The Patriot Files Forums  

Go Back   The Patriot Files Forums > Conflict posts > Vietnam

Post New Thread  Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-16-2007, 12:29 PM
MORTARDUDE's Avatar
MORTARDUDE MORTARDUDE is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 6,849
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Default

James :

Glad to see you back and as sharp as ever.

May God Bless,

Larry
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #12  
Old 11-17-2007, 12:29 AM
Robert Ryan's Avatar
Robert Ryan Robert Ryan is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Elk Grove, CA
Posts: 2,764
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default Do it again

You bet cha I would. No matter how it ended. Just as long as I could serve with the same guys I did in Vietnam with. And a lot of people who I have met on this site. No matter what our job was in Vietnam we all did our job and did it honorably.
__________________

If your going to suceed your going to have to know how to deal with failure. (Joe Torre).
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-17-2007, 07:33 AM
SuperScout's Avatar
SuperScout SuperScout is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Out in the country, near Dripping Springs TX
Posts: 5,734
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Default

Domino Theory: the fact that Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos are or were controlled by the communists can be plainly seen. The major driving force behind the domino theory was not the North Vietnamese, but the Russians under their form of communist tyranny. A combination of factors stopped the drive towards communist hegemony in SEA, the slaughter of tens of thousands of North Vietnamese invaders by the US forces, the successful anti-communist actions taken by Malaysia, the quiet efficiency of the Royal Thai Army, and ultimately, by the collapse and fall of the Evil Empire.

Winning the War in Vietnam: just ask the North Vietnamese generals. According to them, the Tet Offensive that they initiated was a total failure, resulting in the slaughter of the equivalent of 12 divisions. The North was not able to re-invade the South until 1975, when their manpower strength had been replenished by a new generation.

Democrats: it was a Democrat president that OKed the assassination of President Diem, and a Democrat president that micromanaged the war so badly, and had such an incompetent Secretary of Defense, that resulted in many of the 58k names on The Wall.
__________________
One Big Ass Mistake, America

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-04-2007, 09:40 AM
obbop obbop is offline
Junior Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 15
Default

Thanks to all for the info/data/opinions, etc.

Great reading.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-08-2007, 07:48 AM
exlrrp exlrrp is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,196
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Default Vietnam: Democrats fault or republican's fault?

this is one area where I have to say it was a bipartisan fuck-up.

the Democrats actually started it when truman first gave money to the French in 1950 to take back their colony. Thats was a HUGE mistake and in complete violation of the Atlantic Charter
Eisenhower and Dulles took up the fight when the French lost it---that was a HUGE mistake. We put Diem into power and pretnded it was a democracy--that was also a huge mistake

Kennedy amped up the war and Johnson amped it up even further, another huge mistake. It was the LBJ administration that falsified the tonkin incident , using it as an excuse to ramp up the war even further, much like Bush took us into war on phony information from one psycho defector. ("Curveball")

Nixon continued the war and set up the tems of the exit that ultimately lost the war for the Vietnamese.

Ford was left to clean up the mess when Nixon left (hurriedly, in disgrace)

Neither party, can claim success, it was truly a bipartisan fuckup. But as usual, its one side thats pointing fingers at another.

Stay good
James


(Thanks Larry)
__________________
When you can't think what to do, throw a grenade

Last edited by exlrrp; 12-08-2007 at 07:55 AM. Reason: spelling
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-09-2007, 07:21 AM
Packo's Avatar
Packo Packo is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Parris Island, SC
Posts: 3,851
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Default Bi-partisan....I agree

but when you really look at it.....LBJ and McNamara were the biggest criminals and during their reign we lost the most people. I certainly agree though, that there was enough blame to go around. I disagree though, and I'm no Nixon lover and was a Democrat in those days, that Nixon screwed up the peace thus screwing the Vietnamese. When the peace accords were though, the North Vietnamese were convinced that Nixon was crazy and WOULD nuke them eventually. Kissinger keep this guise up in Paris telling Le Duc To, I think, that he could not control Nixon. The North never took over the South while Nixon was in and the Vietnamese could count on our Air Support. It wasn't until Nixon resigned and the Congress voted to cut off all aid to South Vietnam, Ford was president, that the North invaded in full force defeating the SVN. Had they had our air support, the "vaunted" NVA would have never done it. In everything I've read, the one thing in agreement was that the North Vietnamese feared Nixon and believed very much that he would use nukes on them eventually. And, it was the Communists, of course, that went against their own peace treated once Nixon resigned.

