# The advantages of the Vietnam war.



## Indofred (Mar 3, 2014)

I'm having a little trouble trying to work out why America went into Vietnam.
I was assured it was to save the democratic world from the evil communist threat but, regardless of the reasons for it, you lost and went home.
After that withdrawal, there was no change at all in the world order.

Given that, can anyone explain why the United States went to Vietnam, spent a massive pile of your taxpayers' money, and killed a load of your own people?


----------



## Steven_R (Mar 3, 2014)

Well, it wasn't that the war was outright lost by the US. North Vietnam was bombed to the peace table by Nixon in 1972. The US pulled out and North Vietnam invaded again in 1975, but Congress declined to support South Vietnam. It might be a fine point to make, but the war that started in 1954 did end in 1972.

As far as a change in world order, there is an argument that fighting in places like Korea and Vietnam showed the resolve of western powers to fight Soviet expansion. The Domino Effect idea was that letting one nation fall to the Soviets and doing nothing just prompted others to do the same, so we had to fight. Given how many nations in Asia did fight Communist insurrections with only a few falling to the Communists (namely Cambodia) there may be some validity to the argument. The US certainly was involved in Central and South America in the 70s and 80s propping up various regimes with the eye on keeping them from going like Cuba.

I think the other thing to remember is that places like Vietnam and Afghanistan were proxies during the Cold War. We could fight and support our causes in places like that without actually directly fighting the Soviets (and vice versa).


----------



## Indeependent (Mar 3, 2014)

Vietnam and Korea allowed the US use their airports during WWII despite their fear of Hitler's reprisal.
If the US didn't help them no one would trust us again.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Mar 4, 2014)

Indofred said:


> I'm having a little trouble trying to work out why America went into Vietnam.
> I was assured it was to save the democratic world from the evil communist threat but, regardless of the reasons for it, you lost and went home.
> After that withdrawal, there was no change at all in the world order.
> 
> Given that, can anyone explain why the United States went to Vietnam, spent a massive pile of your taxpayers' money, and killed a load of your own people?



Because big national players cannot war with each other anymore &#8211; the devastation would be far to massive.  Instead, we end up fighting in smaller nation who pay the real price.  

We are not in N. Korea for Korea either.  We are there to influence China.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Mar 4, 2014)

Same advantage as every other war: field test new weapons, get experience for combat forces. If we never went to war we'd have all zero-experience troops and unproven weapons systems.


----------



## gipper (Mar 4, 2014)

Indofred said:


> I'm having a little trouble trying to work out why America went into Vietnam.
> I was assured it was to save the democratic world from the evil communist threat but, regardless of the reasons for it, you lost and went home.
> After that withdrawal, there was no change at all in the world order.
> 
> Given that, can anyone explain why the United States went to Vietnam, spent a massive pile of your taxpayers' money, and killed a load of your own people?



That's easy...the Vietnam War was about empowering the State and enriching the power elite.  Nearly all wars are fought for this purpose and America's war in Vietnam was no different.

The power elite had a president murdered in 1963 so they could impose their war.


----------



## gipper (Mar 4, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> Well, it wasn't that the war was outright lost by the US. North Vietnam was bombed to the peace table by Nixon in 1972. The US pulled out and North Vietnam invaded again in 1975, but Congress declined to support South Vietnam. It might be a fine point to make, but the war that started in 1954 did end in 1972.
> 
> As far as a change in world order, there is an argument that fighting in places like Korea and Vietnam showed the resolve of western powers to fight Soviet expansion. The Domino Effect idea was that letting one nation fall to the Soviets and doing nothing just prompted others to do the same, so we had to fight. Given how many nations in Asia did fight Communist insurrections with only a few falling to the Communists (namely Cambodia) there may be some validity to the argument. The US certainly was involved in Central and South America in the 70s and 80s propping up various regimes with the eye on keeping them from going like Cuba.
> 
> I think the other thing to remember is that places like Vietnam and Afghanistan were proxies during the Cold War. We could fight and support our causes in places like that without actually directly fighting the Soviets (and vice versa).



Regarding your comments in the first paragraph, I agree completely.

America did not LOSE the Vietnam War, it negotiated a peace and left.  When the North continued it's aggression, America chose not to fight.  

It must be remembered that America signed a treaty with the South Vietnam government, which stated America would support the South completely should the North continue it's aggression.  America failed to honor this treaty due to Nixon's Watergate difficulties and Ford's inability to persuade the D Party to honor the treaty.

The D Party, which controlled Congress at the time, refused to support the South and honor America's treaty obligations.

The world knows they can't trust the word of an American politician.  When will Americans realize this?


----------



## Bill Angel (Mar 4, 2014)

Indofred said:


> I'm having a little trouble trying to work out why America went into Vietnam.
> I was assured it was to save the democratic world from the evil communist threat but, regardless of the reasons for it, you lost and went home.
> After that withdrawal, there was no change at all in the world order.
> 
> Given that, can anyone explain why the United States went to Vietnam, spent a massive pile of your taxpayers' money, and killed a load of your own people?


Here is another rationale for the US decision to become involved in Vietnam:


> Like other states based upon MarxistLeninist ideology, Vietnam's communists embraced a militantly atheistic stance against religion.... In 1954, it was because of the communists' anti-religious stance that U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower's government decided to promote the leadership of a devout Catholic named Ngô &#272;ình Di&#7879;m for South Vietnam. It was assumed that he would protect the rights of freedom of religion in South Vietnam, due to his deep faith... After the Communists won the war and reunified Vietnam, the government in Hanoi turned to suppress religion with great force.... Buddhist self-immolations, like the kind that had occurred in South Vietnam against the government in Saigon, soon occurred in the unified Vietnam in protest of the government's treatment of Buddhism. In November 1975, 12 Buddhist monks and nuns immolated themselves in C&#7847;n Th&#417;. In 1977, Thich Nu Nhu Hien burned herself in Hanoi in order to be a torch of wisdom that would bring the government to embrace religious tolerance.
> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Vietnam


----------



## Indofred (Mar 4, 2014)

Indeependent said:


> Vietnam and Korea allowed the US use their airports during WWII despite their fear of Hitler's reprisal.
> If the US didn't help them no one would trust us again.



Last I checked, Vietnam and Korea were well outside the range of any bombers that fancied lighting up a German city.


----------



## Indofred (Mar 4, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> As far as a change in world order, there is an argument that fighting in places like Korea and Vietnam showed the resolve of western powers to fight Soviet expansion. The Domino Effect idea was that letting one nation fall to the Soviets and doing nothing just prompted others to do the same, so we had to fight.



Given America left Vietnam, regardless of the reasons, surely that would have meant the Soviets were emboldened. 

Did the Soviets invade America or do any damage at all to the United States?
As they did not, that argument is suspect.


----------



## Indofred (Mar 4, 2014)

gipper said:


> The world knows they can't trust the word of an American politician.  When will Americans realize this?



That may well be true but, I have to be fair, there are very few politicians anywhere that can be trusted.


----------



## Spiderman (Mar 4, 2014)

It was  proxy war with the Soviet Union and we lost.


----------



## Indofred (Mar 4, 2014)

Spiderman said:


> It was  proxy war with the Soviet Union and we lost.



That may well be true but why did America bother and what did the politicians of the day hope to get out of it?

As far as I can see, there was absolutely no reason to bother and, even if you'd defeated the North, there was no gain for America.


----------



## Spiderman (Mar 4, 2014)

Indofred said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > It was  proxy war with the Soviet Union and we lost.
> ...



It was a game of political brinksmanship plain and simple as for what they wanted to get out of it who knows but war is usually used as an excuse to expand government power and that is exactly what happened.

Too bad it had to cost the lives of millions of people.


----------



## Indofred (Mar 4, 2014)

Politics don't fully explain the war.
In fact, the only reason I can see is cash.
The U.S. arms industry made a fortune.


----------



## editec (Mar 4, 2014)

Indofred said:


> I'm having a little trouble trying to work out why America went into Vietnam.
> I was assured it was to save the democratic world from the evil communist threat but, regardless of the reasons for it, you lost and went home.
> After that withdrawal, there was no change at all in the world order.
> 
> Given that, can anyone explain why the United States went to Vietnam, spent a massive pile of your taxpayers' money, and killed a load of your own people?



Hubris?

And that is the BEST possible reason that might be advanced to explain it

Another one and far less noble include -- *Those in the business of SELLING ARMS and lending money to the government  had enough influence to convince congress to pay for that war .*


Example?

Check out the price of NAPALM in 63 compared to the price in 73.

You'll see what could be a motive right there


----------



## gipper (Mar 4, 2014)

Indofred said:


> Politics don't fully explain the war.
> In fact, the only reason I can see is cash.
> The U.S. arms industry made a fortune.



Agreed.  That was the real reason for the war.  However it was disguised by the Domino Effect propaganda promoted by the power elite, to dupe the American people into another disastrous war.

The power elite continues to dupe the American people into funding a huge military industrial complex.  Even today when Obama is requesting extremely modest cuts to Defense (if only he would cut the rest of government), many pols and commentators are demanding it be stopped. 

Ike warned about the heinous nature of the military industrial complex, though he did nothing to curtail it during his presidency, but no one listened.  One would think Ike would have been more outspoken, particularly after it murdered his successor.


----------



## Steven_R (Mar 4, 2014)

Indofred said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Vietnam and Korea allowed the US use their airports during WWII despite their fear of Hitler's reprisal.
> ...



Plus they were in Japanese hands throughout the war.


