The Vietnam War

Fratton Fred

cocoshovel wrote: »

.its a shame millions of people are brainwashed when it comes to siding with America in matters like this.

According to Newton's third law of motion:-

Isaac Newton wrote:

To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction:

xflyer

Well I'm to see that ignorance of the history hasn't stopped anyone from making up their mind. There are some seriously ignorant, stupid and bigoted remarks on this thread.

I visited Vietnam and the general impression I got was that they hated the Chinese more than the Americans and they really hated the French.

As for the war itself you really have to put it in the context of the cold war and fear of Communism. America mishandled it badly and paid the price. Ho Chi Minh was ruthless enough to feed millions of his people into the war because he knew in the end the Americans would lost heart and go. That they did after attempting to organise 'peace'.

What people conveniently forget was that North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam and that America went in to defend the South just like Korea. In the end in 1975 the North invaded the South and America did nothing. The real betrayal.

The Vietnamese didn't win the war against the Americans they won it against their fellow Vietnamese, but they ultimately lost because they ended up living under a repressive regime ever since. As many there now realise. Vietnam could be one of the richest and most civilised countries in South East Asia by now if they hadn't gone down the Communist cul de sac. That's changing now of course.

Nothingbetter2d

didn't america get handed it's ass in vietnam?

Balmed Out

Deleted User wrote: »

Pro-war flag waving Americans should have their eyes burned out for still supporting a military that did so much damage to Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. My girlfriend's family were involved in the war on the Vietnamese side and the anti-American sentiment is still strong behind closed doors.

Used to go out with a girl who was studying over here but from Saigon. Her family as most in South Vietnam, felt betrayed by the Americans but their venom is for the North Vietnamese. She describes them with delightfully coulourful language and believes that they are still opressing her people today. Her uncle died fighting them and the graveyard he and his comrades were buried in was bulldozed when the north invaded.
I visited her when in vietnam and when people are giving out about the North they still do it in hushed voices if their in public.
Two sides to every story.

prinz

Chuck Stone wrote: »

the Vietnamese, on the whole, just wanted the US to **** off home..

...and that's why South Vietnam lost about a quarter of a million men in action was it during the war? That's why one of the main aims of the Tet offensive which was to instigate a general uprising amongst the populace of South Vietnam was such a success?

I see the usual heads are taking the usual black and white view of everything though.

cursai

Ah stop!
Sure i was in Vietnam for twenty mins.
I got so inspired that my whole body, facial features and all turned Vietnamese.
The people embraced me and told me everything including all their passions and secrets. I was told about everything, like i was one of them. They forgot i was a foreigner from a wealthy country. I would tell them stories of my abject poverty(only one car in my house growing up) and we would find so much in common.
I could have stayed there 4eva and 4 eva but i had to continue on because i had elephant riding lessons that same evening.

Balmed Out

Balmed Out wrote: »

Used to go out with a girl who was studying over here but from Saigon. Her family as most in South Vietnam, felt betrayed by the Americans but their venom is for the North Vietnamese. She describes them with delightfully coulourful language and believes that they are still opressing her people today. Her uncle died fighting them and the graveyard he and his comrades were buried in was bulldozed when the north invaded.
I visited her when in vietnam and when people are giving out about the North they still do it in hushed voices if their in public.
Two sides to every story.

But some people here think a communist dictatorship is "freedom" or "independence"

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

didn't america get handed it's ass in vietnam?

No, one of the tragedies of the war was that the Tet offensive pretty much wiped out the Viet Cong as a fighting force & had politicians realised this they could have ended it. All that was left was the NVA. But it was a media horror show and shortly after they withdrew. Tet was in 1968, wasnt until 1975 that the NVA had enough to make a full push into the South. At which stage the US were long gone.

Anyone with an interest in this should read up about Operation Lam Son 719. It was a test of how the South Vietnamese army could do on its own. It was a disaster but politicians in Washington wanted out of Vietnam and didnt stay to train the South and cut off aid to their government. On the other hand North Vietnam was bristling with weapons, artillery, tanks & jets from the USSSR, China & the Eastern Bloc.

