wan because of the fact that more Vietnamese were being killed. This didn’t matter at all. The Americans were bound to lose the war.

We can also look at the moral implicaitions, which is probably what Behad mostly has in mind.
Johnson was also a great believer in the Domino Theory. He felt that if Vietnam fell to Communism, those countries around it would as well. Even if the theory was correct, was it really right for the United States to intervene in Vietnam because of this?
Firstly, one could make the argument that the Vietnamese were better off with Communism. After all, their customs and moral beliefs fit a communist regime.
The Vietnamese would not only be better off with Communism, they, in fact wanted it. The Americans deprived Vietnam of free elections because they knew that the Vietnamese would vote for a Communist regime.
When the Americans came to the Vietnam, the majority of the Vietnamese commoners were against them. Most were sympathetic towards their Communist countrymen.
We can also see how the Vietnamese were ruined when the Americans brought their customs and moral qualities. The streets became filled with prostitutes and criminals. Were they really better off? Are a higher standard of living and more material goods more important than the moral standards the Vietnamese had lived under for hundreds of years?
The Vietnamese were also definitely not better off with all the Presidents they had while the Americans were there. This was because the Americans followed a theory of “better him than a Communist.” So the Americans were supporting dictators just because they were not Communist. Diem’s rule over the South was brutal. He murdered innocents and he did not stand criticism. Was it right for the US to do this just to stop the spread of Communism?

The reason Johnson used to get involved in Vietnam is filled with controversy. Obviously we are talking about the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
The North Vietnamese had supposedly attacked American patrol boats. Did this really happen?
Most historians agree on the fact that the second attack, on which the Tonkin resolution was based, never happened.
Let’s suppose the attack did, in fact happen. The United States would still remain in the wrong. The American patrol boats were very close to North Vietnam, and the truth was that tensions were very high. As Stanley Karnow put it, “the Maddox and Turner Joy were effectively used as bait.” Once the North fell into the trap, a war in Vietnam would not seem like the wrong thing to do. The Americans now had their excuse to intervene.
The Americans were starting a war over nothing. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was a joke. As Alexander Kendrick put it, “in the Tonkin Gulf the United States began a war against North Vietnam over an unsubstantiated attack and actual damage on one scarred bulkhead.”
It was later found that the damage mentioned above was actually made by an American weapon.
The Americans were going against everything they supposedly stood for. One, being democratic elections. It was obvious that the United States had stopped elections from happening in Vietnam. They did so knowing that the Communist would prevail.
Second, they went against their anti- colonial policy. South Vietnam was obviously ruled by the Americans. When Diem did not suit them, the United States supposedly arranged for his murder.
The South was too weak too stand on its own. The Americans, just too keep Communism away, would have to take over, which is what they did. Almost immediately after they left under Nixon, the South fell.
Maybe these actions could have been excused, but the fact is that the Americans did not do it for Vietnam. They were doing it for themselves.
First of all, Johnson first got involved because he needed to help his presidency. His rival, Goldwater, was constantly accusing him of being indecisive and unwilling to take a stand. When Vietnam came along, he felt he had a shot to help himself.
Stanley Karnow said, “Johnson and his staff, desperately seeking a pretext to act vigorously, had seized upon a fuzzy set of circumstances” to start a war, which would show his ability to be a good, strong, and decisive leader.
Proof of this can be the fact that Johnson did not even bother to look into the Gulf of Tonkin incident. As Karnow put it “Presidents usually rush into decisions without waiting for all the details, and Lyndon Johnson was no different.”
Johnson was also afraid that if he did not take quick action, his critics would flame him. The fact that it was an election year would not allow Johnson for this to happen if he could prevent it. K. O’Donnel, a former aide to Kennedy, stated that Johnson felt he “must not allow them to accuse him of vacillating or being an indecisive leader.”
So Johnson was not concerned with Vietnam’s well being, but with his own. It is ironic that the Vietnam War was ultimately responsible for bringing him down.
Vietnam also goes beyond Johnson’s presidency. Many within the US government felt that if they let go of Vietnam, it would have a horrible impact.
Firstly, as Ambassador to South Vietnam Taylor put it “if we leave Vietnam with our tails between our legs, the consequences of this defeat in the rest of Asia, Africa, and Latin America would be disastrous.”
Also, the US felt that Vietnam was the place where the United States would prove its power in the world. Kennedy said “we now have a problem in making our power credible, and Vietnam is the place.”

