Gunboards Forums banner

1 - 20 of 65 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,354 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
In the ongoing debate over the war in Iraq and, in a larger sense, American involvement in the war on Islamic terrorism, the ghosts of the Vietnam War linger. It seems we cannot go a day without spurious comparisons to the Vietnam "quagmire" or, more accurately, the dire consequences of a premature withdrawal of troops, both then and now.

It’s even become part of the standard narrative for America’s enemies to conjure up the perceived U.S. defeat in Vietnam as proof that the same thing will happen today in Iraq.

The significance of the Vietnam War, both from a historical and a political standpoint, cannot be emphasized enough. It was the most controversial of all America’s military ventures and it led to a rupture in American society that continues to this day. If allowed to hold sway, this rupture threatens American success in Iraq and beyond.

Speakers at a four-day symposium titled, "The Vietnam War: History and Enduring Significance," at Hillsdale College this month came to much the same conclusion.

Gathered together were the "new historians" of the Vietnam War. This group of military historians, veterans, and social commentators has dared to challenge the anti-war orthodoxy that dominates American higher education, mainstream media, and popular culture. Namely, the belief that the war was an intrusion of unwarranted U.S. military aggression into a civil war and in support of a corrupt and inept ally.

Mark Moyar, author of "Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965" and the first to speak at the symposium, labeled this conventional wisdom the "Halberstam/Sheehan/Karnow" narrative. He was referring to the three journalists and authors who, in his opinion, did more to engender a false and negative view of America’s role in Vietnam than anyone.

David Halberstam’s book, "The Best and the Brightest" (1972), Stanley Karnow’s "Vietnam: A History" (1983), and Neil Sheehan’s "A Bright Shining Lie" (1988) were critically acclaimed at the time of their publication and went on to become bestsellers. More importantly, the picture they painted of the Vietnam War has persisted in the American popular consciousness.

So too has the image of U.S. soldiers fighting in Vietnam and, later, Vietnam veterans, as drug-addled, psychotic losers. This stereotype was refuted by speaker after speaker at the Hillsdale symposium, not to mention the questions and comments from veterans in the audience.

Mackubin T. Owens, associate dean of academics and professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College, himself a Vietnam veteran and Silver Star recipient, didn’t pull any punches in expressing his disgust with the dysfunctional image of Vietnam veterans in American popular culture. Particularly, he pointed out, via films such as "Apocalypse Now," "Born on the Fourth of July," "Platoon," and "Casualties of War." Hollywood has tended to present the war as a boondoggle and veterans its willing dupes to an American populace that, unfortunately, gets much of its history lessons from the movies.

Owens reserved particular contempt for Senator John Kerry and his April 1971 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in which he accused his fellow soldiers of committing widespread atrocities and, essentially, of being war criminals. As Owens indicated, no one denies that atrocities occurred, as they do in all wars. But, quoting decorated Vietnam veteran and "Fields of Fire" author Senator Jim Webb, "stories of atrocious conduct, repeated in lurid detail by Kerry before the Congress, represented not the typical experience of the American soldier, but its ugly extreme."

The image of the famed 1960s anti-war movement as being fueled by idealism, representing the entire baby boomer generation, and ending the Vietnam War also received a sound thrashing at the Hillsdale symposium.

In this case, author, film critic, and talk radio host Michael Medved did the honors. As a former leader of the Vietnam anti-war movement, Medved witnessed its foibles and follies from the inside. In fact, it was the callousness of his fellow peaceniks towards the victims of the Cambodian genocide and Vietnamese totalitarianism in the wake of the U.S. withdrawal that propelled Medved towards the other end of the political spectrum.

As Medved pointed out, it was not idealism that motivated the 1960s anti-war movement, but, rather, the military draft and the desire of adherents to avoid serving in Vietnam. What else accounted for the veritable disappearance of the once mighty anti-war movement after President Nixon ended the draft in 1973? The opportunity for young activists to meet girls didn’t hurt either, he noted.

Furthermore, far from representing the entire baby boomer generation, the anti-war movement constituted a societal fringe. Much like today, where adherents of the anti-war movement inflate their numbers through the depictions of a biased media, then too, those out protesting the war represented only a fraction of the population.

As for ending the war itself, it was general war-weariness, as well as the fallout from failed political and military policies, that, according to Medved, were the true cause of its demise.