----------



## whitehall (Mar 6, 2014)

The U.S. took action when the monsters from North Vietnam invaded the peaceful South Vietnamese just as the North Korean monsters invaded peaceful South Korea and the Japanese monsters invaded Singapore and the Germans invaded France (twice). Why is that concept so hard to understand? The problem was that the new democrat party decided to revise the rules so that the US could win every battle and still lose the war.


----------



## gipper (Mar 7, 2014)

whitehall said:


> The U.S. took action when the monsters from North Vietnam invaded the peaceful South Vietnamese just as the North Korean monsters invaded peaceful South Korea and the Japanese monsters invaded Singapore and the Germans invaded France (twice). Why is that concept so hard to understand? The problem was that the new democrat party decided to revise the rules so that the US could win every battle and still lose the war.



And America would have been better off if it had avoided ALL those wars and followed a policy of non-intervention.  

Allowing corrupt political elites to take America to war is ALWAYS a mistake that leads to terrible death, destruction, and lots of debt...along with growing the size and power of government, which constrains individual liberty.

War is the power of the State...and the State, run by politicians who are nothing more than scammers and racketeers, is never to be trusted.


----------



## NoNukes (Mar 7, 2014)

gipper said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Well, it wasn't that the war was outright lost by the US. North Vietnam was bombed to the peace table by Nixon in 1972. The US pulled out and North Vietnam invaded again in 1975, but Congress declined to support South Vietnam. It might be a fine point to make, but the war that started in 1954 did end in 1972.
> ...



The South Vietnamese government was corrupt and wanted to control the drug trade in the Golden Triangle for profit. Backing them was a huge mistake that was eventually rectified.


----------



## NoNukes (Mar 7, 2014)

whitehall said:


> The U.S. took action when the monsters from North Vietnam invaded the peaceful South Vietnamese just as the North Korean monsters invaded peaceful South Korea and the Japanese monsters invaded Singapore and the Germans invaded France (twice). Why is that concept so hard to understand? The problem was that the new democrat party decided to revise the rules so that the US could win every battle and still lose the war.



Some people would disagree as to which Vietnamese government were the monsters.


----------



## gipper (Mar 7, 2014)

NoNukes said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



The SV government was certainly corrupt but then all governments, throughout all of human history, are corrupt.  It is merely a question of the extent of the corruption.

America should have stayed out of Vietnam just as it should have stayed out of all it's wars, not because we backed a corrupt ally, but because war is always promoted by the power elite to enrich and empower themselves at the expense of the people.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Mar 7, 2014)

gipper said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > The U.S. took action when the monsters from North Vietnam invaded the peaceful South Vietnamese just as the North Korean monsters invaded peaceful South Korea and the Japanese monsters invaded Singapore and the Germans invaded France (twice). Why is that concept so hard to understand? The problem was that the new democrat party decided to revise the rules so that the US could win every battle and still lose the war.
> ...


all those wars?

I would have to interject that war is sometimes necessary and there is simply no way around that.  If we had abstained indefinitely from WWII, we would be living under a German totalitarian government right now.


Had Japan not bombed Pearl Harbor and we stayed isolationist do you really think that we would be better off?


----------



## usmcstinger (Mar 7, 2014)

NoNukes said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



Where is your *viable* source that backs up " South Vietnamese wanted to control the drug trade trade"


----------



## usmcstinger (Mar 7, 2014)

gipper said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > Politics don't fully explain the war.
> ...



It was Democratic President L B Johnson who started the War in Vietnam and Congress gave its full support except for one member. The Democrats had the majority in the House and the Senate during his Administration.  Composition of Congress Since 1867 Say what you want about tricky Dick, he did get our Armed Forces out of Vietnam.
*Laos is a single-party socialist republic. It espouses Marxism and is governed by a single party communist politburo dominated by military generals.*
Cambodia had a number of Governmental changes. 
In 1975, the Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot  executed about a million and a half people between 1975 and 1979..
North Vietnam took control of areas of Cambodia that were strategic to their war against the US.
There is much more about the governmental history of Cambodia The link below details all of it.

Cambodia: History | Infoplease.com


----------



## editec (Mar 7, 2014)

I think the mistake many make in POLITICS is assuming that there is ONE motive for policies.

Generally policies that get passed get passed because it serves MANY masters.

The War in Viet Nam served many masters in America.

It was a complete and  utter waste of this nations blood and gold.  It tore the nation apart both by generation AND class, too.

It STARTED us down the road going from the world's wealthiest creditor nation to the worlds largest debtor nation.

Thank you very much Lyndon Johnson and later Richard Nixon.

Hopefully the Christians are right and you will both burn in hell for that war.


----------



## gipper (Mar 7, 2014)

FA_Q2 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



I do not believe Nazi Germany ever intended to conqueror the USA and had no ability to do it.  Hitler's plans all along were to destroy the Soviet Union.

Secondly, FDR set up events leading to Pearl Harbor by purposely putting Japan in an untenable position.  This does not excuse Japan for their aggression, it merely points to the fact that allowing a corrupt politician like FDR, who was compromised and desperate for war, is a much bigger problem.  Had FDR been a peacemaker rather than a warmonger, WWII would have been much different.


----------



## elektra (Mar 7, 2014)

editec said:


> I think the mistake many make in POLITICS is assuming that there is ONE motive for policies.
> 
> Generally policies that get passed get passed because it serves MANY masters.
> 
> ...



If your history of Vietnam starts with Johnson, not Kennedy, you do not know much about history.


----------



## elektra (Mar 7, 2014)

Yes, the USA should never of lifted a finger to fight against Communist aggression, never. 

The USSR would of won WW II all by themselves, The USSR would of did as they did in History, except without the USA to stop or check the conquering of Europe, Asia, and the Americas, we could now proudly claim we are Communists. 

The war in Vietnam, Korea, the cold war, sure messed up the world. Had only we let the Communist win.


----------



## racewright (Mar 7, 2014)

War  hummm
The people of the USA do not have the stomach for war.  
War requires a goal and a winner.
If you fight a war with the only goal to be some half assed political bullshit then you are not fighting a war but wasting lives.

Wars are fought to have one group (or nation) defeat and conquer THE OTHER. any other reason is wrong.
If you are not capable of realizing this then you have no justification for loosing lives for some other nation.

Its nothing but a guess as to how much good the USA did with any war but if we were to finish any war to its conclusion then maybe the reasons for wasting lives and finances would equal out.


----------



## westwall (Mar 7, 2014)

Indofred said:


> I'm having a little trouble trying to work out why America went into Vietnam.
> I was assured it was to save the democratic world from the evil communist threat but, regardless of the reasons for it, you lost and went home.
> After that withdrawal, there was no change at all in the world order.
> 
> Given that, can anyone explain why the United States went to Vietnam, spent a massive pile of your taxpayers' money, and killed a load of your own people?







So that LBJ, Robert Strange McNamara, and a whole passel of elites could make a ton of money.  Same as always.


----------



## Indofred (Mar 8, 2014)

elektra said:


> Yes, the USA should never of lifted a finger to fight against Communist aggression, never.
> 
> The USSR would of won WW II all by themselves, The USSR would of did as they did in History, except without the USA to stop or check the conquering of Europe, Asia, and the Americas, we could now proudly claim we are Communists.
> 
> The war in Vietnam, Korea, the cold war, sure messed up the world. Had only we let the Communist win.



But, the communists did win in Vietnam.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Mar 8, 2014)

Indofred said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the USA should never of lifted a finger to fight against Communist aggression, never.
> ...



That is not an argument that we should have not intervened though.  That is simply a statement that we failed in that endeavor.

There is a difference.


----------



## racewright (Mar 8, 2014)

Indofred said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the USA should never of lifted a finger to fight against Communist aggression, never.
> ...



The communists didn't win shit.  It was never a war in the first place. The college kids and relocates to Canada new it was a bullshit happening by the political scumbags.
Part of me (the 67/68 soldier) hates the activist's Hanoi Jane's that protested the war
and part of me applauds them as it is possible that we might still be loosing lives there if left up to the scumbag full of shit leaders.  Just like now as the big O who said we will get out of Afghanistan.   I'll believe that when I see it and just like all other countries we went in to--- we never leave but only make ya think we did...
Uh when I leave somewhere if you look at where I was I'm not there.


----------



## Indofred (Mar 8, 2014)

FA_Q2 said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



Not if the aim was to defend against communism, thus protecting the U.S. mainland.
That failed war would, had the excuse been valid, had led to disaster for America.

It did not, thus, the excuse for war was bullshit.


----------



## Autodidact_33 (Mar 9, 2014)

From what I gathered, the historical origins of the Vietnam War was an attempt to preserve the last vestiges of French colonial rule. Now most films about that war show it from the perspective of the American grunt; but that was not really the truth. America attempted to win that war by a massive air bombing campaign which resulted in the deaths of conservatively of two million Vietnamese civilians. Though war is not as simple as fiction where it can be simplified as good versus evil, the human cost of that war for both American soldiers and the people of Vietnam was high. North Vietnam was not or ever was a threat to the United States, but they paid a very high cost in the lives of their people for a conflict between to much larger global powers. Though Communism was an oppressive, totalitarian influence in the second half of the twentieth century, is it wrong to say that a nation has a right to decide by what ideology their country should be governed without foreign interference.


----------



## usmcstinger (Mar 9, 2014)

Those of us who served in Vietnam did not lose squat. We never lost a major battle. We just left. In 1969, the entire 3rd Marine Division went to Okinawa. As of March 29, 1973, all American Troops were gone from Vietnam. 

I have no regrets and make no apologies for my combat service in Vietnam.

I suggest you read *A VIETNCONG MEMOIR *by Truong Nhu Tang and* FOLLOWING HO CHI MINH* by Bui Tin

It appears most of you experts were not yet born or too young to serve in Vietnam. Let us not forget the Socialists who dodged the draft.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Mar 9, 2014)

Indofred said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Indofred said:
> ...