James...Merry Christmas! Will be at Dan's this coming weekend. Will tell him you say "hey" and ABU!

Pack
__________________
"TO ANNOUNCE THAT THERE MUST BE NO CRITICISM OF THE PRESIDENT...IS MORALLY TREASONABLE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC." Theodore Roosvelt

"DISSENT IS PATRIOTIC!" (unknown people for the past 8 years, my turn now)
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-10-2007, 07:23 AM
exlrrp exlrrp is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,196
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Packo View Post
but when you really look at it.....LBJ and McNamara were the biggest criminals and during their reign we lost the most people. I certainly agree though, that there was enough blame to go around. I disagree though, and I'm no Nixon lover and was a Democrat in those days, that Nixon screwed up the peace thus screwing the Vietnamese. When the peace accords were though, the North Vietnamese were convinced that Nixon was crazy and WOULD nuke them eventually. Kissinger keep this guise up in Paris telling Le Duc To, I think, that he could not control Nixon. The North never took over the South while Nixon was in and the Vietnamese could count on our Air Support. It wasn't until Nixon resigned and the Congress voted to cut off all aid to South Vietnam, Ford was president, that the North invaded in full force defeating the SVN. Had they had our air support, the "vaunted" NVA would have never done it. In everything I've read, the one thing in agreement was that the North Vietnamese feared Nixon and believed very much that he would use nukes on them eventually. And, it was the Communists, of course, that went against their own peace treated once Nixon resigned.

James...Merry Christmas! Will be at Dan's this coming weekend. Will tell him you say "hey" and ABU!

Pack
Pack

I agree with some of this, disagree with some. Boy I sure wish Andy was here to explain the Nixon Era, he did it bettter than I can here---here's what he said, and I agree. nixon knew the war was unwinnable, so did LBJ. nixon never tried to win the war, which would have taken invading the North--which would have been a bloodbath: the Chinese were getting ready for this, they had a mutual defence treaty with the North. At the height of the bombings in 1970 they had 250,000 of their troops in North Vietnam, manning the air defenses and buuillding roads and railroads for the expected invasion (They saw Inchon too)

Nixon wasn't concerned about winnning the war, he was only concerned with getting some kind of exit strategy for the US--by 1975 we'd been fighting the war for 22 years--and it looked unending. he did not have the political support at home for the war. So he sxtended it looking for more favorable terms--andy was really provoked about this and so shod we be: once it was determined to get out we shod have gotten ot then but 20,000 ,more died while Nixon and Kissinger were trying to save face. thats a lot of good men dead for face saving.'s

What the North did was basically Rope A Dope, just keep bobbing and weaving until the other guy tired out, at which time press your forceful attack. Thats exactly what happened, they wore us out, its how they won.. they won the war of atttrition we set up tho they lost a lot more. we were the ones who set up the fight --and then blinked.

the whole thing should have been a lesson in reckless world domination. We fought a war with a country who had NEVER attacked us or threatened us or our interests in any way. they never threatened the straits of Malacca and they aren't vital to our national interests anyway.
We installed a corrupt dictatorship and called it a democracy, being so racist we didn't think the Vietnamese knew the difference. But they did. Where we went wrong originally was misinterpreting the geneva Conventions and allowing--encouraging--Diem to cancel the unifying elections of 1956--because we knew Ho would win. So much for spreading Democracy. In about the same time we did the same thing to Iran--and they haven't forgotten it either.


well, its alll a long time ago, but as you can see, there's still one side blaming the other for all of it. Finger pointing is their version of taking responsibility for their own actions

Stay good, old dude and Abu
Say hi to Dan and Sallie for me
James
__________________
When you can't think what to do, throw a grenade

Last edited by exlrrp; 12-10-2007 at 07:24 AM. Reason: spelling
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-17-2010, 11:47 PM
obbop obbop is offline
Junior Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 15
Default

I have pondered looong and HARD and have read so MANY non-fiction books from various "levels" and viewpoints from the lowest-ranking front-line grunt to the writings of those at the highest governmental levels and the MANY points in-between.

Interestingly....... I could NOT arrive at one definitive conclusion as to rightness or wrongness or we shoulda' done this or shoulda' done that because there is no second-guessing but only acceptance of what occurred.

However........

Consider this.

There WAS a Cold War between the the USSR and the USA and China was involved along with the various allies of the "Reds" and the allies of the USA.

There WAS the threat imposed by possible nuke use.

Full-scale war could have broken out. That could have been devastating even if USSR or USA or Red China homelands were not involved.

