Just a question here: What does everyone think of the Vietnam war? I think it was a horrible war because so many people were drafted agaist their will. We were told the war was to fight Communism but the true purpose was to prop up a corrupt regeim. What is your opinion?

My specific knowledge of the vietnam is fairly lacking I am afraid...

Reading more and more into what some of the escalator sof the war said/did in private, it really seems like a 'personal' grudge match at times...

I mean look at Nixons comments regarding the usage of nukes or his views on the people there...

Most of my experience in this subject comes from watching the generation of veterans.I feel that Korea and Viet Nam are amongst our nations worst tragedies. Korea, due to the fact that most of the men who fought were the adult children of WWII veterans. These men grew up in the shadow of a true "war against evil" and drew arms at the romantic notion that they too would be "fighting evil" and had no idea of the conflict they would be involved in.
Viet Nam was its own tragedy with, as you stated, the men who were drafted into military service and forced to fight a battle they did not morally support. The irreparable damage from both of these conflicts ripple through today's society and the scars still mark the souls of many an American.

As I understand it the French (South) and Noeth Vietnamese (Viet Minh) had agreed to a democratic general election that would unify the country according to the will of the people. This agreement was reached in Geneva in 1954 or 55 i think and the elections were to take place in 1956 I believe. Then guess decided that they were unwilling to even allow a democratic election to happen? You guessed it the good ole USA . At the bequest of the US government a 20 odd year war ensued which killed hundreds of thousands and ended with a North Vietnamese victory (who had now been forced to consolidate ties with China and lost their greatest patriot and political mind Ho Chi Minh) and bloody purges of political dissenters.

And to think all that could have been avoided if the US government had permitted the issue to be settled democratically in the first place .:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Redfield1533
Most of my experience in this subject comes from watching the generation of veterans.I feel that Korea and Viet Nam are amongst our nations worst tragedies. Korea, due to the fact that most of the men who fought were the adult children of WWII veterans. These men grew up in the shadow of a true "war against evil" and drew arms at the romantic notion that they too would be "fighting evil" and had no idea of the conflict they would be involved in.
Viet Nam was its own tragedy with, as you stated, the men who were drafted into military service and forced to fight a battle they did not morally support. The irreparable damage from both of these conflicts ripple through today's society and the scars still mark the souls of many an American.

The Vietnam War wasnt an American tragedy it was a Vietnamese tragedy. The number of Americans killed, maimed, and traumatized by that war is dwarfed about 100 fold by the amount of Vietnamese casualties (not to mention the generations of kids who grew up knowing nothing but constant war and strife and who continued to be maimed by land mines and ordinance for years after).

What was an issue of colonial idependence between the French and the Vietnamese got turned into a horrific civil war by America. It was basically the equivalent of say Spain coming over at the end of the American Revolution after the surrender and invading the South and installing a puppet government in Virginia to perpetuate the war against America.

Originally posted by CodyChaos
The Vietnam War wasnt an American tragedy it was a Vietnamese tragedy.
What's this, Cody!? Are you trying to top my bit, contradict me, or just start a fight. It was cool to read your first post. I agree with you actually.
And to think all that could have been avoided if the US government had permitted the issue to be settled democratically in the first place .
But this statement that it "wasn't an American tragedy"...BS! It was a tragedy on both sides (an I ain't just doing a conveniant, history book, kill count).

Before you decide to try and step up to me on a potentially non-explosive discussion I suggest you read the first sentence of my original post. I'm calling what I've witnessed.

Now, if you're finished, I'll continue to watch the rest of this discussion.

Originally posted by Redfield1533

What's this, Cody!? Are you trying to top my bit, contradict me, or just start a fight. It was cool to read your first post. I agree with you actually.

I didnt say anything about you personally. If you want to take it personally I dont know what to tell you.

Originally posted by Redfield1533

But this statement that it "wasn't an American tragedy"...BS! It was a tragedy on both sides (an I ain't just doing a conveniant, history book, kill count).