Other speakers examined these political and military policies in great detail. And, lest it be thought that the Hillsdale symposium constituted some sort of cheerleading session for the Vietnam War, there was plenty of criticism to go around.

It was almost universally felt that the U.S.-instigated overthrow of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dihn Diem in 1963 served as a setback for America’s allies. According to Mark Moyar, the coup was fomented by anti-Diem reports from erstwhile reporters Halberstam, Sheehan, and Karnow, which, in turn, were based on unreliable sources. Accepted without question by Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, these reports formed the basis for the ill-conceived coup to follow.

Colonel H.R. McMaster author of "Dereliction of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam" reserved his harshest criticism for President Lyndon B. Johnson. As McMaster noted, "the failure of Vietnam was a failure of leadership." McMaster contended that it was Johnson’s determination to pursue political consensus that set the tone for the administration’s misguided policies. More intent on pushing his "Great Society" domestic agenda than on winning the war, Johnson failed to provide the sort of leadership and vision required by history.

McMaster was equally critical of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who he described as mired in "service parochialism" and willing to "compromise principles for expediency." In his view, the outcome of the war might have been quite different if the Joint Chiefs had seen fit to confront Johnson with their doubts about his strategies.

It was this very outcome upon which Lewis Sorley, author of "A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America’s Last Years in Vietnam" focused in his speech, titled simply, "Endgame."

According to Sorley, the U.S. defaulted on all of its commitments to its South Vietnamese allies, who, in contrast to the manner in which they were portrayed, "fought well and valiantly."

Sorley was particularly aggrieved by the Democratic-dominated U.S. Congress’ abandonment of the South Vietnamese, most evident in the decision to cut off funding in 1975. It was, as Sorely noted, a "naked, mean-spirited act" that eventually extended to the downgrading of single rounds of ammunition and even fertilizer.

Meanwhile, China and the Soviet Union continued to provide the N. Vietnamese with a steady stream of supplies and, as he put it, "proved to be better and more fruitful allies than the U.S."

The Cold War backdrop for the conflict in Vietnam was brought into sharp focus by Michael Lind, author of "Vietnam: The Necessary War: A Reinterpretation of America's Most Disastrous Military Conflict." Rather than emphasizing the Vietnam War itself, Lind provided a larger context for what was, in fact, just one battleground in a worldwide power struggle.

As he noted, the typical view of the Vietnam War is one in which American troops were pitted against the N. Vietnamese in an "anti-colonial war." But these opposing forces were merely proxies in a wider conflict involving the U.S., the Soviet Union, and China. This struggle also encompassed the Korean War, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s, and the continuing tension involving China and Taiwan.

Since the U.S. today is, in theory, prepared to go to war to defend Taiwan from Chinese aggression, why then, argued Lind, "wouldn’t American presidents have gone to war in Vietnam and Korea in the 60s?" Moreover, he pointed out, U.S. involvement in Vietnam was instrumental in preventing China and the Soviet Union from subsuming the entire Third World. In other words, the domino theory holds up.

However, as Lind and other speakers made clear, it was the unwillingness of U.S. leadership at the time to confront China that prevented U.S. forces from invading N. Vietnam and, thereby, striking a crippling blow to its enemies.

Classical historian and author Victor Davis Hanson also provided a long view of the Vietnam War, framing it within the context of Western civilization.

Hanson focused on two threads running throughout Western civilization: the citizen soldier and self-criticism. The latter, he noted, beginning with the Vietnam War began to veer dangerously close to nihilism. The propensity for members of the Western liberal intelligentsia to sympathize with totalitarian forces was demonstrated by David Halberstam’s fawning biography of N. Vietnamese Communist dictator Ho Chi Mihn. Titled simply, "Ho," the book, as Hanson described it, "made Ho Chi Mihn out to be Lincoln."

Similarly, the once-trusted television news anchorman Walter Cronkite’s devastating report on the Tet Offensive – namely that it had been lost when in fact the opposite was true – seemed to represent more wishful thinking than reality.

Hanson made reference to the recent antics on parade at the Senate Armed Services Committee to bolster his argument. The grilling of General David Petraeus by Senate Democrats and the despicable Moveon.org ad calling him "General Betray Us" brought to mind, he noted, the anti-war movement’s use of "General Wastemoreland" to describe General Westmoreland during the Vietnam War.