It could have even reached full-scale "world war" level fighting. Not good.

Consider this possibility.

Even if Vietnam had been avoided, and it may well have been a totally avoidable conflict if the USA had accepted Ho Chi Minh's extended hand of friendship back in the 1950s.

Heck, look at how forgiving the Vietnamese were after the conflict. For years Americans have visited and toured Vietnam and I have read only good things by those who have visited. And observe how it was the Vietnamese that entered the "Killing Fields" of Cambodia to put an end to that madness.

Anyway..... for various reasons Uncle Ho fought the USA and we fought back.

It is a possibility by showing USA resolve to stand up against what the USA rightfully or wrongfully thought was "creeping Communism," the "Domino Theory," that a strong message was sent to our Cold War foes and that a full-scale conventional war was avoided elsewhere or, possibly, that even a nuclear war was avoided as the "Reds" decided that, perhaps, they should avoid pushing the USA too hard since if those "crazy Americans, if they will fight that hard, are that damn tough in Vietnam then perhaps we better not push them too hard over here or over there and we sure better not get stupid and try to scare them with a nuke or nukes since if they will fight that hard in the jungles it sure is a lot easier to launch that HUGE nuclear arsenal aat their disposal.

Something to consider, folks.

Those 50,000 or so Americans dead and the many more injured may have saved the lives of millions or even hundreds of millions of fellow Americans if the Cold War had ended differently than its eventual outcome.

We will never know for sure.

But, the not knowing does take a little bit of the "sting" from considering that a different action or reaction on the part of the USA government in the 1950s may have kept us out of Vietnam from the get-go.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-18-2010, 06:50 AM
SuperScout's Avatar
SuperScout SuperScout is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Out in the country, near Dripping Springs TX
Posts: 5,734
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Default More misstatements of facts

Truman didn't give $$ to France to regain their colony, Indo-china. The French, ever the immoral cretins that they are, sent the equivalent of $$ to regain Indo-china that we were giving under the Marshall Plan. Truman, fully aware of this diversion of $$, didn't have the balls to cut off the Froggies; as a result, France lagged far behind the remainder of Europe in reconstructing after WWII. BTW, not one dime of US monies under the Marshall Plan was spent in Asia.

Militarily, we won the war in Vietnam. If you doubt that claim, it was virtually the same thing said by General Vo Nguyen Giap, the HMFIC of the North Vietnamese Army.

Nixon indeed set the terms for our withdrawal, and also the terms under which we would recommit forces, should the North Vietnamese violate the treaty. Surprise to no one, the Communist north violated the treaty, as is the wont of communists when it suits their aims, reinvaded the South, and a Democrat congress, nutless and gutless, refused to come to the aid of the governmetn of South Vietnam, and the rest of the story is one of Asian style gulags and other forms of oppression.
__________________
One Big Ass Mistake, America

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-18-2010, 10:57 PM
obbop obbop is offline
Junior Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 15
Default

Dig further into South Vietnamese society and note the many internal troubles. How a Roman Catholic elite class distributed wealth and power alienating large segments of the populace.

One could spend a multitude of hours obtaining the knowledge required just to make a feeble stab at guestimating the ins-and-outs of why what happened in South Vietnam came about.

I doubt if I was a typical South Vietnamese citizen that I would have donned a uniform and placed my life on the line fighting the "invader" from the north.

Heck, I may have viewed them as liberators and viewed the ruling junta in the south as more of an enemy than Uncle Ho!!!!!!

There was a LOT more going on within South Vietnam than the USA mass media ever made generally known to the US public who likely didn't care anyway.

We live in a society demanding easily-digestible 5-second sound bites.

Also, intellectualism is generally ridiculed and typically is 5th fiddle to what is on sale at the mall, what team is on TV and which burger is bigger and sold at the newest calorie-laden price.

Further afield but similar in some ways was the tumult in China between Mao and his minions and the various warlords and other political players wanting political power and the wealth that comes with it.

Compared to the evils of so many warlords I could see why Mao won the battle for the hearts and minds of the people.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CNN turns facts into fiction urbsdad6 Political Debate 3 06-16-2005 08:59 PM
Facts Are Facts! The Right To Bear Arms Saves Lives urbsdad6 Political Debate 1 06-03-2005 06:47 PM
Facts Or Fiction? HARDCORE General Posts 0 01-15-2005 08:29 AM
Fact Or Fiction? HARDCORE General Posts 0 07-27-2003 06:35 PM
FACT v FICTION HARDCORE Political Debate 3 06-19-2003 07:33 PM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.