You neglected to reference the Vietnamese casualties what so ever, you said you are going on what you've heard, so im just pointing out the part they dont talk about. People convieniently overlook the almost 2 million Vietnamese military casualties and over 4 million civilian in favor of weeping soley over 48,000 dead Americans and 300,000 wounded who shouldnt have been there in the first place. Talking about scars on people souls its not the American psyche id be worried about. Fully 12-13% of the Vietnamese population was wiped out. In my view American lives aren't worth more than Vietnamese lives. Its too bad all the Americans died, I wouldnt want to have been in their shoes, but sometimes its tough to feel bad for the bullies especially when they were so efficient in massacring the civilian population (those B-52s were specifically targeted at pounding the urban civilian population into remission and destroying all vestiges of infrastructure in the country, which further compunded disease and denied people of medical treatment and prolly set the country back decades). Yeah alot of those guys in Vietnam were drafted, they were victims, but alot of them were happy to lend a hand killing "chinks" and "commies" too, so you cant really make generalizations. They were following orders, yea, and so were the Germans and Japanese in WWII.

Of course this doesnt account for the genocide in Cambodia which was allowed to occur thanks to the mess in Vietnam, or all the fighting in Laos.

The atrocities continue even today with unexploded munitions still claiming the occasional limb or life and thousands of childern born with birt defects thanks to 11 million gallons of old Agent Orange and 8 million gallons of other assorted chemical weapons and herbicides. The fun just never ends.

http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/casualty.html
http://www.house.gov/bernie/publications/articles/2000-04-25-ao-globe.html

If they had a draft today they would have to pry most of the boys from their mothers arms...atleast the ones that didn't go into hiding.

War is like a fire. Once it starts it's almost uncontrollable. To look back later and say we burned down to many pine apple trees and not enough elms is total BS.

Honor???? Yeah, right.

Originally posted by CodyChaos I didnt say anything about you personally. If you want to take it personally I dont know what to tell you.
I took your quote and rebuttal (of my post) as an attack to my opinion; not personally necessarily. However, if you say it wasn't, very well. My apologies (claws retracting).
Originally posted by CodyChaosIn my view American lives aren't worth more than Vietnamese lives.
Couldn't agree with you more.

I admit my neglect in referring to the Vietnamese casualties (as great as they were) did appear a bit ethnocentric. It was not meant to be. I can see why you would rebutt.
I can also say that it was not due to indifference nor in convienience to overlook atrocities towards the Vietnamese regulars, North Vietnamese sympathizers, or Vietnamese civilians.
That being said:
Originally posted by CodyChaos...you cant really make generalizations.
works both ways. For example, when someone make an overgeneralized parallel such as;
Originally posted by CodyChaosYeah alot of those guys in Vietnam were drafted, they were victims, but alot of them were happy to lend a hand killing "chinks" and "commies" too, so you cant really make generalizations. They were following orders, yea, and so were the Germans and Japanese in WWII.
it portrays said person negatively, wouldn't you agree.

Originally posted by Redfield1533

I admit my neglect in referring to the Vietnamese casualties (as great as they were) did appear a bit ethnocentric. It was not meant to be. I can see why you would rebutt.
I can also say that it was not due to indifference nor in convienience to overlook atrocities towards the Vietnamese regulars, North Vietnamese sympathizers, or Vietnamese civilians.
That being said

I have no doubt that you respect human life in general, but the fact that you immediately thought of it from an American perspective is a manifestation of ethnocentrism, which is what I used to be prone to also. Indeed watching movies about Vietnam or even the History Channel the isssue is usually presented from an American perspective.

Originally posted by Redfield1533

it portrays said person negatively, wouldn't you agree.

Yeah I was using those examples to make the point of why you can't make generalizations. I certainly do view participation in the Vietnam War as negative, and I don't think anyone is going to be able to cite enough good that came out of the ituation to make up for all the horror and suffering.