In regards to citizen soldiers, Hanson pointed out that Vietnam was the first war in U. S. history in which society had reached such a high level of affluence that asking the citizenry to give it all up and travel across the globe to fight in what appeared to be an obscure battle began to seem less appealing. Bringing the issue back to the present, Hanson warned that, "Americans have to feel that their civilization is under attack" to instill this level of commitment.

After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, it would seem obvious that American, and, by extension, Western civilization is under attack. Thankfully, many brave citizen soldiers have responded to the call to arms, both in Iraq and beyond. If the legacy of the Vietnam War teaches us anything, it’s that their sacrifice must not be in vain.

Likewise, if the Hillsdale symposium imparted anything, it was that the mistakes of the past must not be repeated. It is crucial that those pushing for the very policies today that proved disastrous in Vietnam, and promoting the same disdain towards the U.S. military, not prevail. To allow them to do so would be to demonstrate that we’ve learned nothing. And, as always, history will be the judge.



Cinnamon Stillwell.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
12,931 Posts
points i believe but can not prove..... su total about 2cents, just gut feelings. 1, we were probably the aggressors, creating ghost ships that attacked us first. 2, we (our CIA and money) assasinated south VN leaders over and over at our conveniance. 3, just like afghanastan, after we use and abuse them, we desert them, that's why we are so hated, goes back to the indian treaties and before. 4, i don't care what anyone says, it's all politics..... how could vietnam threaten the US mainland.... just a pissing contest between the US and russia, at the vietnamese expense. and number 5, the most important, we do not learn from our mistakes, history repeats itself. i support our troops now and did in the 60's and 70's. i was 001 in the draft when nixon ended it, lost my favorite cousin to the tet at ben hoi, he and his guard dog were the first to die there that night. i still do not protest, but like back theni feel towards iraq like i did towards vietnam, we did not need to be there. now on bin ladens trail..... that's another story. and like you said, as always, history will be the judge. i know i ain't the brightest bulb on the block, but maybe in the end, these things do need to be done, who knows. i believe in peace, although i've never known it and won't live long enough to..... and also believe an eye for an eye, i'm just not man enough to be slapped or spit on and walk away. i think that is mans nature and probably our downfall. i have the utmost respect for the grunts and the utmost disdain for mcnamara and rumsfeld. i knew it was a mistake when bush chose rumsfeld, stated my belief to many, and was proven right. enough said. peace.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,503 Posts
points i believe but can not prove..... su total about 2cents, just gut feelings. 1, we were probably the aggressors, creating ghost ships that attacked us first. 2, we (our CIA and money) assasinated south VN leaders over and over at our conveniance. 3, just like afghanastan, after we use and abuse them, we desert them, that's why we are so hated, goes back to the indian treaties and before. 4, i don't care what anyone says, it's all politics..... how could vietnam threaten the US mainland.... just a pissing contest between the US and russia, at the vietnamese expense. and number 5, the most important, we do not learn from our mistakes, history repeats itself. i support our troops now and did in the 60's and 70's. i was 001 in the draft when nixon ended it, lost my favorite cousin to the tet at ben hoi, he and his guard dog were the first to die there that night. i still do not protest, but like back theni feel towards iraq like i did towards vietnam, we did not need to be there. now on bin ladens trail..... that's another story. and like you said, as always, history will be the judge. i know i ain't the brightest bulb on the block, but maybe in the end, these things do need to be done, who knows. i believe in peace, although i've never known it and won't live long enough to..... and also believe an eye for an eye, i'm just not man enough to be slapped or spit on and walk away. i think that is mans nature and probably our downfall. i have the utmost respect for the grunts and the utmost disdain for mcnamara and rumsfeld. i knew it was a mistake when bush chose rumsfeld, stated my belief to many, and was proven right. enough said. peace.
Cha-ching.

Interventionism is what gets us in these messes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,080 Posts
In the ongoing debate over the war in Iraq and, in a larger sense, American involvement in the war on Islamic terrorism, the ghosts of the Vietnam War linger. It seems we cannot go a day without spurious comparisons to the Vietnam "quagmire" or, more accurately, the dire consequences of a premature withdrawal of troops, both then and now.