Not really.

The fight against communism took place on a dozen battlefields.  Just because you lost one such incident does not mean that you didn't win the overall conflict.  The west won in most of the other locations so even that line of logic really does not stand up.


----------



## elektra (Mar 10, 2014)

Autodidact_33 said:


> From what I gathered, the historical origins of the Vietnam War was an attempt to preserve the last vestiges of French colonial rule. Now most films about that war show it from the perspective of the American grunt; but that was not really the truth. America attempted to win that war by a massive air bombing campaign which resulted in the deaths of conservatively of two million Vietnamese civilians. Though war is not as simple as fiction where it can be simplified as good versus evil, the human cost of that war for both American soldiers and the people of Vietnam was high. North Vietnam was not or ever was a threat to the United States, but they paid a very high cost in the lives of their people for a conflict between to much larger global powers. Though Communism was an oppressive, totalitarian influence in the second half of the twentieth century, is it wrong to say that a nation has a right to decide by what ideology their country should be governed without foreign interference.



Vietnam was not a threat, Communism was. Communism is and was the opposite of freedom. 

The deaths of the Vietnamese was a direct result of Communism. If the USA did not intervene its impossible to say if the death toll would of been higher. There is not one Country in the world where the people embrace and celebrate Communism. To assume in Vietnam that Communism would be accepted peacefully is an opinion ignorant of the facts of History. 

Communism in Vietnam resulted in the deaths of whatever number of people you care to attribute to the USA.


----------



## NoNukes (Mar 10, 2014)

usmcstinger said:


> Those of us who served in Vietnam did not lose squat. We never lost a major battle. We just left. In 1969, the entire 3rd Marine Division went to Okinawa. As of March 29, 1973, all American Troops were gone from Vietnam.
> 
> I have no regrets and make no apologies for my combat service in Vietnam.
> 
> ...



How are people who dodged the draft for moral reasons Socialists?


----------



## NoNukes (Mar 10, 2014)

elektra said:


> Autodidact_33 said:
> 
> 
> > From what I gathered, the historical origins of the Vietnam War was an attempt to preserve the last vestiges of French colonial rule. Now most films about that war show it from the perspective of the American grunt; but that was not really the truth. America attempted to win that war by a massive air bombing campaign which resulted in the deaths of conservatively of two million Vietnamese civilians. Though war is not as simple as fiction where it can be simplified as good versus evil, the human cost of that war for both American soldiers and the people of Vietnam was high. North Vietnam was not or ever was a threat to the United States, but they paid a very high cost in the lives of their people for a conflict between to much larger global powers. Though Communism was an oppressive, totalitarian influence in the second half of the twentieth century, is it wrong to say that a nation has a right to decide by what ideology their country should be governed without foreign interference.
> ...



The people of Vietnam had a right to decide on what type of government they wanted, not having it shoved down their throats with a rifle. Many of the poor rice farmers would have been better off under Communism.


----------



## Indofred (Mar 10, 2014)

usmcstinger said:


> Those of us who served in Vietnam did not lose squat. We never lost a major battle. We just left. In 1969, the entire 3rd Marine Division went to Okinawa. As of March 29, 1973, all American Troops were gone from Vietnam.
> 
> I have no regrets and make no apologies for my combat service in Vietnam.
> 
> ...



Regardless of the excuses used, America left Vietnam but there was no massive Communist surge and no danger at all to the U.S. mainland.

These facts being undisputed, why did America enter the war?
If it was to defend against communism, the people who sold this idea must have been wrong.


----------



## Indofred (Mar 10, 2014)

elektra said:


> Vietnam was not a threat, Communism was. Communism is and was the opposite of freedom.
> 
> The deaths of the Vietnamese was a direct result of Communism. If the USA did not intervene its impossible to say if the death toll would of been higher. There is not one Country in the world where the people embrace and celebrate Communism. To assume in Vietnam that Communism would be accepted peacefully is an opinion ignorant of the facts of History.
> 
> Communism in Vietnam resulted in the deaths of whatever number of people you care to attribute to the USA.



Given you left Vietnam, what threat was there from communism to America.
You left - no problem for America.
I don't recall ever reading about a communist invasion of Florida - only an American backed invasion of Cuba.
I wonder where the real threats of death and violence came from?

As for the death toll - a lot less as the south would have lost far faster and all the deaths from American carpet bombing of civilians would never had happened.


----------



## Indofred (Mar 10, 2014)

FA_Q2 said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



How many communist nations attacked America and how many were attacked by America.
Given America suffered no loss of life and zero damage because there were no communist attacks on America, one has to question where the threat to people came from.


----------



## elektra (Mar 10, 2014)

Indofred said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Vietnam was not a threat, Communism was. Communism is and was the opposite of freedom.
> ...



So your belief is that despite the fact that the Communist brutally murdered and caused the deaths of millions, that Communism's stated goal was complete rule over all people in the world, that there was never a threat? 

Tens of Million dead directly because of Communism, Communists driving tanks into other countries, killing those who oppose them, and there is zero threat.

Oh, I get it, those who fled the Tyrant have no right to stop a Tyrant, we must sit quietly and watch or relatives die.

The free people of the world should just huddle in the one sanctuary from death and murder, just hide here and ignore Communism's rise to power and control, because it can never hurt us, even if it grew and kept getting more and more powerful? 

If the USA never fought Communism what would the world be today, most likely we would not have this discussion, your parents or yourself would of died in the war we would of fought to prevent Communism from taking over the USA.

Communist conquering the entire World was never a threat to freedom?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Mar 10, 2014)

Indofred said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Indofred said:
> ...


If you cant acknowledge the existence of the cold war or how superpowers war through small proxy nations then I cant fathom why you even bothered to ask the question.


You have your answer - you are not looking for debate as far as I can tell.


----------



## Indofred (Mar 10, 2014)

elektra said:


> So your belief is that despite the fact that the Communist brutally murdered and caused the deaths of millions, that Communism's stated goal was complete rule over all people in the world, that there was never a threat?
> 
> Tens of Million dead directly because of Communism, Communists driving tanks into other countries, killing those who oppose them, and there is zero threat.
> 
> ...



America has attacked and killed just as many as communist countries have, probably more.
Please explain why American tanks wading into countries, killing thousands, were better than communist tanks doing the same.
I'm sure America saved many Cambodians from being forced into communism...when it bombed civilians to hell (Without any declaration of war).

Better dead by an American bomb than forced into communism?
Please explain how Cambodian, Indonesian and so many other civilians were better off dead than potentially communist and how it is acceptable to bomb countries without declaring war and trying to hide the fact you did so.

In fact, America is a massive threat to the world and was always a greater threat than communism.
Basically, America invaded Vietnam, killed a load of its own people in a daft war and managed to kill thousands of local while it was doing so.


----------



## Infidel (Mar 10, 2014)

*The advantages of the Vietnam war.*

Showed the US that they can't win without using nukes. Go big or go home. They went home.


----------



## Indofred (Mar 10, 2014)

FA_Q2 said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



Of course there was a cold war, but please explain how going into Vietnam and other countries helped America.
The stupidity that we know as communism is self defeating because it's such as stupid, unworkable idea.


----------



## Infidel (Mar 10, 2014)

Indofred said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Indofred said:
> ...


They were going to attack Indonesia, but they couldn't find anything worth attacking.


----------



## Indofred (Mar 10, 2014)

Infidel said:


> *The advantages of the Vietnam war.*
> 
> Showed the US that they can't win without using nukes. Go big or go home. They went home.



I don't believe it did.
Had the American leaders learned any lessons - they wouldn't have repeated the mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There goes another two wars you could never win and were always guaranteed to seriously mess up, coming home with nothing but a massive bill and a load of dead bodies.

A win requires you to have gained in some way - Nothing was gained in Vietnam.


----------



## Indofred (Mar 10, 2014)

Infidel said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



Check your history. America murdered quite a few civilians in Indonesia.


----------



## Infidel (Mar 10, 2014)

Indofred said:


> Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > Indofred said:
> ...



Which is how they knew there was nothing worthwhile to attack again.


----------



## Friends (Mar 10, 2014)

Final declaration, dated July 21, 1954, of the Geneva Conference on the problem of restoring peace in Indochina, in which the representatives of Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, France, Laos, the People's Republic of China, the State of Viet-Nam, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and the United States of America took part...

4. The Conference takes note of the clauses in the agreement on the cessation of hostilities in Viet-Nam prohibiting the introduction into Viet Nam of foreign troops and military personnel as well as of all kinds of arms and munitions...

6. The Conference recognizes that the essential purpose of the agreement relating to Viet-Nam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary...

7. In order to insure that sufficient progress in the restoration of peace has been made, and that all the necessary conditions obtain for free expression of the national will, general elections shall be held in July 1956, under the supervision of an international commission composed of representatives of the member states of the International Supervisory Commission referred to in the agreement on the cessation of hostilities.
Modern History Sourcebook: The Final Declaration of The Geneva Conference: On Restoring Peace in Indochina, July 21, 1954


The United States did not sign and did not honor the Geneva Agreement of 1954. This is why: "I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader."

Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/vietnam/ddeho.htm 


The War in Vietnam happened because the United States prevented the ascension of a leader the vast majority of the Vietnamese wanted. The War in Vietnam was tragically futile. It was an expensive losing war fought with a tough resourceful enemy in which the rewards of victory and the penalties of defeat were imperceptible. Vietnam was unimportant to America's economy and to America's economy. 

President Johnson sent American ground troops into Vietnam, but President Eisenhower got the United States involved in the first place.