Originally posted by CodyChaos
I have no doubt that you respect human life in general, but the fact that you immediately thought of it from an American perspective is a manifestation of ethnocentrism, which is what I used to be prone to also.
The fact that I immediately thought of it from an American perspective is based on the fact that I was being specific to personal examples I am exposed to and not a superior belief with regards to US soldiers.

I'm sure we could go on for days discussing (in agreement) incidents like Mai Lai or other less known massacres carried out by GI's, but for the sake of argument let us chalk up my original post to specificity based on my deliberate choice of perspective rather than perspective via manifestation of ethnocentrism. The latter makes me sound like an *******.

Originally posted by Redfield1533

The fact that I immediately thought of it from an American perspective is based on the fact that I was being specific to personal examples I am exposed to and not a superior belief with regards to US soldiers.

I'm sure we could go on for days discussing (in agreement) incidents like Mai Lai or other less known massacres carried out by GI's, but for the sake of argument let us chalk up my original post to specificity based on my deliberate choice of perspective rather than perspective via manifestation of ethnocentrism.

Fair enough.

Vietnam
The Aftermath of Geneva
The Geneva Agreements were viewed with doubt and dissatisfaction on all sides. Concern over possible United States intervention, should the Geneva talks fail, was probably a major factor in Hanoi's decision to accept the compromise agreement. The United States had dissociated itself from the final declaration, although it had stated that it would refrain from the threat or use of force to disturb the agreements. President Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote to the new Prime Minister of the Bao Dai government, Ngo Dinh Diem, in September 1954 promising United States support for a noncommunist Vietnam. Direct United States aid to South Vietnam began in January 1955, and American advisors began arriving the following month to train South Vietnamese army troops. By early 1955, Diem had consolidated his control by moving against lawless elements in the Saigon area and by suppressing the religious sects in the Mekong Delta. He also launched a "denounce the communists" campaign, in which, according to communist accounts, 25,000 communist sympathizers were arrested and more than 1,000 killed. In August 1955, Diem issued a statement formally refusing to participate in consultations with the DRV, which had been called for by the Geneva Agreement to prepare for national elections. In October, he easily defeated Bao Dai in a seriously tainted referendum and became president of the new Republic of Vietnam.

Despite the growing likelihood that national elections would not be held, the communist leadership in Hanoi decided for the time being to continue to concentrate its efforts on the political struggle. Several factors led to this decision, including the weakness of the party apparatus in the South, the need to concentrate on strengthening the war-weakened North, and pressure from the communist leadership of the Soviet Union, which, under General Secretary Nikita Khrushchev, had inaugurated its policy of peaceful coexistence with the West. By 1957, however, a shift to a more militant approach to the reunification of the country was apparent. Partly in response to Diem's anticommunist campaign, the Party stepped up terrorist activities in the South, assassinating several hundred officials of the Diem government. This led to the arrest of another 65,000 suspected Communists and the killing of more than 2,000 by the Saigon government in 1957. Repression by the Diem regime led to the rise of armed rebel self-defense units in various parts of the South, with the units often operating on their own without any party direction. Observing that a potential revolutionary situation had been created by popular resentment of the Diem government and fearing that the government's anticommunist policy would destroy or weaken party organization in the South, the VWP leadership determined that the time had come to resort to violent struggle.