It’s even become part of the standard narrative for America’s enemies to conjure up the perceived U.S. defeat in Vietnam as proof that the same thing will happen today in Iraq.

The significance of the Vietnam War, both from a historical and a political standpoint, cannot be emphasized enough. It was the most controversial of all America’s military ventures and it led to a rupture in American society that continues to this day. If allowed to hold sway, this rupture threatens American success in Iraq and beyond.

Speakers at a four-day symposium titled, "The Vietnam War: History and Enduring Significance," at Hillsdale College this month came to much the same conclusion.

Gathered together were the "new historians" of the Vietnam War. This group of military historians, veterans, and social commentators has dared to challenge the anti-war orthodoxy that dominates American higher education, mainstream media, and popular culture. Namely, the belief that the war was an intrusion of unwarranted U.S. military aggression into a civil war and in support of a corrupt and inept ally.

Mark Moyar, author of "Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965" and the first to speak at the symposium, labeled this conventional wisdom the "Halberstam/Sheehan/Karnow" narrative. He was referring to the three journalists and authors who, in his opinion, did more to engender a false and negative view of America’s role in Vietnam than anyone.

David Halberstam’s book, "The Best and the Brightest" (1972), Stanley Karnow’s "Vietnam: A History" (1983), and Neil Sheehan’s "A Bright Shining Lie" (1988) were critically acclaimed at the time of their publication and went on to become bestsellers. More importantly, the picture they painted of the Vietnam War has persisted in the American popular consciousness.

So too has the image of U.S. soldiers fighting in Vietnam and, later, Vietnam veterans, as drug-addled, psychotic losers. This stereotype was refuted by speaker after speaker at the Hillsdale symposium, not to mention the questions and comments from veterans in the audience.

Mackubin T. Owens, associate dean of academics and professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College, himself a Vietnam veteran and Silver Star recipient, didn’t pull any punches in expressing his disgust with the dysfunctional image of Vietnam veterans in American popular culture. Particularly, he pointed out, via films such as "Apocalypse Now," "Born on the Fourth of July," "Platoon," and "Casualties of War." Hollywood has tended to present the war as a boondoggle and veterans its willing dupes to an American populace that, unfortunately, gets much of its history lessons from the movies.

Owens reserved particular contempt for Senator John Kerry and his April 1971 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in which he accused his fellow soldiers of committing widespread atrocities and, essentially, of being war criminals. As Owens indicated, no one denies that atrocities occurred, as they do in all wars. But, quoting decorated Vietnam veteran and "Fields of Fire" author Senator Jim Webb, "stories of atrocious conduct, repeated in lurid detail by Kerry before the Congress, represented not the typical experience of the American soldier, but its ugly extreme."

The image of the famed 1960s anti-war movement as being fueled by idealism, representing the entire baby boomer generation, and ending the Vietnam War also received a sound thrashing at the Hillsdale symposium.

In this case, author, film critic, and talk radio host Michael Medved did the honors. As a former leader of the Vietnam anti-war movement, Medved witnessed its foibles and follies from the inside. In fact, it was the callousness of his fellow peaceniks towards the victims of the Cambodian genocide and Vietnamese totalitarianism in the wake of the U.S. withdrawal that propelled Medved towards the other end of the political spectrum.

As Medved pointed out, it was not idealism that motivated the 1960s anti-war movement, but, rather, the military draft and the desire of adherents to avoid serving in Vietnam. What else accounted for the veritable disappearance of the once mighty anti-war movement after President Nixon ended the draft in 1973? The opportunity for young activists to meet girls didn’t hurt either, he noted.

Furthermore, far from representing the entire baby boomer generation, the anti-war movement constituted a societal fringe. Much like today, where adherents of the anti-war movement inflate their numbers through the depictions of a biased media, then too, those out protesting the war represented only a fraction of the population.

As for ending the war itself, it was general war-weariness, as well as the fallout from failed political and military policies, that, according to Medved, were the true cause of its demise.

Other speakers examined these political and military policies in great detail. And, lest it be thought that the Hillsdale symposium constituted some sort of cheerleading session for the Vietnam War, there was plenty of criticism to go around.

It was almost universally felt that the U.S.-instigated overthrow of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dihn Diem in 1963 served as a setback for America’s allies. According to Mark Moyar, the coup was fomented by anti-Diem reports from erstwhile reporters Halberstam, Sheehan, and Karnow, which, in turn, were based on unreliable sources. Accepted without question by Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, these reports formed the basis for the ill-conceived coup to follow.