----------



## Indofred (Mar 10, 2014)

Infidel said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > Infidel said:
> ...



Actually, you got busted in public so were forced to stop.
One of your murderers was shot down and, to save his own skin, kept all his ID and mission documents, against his standing orders.
I'm happy you think America murdering innocent Christian civilians, on their way home from church, is funny.
Personally, I think you're a silly fucker.


----------



## editec (Mar 10, 2014)

elektra said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > I think the mistake many make in POLITICS is assuming that there is ONE motive for policies.
> ...



A fair complaint
But my history doesn't.

The guilt for *that WAR* however DOES start with LBJ.  

  The real origin of the war starts before WWII, with French colonialism if you want to play that _full history game._

But the war was expanded from a pittance force of advisors under Kennedy,  to over 500,000 combat troops in country under Johnson.

It's probably that JFK would not have turned that war in what it became.  It seems likely he'd have gotten us out instead of digging that hole deeper.

Hence my limiting the guilt to LBJ and RMN.

Do you disagree with my assessment about the WAR and our limited involvement UNTIL LBJ made it into the mess it became?


----------



## Infidel (Mar 10, 2014)

Indofred said:


> Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > Indofred said:
> ...



No, you're just confused, we were talking about armies.


----------



## racewright (Mar 10, 2014)

NoNukes said:


> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> > Those of us who served in Vietnam did not lose squat. We never lost a major battle. We just left. In 1969, the entire 3rd Marine Division went to Okinawa. As of March 29, 1973, all American Troops were gone from Vietnam.
> ...



They did not Dodge for moral reasons they were PUNKS


----------



## racewright (Mar 10, 2014)

editec said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



LBJ was a egotistical scum bag who could give a shit about his fellow man and only about his overly large Texan Ego. 
 We always have to deal with politicians who cost American lives in some stupid foreign war that we should not be involved in, as the saying goes old men fight wars that young boys fight= screw that send the women and old politicians and you will see nuclear weapons going off.
  If you have a reason to go to war then at least have the balls to win it and conquer the enemy.


----------



## longknife (Mar 10, 2014)

Leaving all the Hate America and Big Corporations Caused It arguments aside, there are a number of reason we got involved in Korea.

Japan had occupied Korea during the war and as part of the peace treaties, Korea was divided into the north with a government supporting China and communism while the south formed a democratic government siding with the allied powers. When the north invaded the south, the US and UN had no choice but to step in due to treaty obligations.

Vietnam was slightly different. They partially sided with us against the Japanese but were also part of French Indochina. During the period after WWII, European and American companies took advantage of the vast rubber plantation that had caused Japan to occupy the area in the first place. When Uncle Ho and his troops kicked the French out, there was once again a series of treaties dividing the country between a communist north and a democratic south. They US, along with other countries, were signatories to that agreement.

When the north supported small local insurgent groups, the US sent in "military advisors" to teach the south how to fight the insurgency. As the north, supported by Russian, stepped up military activity in the south, the US responded in kind.

Will it ever end?

Well, Vietnam is now unified and appears to be doing much better.

Korea is still divided and will continue to be so as long as China props up the north.


----------



## elektra (Mar 10, 2014)

editec said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



I like your post, it is impossible to speculate which direction the war would of went, chances are great the JFK would of checked the Communist and even pushed them out of Vietnam, but that is not the history.


----------



## elektra (Mar 10, 2014)

Indofred said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > So your belief is that despite the fact that the Communist brutally murdered and caused the deaths of millions, that Communism's stated goal was complete rule over all people in the world, that there was never a threat?
> ...



So to answer my facts about Communism you make statements of opinion, some posed as questions, all vague and Howard Zinn like, you should study the great work of Marxist Howard Zinn, you know, "the peoples history of the united states", it was Howard Zinn's life's work. Howard Zinn literally took his entire life to condense our history into a revisionist marxist history of political talking points. You most likely are completely ignorant of how your opinion is the exact propaganda that Marxist such as Howard Zinn spent a life, literally, teaching you.

Thank you for the excellent example of the effectiveness of propaganda. 

I like the childish gibberish you start your rant with, I say childish because your saying, "but mommy, they did it to!" Followed by "Probably". Are you not willing to say for sure?

Really, Probably? Pol Pot is responsible for Genocide, not Probably. You have zero knowledge of the crimes of Communism.


----------



## Indofred (Mar 10, 2014)

longknife said:


> Well, Vietnam is now unified and appears to be doing much better.



Yes, that's what happens when America gets kicked out but......
Korea is still divided and will continue to be so as long as America props up the south.


----------



## NoNukes (Mar 11, 2014)

racewright said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > usmcstinger said:
> ...



And you have little idea what you are talking about.


----------



## MDiver (Mar 11, 2014)

The west was forseeing a domino effect as some nations fell to communist aggression and ideology.  When France lost to the North Vietnamese, the U.S. felt it could stem communist aggression into South Vietnam and to get us into the war, the "Gulf of Tonkin" lie was generated, claiming that North Vietnamese forces attacked our warship.
In any case we technically didn't lose that war, but rather, left because the american public was sick of seeing the war carnage in their living rooms via the television and huge protests pressured the government to pull out.  In actuality, we had completely destroyed the Viet Cong and had pushed the North Vietnamese troops back, but public pressure in the U.S. doomed the ongoing conflict.  
Since then, you see the imbedded reporters in our conflict restricted on what they can film, so as to not undermine the conflicts.


----------



## Indofred (Mar 11, 2014)

elektra said:


> So to answer my facts about Communism you make statements of opinion,
> 
> Really, Probably? Pol Pot is responsible for Genocide, not Probably. You have zero knowledge of the crimes of Communism.



Yes, I stated my opinion about communism being a pile of old shit that can never work.
Now you get stupid. Pol pot, whilst a beginner by Stalin's standard, managed a massive killing spree in his short time in power.
I'm amazed you think there's any question about this.

However, back in reality and without needed to make shit up and try to make out another poster actually said it, I didn't defend communism, just stated America has done as bad or worse as far as wars go.
America, in its defence, has used its troops to murder far fewer of its civilians than most communist states managed.


----------



## elektra (Mar 11, 2014)

Indofred said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > So to answer my facts about Communism you make statements of opinion,
> ...



You have your opinion, I will keep to the facts.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Mar 11, 2014)

Indofred said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > Well, Vietnam is now unified and appears to be doing much better.
> ...



True.  It is also true that a divided Korea is FAR BETTER than a unified one for the southern half.  So, if we left Korea would certainly be unified in suffering.  Everyone would be doing terrible rather than simply the northern, China supported region.

The two statements  Korea would be unified if China stopped supporting the North and Korea would be unified if the USA stopped supporting the south  are not equivalent.


----------



## editec (Mar 11, 2014)

elektra said:


> So to answer my facts about Communism you make statements of opinion, some posed as questions, all vague and Howard Zinn like, you should study the great work of Marxist Howard Zinn, you know, "the peoples history of the united states", it was Howard Zinn's life's work. Howard Zinn literally took his entire life to condense our history into a revisionist marxist history of political talking points. You most likely are completely ignorant of how your opinion is the exact propaganda that Marxist such as Howard Zinn spent a life, literally, teaching you.
> 
> 
> WRONG.
> ...


----------



## Infidel (Mar 11, 2014)

Indofred said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > Well, Vietnam is now unified and appears to be doing much better.
> ...



The North just has to surrender. Pretty simple really.


----------



## Indofred (Mar 11, 2014)

elektra said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > However, back in reality and without needed to make shit up and try to make out another poster actually said it, I didn't defend communism, just stated America has done as bad or worse as far as wars go.
> ...



SOUTH DAKOTA	 1890 (-?)	 Troops	300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee.
IDAHO	1892	Troops	Army suppresses silver miners' strike.
CHICAGO	1894	Troops	Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed.
DETROIT	1943	Troops	Army put down Black rebellion.

These uses of your military to kill your own civilians are quite old examples but you still execute your own citizens without trial. 

The list of countries you've attacked and murdered civilians in is far too long to bother posting but I've give the link and one example.

CAMBODIA	l969-75	Bombing, troops, naval	Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.

You never declared war, just carpet bombed civilians in a decade long terror campaign.
Sorry, America isn't a terrorist nation, you must have been attacking terrorists.

History of U.S. Military Interventions since 1890

Basically, the United states has mass murdered in a wide variety of countries for years and, as is common with killer countries, you've never so much as tried to take your murderers to court.
How do those facts suit you?


----------



## Indofred (Mar 11, 2014)

Infidel said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > Infidel said:
> ...



Sorry, American CIA covert forces, fully equipped with bomber aircraft, aren't an army.
Just a terrorist group.


----------



## Picaro (Mar 11, 2014)

> I'm having a little trouble trying to work out why America went into Vietnam.
> I was assured it was to save the democratic world from the evil communist threat


 


 It's not such a simple issue, as the reasons start way back in the 1930's, with Franklin Roosevelt and others  at the onset of the Depression who foresaw the end of colonial empires and a world thrown into chaos by the coming of the likes of Mussolini, Stalin, and Hitler, all wannabee imperialists who saw military conquest and political destabilization of their neighbors as viable options for expanding their power and wealth.  



 WW II was inevitable in their minds, and the isolationist U.S. fantasy was a serious threat to stability, and of course they were right. Isolationism never worked for the U.S., and was an impossibility given the vast improvements in transportation technology and industrial capabilities; it was a much smaller world in the 20th century than it was in the 18th and early 19th centuries. Appeasing the likes of Wilhelm II proved the old world not only crumbling but making it a much more dangerous place, no matter where you were.




> but, regardless of the reasons for it,you lost and went home.