By 1959 some of the 90,000 Viet Minh troops that had returned to the North following the Geneva Agreements had begun filtering back into the South to take up leadership positions in the insurgency apparat. Mass demonstrations, punctuated by an occasional raid on an isolated post, were the major activities in the initial stage of this insurgency. Communist-led uprisings launched in 1959 in the lower Mekong Delta and Central Highlands resulted in the establishment of liberated zones, including an area of nearly fifty villages in Quang Ngai Province. In areas under Communist control in 1959, the guerrillas established their own government, levied taxes, trained troops, built defense works, and provided education and medical care. In order to direct and coordinate the new policies in the South, it was necessary to revamp the party leadership apparatus and form a new united front group. Accordingly, COSVN, which had been abolished in 1954, was reestablished with General Nguyen Chi Thanh, a northerner, as chairman and Pham Hung, a southerner, as deputy chairman. On December 20, 1960, the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam, informally called the National Liberation Front (NLF, Mat Tran Dan Toc Giai Phong Mien Nam), was founded, with representatives on its Central Committee from all social classes, political parties, women's organizations, and religious groups, including Hoa Hao, Cao Dai, the Buddhists, and the Catholics. In order to keep the NLF from being obviously linked with the VWP and the DRV, its executive leadership consisted of individuals not publicly identified with the Communists, and the number of party members in leadership positions at all levels was strictly limited. Furthermore, in order not to alienate patriotic noncommunist elements, the new front was oriented more toward the defeat of the United Statesbacked Saigon government than toward social revolution.

Vietnam
Society in the 1954-75 Period
North Vietnam
At the time of the 1954 partition, Vietnam was overwhelmingly a rural society; peasants accounted for nearly 90 percent of the total population. During the ensuing 20 years of political separation, however, the North and the South developed into two very different societies. In the North the communists had embarked on a program intended to revolutionize the socioeconomic structure. The focus of change was ostensibly economic, but its underlying motivation was both political and social as well. Based on the Marxist principle of class struggle, it involved no less than the creation of a totally new social structure. Propertied classes were eliminated, and a proletarian dictatorship was established in which workers and peasants emerged as the nominal new masters of a socialist and ultimately classless state.

As a prelude to the socialist revolution, a land reform campaign and a harsh, systematic campaign to liquidate "feudal landlords" from rural society were launched concurrently in 1955. Reminiscent of the campaign undertaken by communists in China in earlier years, the liquidation of landlords cost the lives of an estimated 50,000 people and prompted the party to acknowledge and redress "a number of serious errors" committed by its zealous cadres.

In urban sectors the party's intervention was less direct, initially at least, because large numbers of the bourgeoisie had fled the North in anticipation of the communists' coming to power. Many had fled to the South before the party gained full control. Those who remained were verbally assailed as exploiters of the people, but, because the regime needed their administrative and technical skills and experience, they were otherwise treated tolerantly and allowed to retain private property.

In 1958 the regime stepped up the pace of "socialist transformation," mindful that even though the foundations of a socialist society were basically in place, the economy remained for the most part still in the hands of the private, capitalist sector. By 1960 all but a small number of peasants, artisans, handicraft workers, industrialists, traders, and merchants had been forced to join cooperatives of various kinds.

Intellectuals, many of whom had earlier been supporters of the Viet Minh (see Glossary), were first conciliated by the government, then stifled. Opposition to the government, expressed openly during and after the peasant uprisings of 1956, prompted the imposition of controls that graduated to complete suppression by 1958. Writers and artists who had established their reputations in the pre-communist era were excluded from taking any effective role in national affairs. Many were sent to the countryside to perform manual labor and to help educate a new corps of socialist intellectuals among the peasants.

The dominant group in the new social order were the highlevel party officials, who constituted a new ruling class. They owed their standing more to demonstrations of political acumen and devotion to nationalism or Marxism-Leninism than to educational or professional achievements. Years of resistance against the French in the rural areas had inured them to hardship and at the same time given them valuable experience in organization and guerrilla warfare. Resistance work had also brought them into close touch with many different segments of the population.

At the apex of the new ruling class were select members of the Political Bureau of the communist Vietnamese Workers Party (VWP, Dang Lao Dong Viet Nam), and a somewhat larger body of Central Committee members holding key posts in the party, the government, the military, and various party-supported organizations. Below the top echelon were the rank and file party members (500,000 by 1960), including a number of women and members of ethnic minorities. Party cadres who possessed special knowledge and experience in technical, financial, administrative, or managerial matters were posted in all social institutions to supervise the implementation of party decisions.