Colonel H.R. McMaster author of "Dereliction of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam" reserved his harshest criticism for President Lyndon B. Johnson. As McMaster noted, "the failure of Vietnam was a failure of leadership." McMaster contended that it was Johnson’s determination to pursue political consensus that set the tone for the administration’s misguided policies. More intent on pushing his "Great Society" domestic agenda than on winning the war, Johnson failed to provide the sort of leadership and vision required by history.

McMaster was equally critical of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who he described as mired in "service parochialism" and willing to "compromise principles for expediency." In his view, the outcome of the war might have been quite different if the Joint Chiefs had seen fit to confront Johnson with their doubts about his strategies.

It was this very outcome upon which Lewis Sorley, author of "A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America’s Last Years in Vietnam" focused in his speech, titled simply, "Endgame."

According to Sorley, the U.S. defaulted on all of its commitments to its South Vietnamese allies, who, in contrast to the manner in which they were portrayed, "fought well and valiantly."

Sorley was particularly aggrieved by the Democratic-dominated U.S. Congress’ abandonment of the South Vietnamese, most evident in the decision to cut off funding in 1975. It was, as Sorely noted, a "naked, mean-spirited act" that eventually extended to the downgrading of single rounds of ammunition and even fertilizer.

Meanwhile, China and the Soviet Union continued to provide the N. Vietnamese with a steady stream of supplies and, as he put it, "proved to be better and more fruitful allies than the U.S."

The Cold War backdrop for the conflict in Vietnam was brought into sharp focus by Michael Lind, author of "Vietnam: The Necessary War: A Reinterpretation of America's Most Disastrous Military Conflict." Rather than emphasizing the Vietnam War itself, Lind provided a larger context for what was, in fact, just one battleground in a worldwide power struggle.

As he noted, the typical view of the Vietnam War is one in which American troops were pitted against the N. Vietnamese in an "anti-colonial war." But these opposing forces were merely proxies in a wider conflict involving the U.S., the Soviet Union, and China. This struggle also encompassed the Korean War, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s, and the continuing tension involving China and Taiwan.

Since the U.S. today is, in theory, prepared to go to war to defend Taiwan from Chinese aggression, why then, argued Lind, "wouldn’t American presidents have gone to war in Vietnam and Korea in the 60s?" Moreover, he pointed out, U.S. involvement in Vietnam was instrumental in preventing China and the Soviet Union from subsuming the entire Third World. In other words, the domino theory holds up.

However, as Lind and other speakers made clear, it was the unwillingness of U.S. leadership at the time to confront China that prevented U.S. forces from invading N. Vietnam and, thereby, striking a crippling blow to its enemies.

Classical historian and author Victor Davis Hanson also provided a long view of the Vietnam War, framing it within the context of Western civilization.

Hanson focused on two threads running throughout Western civilization: the citizen soldier and self-criticism. The latter, he noted, beginning with the Vietnam War began to veer dangerously close to nihilism. The propensity for members of the Western liberal intelligentsia to sympathize with totalitarian forces was demonstrated by David Halberstam’s fawning biography of N. Vietnamese Communist dictator Ho Chi Mihn. Titled simply, "Ho," the book, as Hanson described it, "made Ho Chi Mihn out to be Lincoln."

Similarly, the once-trusted television news anchorman Walter Cronkite’s devastating report on the Tet Offensive – namely that it had been lost when in fact the opposite was true – seemed to represent more wishful thinking than reality.

Hanson made reference to the recent antics on parade at the Senate Armed Services Committee to bolster his argument. The grilling of General David Petraeus by Senate Democrats and the despicable Moveon.org ad calling him "General Betray Us" brought to mind, he noted, the anti-war movement’s use of "General Wastemoreland" to describe General Westmoreland during the Vietnam War.

In regards to citizen soldiers, Hanson pointed out that Vietnam was the first war in U. S. history in which society had reached such a high level of affluence that asking the citizenry to give it all up and travel across the globe to fight in what appeared to be an obscure battle began to seem less appealing. Bringing the issue back to the present, Hanson warned that, "Americans have to feel that their civilization is under attack" to instill this level of commitment.

