VietNam..April 30th....How It Ended.

[Friends]

You're a liar....you have no argument beyond that.

What have I said that is not true?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're a liar....you have no argument beyond that.

What have I said that is not true?

Posts 213, 214, 222, 225,226.


Your palpable hatred of America is sickening.

And, as Wm. Safire correctly said of Hillary Clinton, you are " a congenital liar."



Back into the sewer, offal.

 

[Friends]

You're a liar....you have no argument beyond that.

What have I said that is not true?

Posts 213, 214, 222, 225,226.

Your palpable hatred of America is sickening.

And, as Wm. Safire correctly said of Hillary Clinton, you are " a congenital liar."

Back into the sewer, offal.

Your support for the War in Vietnam just because the United States was fighting it is sickening. People of your persuasion do not want the U.S. government to tell them what to do, but you think the U.S. government has the right to tell people in other countries what to do, and it has the right to kill them if they disobey.

You are incapable of arguing rationally. Your insults are only impressive to ideologues of like mind and similarly low character.

You illustrate a statement James Boswell attributed to Samuel Johnson: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

There are decent Americans who continue to believe that the War in Vietnam was an honorable cause. The comments you have posted in this thread must embarrass them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What have I said that is not true?

Posts 213, 214, 222, 225,226.

Your palpable hatred of America is sickening.

And, as Wm. Safire correctly said of Hillary Clinton, you are " a congenital liar."

Back into the sewer, offal.

Your support for the War in Vietnam just because the United States was fighting it is sickening. People of your persuasion do not want the U.S. government to tell them what to do, but you think the U.S. government has the right to tell people in other countries what to do, and it has the right to kill them if they disobey.

You are incapable of arguing rationally. Your insults are only impressive to ideologues of like mind and similarly low character.

You illustrate a statement James Boswell attributed to Samuel Johnson: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

There are decent Americans who continue to believe that the War in Vietnam was an honorable cause. The comments you have posted in this thread must embarrass them.

Liar.


Step off.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I wish I was born about 10 years earlier so I could have fought for the Military Industrial Complex in Vietnam, that would have been really cool.

I was in during Grenada, Panama and Gulf War I but was never deployed. Damn!

 

[9thIDdoc]

Those elections were never held because the South Vietnamese dictatorship did not allow them to be held. The United States did not sign and did not honor that the Geneva Agreement of 1954. This is why:

The US should have honored an agreement it didn't make? How silly. And what do you think the US could have done to make those elections happen?
The North Vietnamese wanted the elections held only because they never intended to allow an honest secret ballot and had left behind thousands of agents whose mission it was to assure the results of any vote. At gunpoint if necessary.

"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[/I]

So you think Eisenhower's speculation actually matters?
You might also note that his speculation was voiced several years before our serious involvement there.

Vietnam was unimportant to American security and the U.S. economy. The United States provoked a war in which at least two million Vietnamese were killed in order to prevent the ascension of a leader the vast majority of the Vietnamese wanted. The War in Vietnam happened because the Untied States stole an election.

Untrue. The war was quite simply necked aggression on the part of North Vietnam and it's continual efforts to overrun and occupy South Vietnam. The war could have stopped at any time North Vietnam quit attacking. The idea that the US somehow started the war is simply idiotic.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Six months before the end the South Vietnamese Army was more numerous and better equipped than the North Vietnamese Army. The South Vietnamese Army collapsed because it did not have the will to continue the war. This is because the South Vietnamese government was never popular in the South.

If that were true they wouldn't have given such a serious ass-kicking to the NVA in '72.

 

[Friends]

Those elections were never held because the South Vietnamese dictatorship did not allow them to be held. The United States did not sign and did not honor that the Geneva Agreement of 1954. This is why:

The US should have honored an agreement it didn't make? How silly. And what do you think the US could have done to make those elections happen?
The North Vietnamese wanted the elections held only because they never intended to allow an honest secret ballot and had left behind thousands of agents whose mission it was to assure the results of any vote. At gunpoint if necessary.

"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[/I]

So you think Eisenhower's speculation actually matters?
You might also note that his speculation was voiced several years before our serious involvement there.

Vietnam was unimportant to American security and the U.S. economy. The United States provoked a war in which at least two million Vietnamese were killed in order to prevent the ascension of a leader the vast majority of the Vietnamese wanted. The War in Vietnam happened because the Untied States stole an election.

Untrue. The war was quite simply necked aggression on the part of North Vietnam and it's continual efforts to overrun and occupy South Vietnam. The war could have stopped at any time North Vietnam quit attacking. The idea that the US somehow started the war is simply idiotic.