Occupying an intermediate position between the party and the citizenry were those persons who did not belong to the party but who, nevertheless, had professional skills or other talents needed by the regime. Noncommunists were found in various technical posts, in the school system, and in the mass organizations to which most citizens were required to belong. A few even occupied high, though politically marginal, posts in the government. The bulk of the population remained farmers, workers, soldiers, miners, porters, stevedores, clerks, tradespeople, teachers, and artisans.

Social reorganization did little to evoke mass enthusiasm for socialism, and socialist transformation of the private sector into cooperative- and state-run operations did not result in the kind of economic improvement the government needed to win over the peasants and merchants. The regime managed to provide better educational and health care services than had existed in the pre1954 years, but poverty was still endemic. The party attributed the "numerous difficulties" it faced to "natural calamities, enemy actions, and the utterly poor and backward state of the economy," but also acknowledged its own failings. These included cadre incompetence in ideological and organizational matters as well as in financial, technical, and managerial affairs.

I see no reason to take the "Blame the US" stance.

We were, in effect helping a regeime that asked for help becasue they were being infiltrated and under terrorist attacks by communists. After communisim was IMPOSED on the North, they clearly stated they also wanted the south and would do whatever it took to accomplish that.

While the Diem regeime was not very nice, it was certainly preferable to another communist dictatorship where there would've been, as usual with communism, slaughter for anyone who disagreed.

Gulf of Tomkin incident? If the US is at fault why shouldn't we blame them?

If anyone was at fault for America's involvement and escalation in Vietnam it was the administrations of Kennedy and Johnson. I always thought it was Kennedy's hardon after defeating Kruschev in Cuba that forced us to even consider expanding our victory into other parts of the world..something we didn't do much before then. They used the "Domino Theory" as an excuse which was a valid political perspective considering the expansionist policies of the Soviet Union at the time - Cuba being an example.

If the Tonkin Gulf incident was such a big deal then why didn't we just land on the beaches of North Vietnam? If there had been aspirin factories to bomb I'm sure these same type of clowns would have targeted them rather than go for the throat like a GW does.

You're right about Johnson.
He sent in more troops in an effort to not give Goldwater an issue to run on. The problem is that when he did, he tried to run the entire show and had NO CLUE of what he was doing which was very typical of him in every regard.
He just may have been more of a sleazebag than Clinton.

Originally posted by RedLine99
If they had a draft today they would have to pry most of the boys from their mothers arms...atleast the ones that didn't go into hiding.

War is like a fire. Once it starts it's almost uncontrollable. To look back later and say we burned down to many pine apple trees and not enough elms is total BS.

Honor???? Yeah, right.
Its a shame we did not learn from the past. I am not so sure that the lessons we supposedly learned are still remembered. Did we learn from Lebenon, Somalia or any of these other petty wars that followed Vietnam?

Originally posted by RedLine99
If anyone was at fault for America's involvement and escalation in Vietnam it was the administrations of Kennedy and Johnson. I always thought it was Kennedy's hardon after defeating Kruschev in Cuba that forced us to even consider expanding our victory into other parts of the world..something we didn't do much before then. They used the "Domino Theory" as an excuse which was a valid political perspective considering the expansionist policies of the Soviet Union at the time - Cuba being an example.

If the Tonkin Gulf incident was such a big deal then why didn't we just land on the beaches of North Vietnam? If there had been aspirin factories to bomb I'm sure these same type of clowns would have targeted them rather than go for the throat like a GW does.
Many conspiracy theorists, and Oliver Stone in the film JFK, believe that Kenedy's assasination was a result of that president's opposition to escallation of US involvement in Vietnam. Some say it was Johnson who made that war possible.