After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, it would seem obvious that American, and, by extension, Western civilization is under attack. Thankfully, many brave citizen soldiers have responded to the call to arms, both in Iraq and beyond. If the legacy of the Vietnam War teaches us anything, it’s that their sacrifice must not be in vain.

Likewise, if the Hillsdale symposium imparted anything, it was that the mistakes of the past must not be repeated. It is crucial that those pushing for the very policies today that proved disastrous in Vietnam, and promoting the same disdain towards the U.S. military, not prevail. To allow them to do so would be to demonstrate that we’ve learned nothing. And, as always, history will be the judge.



Cinnamon Stillwell.

I believe that this is entirely on the money.

Many people like to view wars from the same point of reference that they play video games.

No concept of the history behind it.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
12,931 Posts
LASTWORD, oh.... i mean MB. i knew you were going to jump right on it when i started typing, but believe me, you views and mine are not even close. in vietnam, we fought for rubber plantations and kept fighting so old LBJ could get rich building bases..... thru Brown and Root, i used to work for them. iraq is a different story. i still can't figure out why george invaded except to say that he really believed in the weopons of MD theory, and also to finish a little of his dads business. if it was to take their oil, then why inthe heck haven't we taken it? wars cannot be avoided, but i sure wish we'd keep our asses out of them unless we have no other choice.... we had other choices in VN and iraq. and as much as i pray for peace, i prepare for war. MB, i look for you to 1 day get a degree, maybe become a professor or teacher, then be like that longhaired loon at the university that claimed he was an indian preaching the US is the evil one and teaching the nine one one attack was planned by our own gov't. a really dangerous idiot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,503 Posts
LASTWORD, oh.... i mean MB. i knew you were going to jump right on it when i started typing, but believe me, you views and mine are not even close. in vietnam, we fought for rubber plantations and kept fighting so old LBJ could get rich building bases..... thru Brown and Root, i used to work for them. iraq is a different story.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ROFL.

EPIC FAIL

If you cannot put 2 and 2 together...wow. It is said History repeats itself. "Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it."
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
93,796 Posts
LBJ got rich off Lady Bird's investment in radio and TV stations.

There was no "creation" of ghost ships in the Tonkin Gulf. Tehre was a very genuine (though quite unsuccessful) North Vietnamese attack, in retaliation for US/South Vietnamese attacks on coastal bases just north of the DMZ from which the North Vietnamese were launching attacks on RVN. Then - the next night, there was what appeared to be radar indications of attacks. Appears that it was radar ghosts, but created by weather conditions, not deliberately. Because of the rapid commo technology, the folks in Washington, especially Robert (oh so VERY) STRANGE McNamara jumped the gun instead of waiting for the people on the scene to sort it out. And then, well, nobody was gonna tell LBJ (after he'd announced the attack, on early and bad analysis) taht it was all a mistake.

Oh - to a fairly high degree of probability, either the War Of 1812 (which nearly led to the New England states attempting to secede) or the Mexican War were more controversial than Vietnam. And could be that the War of Northern Aggression ought to be looked at in that regard as well. Lot of people in North and South who weren't happy about that little dust-up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,354 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
The U.S. and the govt. of South Vietnam had an agreement that the U.S. would defend it against any aggressor. The U.S. upheld it's end until it's troops and our ARVN allies were stabbed in the back by left-wing politicians egged on by a left-wing press and still to this day this stab in the back is defended by left-wing historians, all doing the bidding of international communism.

I recommend listening to a tape series of Michael Medved's history of the Vietnam War for a more in-depth look at the truth, at michaelmedved.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,292 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,423 Posts
The U.S. and the govt. of South Vietnam had an agreement that the U.S. would defend it against any aggressor. The U.S. upheld it's end until it's troops and our ARVN allies were stabbed in the back by left-wing politicians egged on by a left-wing press and still to this day this stab in the back is defended by left-wing historians, all doing the bidding of international communism.
YEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
I'm not the only one to see this.