 Actually the Soviets lost, and we went home because there was no longer a compelling reason to stay there, thanks to Nixon and Kissinger's diplomacy with China. The physical occupation of Viet Nam wasn't necessary after those agreements were reached. The Soviets were faced with U.S. alliance against them in SE Asia, not a situation they could successfully counter.



 The U.S. escalations by Johnson bankrupted the Soviets, along with other setbacks elsewhere, in the ME and Africa, by 1973, and removed the threat of a major Soviet naval base astride key shipping lanes in Asia, something China was not happy about seeing either. 



Viet Nam was a SEATO alliance operation, not just a U.S. one, by the way. So, it was a strategic success for the U.S. And our Asian allies, as well as China, which was no friend of the Soviets in that era, and probably headed off a war between the Soviets and China as well.



> After that withdrawal, there was no change at all in the world order.


 There was major change in world order; the Soviets went into the oil crisis and the concurrent global food shortage in a severely weakened condition, which led to the 'Detente' agreements and the Soviets depending on U.S. Grain shipments and technology transfers for developing its oil and gas industry, to name two. They never recovered from the drain of the VN war, and finally collapsed.



> Given that, can anyone explain why the United States went to Vietnam, spent a massive pile of your taxpayers' money, and killed a load of your own people?



 Internal corruption doesn't invalidate the containment policy and its general success; it was a domestic problem for the U.S., as it is in all countries, even Sweden and Russia today.  
 Our military performed very well in Viet Nam, especially considering the number of draftees. The failure of the South Vietnamese government to win a civil war despite all the aid is on their shoulders, not the U.S. If it were about the U.S. Imperialism' myth popular in propaganda memes, Hanoi would be a Disney theme park today. 



 Maybe if Kennedy hadn't approved the assassination of Diem because he and his brother were exploring a unilateral agreement with Ho things would have turned out differently, but Kennedy was more concerned with his image as an 'anti-communist' and how bad it would look for him in the next election if Diem and Ho made peace to spend any time thinking about anybody but himself, and making it necessary for Johnson to escalate the U.S. presence there.  

Viet Nam is not now a Chinese province, the Soviets ended up with a tiny refueling station, and our SEATO alliance is still intact for the most part; I don't see any 'defeat' here, except on the Soviet side, whatever the trendy fashionable rhetorical spin is attempting to achieve with fantasy nonsense.


----------



## darroll (Mar 11, 2014)

We went to war in Viet Nam because our friend (The President) asked us to help their country defeat communism.
Later we found out the country was about 80% communist.


----------



## Infidel (Mar 11, 2014)

Indofred said:


> Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > Indofred said:
> ...



Because a fucking rice gobbler like you can spot CIA covert forces a mile away?


----------



## High_Gravity (Mar 11, 2014)

Indofred said:


> I'm having a little trouble trying to work out why America went into Vietnam.
> I was assured it was to save the democratic world from the evil communist threat but, regardless of the reasons for it, you lost and went home.
> After that withdrawal, there was no change at all in the world order.
> 
> Given that, can anyone explain why the United States went to Vietnam, spent a massive pile of your taxpayers' money, and killed a load of your own people?



Whats this wierd fetish you have with Vietnam?


----------



## Infidel (Mar 11, 2014)

High_Gravity said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > I'm having a little trouble trying to work out why America went into Vietnam.
> ...



Chicks faces in Nam aren't as flat as in Indonesia.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Mar 11, 2014)

Indofred said:


> I'm having a little trouble trying to work out why America went into Vietnam.
> I was assured it was to save the democratic world from the evil communist threat but, regardless of the reasons for it, you lost and went home.
> After that withdrawal, there was no change at all in the world order.
> 
> Given that, can anyone explain why the United States went to Vietnam, spent a massive pile of your taxpayers' money, and killed a load of your own people?



We lost? The Nation brought us home following North Vietnam's promise-by treaty-that it would stop attacking South Vietnam. South Vietnam lost because Congress cut RSVN's supply line while N. Vietnam continued to be resupplied by the USSR and Red China.

From our POV Vietnam was a part of the Cold War and we won the Cold War.


----------



## Bill Angel (Mar 11, 2014)

9thIDdoc said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > I'm having a little trouble trying to work out why America went into Vietnam.
> ...


That's an interesting point about Congress cutting RSVN's supply line versus N. Vietnam continued to be resupplied by the USSR and Red China. An excellent book about WW II is 

Inferno: The World at War, 1939-1945
by Max Hastings
See http://books.google.com/books/about/Inferno.html?id=YqwtuAAACAAJ
The author stresses the importance of the battle that each side fought to get their supplies through to the forces that they were supporting, while fighting to cripple the enemy's ability to do the same.  Cutting the enemy's supply lines was of greater importance in achieving victory than the various tactical situations that played out on the battlefields.


----------



## Picaro (Mar 11, 2014)

Congress cut the funding because it no longer mattered.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 11, 2014)

MDiver said:


> The west was forseeing a domino effect as some nations fell to communist aggression and ideology.  When France lost to the North Vietnamese, the U.S. felt it could stem communist aggression into South Vietnam and to get us into the war, the "Gulf of Tonkin" lie was generated, claiming that North Vietnamese forces attacked our warship.
> In any case we technically didn't lose that war, but rather, left because the american public was sick of seeing the war carnage in their living rooms via the television and huge protests pressured the government to pull out.  In actuality, we had completely destroyed the Viet Cong and had pushed the North Vietnamese troops back, but public pressure in the U.S. doomed the ongoing conflict.
> Since then, you see the imbedded reporters in our conflict restricted on what they can film, so as to not undermine the conflicts.


The war was one big screw up both militarily and politically.  Most of the people who supported the war were in reality supporting the troops, not the military or political goals.  Draft evasion, both legal and illegal undermined Selective Service.  Probably the biggest failing in the war was the inability of Washington to convince the American people that this war was really necessary.


----------



## elektra (Mar 12, 2014)

editec said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > So to answer my facts about Communism you make statements of opinion, some posed as questions, all vague and Howard Zinn like, you should study the great work of Marxist Howard Zinn, you know, "the peoples history of the united states", it was Howard Zinn's life's work. Howard Zinn literally took his entire life to condense our history into a revisionist marxist history of political talking points. You most likely are completely ignorant of how your opinion is the exact propaganda that Marxist such as Howard Zinn spent a life, literally, teaching you.
> ...


----------



## Indofred (Mar 12, 2014)

Yes, so many excuses for the American defeat but, regardless of the reasons, there was no disaster for America or the rest of the world when you lost.

That means the reasons for the American invasion were false.


----------



## elektra (Mar 12, 2014)

Indofred said:


> Yes, so many excuses for the American defeat but, regardless of the reasons, there was no disaster for America or the rest of the world when you lost.
> 
> That means the reasons for the American invasion were false.



what a pathetic response.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Mar 12, 2014)

Picaro said:


> Congress cut the funding because it no longer mattered.



Betraying an ally doesn't matter? 
Only for those with no honor to start with.
The rest of us are shamed.


----------



## NoNukes (Mar 12, 2014)

9thIDdoc said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Congress cut the funding because it no longer mattered.
> ...



Those with Honor saw the war for what it was, a war that America had no right being involved in. It shamed America in the eyes of the world.


----------



## Indofred (Mar 12, 2014)

elektra said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, so many excuses for the American defeat but, regardless of the reasons, there was no disaster for America or the rest of the world when you lost.
> ...



Of course it is.
So explain what disaster befell the world after the U.S. defeat.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Mar 12, 2014)

NoNukes said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...



I disagree. We had every right to help a friendly nation defend itself from foreign aggression. It was the betrayal of our promises that cost our stature in the eyes of the world.


----------



## Indofred (Mar 12, 2014)

9thIDdoc said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Congress cut the funding because it no longer mattered.
> ...



You mean a puppet you'd lost control of?
The first president, managed a 98% popular vote, as high as 133% in some areas of the country.
He announced he would refuse the internationally agreed elections that were to decide the whole country's future and, after the massive victory in the poll supervised by his brother, took over the country.
America, defender of democracy, supported him.
He was finally booted out, only to be followed by a series of military dictators.
They all managed mass censorship and suspension of civil liberties.

The question should be, why would you want to support people like that?


----------



## Indofred (Mar 12, 2014)

9thIDdoc said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...



What foreign aggression?
The North were Vietnamese, America sent the foreign troops.


----------



## NoNukes (Mar 12, 2014)

9thIDdoc said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...



What betrayed us in the eyes of the world was us being involved in Vietnam with no right to be there. Vietnam and Watergate are where America 's decline began.


----------



## editec (Mar 12, 2014)

> Must of hit a sore spot with you, so sorry, did you go off half cocked when you did your google search and cut/paste? You see, when you react with your beliefs and ideals, you are not using intelligence. I actually own the book so you are kind of at a disadvantage taking your first google result. so...



All you need do to stop looking like a know-nothing punk, Lad, is admit that you were wrong.

But you can't do it can, ya?

You were making crap up and now you look like a lying fool.

Idiot


----------



## Picaro (Mar 12, 2014)

9thIDdoc said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Congress cut the funding because it no longer mattered.
> ...


----------



## Friends (Mar 12, 2014)

racewright said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > usmcstinger said:
> ...


 
They wisely thought that the War in Vietnam was worth neither their lives, nor the lives of the Vietnamese they may have killed.


----------



## Friends (Mar 12, 2014)

9thIDdoc said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...


 
It was not "a friendly nation." It was a friendly government that had little popular support. 

