The advantages of the Vietnam war.

[Picaro]

Congress cut the funding because it no longer mattered.

 

[Flopper]

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]

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.

A People's History of the United States was written in 1980

his lifes works include

LaGuardia in Congress (1959) OCLC 642325734.
The Southern Mystique (1962) OCLC 423360.
SNCC: The New Abolitionists (1964) OCLC 466264063.
New Deal Thought (editor) (1965) OCLC 422649795.
Vietnam: The Logic of Withdrawal (1967) OCLC 411235.
Disobedience and Democracy: Nine Fallacies on Law and Order (1968, re-issued 2002) ISBN 978-0-89608-675-3.
The Politics of History (1970) (2nd edition 1990) ISBN 978-0-252-06122-6.
The Pentagon Papers Senator Gravel Edition. Vol. Five. Critical Essays. Boston. Beacon Press, 1972. 341p. plus 72p. of Index to Vol. I–IV of the Papers, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, editors. ISBN 978-0-8070-0522-4.
Justice in Everyday Life: The Way It Really Works (Editor) (1974) ISBN 978-0-688-00284-8.
Justice? Eyewitness Accounts (1977) ISBN 978-0-8070-4479-7.
A People's History of the United States: 1492 – Present (1980), revised (1995)(1998)(1999)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2010) ISBN 978-0-06-052837-9.
Playbook by Maxine Klein, Lydia Sargent and Howard Zinn (1986) ISBN 978-0-89608-309-7.
Declarations of Independence: Cross-Examining American Ideology (1991) ISBN 978-0-06-092108-8.[94]
A People's History of the United States: The Civil War to the Present Kathy Emery and Ellen Reeves, Howard Zinn (2003 teaching edition) Vol. I: ISBN 978-1-56584-724-8. Vol II: ISBN 978-1-56584-725-5.
Failure to Quit: Reflections of an Optimistic Historian (1993) ISBN 978-1-56751-013-3.
You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train: A Personal History of Our Times (autobiography)(1994) ISBN 978-0-8070-7127-4
A People's History of the United States: The Wall Charts by Howard Zinn and George Kirschner (1995) ISBN 978-1-56584-171-0.
Hiroshima: Breaking the Silence (pamphlet, 1995) ISBN 978-1-884519-14-7.
The Zinn Reader: Writings on Disobedience and Democracy (1997) ISBN 978-1-888363-54-8; 2nd edition (2009) ISBN 978-1-58322-870-8.
The Cold War & the University: Toward an Intellectual History of the Postwar Years (Noam Chomsky (Editor) Authors: Ira Katznelson, R. C. Lewontin, David Montgomery, Laura Nader, Richard Ohmann,[95] Ray Siever, Immanuel Wallerstein, Howard Zinn (1997) ISBN 978-1-56584-005-8.
Marx in Soho: A Play on History (1999) ISBN 978-0-89608-593-0.
The Future of History: Interviews With David Barsamian (1999) ISBN 978-1-56751-157-4.
Howard Zinn on War (2000) ISBN 978-1-58322-049-8.
Howard Zinn on History (2000) ISBN 978-1-58322-048-1.
La Otra Historia De Los Estados Unidos (2000) ISBN 978-1-58322-054-2.
Three Strikes: Miners, Musicians, Salesgirls, and the Fighting Spirit of Labor's Last Century (Dana Frank, Robin Kelley, and Howard Zinn) (2002) ISBN 978-0-8070-5013-2.
Terrorism and War (2002) ISBN 978-1-58322-493-9. (interviews, Anthony Arnove (Ed.))
The Power of Nonviolence: Writings by Advocates of Peace Editor (2002) ISBN 978-0-8070-1407-3.
Emma: A Play in Two Acts About Emma Goldman, American Anarchist (2002) ISBN 978-0-89608-664-7.
Artists in Times of War (2003) ISBN 978-1-58322-602-5.
The 20th century: A People's History (2003) ISBN 978-0-06-053034-1.
A People's History of the United States: Teaching Edition Abridged (2003 updated) ISBN 978-1-56584-826-9.
Passionate Declarations: Essays on War and Justice (2003) ISBN 978-0-06-055767-6.
Howard Zinn On Democratic Education Donaldo Macedo, Editor (2004) ISBN 978-1-59451-054-0.
The People Speak: American Voices, Some Famous, Some Little Known (2004) ISBN 978-0-06-057826-8.
Voices of a People’s History of the United States (with Anthony Arnove, 2004) ISBN 978-1-58322-647-6; 2nd edition (2009) ISBN 978-1-58322-916-3.
A People's History of the Civil War: Struggles for the Meaning of Freedom by David Williams, Howard Zinn (Series Editor) (2005) ISBN 978-1-59558-018-4.
A Power Governments Cannot Suppress (2006) ISBN 978-0-87286-475-7.
Original Zinn: Conversations on History and Politics (2006) Howard Zinn and David Barsamian.
A People's History of American Empire (2008) by Howard Zinn, Mike Konopacki and Paul Buhle. ISBN 978-0-8050-8744-4.
A Young People's History of the United States, adapted from the original text by Rebecca Stefoff; illustrated and updated through 2006, with new introduction and afterword by Howard Zinn; two volumes, Seven Stories Press, New York, 2007.
Vol. 1: Columbus to the Spanish-American War. ISBN 978-1-58322-759-6.
Vol. 2: Class Struggle to the War on Terror. ISBN 978-1-58322-760-2.
One-volume edition (2009) ISBN 978-1-58322-869-2.
The Bomb (City Lights Publishers, 2010) ISBN 978-0-87286-509-9.
The Historic Unfulfilled Promise (City Lights Publishers, 2012) ISBN 978-0-87286-555-6.

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...


WRONG

editec "A People's History of the United States was written in 1980"

The People's History of the United States was revised in 2000, with chapters added. You should educate yourself first, before you cut/paste.

A People's History of the United States: 1492-Present by Howard Zinn | 9780060838652 | Paperback | Barnes & Noble

Overview Known for its lively, clear prose as well as its scholarly research. A People's History of the United States is the only volume to tell America's story from the point of view of -- and in the words of -- America's women. factory workers. African Americans. Native Americans, working poor, and immigrant laborers. Revised and updated with two new chapters covering Clinton's presidency, the 2000 Election, and the "war on terrorism." A People's History of the United States features insightful analysis of the most

 

[Indofred]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

 

[9thIDdoc]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

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.

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.

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

 

[NoNukes]

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

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

The South had years to get its act together, and didn't. There is only so much the U.S. can do for them; sooner or later they have to want to fight for themselves and put aside the petty clan feuds and power grabs and opt for competence and will. Their leadership didn't choose that, and they fell because of that.

They had no honor themselves collectively, so our honor wasn't at stake, and no one should be shamed by our ending a 16 year relationship. Our troops served well, we expended relatively huge sums on propping the South up; they failed themselves, and finally reaped what they sowed. They are not a puppet state of either Russia or China, which is the best they could hope for under their own choices.

We kept our SEATO allies reassured that we weren't going to retreat into isolationism, and lost nothing there; no Chinese in Thailand, Malaya, Viet Nam, Singapore, Australia, Taiwan, etc., so I would like to read how we 'lost face' and the rest of the hubris being claimed here; it isn't apparent at all outside of editorial pages and PC anecdotes.

Iraq and Afghanistan are similar in that regard; we're not a permanent Daddy Deep Pockets for corrupt regimes.

 

[Friends]

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.

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

They did not Dodge for moral reasons they were PUNKS

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

 

[Friends]

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

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

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]

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]

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.