For some reason the left, press and all their drones seem to over look the fact we DID NOT lose the war.
FACT; All combat troops were OUT by 29 March 73, as Nixon promised he'd do.
A peace pact was signed in January '73.
THAT was the END of our military involvement, at that point there was STILL a S. Vietnam.
From what was it, '69 on Nixon tried negotiating with the north, Paris Peace talks.
Many times (71-73) the north would violate their end of the deal so Nixon would send the B52s north of the 20th parallel, the north would quickly 'get in line'. January '73, when the pact was signed Nixon stopped bombing the north.
In November '73 congress (and we all know who was running that show)
ordered that no more bombing of the north would take place. They also withdrew support for the south.
Commie Soviet Union and China still flowed tons of support to the north.
August '74, Nixon resigns, the only one that woulda had the balls to do what needed to be done if (when) the commie north violated the Peace Treaty.
Sure as anything, 4 months later in December the north did just that and the NVA take a city in the south. A month later in January '75 they do it again. No US response.
Now, without fear of US involvement and their military strength back up to full power, in March '75 the north in a massive sweep again invaded the south, South Vietnam ceased to exist less then 2 months later.
The bullshlt the media keeps feeding you (collective singular) of the Marines evacuating the embassy as the NVA tanks roll into Saigon give a hell of a strong impression, though false, that we got our asses handed to us and these were the final troops to get out. Conveniently overlooking the fact that they WERE NOT combat troops but rather the embassy guards.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,346 Posts
The real problem at the base of the Vietnam War was a mistake made long before the war started.
Ho Chi Minh and his communists created the Viet Minh, the Vietnamese nationalist independence movement, in 1941.
Eventually they defeated the French attempt to regain control of Vietnam after the Japanese occupation and US and french attempts to set up anti-communist alternatives failed, partly due to corruption on the part of our candidates, mostly due to the fact that Ho and the Viet Minh had driven out the French. You had better remember that nationalism is an enormously powerful force, one that destroyed the Soviet Union after 70 years of repression.
A US victory in Vietnam would have meant the Roosevelt administration organizing and recognizing an anti-communist independent Vietnamese government, directly in opposition to the interests of the French, even before we entered WWII.
As I've seen no records of FDR having owned a crystal ball, this wasn't going to happen and we were stuck with a huge disadvantage in Vietnam. Eventually we failed in our objective of a free South Vietnam regardless of the righteousness of our cause, regardless of Ho having massacred his internal opponents, real and imagined, and caused a peasant famine, and regardless of our military victories, all of which were negated by the policies of the Democratic Congress.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,503 Posts
YEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
I'm not the only one to see this.

For some reason the left, press and all their drones seem to over look the fact we DID NOT lose the war.
FACT; All combat troops were OUT by 29 March 73, as Nixon promised he'd do.
A peace pact was signed in January '73.
THAT was the END of our military involvement, at that point there was STILL a S. Vietnam.
Thanks for backing up my argument about why we should leave Iraq.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,423 Posts
Thanks for backing up my argument about why we should leave Iraq.
SAYYY WHAT!?!?!?!?!?:confused::confused::confused:
I can't even imagine the twisted logic that could possibly have read that into my post.
Unless of course your rooting for the bad guys. If we pull out of Iraq the insurgents will win/another Sadam will rise up and take control just as the commies/uncle Ho did in Vietnam.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,423 Posts
And BTW, my post wasn't intended as anything else other then to illustrate we DID NOT lose that war.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,503 Posts
SAYYY WHAT!?!?!?!?!?:confused::confused::confused:
I can't even imagine the twisted logic that could possibly have read that into my post.
Unless of course your rooting for the bad guys. If we pull out of Iraq the insurgents will win/another Sadam will rise up and take control just as the commies/uncle Ho did in Vietnam.

And you fail to see through this and analyze the situation. If we pull out of Iraq; first by declaring a peace with the insurgents, then we can say "we didn't lose". By your logic, we should be able to pull out and not worry about losing. So all of you should be in favor of pulling out.

Oh and Vietnam is our friend now, we talk and trade with Vietnam. None of this diplomatic isolationism we like to do with people we don't like.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
93,796 Posts
No - Vietnam is NOT our "friend" now. It is a rtrading partner, but hardly a friend. Sort of like Russia that way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,503 Posts
No - Vietnam is NOT our "friend" now. It is a rtrading partner, but hardly a friend. Sort of like Russia that way.
Vietnam is far closer to the US than Russia is. Take a look at what Putin has been doing and saying lately? Yea, Vietnam is much closer to us that Russia.
 
1 - 20 of 65 Posts
Top