The Americans entered the war for all the wrong reasons. On top of that, they were unwilling to do the necessary to actually help the Vietnamese (which they weren’t even aiming to do in the first place).
The United States should never have gotten itself involved in the conflict in Vietnam.
I seriously cannot see why beauford could argue that the USA had any business in Vietnam.

As far was watching the show, why would one object? I could understand a certain person not wanting to see it. As Behad said, he feels that the footage brings up memories of a terrible time of his life. I can accept that and I understand it to an extent. However, if you were never arguing about whether the USA should have been involved, why mention it? Why give the footage a bad name when all SSG is giving us is interesting information on a show about a nation's past. I watch such shows not because I agree with the course of the events portrayed, but simplt because I have an interest in the past of the human being, whether it involves our mistakes or our glory. In addition, I hold great respect for soldiers and appreciate their attitudes due to my seeing such videos. I can understand why veterans from Vietnam feel the way they do because I have been provided with the chance to see them living through hell for nothing.
Why can't the word awesome be used? Seriously. Is it saying anything about the moral implications of the American government or what SSG actually thought about the war in general? No.

To paraphrase BobFinn, there was nothing profound, admirable, or respectful about our country's involvement with Vietnam.


Again, are we at all discussing American intervention and the faults in it? No. We are simply discussing the footage, which does inspire respect and admiration. It is also an interesting method which allows us to see the history of our species through a different perspective.

------------------
Nederland 2002

Rocketman95 on board. Check out his latest game recaps.

 

well: I'm sorry if the War is offensive to many people. It certainly is regretableto my family... but it's also something that we like to move on from. Vietnam was never asked to be colonized by the French. Nor did it asked to be inundated in a struggle between American backed forces (whether for democracy or not)against the newfound Communist ideology. No, what the Vietnamese really wanted was a peaceful independent country--which is why so many people supported the North, because it offered freedom from the West, an independent Vietnam.. albeit a Communist one, but an independent country nonentheless. Coversely, the South was seen as a pawn of the United States, and in many ways, it was true. BUT, to take it away from foreign policies and history lessons.. people in the Southern regime embraced the US backed goverment... why? Because there was a marked increase in living standards, because they embraced Western ideals, and they actually had hope that that the Vietnamese government would follow the democratic example of the US. At least this is what I gather from people I've talked to.. nevermind the textbooks.. but the people who were living through it in the country at the time. Diem (the Southern president) was a Roman Catholic, and there were crackdowns on Buddhism and the like.. but most people, although I'm sure not the people who were being persecuted, felt that it was a necessary part of Westernization.. that the country needed to quickly modernize to catch up with the rest of the world. The Souther government enacted industrialization programs, built infrastrutures for the countryside, and established a Westernized educational system, to name a few. I personally think that this was good progress. Again, many more want nothing to do with the West, as evident from colonial years, and there the Communist ideology makes sense. While Southern cities backed the US, the poorer countryside, hearing the equalizing philosophy of Leninism and witnessing the stratification of capitalism, opted to follow the North.. this is in part one reason why the US had such a difficult time in Vietnam: they would follow the standard war techniques and capture cities, but the Communists still controlled the vast countrysides around the cities.. and because North and South Vietnamese looked alike and spoke alike to Westerners, this made it even more difficult to wage a normal war. Why did the US enter the war? Containment of Soviet backed forces? Vietnam was seen as a doorway into Southeast Asia... if it fell, then Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and etc. could also follow suit. Did American political incentives play a role? I'm sure, but again, that's not the larger issue.

The main issue that people have difficulty with is, I think, that very real deaths are counted for an ideological war. I really do think that democracy was at stake. But I also think that most Americans have a hard time fighting for democracy for a tiny insignificant Asian country.. where people don't look like them, don't talk like them, and don't have the same values as they do. Democracy was an easier ideal to fight for in Europe, but in the jungles of Vietnam, the goal could get blurred.. much more so when you brothers and friends are dying. Who really cares about some little country in an obsure part of the world? No one expects America to. I understand to a certain degree.. but can never expect to empathize completely. But there were losses on both sides. My father went to labor camp for his part as a soldier as did my uncles. Some of my relatives died during the war, and others financially ruined because of their associations with the US. Did we want the US to come? Did we want continuous warfare that polluted the land and killed and maimed an entire generation of Vietnamese? I don't think any country would want that for itself.

I guess my main point is not to really argue with anyone. But rather, to say that there were horrific losses for all sides.. that even though America went into the war half-heartedly.. South Vietnamese are glad that it did--but it's something that we would rather forget and move on.

------------------

 

Never underestimate geography!


------------------
Sometimes you gotta do the next best thing!