This documentary is worth a watch too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqayiS3NnuY

Dwellingdweller

Deleted User wrote: »

"Uncle Ho" massacred people too, murdered the opposition in 1946.
His communist party murdered 172,000 of people in the land reform program.
Nut job communists. The reason the US blocked elections in Vietnam was because
A) the opposition was wiped out in the North & a murderous dictator was in charge
how the hell do you have free and fair elections with these guys pointing guns to peoples heads including the people down south.

Instead they said we`ll let the South remain free and the North can stay communist. And that is how it would of stayed if the North didnt invade the South.

While I see what you are saying, and agree with it the Americans did more good than harm in Vietnam. They used Vietnam as a proxy, as a part of their 'containment' strategy, and had no interest in the welfare of the average Vietnamese person. They just wanted to retain their status as a world superpower by bullying both the South and the North. There's no denying that Ho Chi Minh and his Communists were a little bit away in the head too, but if the situation had been allowed to take it's natural course, I think Vietnam would have been better off as a result. If anything, I think the Americans were more mentally unstable than the Communists.

Operation Ranch Hand's goal was to defoliate forested and rural land, depriving guerrillas of cover; another goal was to induce forced draft urbanization, destroying the ability of peasants to support themselves in the countryside, and forcing them to flee to the U.S. dominated cities, thus depriving the guerrillas of their rural support base and food supply.[4][5] The US began to target food crops in October 1962, primarily using Agent Blue. In 1965, 42 percent of all herbicide spraying was dedicated to food crops.[5] Rural-to-urban migration rates dramatically increased in South Vietnam, as peasants escaped the destruction and famine in the countryside by fleeing to the U.S.-dominated cities. The urban population in South Vietnam nearly tripled: from 2.8 million people in 1958, to 8 million by 1971. The rapid flow of people led to a fast-paced and uncontrolled urbanization; an estimated 1.5 million people were living in Saigon slums.[6]

In my opinion, that as a war crime tops anything the US could have pulled off using M16s, bombers, or otherwise. It's the most heinous crime they committed of all, far worse than shooting a few people - the US didn't just want to kill the Vietnamese, they wanted to starve them in order to open up export markets for their agricultural produce. Just another example of the fascist foreign policy of the US.

Dwellingdweller

Deleted User wrote: »

But some people here think a communist dictatorship is "freedom" or "independence"

I haven't seen anyone in this thread suggest that, but I haven't read it all. Do you mind quoting the post? You seem very pro-US. (not trying to start an argument or anything, it just seems to me that that's your outlook.)

Dwellingdweller

Dwellingdweller wrote: »

I haven't seen anyone in this thread suggest that, but I haven't read it all. Do you mind quoting the post? You seem very pro-US. (not trying to start an argument or anything, it just seems to me that that's your outlook.)

I cannot disagree with anything in your posts. But some people here have tried to make out that a communist dictatorships soldiers are freedom fighters:

Zebra3 wrote: »

It was Vietnamese freedom fighters fighting the American backed puppet regime.

oh please! And becoming a dictatorship is independence????!!!

Zebra3 wrote: »

They paid a huge price for their independence from America.

then we have those who somehow believe the US helped the Khmer Rouge Communists get into power

Latchy wrote: »

Yes...the Americans left a bigger Vacum in Vietnam when they left which was only perfect for the Kemer Rouge to exploit and exploit they did .

Sappa wrote: »

They also set the scene for the Khmer Rouge and there genocide.
What the Vietnamese killed after the war the Americans effectively killed millions more and were the catalyst in tge entire region falling into chaos.

When actually it was the North Vietnamese who destabilised Cambodia by invading and holding the Ho Chi Minh supply trail. Cambodia fought a civil war against its own communists just like in Vietnam. This war BEFORE the Vietnamese communists and the Cambodian communists turned on each other. Cambodia and South Vietnam fell within weeks of each other.

Alot of people slating the US for this war yet they all forget that many other countries were involved on the US side. South Vietnam, The Phillipines, Taiwan, South Korea, Thailand, Australia, New Zealand. None of them wanted nutjob communist dictators spreading in the age of nuclear weapons.

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

Alot of people slating the US for this war yet they all forget that many other countries were involved on the US side. South Vietnam, South Korea, Thailand, Australia, New Zealand. None of them wanted nutjob communist dictators spreading in the age of nuclear weapons.

Having allies is no guarantee of righteousness. South Vietnam, Thailand and S Korea were dictatorships at the time.

