The Vietnam War

JonathanAnon

Eisenhower knew the reasons behind the Vietnam War, and the Cold War, and every other boogie man that the Americans have been fighting..

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

Latchy

JonathanAnon wrote: »

Eisenhower knew the reasons behind the Vietnam War, and the Cold War, and every other boogie man that the Americans have been fighting..

As I mentioned in a previous post yesterday ...

Latchy wrote: »

Just what some in the American military wanted knowing that the war ment billions of $ to be made ...something that president Eisenhower warned about in his farewell speech when he said

'' In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together ''.

Eisenhower Speech

FreddysFace

I know a lad who's dad was in vietnam and lost his legs, dad ended up being quite nasty

cartell_best

Make love...Not War.... War is never good

Run_to_da_hills

FreddysFace wrote: »

I know a lad who's dad was in vietnam and lost his legs, dad ended up being quite nasty

The States treated their Vietnam Vets like dirt, I was over there for a couple of years in the early 90's and you would see them m everywhere, on crutches, wheelchairs and many pan handling.

.

Sisko

xflyer wrote: »

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.

No what people conveniently forget is that it was hardly a civil war at all, it wasnt a north V south thing with the Americans valiantly trying to save the south. It was Vietnam the country fighting for its right to rule itself after finally kicking out the French and Japanese.

The north south divide was invented by the US. Was a line drawn in aid of the French evacuation from the country and had nothing to do with two sides of the country fighting each other.

Most of the people the US were fighting were from the south as well as the north.

Vietnam would be a well off country now if the US didnt carpet bomb the flying fook out of it. Part of the US's goal was to make sure it did not develop. This is the reason some US generals today still insist they 'won the war'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LctoUV-tag

The Jammy dodger

Someone said the french were to blame. I dont see how. they went in to re-capture what was their own. They got beaten out of the place after a while. Then Americans stepped in only to help out the south viet's just incase the north decided to invade them. They then got completely caught up in it altogether and it progressed from there.

Sappa

The Jammy dodger wrote: »

Someone said the french were to blame. I dont see how. they went in to re-capture what was their own. They got beaten out of the place after a while. Then Americans stepped in only to help out the south viet's just incase the north decided to invade them. They then got completely caught up in it altogether and it progressed from there.

Enlighten me how the French thought it was there own as how I see it the country is Vietnam and belongs to the Vietnamese not the French who invaded and were a brutal occupying army.

The Jammy dodger

Sappa wrote: »

Enlighten me how the French thought it was there own as how I see it the country is Vietnam and belongs to the Vietnamese not the French who invaded and were a brutal occupying army.

I dunno. I'm just getting the point across that the french were not the cause of the Americans coming in and taking it off in that direction. The french did what they did, right or wrong, thats all I'm saying.

maninasia

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The States treated their Vietnam Vets like dirt, I was over there for a couple of years in the early 90's and you would see them m everywhere, on crutches, wheelchairs and many pan handling.

.

They feel through the cracks when they got home. The war itself was really nasty, many of the vets were involved in incidents which resulted in guilt and trauma later on, aswell as witnessesing their own buddies getting shot up in large numbers.
I met one once and he claimed to have been a scout, they would go ahead of the front lines to do recon, hand to hand combat, slit the enemies throats etc, he said he couldn't forget one who was younger than him, just a kid. Now it might have been BS since he was basically an alco looking for drinks but still...hairy stories.

The Master of Disaster

ejmaztec wrote: »

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.

Yeah a lot of US personnel also got does of it, particularly the air crews who would load it onto the planes (It was called Agent Orange because it was transported in barrels that had an orange stripe on them). Most of the time they were told that they were loading fertiliser or really basic weed killer. They had no idea what it was or the effects it wood have, nor honestly did a lot of people. Interestingly, although the two component compounds of it are toxic in their own right, the real damage and toxicity came from a side reaction when making the herbicide. It was discovered that heating the reaction too much produced an unintended by product called 2,3,7,8 - tetrachlorodibenzodioxin, or TCDD, and that was exceptionally carcinogenic and environmentally destructive. Most, if not all, Agent Orange was contaminated with this dioxin.

To date I think that the companies involved in its manufacture have paid out some compensation without ever admitting liability. The problem is that although a number of small studies have shown a link between exposure to AO and birth defects nobody has ever done a large scale study or elucidated the precise biological mechanism in humans by which it AO acts to cause birth defects. This all means that Monsanto and other companies can say that at present the science doesn't conclusively prove that AO is responsible, hence they are not liable.

I saw a touching documentary recently about a group of former US personnel who work with charities in Vietnam helping them look after children born with AO-linked birth defects.

WatchWolf

The Jammy dodger wrote: »

I dont think films really give us insight to the Vietnam war. I think documentaries and testimonies from both sides do... even though documentaries are known to have their flaws in them, they are a far sight better than the films.

Apocalypse Now wasn't made to give you an "insight of the Vietnam War". It was an adaption of the novella "Heart Of Darkness" by Joesph Conrad. It was only set in Vietnam to make it more contemporary.

WatchWolf

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

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

No, not really. The US won the vast majority of major battles.

On-topic:

The war was stupid, pointless, and perhaps even cruel. It's a shame many people have been brain washed into believing the US were fighting for a just cause because of the media.

danslevent

For those who want an easy way to learn about the Vietnam war check out this video;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e9GWdT2pEQ

It's really good, helped me through my American History module in college

Grizzly 45

gurramok wrote: »

Platoon was an eyeopener in the sense Charlie Sheen's character blasted the racists within his squad by saying about the Vietnamese woman "she's a fcukin human being man!".