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. Consultations will be held on this subject between the competent representative authorities of the two zones from April 20, 1955, onwards.
Modern History Sourcebook: The Final Declaration of The Geneva Conference: On Restoring Peace in Indochina, July 21, 1954

President Eisenhower is the best authority on the popularity of Ho Chi Minh. The war could have ended as soon as the United States decided to stop interfering in the internal affairs of Vietnam and withdraw.

If Ho Chi Minh had been a better man, and a more clever man, he would have allowed the elections to be held in North Vietnam to demonstrate his popularity. Nevertheless, the moral shortcomings of one side do not demonstrate that the other side deserves to win.

 

[Circe]

I was in training at RTC Sdiego when this boroadcast was made. we jumped for joy

Lyndon Johnson - Remarks on Decision to not seek Reelection - YouTube

I was in a graduate students dorm TV room. Everyone leaped to their feet as one person and cheered and screamed.

I would say LBJ was the worst president in my lifetime, and I include Nixon.

 

[Circe]

Six months before the end the South Vietnamese Army was more numerous and better equipped than the North Vietnamese Army. The South Vietnamese Army collapsed because it did not have the will to continue the war. This is because the South Vietnamese government was never popular in the South.

If that were true they wouldn't have given such a serious ass-kicking to the NVA in '72.

We always have weak allies and they always lose. Same deal is going on in Afghanistan now.

Well, the people who ally with the foreign conquerors are never popular. Look at the Quislings in Norway or the Vichy government in France, both cooperated with the Nazis and as soon as possible after the war, they were all put in jail.

We always say we're coming to "help" them, and it's never true. We're coming to conquer them and force them to do what we want, and they hate that. We wouldn't like it if they came to our county seats and did the same thing. If our county officials cooperated with the invaders, they'd soon be killed too.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Six months before the end the South Vietnamese Army was more numerous and better equipped than the North Vietnamese Army. The South Vietnamese Army collapsed because it did not have the will to continue the war. This is because the South Vietnamese government was never popular in the South.

If that were true they wouldn't have given such a serious ass-kicking to the NVA in '72.

We always have weak allies and they always lose. Same deal is going on in Afghanistan now.

Well, the people who ally with the foreign conquerors are never popular. Look at the Quislings in Norway or the Vichy government in France, both cooperated with the Nazis and as soon as possible after the war, they were all put in jail.

We always say we're coming to "help" them, and it's never true. We're coming to conquer them and force them to do what we want, and they hate that. We wouldn't like it if they came to our county seats and did the same thing. If our county officials cooperated with the invaders, they'd soon be killed too.

In Vietnam North Vietnam was the hated invader. Simple truth.

 

[Friends]

In Vietnam North Vietnam was the hated invader. Simple truth.

9thIDdoc,

That is not a "simple truth." It is a fixe idee that inhabits your simple mind. Even if you fought in Vietnam you know little about the history of the War in Vietnam, and little about the history of Vietnam itself. What is more, you refuse to learn.

I guess it is necessary for me to post this again:

"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



"it was almost impossible to make the average Vietnamese peasant realize that the French, under whose rule his people had lived for some eighty years, were really fighting in the cause of freedom, while the Vietminh, people of their own ethnic origins, were fighting on the side of slavery. It was generally conceded that had an election been held, Ho Chi Minh would have been elected Premier."

Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-1956 ( Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co, Inc, 1963), pp. 337-38
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/vietnam/55election.htm

 

[Friends]

Six months before the end the South Vietnamese Army was more numerous and better equipped than the North Vietnamese Army. The South Vietnamese Army collapsed because it did not have the will to continue the war. This is because the South Vietnamese government was never popular in the South.

If that were true they wouldn't have given such a serious ass-kicking to the NVA in '72.

In 1972 the ARVN was still backed up by the U.S. Air Force. As soon as the odds were even the ARVN folded.

I get the idea that you fought in Vietnam. Do you seriously maintain that the South Vietnamese peasants appreciated your presence there? Why did American soldiers and Marines call rural South Vietnam "Indian country?"

 

[9thIDdoc]

In Vietnam North Vietnam was the hated invader. Simple truth.

9thIDdoc,

That is not a "simple truth." It is a fixe idee that inhabits your simple mind. Even if you fought in Vietnam you know little about the history of the War in Vietnam, and little about the history of Vietnam itself. What is more, you refuse to learn.

I guess it is necessary for me to post this again:

"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



"it was almost impossible to make the average Vietnamese peasant realize that the French, under whose rule his people had lived for some eighty years, were really fighting in the cause of freedom, while the Vietminh, people of their own ethnic origins, were fighting on the side of slavery. It was generally conceded that had an election been held, Ho Chi Minh would have been elected Premier."


Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-1956 ( Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co, Inc, 1963), pp. 337-38
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/vietnam/55election.htm

Please rejoin the discussion after you've learned something about the actual history involved. Eisenhower's speculation-even if were 100% correct-has absolutely nothing to do with the history of the war and certainly nothing to do with my statement.