South Vietnam was a dictatorship run by a small elite unrepresentative of the population.

The Cambodian communists were a tiny isolated group until after the US carpet bombing campaign.

Dwellingdweller

Deleted User wrote: »

I cannot disagree with anything in your posts. But some people here have tried to make out that a communist dictatorships soldiers are freedom fighters:

[snip]

When actually it was the North Vietnamese who destabilised Cambodia by invading and holding the Ho Chi Minh supply trail. Cambodia fought a civil war against its own communists just like in Vietnam. This war BEFORE the Vietnamese communists and the Cambodian communists turned on each other. Cambodia and South Vietnam fell within weeks of each other.

Alot of people slating the US for this war yet they all forget that many other countries were involved on the US side. South Vietnam, South Korea, Thailand, Australia, New Zealand. None of them wanted nutjob communist dictators spreading in the age of nuclear weapons.

Yes, I see what you mean. The idea that the South Vietnamese regime was a puppet regime is retarded. The majority of the South Vietnamese politicians were corrupt, feckless gombeens (remind you of anywhere else? :rolleyes:) which contributed to the weakness of the ARVN and national unity when the Americans pulled out, as you said. In reality, the North Vietnamese had already demonstrated that they would do what they needed to to get rid of colonialist/capitalist powers in what they saw as their country (see: the French). The conflict that America was fighting was a different one to the South Vietnamese - the South Vietnamese wanted freedom to continue living their everyday lives without either Communist or hyper-Capitalist infringement, i.e a practical war, and the Americans were fighting a war of ideology. The Americans actually succeeded in taking away the freedom of the South Vietnamese, rather than empowering it, in Op Ranch Hand and others. And really, the only people in the Vietnam War that one can have sympathy for are the South Vietnamese. 1.4 million killed or wounded, and all for nothing in the end. That's steep.

prinz

Dwellingdweller wrote: »

While I see what you are saying, and agree with it the Americans did more good than harm in Vietnam. They used Vietnam as a proxy, as a part of their 'containment' strategy, and had no interest in the welfare of the average Vietnamese person. They just wanted to retain their status as a world superpower by bullying both the South and the North. There's no denying that Ho Chi Minh and his Communists were a little bit away in the head too....

Throw in a few of other countries using Vietnam as a proxy for the opposite reasons and you're pretty much on the money.

SEPT 23 1989

The Vietnam War had the best drugs and music

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

Having allies is no guarantee of righteousness. South Vietnam, Thailand and S Korea were dictatorships at the time.

South Vietnam was a dictatorship run by a small elite unrepresentative of the population.

The Cambodian communists were a tiny isolated group until after the US carpet bombing campaign.

the North Vietnamese Army's attempt to overrun the entire country in March–April 1970 plunged Cambodia into civil war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_Civil_War#cite_note-3

The North Vietnamese were ALLIES with the murderous Khmer Rouge who went on to famously massacre over one million people. They sided with them in the Cambodian civil war. Hence why Saigon and Phnom Penh fell within days of each other

Dwellingdweller

Dwellingdweller wrote: »

Yes, I see what you mean. The idea that the South Vietnamese regime was a puppet regime is retarded. The majority of the South Vietnamese politicians were corrupt, feckless gombeens (remind you of anywhere else? :rolleyes:) which contributed to the weakness of the ARVN and national unity when the Americans pulled out, as you said. In reality, the North Vietnamese had already demonstrated that they would do what they needed to to get rid of colonialist/capitalist powers in what they saw as their country (see: the French). The conflict that America was fighting was a different one to the South Vietnamese - the South Vietnamese wanted freedom to continue living their everyday lives without either Communist or hyper-Capitalist infringement, i.e a practical war, and the Americans were fighting a war of ideology. The Americans actually succeeded in taking away the freedom of the South Vietnamese, rather than empowering it, in Op Ranch Hand and others. And really, the only people in the Vietnam War that one can have sympathy for are the South Vietnamese. 1.4 million killed or wounded, and all for nothing in the end. That's steep.

Yeah your bang on there. People are foolish to think that the North Vietnamese were some sort of good guys though. And freedom is not a Communist Dictatorship which is about as close to living in an open prison as you can get from a form of government.