As I have already pointed out in this thread, nearly 80 percent of the nation of Vietnam supported Ho Chi Minh.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Mar 12, 2014)

Friends said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



Pure fantasy. If 80% of the population had favored Uncle Ho there would have been no mass migration south of people willing to leave everything behind to avoid his rule. There actually would have been a mass uprising in support of the Tet offensive. The North Vietnam Easter-Apr. '72- offensive would have been welcomed with open arms as there were no US ground combat units remaining in-country. Instead the communist invasion was soundly defeated by the ARVNs you are trying to claim actually supported Ho. Fantasy.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Mar 12, 2014)

Indofred said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



The North Vietnamese were not South Vietnamese. Nor were they Laotian, Taiwanese, or  Cambodian parts of which they also invaded and occupied during the course of the war. American troops were requested; not invaders.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 12, 2014)

I think the one lesson that came out of the war was that the American people must believe that a war that will cost tens of thousands of American lives is not a war of choice but a war of survival. I don't think anyone really believed that our survival as a nation depended on a successful outcome, therefore there was no successful outcome.


----------



## Picaro (Mar 12, 2014)

9thIDdoc said:


> Pure fantasy. If 80% of the population had favored Uncle Ho there would have been no mass migration south of people willing to leave everything behind to avoid his rule. There actually would have been a mass uprising in support of the Tet offensive. The North Vietnam Easter-Apr. '72- offensive would have been welcomed with open arms as there were no US ground combat units remaining in-country. Instead the communist invasion was soundly defeated by the ARVNs you are trying to claim actually supported Ho. Fantasy.



Yes. the '80%' number came from a tongue in cheek conversation Eisenhower had in 1954, when the French were talking the U.S. into taking over when they were pulling out, and not a verifiable number, and wasn't referring to the U.S.'s time there.

Iirc, the Viet Cong weren't all commies, either, just the unit commanders Ho put in place after luring many of them North and hoping for their support; those he couldn't persuade were ratted out to the French intelligence units and arrested, and Ho replaced them where he could with his own men. 

Also, some of the VC units in the Mekong delta region held out against the NVA takeover for a couple of years or so after the fall of Saigon, according to intelligence reports at the time. That was pre-internet days, so the info is hard to find online, at least for me anyway, and I can't remember the book that discussed this; William Buckley had the author on one of his old Firing Line shows way back when.


----------



## auditor0007 (Mar 13, 2014)

Indofred said:


> I'm having a little trouble trying to work out why America went into Vietnam.
> I was assured it was to save the democratic world from the evil communist threat but, regardless of the reasons for it, you lost and went home.
> After that withdrawal, there was no change at all in the world order.
> 
> Given that, can anyone explain why the United States went to Vietnam, spent a massive pile of your taxpayers' money, and killed a load of your own people?



Because at the time, Communism was viewed as a major threat to our way of life.  A lot of people really believed that the Communists would try to take over the US, so stopping communism wherever we could was mandatory.  Remember how Joseph McCarthy destroyed so many lives by accusing just about anyone of being a communist or a communist sympathizer?


----------



## Indofred (Mar 13, 2014)

auditor0007 said:


> Because at the time, Communism was viewed as a major threat to our way of life.  A lot of people really believed that the Communists would try to take over the US, so stopping communism wherever we could was mandatory.  Remember how Joseph McCarthy destroyed so many lives by accusing just about anyone of being a communist or a communist sympathizer?



Now, for "Communism", read "Islam".


----------



## Friends (Mar 13, 2014)

9thIDdoc said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...



On all three fronts of the offensive, initial North Vietnamese successes were hampered by high casualties, inept tactics, and the increasing application of U.S. and South Vietnamese air power. One result of the offensive was the launching of Operation Linebacker II, the first sustained bombing of North Vietnam by the U.S. since November 1968.
Easter Offensive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

Without American air support the offensive would have succeeded. This is why:

"I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader."

Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/vietnam/ddeho.htm


----------



## longly (Mar 13, 2014)

Indofred said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > As far as a change in world order, there is an argument that fighting in places like Korea and Vietnam showed the resolve of western powers to fight Soviet expansion. The Domino Effect idea was that letting one nation fall to the Soviets and doing nothing just prompted others to do the same, so we had to fight.
> ...



The communist strategy was to slowly isolate the US until they were in a position bringing overpowering pressure on the US. They were making progress with gains in Africa, Latin America and even Portugal until Ronald Reagan was Elected.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Mar 13, 2014)

Friends said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > Friends said:
> ...



You are trying to claim that speculation about what others might speculate about an election that never took place reveals something about an offensive that would not take place for almost 20yrs.? *Seriously*? Good luck with that. But, sadly, fact trumps imagination every time and the North got their butts kicked by those you claim sympathized with them. You might also note that at An Loc the North deliberately slaughtered a couple hundred civilians. Bad PR.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 13, 2014)

Friends said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > Friends said:
> ...


The war was lost really before it got started.  I think it was more a numbers game.  With a force of about half million we were facing a force of 300,000 to 400,000 fighting against an invading army in swamps and jungles which they called home.  Convention wisdom is that you need a great troop superiority to engage in guerrilla warfare in the enemy's homeland and that we did not have.  We pined our hopes on aerial bombing which solidified anti-war resistance at home and turned many of the South Vietnamese against us.


----------



## Desperado (Mar 13, 2014)

auditor0007 said:


> Because at the time, Communism was viewed as a major threat to our way of life.  A lot of people really believed that the Communists would try to take over the US, so stopping communism wherever we could was mandatory.  Remember how Joseph McCarthy destroyed so many lives by accusing just about anyone of being a communist or a communist sympathizer?



So why did the US ignore the Communist threat 90 miles from our shores in Cuba to fight the Commies 7,000 miles away in Vietnam?  Sorry the "stop communism" argument does not hold water.


----------



## Mojo2 (Mar 13, 2014)

Indofred said:


> I'm having a little trouble trying to work out why America went into Vietnam.
> I was assured it was to save the democratic world from the evil communist threat but, regardless of the reasons for it, you lost and went home.
> After that withdrawal, there was no change at all in the world order.
> 
> Given that, can anyone explain why the United States went to Vietnam, spent a massive pile of your taxpayers' money, and killed a load of your own people?



The spread of Communism in S.E. Asia pretty much stopped or stalled since 1975 with the end of the Viet Nam war.

Shit worked.

Soviets dismantled.

Freedom and Liberty for millions and millions and millions was won.

I'd say that was a pretty significant return for our expenditure of lives and fortune.


----------



## Mojo2 (Mar 13, 2014)

Desperado said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Because at the time, Communism was viewed as a major threat to our way of life.  A lot of people really believed that the Communists would try to take over the US, so stopping communism wherever we could was mandatory.  Remember how Joseph McCarthy destroyed so many lives by accusing just about anyone of being a communist or a communist sympathizer?
> ...



When Cuban immigrants tried to stage an invasion & coup to retake Cuba early in the Castro regime, it was not supported by Kennedy and a rout by Castro's forces ensued and the Bay of Pigs was a black eye for JFK.

The subsequent Cuban missile crisis several months later was resolved, in part, with a promise to leave Cuba alone.

Bottom line. That's why.

Where do you guys grow up to miss this much history in school?

I think many of you are actually moles or plants from overseas posing as dumb young Americans.


----------



## Mojo2 (Mar 13, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...



Unbeknownst to many, the War in Viet Nam was being won at the end. After Westmoreland was removed and Gen. Abrams assumed command the War was being won.



> Regarded as a brilliant tank commander by his peers, General Creighton Abrams is best known for skilfully presiding over America&#8217;s withdrawal from Vietnam. He was the son of a railroad repairman and in 1936 graduated from West Point in the same class as (General) William Westmoreland.
> 
> *Vietnam War*
> 
> ...



Creighton Abrams - Vietnam War Biography

All that was needed for the win to have been consolidated was to maintain our financial COMMITMENT to the South Vietnamese govt. and military for a fraction of the money's we'd already been committed to spending per year, to keep the ARVN supplied with enough bullets and bombs to keep the North from violating their Paris Peace Accords agreements.

However, Gerald Ford, wanting to close the door on all of the rancor remaining about the war and Richard Nixon's crimes in office just slammed the door on all of it and moved forward.

He pardoned Nixon and cut off support to S. Viet Nam.

And, when the South ran out munitions there was nothing the ARVN could do but try to escape the North's retribution and vengeance. The North went on to capture Saigon.

That's the bottom line there.


----------



## Desperado (Mar 13, 2014)

Mojo2 said:


> When Cuban immigrants tried to stage an invasion & coup to retake Cuba early in the Castro regime, it was not supported by Kennedy and a rout by Castro's forces ensued and the Bay of Pigs was a black eye for JFK.
> 
> The subsequent Cuban missile crisis several months later was resolved, in part, with a promise to leave Cuba alone.



Now let me get this straight,  Communist in Cuba 90miles away get a free pass, while communist in Vietnam 7000 miles away we decided to fight spending billions of dollars and 50,000 lives of our military all because of a promise?  Sorry not buying it.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 13, 2014)

Mojo2 said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...


Kennedy was not aware of the plans to invade Cuba until after he was inaugurated.  The invasion was planned by the CIA under the Eisenhower administration.  According to Kennedy's biographer, he approved the plan because commitments had been made, the invasion could not be delayed, and the CIA assured him that US government involvement could be kept secret.  Kennedy's fear was that US government involvement would not be kept secret and the Soviets might react strongly to a US sponsored invasion.  So less than 3 months after he took office the invasion took place and it failed miserable.  Kennedy of course took the heat and the following month, Soviet missiles installation began in Cuba, 90 miles off the US coast.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 13, 2014)

Desperado said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > When Cuban immigrants tried to stage an invasion & coup to retake Cuba early in the Castro regime, it was not supported by Kennedy and a rout by Castro's forces ensued and the Bay of Pigs was a black eye for JFK.
> ...