The world according to Oliver J Stone and that Gobdaw Sheen???
OH Gwaaaakk!!!:rolleyes:
The bottom 100 of 'Nam war film,along with John Waynes the Green Berets.
If you want a good film into the mindset of a Marine in 'Nam Stanley Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket" is a good starter..Or better is the short story which it is based on "the Short timers".
"Looking forward to the great home coming Suzy Rottencrotch Prom Queen F**kfest when this is all over...! I feel great!and I feel alive!!"
Has got to be one of the classic movie lines.

Some of the best books I've read on it have been "Chicken hawk and "a Bright Shining lie" along with Dispatches and "Dear Mom,letters fom a sniper in Vietnam".
TBH Nam war movies will never really get a proper filming or be dealt with objectively as Hollywood wants blockbusters with black&white good /bad guys.Getting into abstracts of shades of grey right or wrongness isnt going to put bums on seats in Multiplexes across the USA.

It takes directors like Kubrick or Coppola to deal with it on a more abstract level than what an American director could handle.Stone tried and failed miserably,as he has INMHO with any film he has ever touched,as he is giving his opinion,not a storyline of the film.

Still think the best Vietnam war film has yet to be made.If it drove FF Coppola to become a coke addict on the set of Apocalypse Now,and almost bankrupted him..I think that might be an insight on how difficult it is to do this right.

Grizzly 45

Sappa wrote: »

Enlighten me how the French thought it was there own as how I see it the country is Vietnam and belongs to the Vietnamese not the French who invaded and were a brutal occupying army.

Vietnam for 95% of its history has been an occupied country for the last 1000 years.Its civilisation goes back 20,000 years.
Everyone from the Chinese, to the Japanese,the Mongols,various native kings ,emperors and dynasties.The Dutch,French and the US were the last and pretty much amatuers in trying to subdue this country.
TBH the French were not brutal occupiers they were by and large integrated with the Vietnamese,unoffically the 2nd langauge of the place is still French and it was the Japanese that occupied Vietnam in ww2 that were the brutal bloody oppressors of both the French and Vietnamese,as they were with any country that had the misfortune of being invaded by the Japanese.:mad:
It was Communist gureillas,suplied and trained by the Allies that continued the struggle for liberation post 1945 who then turned on the French Govt system to liberate the country for the glories of being a communist country.:rolleyes:

Latchy

It wasn't the first movie made about the Vietnam war ,The Green Berats was made ten years previously but The Deer Hunter was the first Vietnam movie to treat the subject with some seriousness ,from the personel point of views of the individuals involved as civillians before the war and soldiers during it , which also dealth with the deep , emotional suffering for those involved and those at home .

Tupamaros

Latchy wrote: »

Very much so although Kennedy was probably looking for the solution to the problem in that corner of the world in a much more diplomatic way then . When there was only a few thousend troops in Vietnam , Secratary of state McNamara while serving under president Kennedy, found himself in agreement with his boss that American troops should be withdrawn but under president Johnson,( who in the early weeks and months of his presidency found the Vietnam war more of an annoyance than anything ) McNamara went the opposite way and sided with the Generals who persuaded an undecided and indecisive Johnson that ' this war can be won ' and the escalation of troops and wepons went on and on .


Some idea of where president Johnsons head was at in the mid sixties when he kept getting daily reports of more troop deaths ,with little or no improvement against the enemy he said ...Quote '' How the hell can the strongest nation in the world not beat the crap outta a bunch of peasents running around the jungle in pyjamas ? ''

This is revisionism, though of quite a common kind. Kennedy was a hawk on Vietnam, he want to withdraw the troops...once victory had been secured. He got killed, he got romanticised, usual story. **** the scumbag, he escalated the war, he didn't work to prevent it. Read 'Rethinking Camelot" by Chomsky, he gets into it there.

yore

I was there maaaaaan......I fought in the 'Nam *








* Rath-far-nham ...... t'was a grand Summers day out in Marlay Park

Latchy

Tupamaros wrote: »

This is revisionism, though of quite a common kind. Kennedy was a hawk on Vietnam, he want to withdraw the troops...once victory had been secured. He got killed, he got romanticised, usual story. **** the scumbag, he escalated the war, he didn't work to prevent it. Read 'Rethinking Camelot" by Chomsky, he gets into it there.

Once you cut through that romanticism you'll find a president who was under extreme pressure during the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missle crisis but wasn't going to have his hand forced by anybody and just as he mulled a lot over decision making in those events, so to did he give a lot of thought to Vietnam( other books I've read on Kennedy also cover this well )

He may well have wanted to remove the troops only after victory had been secured but more importanly would he like Johnson (who wasn't the best at diplomacy and opted out for a second term as president because the Vietnam war just drained him ) have escalated the troops more and more ? ...or like Nixon have carpet bombed Vietnam and Cambodia ?? We'll never really know , of course he wanted victory but at what price ? Many will say he had a lot more human attributes than those other two presidents and wouldn't have let it get as far as it did .

yore wrote: »

I was there maaaaaan......I fought in the 'Nam *

I did a tour of Cheltenham to .

http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/13915095/veterans-letters-returned-home-43-years-after-death

When 22-year-old Army Sgt. Steve Flaherty of Columbia, South Carolina, was killed in the Vietnam War in 1969, his body was recovered, but not before the North Vietnamese government confiscated letters he had written to his family but hadn't yet sent.

Now, 43 years after his death, the letters have finally made it home.

Must of had Irish roots with a name like that