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_Civil_War#cite_note-3

The North Vietnamese were ALLIES with the murderous Khmer Rouge who went on to famously massacre over one million people. They sided with them in the Cambodian civil war. Hence why Saigon and Phnom Penh fell within days of each other

That lets the US off, does it?

In 1973, just before Pol Pot's complete rule over Cambodia, the Khmer Republican Government, with assistance from the United States, "dropped about half a million tons of bombs on Cambodia." Many of those who lost family members and close friends joined the Khmer Rouge's revolution.[18] However the US Seventh Air Force argued that the bombing prevented the fall of Phnom Penh in 1973 by killing 16,000 of 25,500 Khmer Rouge fighters besieging the city.[19]
[T]he bombing forced the Vietnamese Communists deeper and deeper into Cambodia, bringing them into greater contact with Khmer Rouge insurgents . . . [and] drove ordinary Cambodians into the arms of the Khmer Rouge, a group that seemed initially to have slim prospects of revolutionary success.[20]}}Nixon had commanded that, "They [the USAF] have got to go in there and I mean really go in . . . I want everything that can fly to go in there and crack the hell out of them. There is no limitation on mileage and there is no limitation on budget. Is that clear?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

That lets the US off, does it?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge

hang on a minute. The North Vietnamese invade in 1970 to help the Khmer Rouge - Pol Pot and his buddies. The Cambodian civil war begins. In 1973 the US bombs them preventing the Khmer Rouge taking over. Some people dislike the bombing and turn to the Khmer Rouge.

I certainly wouldnt be trying to post in favour of Pol Pot and I`d go further to say it is a damn pity that the bombs didnt wipe out all the Khmer Rouge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot#cite_note-42

This view has been disputed,[40][41][42] with author John M. Del Vecchio asserting that Communist forces had overrun two-thirds of the country with 100,000 armed and organized troops prior to any American bombing, and with documents uncovered from the Soviet archives revealing that the North Vietnamese invasion of 1970 was launched at the explicit request of the Khmer Rouge following negotiations with Nuon Chea

Estimates of the total number of deaths resulting from Khmer Rouge policies, including disease and starvation, range from 1.7 to 2.5 million out of a population of around 8 million

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_Fields#cite_note-2

gamgsam

Pottler wrote: »

If you want to know a bit about it, read about or visit the tunnels at Cu-Chi. Mind-blowing. I have an awful lot of admiration for the Vietnamese people, but really, they were beaten at the point that America withdrew due to public and political pressure-bombed, poisoned and blasted to the point of submission. Awful suffering inflicted on both sides but if you go there, there is no bitterness towards the west and the people are fantastic.

Agreed, one of the best books I've ever read

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

hang on a minute. The North Vietnamese invade in 1970 to help the Khmer Rouge - Pol Pot and his buddies. The Cambodian civil war begins. In 1973 the US bombs them preventing the Khmer Rouge taking over. Some people dislike the bombing and turn to the Khmer Rouge.

I certainly wouldnt be trying to post in favour of Pol Pot and I`d go further to say it is a damn pity that the bombs didnt wipe out all the Khmer Rouge.

...the bombs were famously targeted at "any fixed structure".

Sappa

The US sub contracted a lot of the bombing to Thai pilots.
Directives were clear to these guys you come back with your pay load you don't get paid.
If they experienced too much cloud cover,or enemy fire over Vietnam they simply dropped the bombs over Lao and Cambodia killing thousands of innocent people.
The whole war was a farce and anyone justifying the American involvement clearly has never lived in these regions for a significant amount if time or has never spoken to Vietnam vets who failed to live any sort of a normal life after the war,do you think the foreign advisors in the White house experienced the negativity faced by the vets after the war?

Dwellingdweller

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah your bang on there. People are foolish to think that the North Vietnamese were some sort of good guys though. And freedom is not a Communist Dictatorship which is about as close to living in an open prison as you can get from a form of government.

Definitely. It's just a pity that the people of South Vietnam got trapped between the "fell and mighty opposites" of Capitalist and Communist ideology. It's interesting too at the same time that the whole reason the US conducted Operation Ranch Hand and similar was to create a South Vietnamese state that was dependent on US aid to survive. I'm not siding with Communism here, but the Americans used some pretty despicable methods to force the South Vietnamese into a limited capitalism where all services were provided and controlled by the US (medicine, education, food and more). In effect they wanted to turn South Vietnam into a cultural, financial, and political extension of America and American capitalism.