The chance of a nuclear exchange between the USSR and US over Viet Nam was minimal compared to Cuba.


----------



## Mojo2 (Mar 13, 2014)

Desperado said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > When Cuban immigrants tried to stage an invasion & coup to retake Cuba early in the Castro regime, it was not supported by Kennedy and a rout by Castro's forces ensued and the Bay of Pigs was a black eye for JFK.
> ...



Cuba going Red wasn't going to lead to the rest of the region going Red, necessarily.

However, in Viet Nam the belief and fear was that once Viet Nam went Communist the rest of the countries in the region would also fall to the Reds, one after the other, like dominoes.

Hence, the "Domino Theory."


----------



## Indofred (Mar 14, 2014)

Mojo2 said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> > Mojo2 said:
> ...



How many countries went "red" after the Vietnamese victory over America?


----------



## Picaro (Mar 14, 2014)

Indofred said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > Desperado said:
> ...



The NVa defeated the South Vietnamese army, not America, but probably most of them would have been undermined if it hadn't been for the U.S. going into VN and the subsequent neutralizing of the Soviets power in the region and the Nixon/Kissinger detente with China. the SEATO treaties wouldn't have been worth the paper they were written on if the U.S. had stayed out of VN.

As Kissinger said, many times all the options are bad, and you have to decide which option is the least bad. Viet Nam was strategically important, and a major Soviet base there a very real existential threat at the time, and after the detente was negotiated it was no longer necessary to keep military forces there, and we left.


----------



## Desperado (Mar 14, 2014)

Mojo2 said:


> Cuba going Red wasn't going to lead to the rest of the region going Red, necessarily.
> "



 Really? So you are saying that the US did not worry about any other Caribbean or South or Central American countries going Communist?  I don't believe that was the case at all.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Mar 14, 2014)

Indofred said:


> I'm having a little trouble trying to work out why America went into Vietnam.
> I was assured it was to save the democratic world from the evil communist threat but, regardless of the reasons for it, you lost and went home.
> After that withdrawal, there was no change at all in the world order.
> 
> Given that, can anyone explain why the United States went to Vietnam, spent a massive pile of your taxpayers' money, and killed a load of your own people?



It's progressive policy in action.

Before Pres Wilson, we were isolationist and had a policy of not getting involved in other peoples wars or lives.

But evil won, so the progs sent us to die in WW1.  And b/c we went to WW1, WW2 happened, which caused the Cold war, and that lead to Korea, VN, Pay of pigs, Cuban missile crisis and every other conflict we've gotten into.


Now sit back and imagine a people that cause the deaths of millions of people, calling another group warmongers.


----------



## Mojo2 (Mar 14, 2014)

Desperado said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > Cuba going Red wasn't going to lead to the rest of the region going Red, necessarily.
> ...



That wasn't what I said.

I'm aware of the efforts by the individual countries in South America to resist Communist rebels and so on.


----------



## GibsonSG (Mar 14, 2014)

The US couldn't beat a bunch of rice gobblers in flip-flops, I can't think of anything good about that.


----------



## Picaro (Mar 14, 2014)

Two Thumbs said:


> It's progressive policy in action.
> 
> Before Pres Wilson, we were isolationist and had a policy of not getting involved in other peoples wars or lives.
> 
> ...



Actually we got into WW I and WW II because Germany attacked our shipping and then declared war on us, and both Germany and Japan did so in WW II, all of which made what was already obvious to FDR and others that the world was becoming a much smaller place and U.S. neutrality dreams were delusional fantasies only taken seriously by cranks and idiots; even before then American neutrality was a insane pipe dream, as both John Jay and Thomas Jefferson found out.

Your narrative is of course nonsense as a reference to history, and yes, most of the warmongering in the world is done in spite of the U.S., not because of U.S..


----------



## Two Thumbs (Mar 14, 2014)

GibsonSG said:


> The US couldn't beat a bunch of rice gobblers in flip-flops, I can't think of anything good about that.



We could have very easily won.


Now look at all the decisions of what not to do that were made.

no crossing boarders
no bombing in cities
etc, etc

These decisions dragged out the war, and the leaders knew it.  So the only logical conclusion is that it was intentional


----------



## GibsonSG (Mar 14, 2014)

Two Thumbs said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> > The US couldn't beat a bunch of rice gobblers in flip-flops, I can't think of anything good about that.
> ...



The US can't beat wife beaters in pyjamas (the Taliban) either. They doing that on purpose as well?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Mar 14, 2014)

Picaro said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > It's progressive policy in action.
> ...



U.S. Involvement in World War I

The ship was sent into a war zone, after the Germans told us to stay out.

Leftist got us into that war.


How many countries have invaded the US since 1812?

Aside from Japan attacking, but not invading, I can't think of anything.  And, of course, no WW1, there is no WW2


----------



## Two Thumbs (Mar 14, 2014)

GibsonSG said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > GibsonSG said:
> ...



not quite the same

the VC wore uniforms while AQ does not.

however the same policies of limited war are in place.

Can't fire into a mosq, even if being shot at, w/o permission
snipers need permission to kill someone
etc


----------



## Mojo2 (Mar 14, 2014)

Indofred said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > Desperado said:
> ...



We stopped the dominoes from falling, thank God.

As i said, 'shit worked.'


----------



## editec (Mar 14, 2014)

Mojo2 said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > Mojo2 said:
> ...



We did?

Interesting given that we LOST that war.

Consider the more obvious explanation...there was never any dominos to fall in the first place.


----------



## Indofred (Mar 14, 2014)

editec said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > Indofred said:
> ...



Shhhh - no one wants to mention, America lost.
They make excuses but refuse to allow the basic fact, America was forced to withdraw.


----------



## GibsonSG (Mar 14, 2014)

Saving Vietnam from communism is like saving Indonesia from islam, like, who fucking cares?


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Mar 14, 2014)

Indofred said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Mojo2 said:
> ...



Wrong. We never made an attempt to "win" and we certainly were NOT forced to withdraw.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Mar 14, 2014)

9thIDdoc said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



We never tried to win.

The list of bad ideas, laymen like me can find, is so long, that anyone with knowledge of war strategies must come to the conclusion that no attempt to win was ever made.


----------



## Desperado (Mar 14, 2014)

What is amazing that even after 40 years people could actually believe that there were "advantages to the Vietnam war."


----------



## Flopper (Mar 14, 2014)

Two Thumbs said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > I'm having a little trouble trying to work out why America went into Vietnam.
> ...


The US could not and would not remain an isolationist nation.  Wall Street would not have allowed it.  Most of the wars fraught since the beginning of the 20th century have been to protect American interest in the region which translates into American business interests and defense treaties to protect those interest.


----------



## Indofred (Mar 14, 2014)

Two Thumbs said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> > The US couldn't beat a bunch of rice gobblers in flip-flops, I can't think of anything good about that.
> ...



no crossing boarders - please explain the carpet bombing of Cambodia.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Mar 14, 2014)

Indofred said:


> I'm having a little trouble trying to work out why America went into Vietnam.
> I was assured it was to save the democratic world from the evil communist threat but, regardless of the reasons for it, you lost and went home.
> After that withdrawal, there was no change at all in the world order.
> 
> Given that, can anyone explain why the United States went to Vietnam, spent a massive pile of your taxpayers' money, and killed a load of your own people?



Personally, I've heard many stories of how our soldiers came home from that war, and were spat upon by members of the receiving crowds. My Pastor served in Vietnam, he remembers those days vividly. 

And I think there's also no need for you to be snide either. If you really want to know what triggered our entry into the Vietnam Conflict, look up the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Mar 15, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Indofred said:
> ...



uhhuh

Lets put this myth to some thought shall we;

You are an American business man making widgits and are trying to sell your widgits in England, but are having a hard time b/c of and English company also makes widgits.

War breaks out and your plant, in England is in danger, but ALL of his plants are in danger.

Do you;
A) demand the government save your one plant
B) Sit back, let your competition get blown to bits and lose all their money then move in and take over the widgit market


----------



## Two Thumbs (Mar 15, 2014)

Indofred said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > GibsonSG said:
> ...



That came late in the war, long after the PR campaign against the war had started


----------



## GibsonSG (Mar 15, 2014)

Two Thumbs said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...


Cambodia was letting vc cross through their territory, in effect choosing sides. 

I'd be all for carpet bombing Indonesia, but it would be a massive waste of bombs.


----------



## Indofred (Mar 15, 2014)

Two Thumbs said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



Are you sure?
My understanding is this was going on for eight years.
http://www.yale.edu/cgp/Walrus_CambodiaBombing_OCT06.pdf


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Mar 15, 2014)

Indofred said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > GibsonSG said:
> ...



Please explain why you are so determined to discuss a subject you know so little about.

We carpet bombed those portions of Cambodia already occupied by the North Vietnamese. Someone actually familiar with the subject will have heard of the Ho Chi Minh trail.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Mar 15, 2014)

Indofred said:


> I'm having a little trouble trying to work out why America went into Vietnam.
> I was assured it was to save the democratic world from the evil communist threat but, regardless of the reasons for it, you lost and went home.
> After that withdrawal, there was no change at all in the world order.
> 
> Given that, can anyone explain why the United States went to Vietnam, spent a massive pile of your taxpayers' money, and killed a load of your own people?



Confirmed asymmetric warfare can repel even technologically superior forces. As it did again in Iraq and Afganistan. Like to think we'll learn the lesson at some point.


----------



## Indofred (Mar 15, 2014)

9thIDdoc said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



and Laos? 