 

[Friends]

In Vietnam North Vietnam was the hated invader. Simple truth.

9thIDdoc,

That is not a "simple truth." It is a fixe idee that inhabits your simple mind. Even if you fought in Vietnam you know little about the history of the War in Vietnam, and little about the history of Vietnam itself. What is more, you refuse to learn.

I guess it is necessary for me to post this again:

"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



"it was almost impossible to make the average Vietnamese peasant realize that the French, under whose rule his people had lived for some eighty years, were really fighting in the cause of freedom, while the Vietminh, people of their own ethnic origins, were fighting on the side of slavery. It was generally conceded that had an election been held, Ho Chi Minh would have been elected Premier."


Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-1956 ( Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co, Inc, 1963), pp. 337-38
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/vietnam/55election.htm

Please rejoin the discussion after you've learned something about the actual history involved. Eisenhower's speculation-even if were 100% correct-has absolutely nothing to do with the history of the war and certainly nothing to do with my statement.

Eisenhower's statement has everything to do with the War in Vietnam, and why you lost. You were not fighting for the freedom of an ally. You were fighting to maintain a satellite, like the satellites of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe. As soon as the Soviet Army stopped supporting the Communist governments in Eastern Europe they fell. As soon as the U.S. Air Force stopped supporting the South Vietnamese government it fell.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Eisenhower's statement has everything to do with the War in Vietnam,

You keep saying that but you have yet to provide any support for that idea.

...and why you lost

We may not have won (we were never tasked with doing so) but we certainly didn't lose. We successfully carried out the mission we were given until we were given a new one. The American people betrayed our ally; not us. North Vietnam was being supported by the USSR and the PRC it was our cutting RSVN's supply line that doomed them. Lack of ammo rather than lack of will.

 

[Circe]

Eisenhower's statement has everything to do with the War in Vietnam, and why you lost. You were not fighting for the freedom of an ally. You were fighting to maintain a satellite, like the satellites of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe. As soon as the Soviet Army stopped supporting the Communist governments in Eastern Europe they fell. As soon as the U.S. Air Force stopped supporting the South Vietnamese government it fell.

As soon as the Nazis couldn't support the French Vichy government, it fell. And all the rest: Mussolini, for instance. Nobody likes a government that is allied with the foreign enemy.

The British have a saying about Afghanistan, they have been there losing wars so often: "They always kill the emir." They always put in a puppet emir government, and somebody always kills him.

Same deal with us. Afghanistan will fall apart as soon as we leave, like Iraq is falling apart now. It seemed we had learned not to wage war this way after the catastrophe of Vietnam, but somehow, the Bush administration and Rumsfeld had not learned it. Probably because they didn't actually fight in it. So they did it all again: invading a foreign country with troops, staying ten years or more, losing, losing, losing, everyone hates us, everything much worse after we leave than before we came.

I really think a quick bombing campaign or drones is the only sensible way to make war. Go in, bomb the hell out of them, get their concessions before we stop, then leave. No troops. No bases. No interest in what they do next.

After we lose a long war they always do whatever they want anyway, so let's give that part a miss.

 

[Friends]

We may not have won (we were never tasked with doing so) but we certainly didn't lose. We successfully carried out the mission we were given until we were given a new one. The American people betrayed our ally; not us. North Vietnam was being supported by the USSR and the PRC it was our cutting RSVN's supply line that doomed them. Lack of ammo rather than lack of will.

The United States gave far more support to the South Vietnamese government than the amount of support given to North Vietnam by the Soviets and the Communist Chinese.

You seem to have served in Vietnam. Why did American servicemen call rural South Vietnam "Indian country?" Why were there so many enemy villages there?

During the Second World War there were no enemy villages in France, or even in Italy, which had recently been an ally of Germany. American troops were greeted as liberators when they went through rural villages there. Why did this not happen in South Vietnam?

 

[Circe]

During the Second World War there were no enemy villages in France, or even in Italy, which had recently been an ally of Germany. American troops were greeted as liberators when they went through rural villages there. Why did this not happen in South Vietnam?

Good analogy.

In Vietnam, we were the equivalent of the Nazi occupation force, of course.

And the North Vietnam forces were the equivalent of the American liberators marching through France.

We have so got to quit doing this; we didn't learn from Vietnam and we did the same exact thing again in Iraq and Afghanistan and are losing again and taking another ten years each to lose and leave.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I really think a quick bombing campaign or drones is the only sensible way to make war. Go in, bomb the hell out of them, get their concessions before we stop, then leave. No troops. No bases. No interest in what they do next.

Great idea!
Or at least it would be except for the fact that it's been tried repeatedly and is well proven not to work.