All of this doesn't mean the North Vietnamese were any better but the US and their allies provided fertile ground (with their f**ked up military doctrine and cultural and humanitarian insensitivity) for f**ked up regimes like Ho Chi Minh and Khmer Rouge to take root in SE Asia.

danniemcq

Dispatches by Michael Herr is the only book you'll need to read on Vietnam

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dispatches-Picador-thirty-Michael-Herr/dp/0330491997/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1337339508&sr=8-2

completly mind blowing and so well written

'We have all spent ten years trying to explain what happened to our heads and our lives in the decade we finally survived - but Michael Herr's Dispatches puts all the rest of us in the shade' HUNTER S. THOMPSON

dasdog

danniemcq wrote: »

Dispatches by Michael Herr is the only book you'll need to read on Vietnam

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dispatches-Picador-thirty-Michael-Herr/dp/0330491997/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1337339508&sr=8-2

completly mind blowing and so well written

A foot on the ground (and in the air) account of the madness that was taking place. Excellent book.

jwilco

The Military Channel had a great series about the Vietnam war recently. Real eye opener to what Amercian done and got away with.

Dwellingdweller

Dwellingdweller wrote: »

Definitely. It's just a pity that the people of South Vietnam got trapped between the "fell and mighty opposites" of Capitalist and Communist ideology. It's interesting too at the same time that the whole reason the US conducted Operation Ranch Hand and similar was to create a South Vietnamese state that was dependent on US aid to survive. I'm not siding with Communism here, but the Americans used some pretty despicable methods to force the South Vietnamese into a limited capitalism where all services were provided and controlled by the US (medicine, education, food and more). In effect they wanted to turn South Vietnam into a cultural, financial, and political extension of America and American capitalism.

All of this doesn't mean the North Vietnamese were any better but the US and their allies provided fertile ground (with their f**ked up military doctrine and cultural and humanitarian insensitivity) for f**ked up regimes like Ho Chi Minh and Khmer Rouge to take root in SE Asia.

The tactic to forcibly relocate people to government controlled "population centers" was based on the successful tactics used by the British against the Malaysian communist insurgency.

Things worked out in Malaysia but it was a different scenario to Vietnam and as you point out the US turned the tactic into a way of controlling food supply.

ejmaztec

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Yanks disgust me with their "Freedom"

Look at the Orange Kid in this Video, There still having deformed Children in Vietnam today because of Agent Orange.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3K_E_QKJIo

Any surprise people want to kill the pricks.

Look at what it's doing to Kids being born right now http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_NE-72ZXux-g/Sl4TbwklJ0I/AAAAAAAAKHw/TOnb2u1gDMs/s400/Agent+Orange.jpg

I hate America and It's wars. Let's nuke the bastards!!

Some American soldiers also got a dose of Agent Orange, leading to chronic illness and their wives giving birth to deformed children. The American government denied any responsibility and I don't know whether or not they eventually owned up and paid compensation (I haven't got time to Google it).

It wasn't a "chemical weapon" as such, but basically a weed-killer containing Dioxin, the use of which has since been banned.

Chuck Stone

xflyer wrote: »

As for the war itself you really have to put it in the context of the cold war and fear of Communism.

What exactly was America, or more accurately the stake-holders of the American way, afraid of?

ejmaztec

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What exactly was America, or more accurately the stake-holders of the American way, afraid of?

They were afraid of those "dirty pinko commie bastards" taking over the world.

HavingCrack

maninasia wrote: »

Where was the domino effect proved correct? Indonesia never became communist, neither did Thailand, neither did the Phillipines, neither did Myanmar, neither did India etc etc. Only Laos and Cambodia did precisely because they were so impoverished and part of the same conflict, the break up of the Indochine empire.

Indonesia only didn't become communist because the PKI were massacred by Sukarno with tacit US support and overt Islamic fundamentalist support in 1965/1966-up to 2 million people were murdered in the blood letting, in fact it should be considered genocide (if murder of an entire political grouping was to be included as it should be). Indonesia was the one location the domino theory actually had legs.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What exactly was America, or more accurately the stake-holders of the American way, afraid of?

The domino theory-the idea that if Vietnam fell to communism the other newly independent states of South East Asia would follow.