Most of the U.S. bombing of these countries was a waste of time from a military standpoint but killed thousands of unarmed civilians in your attempt to terrorise the people of a country you weren't at war with from joining the people trying to defend their country from an invading force.
Someone killed 3,000 civilians in the twin towers attacks and America went ape shit.
America murdered many more and your government tried to cover it up and no one has ever been so much as investigated, much less convicted.
Please explain why killing civilians is wrong but killing civilians is right.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Mar 15, 2014)

GibsonSG said:


> Saving Vietnam from communism is like saving Indonesia from islam, like, who fucking cares?



I do. Far too many good people gave far too much to keep that from happening. Betrayal of the ARVNs was also betrayal of those who fought there at our behest.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Mar 15, 2014)

Can't prevent a political ideology from taking hold somewhere. And killing people to try and prevent it only ensures it'll happen.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Mar 15, 2014)

Important to understand what invading another country does to its people. Ask yourselves how well you'd think of an invading force on American soil, bombing our cities, destroying our towns then telling us how great a dictatorship is. If that doesn't sound like something that'd convince you, why expect it to work somewhere else?


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Mar 15, 2014)

Indofred said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > Indofred said:
> ...



Get a freakin map! And a clue! The Ho Chi Minh trail with it's attendant supply, training and staging areas also ran through Thailand and Laos. At no time was the target of our bombing was the civilians of those countries.
While wagging war there is no doubt that some civilians are killed. Wandering around a battle field is an unhealthy habit. But we did not, and do not target, them whereas Islamic terrorists consider them the prime target. That's a HUGH difference whether you think so or not.


----------



## gipper (Mar 15, 2014)

9thIDdoc said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> > Saving Vietnam from communism is like saving Indonesia from islam, like, who fucking cares?
> ...



I like to believe that most Americans honor the sacrifices made by American fighting men in Vietnam.  Most of whom did not want to be there, but were drafted.

However, I despise the political leadership who got us into that war and most of America's wars.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Mar 15, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Important to understand what invading another country does to its people. Ask yourselves how well you'd think of an invading force on American soil, bombing our cities, destroying our towns then telling us how great a dictatorship is. If that doesn't sound like something that'd convince you, why expect it to work somewhere else?



Exactly. And the North Vietnamese were the invading force in Vietnam.


----------



## Indofred (Mar 15, 2014)

GibsonSG said:


> Saving Vietnam from communism is like saving Indonesia from islam, like, who fucking cares?



Actually, if you care to read up on American terrorist history, you bombed Indonesia to save it from communism.
The most notable American terrorist bombing was murdering a load of Christians on their way home from church.

This isn't a tin foil hat job; it's recorded history, admitted by the American government.
As usual, you didn't charge any of your terrorists with any offence.


----------



## GibsonSG (Mar 16, 2014)

Indofred said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> > Saving Vietnam from communism is like saving Indonesia from islam, like, who fucking cares?
> ...



Bombing Indonesia isn't criminal because there's nothing there of any value anyways, so it's like bombing a pile of shit: nobody cares.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Mar 16, 2014)

GibsonSG said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > GibsonSG said:
> ...



The people who live there care and their fellow human beings care about them. 

And, the US obviously cares or they wouldn't have bombed it. 

Why did we spend millions to destroy "nothing"?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Mar 16, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Same advantage as every other war: field test new weapons, get experience for combat forces. If we never went to war we'd have all zero-experience troops and unproven weapons systems.



And what a tragedy that would be. 

We're bullies. We care nothing about human rights or dead children. Fetuses, yes, children, no. 

We haven't gone to war for a just cause since WWII and probably never will again. We just beat up on countries who can't fight back, go into debt and kill millions of people.

Does anyone believe we would have gone into Kuwait if their main export had been broccoli? That's a reference to the president of the time saying he hated broccoli. That's the same president whose fortune is thanks to the bin Laden family his son protected later.


----------



## GibsonSG (Mar 16, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> > Indofred said:
> ...



Target practise.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Mar 16, 2014)

GibsonSG said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > GibsonSG said:
> ...



And the people who voted for these wars have the nerve to say they care about the very few people killed by drones.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 16, 2014)

Two Thumbs said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...


Good Point but it's really more complicated than that.  Those English companies  making widget may have mostly US ownership and the English widget maker may be owned by the Germans, Americans, and Swiss.   And so it goes throughout the world, business activity and ownership is global.   Saber rattling in Lower Slobbovia, brings out business interest around the world demanding stability be restored to the region.


----------



## Desperado (Mar 16, 2014)

9thIDdoc said:


> Betrayal of the ARVNs was also betrayal of those who fought there at our behest.



Don't you have that backward?   We were there at the request of the  Army of the Republic of Viet Nam (ARVN)  They were not there at our request.


----------



## Friends (Mar 16, 2014)

9thIDdoc said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...



The most important fact here is that President Johnson estimated that nearly 80 percent of the Vietnamese supported Ho Chi Minh. Another important fact is that Vietnam was unimportant to our security and economy. We should never have gotten involved.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 16, 2014)

Friends said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > Friends said:
> ...


In retrospect, you're absolutely correct but remember attitudes in 60's were far different than today. In 1962, when a fleet of Soviet war ships were steaming toward Cuba and the president announced a blockade, a line was drawn in sand that everyone understood.  TV news programs were showing the US cities that were possible target for nuclear missiles.  Those that had bought bomb shelters in 50's were glad they did.  Just one year latter the president was assassinated by Oswald, a Soviet sympathizer and defector.  Russian influence in Africa and the far east was growing.  In eastern Europe hundreds of Russian divisions were poised for attack.  In short, people were scared on both sides.  The cold war was just minutes from becoming very hot.  Standing firm against the communist in Viet Nam seem to make sense till it became clear that Americans had no stomach for the type war Viet Nam was turning into.


----------



## GibsonSG (Mar 17, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



I don't, I think drones are awesome!


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Mar 17, 2014)

GibsonSG said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > GibsonSG said:
> ...



I don't like that we kill people but I'd much rather it be a few instead of an all-out war that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people and puts us into bankruptcy. 

Drones have changed the world. Putin blusters and beats up young women but you can bet he watches the skies.


----------



## GibsonSG (Mar 17, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



If Putin ever sent his army further than across a bridge, like to Crimea, all his shit would break down. His nukes are like, 40 years old, and they'd probably either not work or blow up on launch. Anyways, Americans don't care about war and killing people, you shoot people on the street non-stop 24/7 at home. Killing abroad is just a bonus.


----------



## elektra (Mar 17, 2014)

People should end this debate by talking to those who escaped Indonesia.

I was pumping gas in Hemet when the owner said, kind of out of the blue, we have had conversations of this in the past, but my friend just looked at me and said, "after the U.S. left, I saw bodies floating down the river, lots of bodies".

People the Communist's killed. 

Go find a man or woman from Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia, become friends, maybe they will trust you enough to share the burden of horror they have seen. 

They found freedom here, not there. That is why we fight, to be free, Marxism is a Virus on earth, a disease, and like a disease you must fight it or it kills you.


----------



## Indofred (Mar 17, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> > Indofred said:
> ...



The Indonesian government of the time, Sukarno, was moving towards the USSR, buying arms and developing a relationship with the above.
Surharto set up a rather dodgy anti communist drive that killed an unknown but large number of people accused of communism.
He also grabbed power, bonus for him.
The CIA were trying to set up a coup and used bombers to attack targets in Indonesia.
It all came out when a CIA pilot was shot down and was paraded on TV.

As with Vietnam, America bombed civilians to death and covered it up, until they were caught out and were forced to admit it.
No one was ever charged or even investigated in the United States, even though CIA pilots murdered a lot of people.
In America, hardly anyone knows the history of American terrorism and no one wants to talk about it.


----------



## GibsonSG (Mar 17, 2014)

Indofred said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > GibsonSG said:
> ...


People in America just figured you all for terrorists and that you deserve what the US army or the CIA does. You know what? They were right.
Anyways, Indonesia is Nike's problem now.


----------



## Indofred (Mar 18, 2014)

GibsonSG said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



But that was when the evil enemy was communism, before you invented Islam as an enemy.
By the way, if you read the news, the Chinese are evil these days, so you should be into bombing them and forgetting about Muslims who were communists.

Tell me - do you condemn bombing civilians on their way home from Church?


----------



## GibsonSG (Mar 18, 2014)

Indofred said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> > Indofred said:
> ...



Islam was always an enemy to decency and women, we just had other rifraf to deal with first. China is our friend, they lend us all the money we need and turn our garbage into products. Anyways, they're slowly polluting themselves to sterility, a bonus.

No, not when it's women-enslaving shit like muslims.


----------



## Indofred (Mar 18, 2014)

GibsonSG said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > GibsonSG said:
> ...



You really must keep up with the news.
America is reopening old Vietnam war air bases and moving troops and ships to the Pacific.
China is the new enemy so you'll have to chance all the anti Islam stuff to anti Chinese stuff ...  if you want to hate the people you're told to.

Perhaps you can remember when reds under the bed were the enemy. Did you hate them and, if so, when did you stop?
Oh, when the anti communist stories stopped and the news was anti Islam.


----------



## Desperado (Mar 18, 2014)

Indofred said:


> You really must keep up with the news.
> America is reopening old Vietnam war air bases



and Vietnam has no problem with this?
Do you have a link?


----------



## GibsonSG (Mar 18, 2014)

Indofred said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> > Indofred said:
> ...



Covering your women with sheets, beating them for religious reasons, selling children into marriage... has always been disgusting in my book... and in any reasonable person's book also. 

I have no problem with China, you're nuts if you think someone's going to attack them. What for?

So what if we re-open bases in Nam? Likely the vc said it was ok.


----------

