In your opinion, was the United Nations involvement in the Vietnam was justified?

[BornInMarch]

During the Cold War, a civil war was fought in Vietnam.

The southern part of the country was supported by the United States, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea.

The northern part of the country was supported by the United Soviet Socialist Republic, the People Republic of China, and North Korea.

Do you think the war was justified? Why or why not?

Please, and I can not stress this enough, use evidence and specific details.

 

[Valhk]

During the Cold War, a civil war was fought in Vietnam.

The southern part of the country was supported by the United States, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea.

The northern part of the country was supported by the United Soviet Socialist Republic, the People Republic of China, and North Korea.

Do you think the war was justified? Why or why not?

Please, and I can not stress this enough, use evidence and specific details.

War is never justified.

The U.S. doctrine of containment and the prominent domino theory led to the defense of Saigon and the southern portion of Vietnam. The war is and was a significant landmark in the failure that was a country trying to fight an ideology.

 

[BornInMarch]

War is never justified.

The U.S. doctrine of containment and the prominent domino theory led to the defense of Saigon and the southern portion of Vietnam. The war is and was a significant landmark in the failure that was a country trying to fight an ideology.

Okey, here is my rebuttal to that claim.

Wars are justified when fighting in them is less damaging than standing aside and doing nothing. The Quote below sums up my belief in why some wars are justified.

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” - Patrick Henry

If we assume that this is also talking about other people and not just ourselves, than it is clear that a war to defend a free nation from tyranny is almost always justified. Now we just need to know if Ho Chi Minh is a tyrannical leader. For this, let’s look at his conduct.

The North Vietnamese Army and the Viet Cong have both committed numerous and unimaginably brutal atrocities, not as a result of failing discipline (which caused the U.S. atrocity of Mi Lai) but out of policy. Two examples of atrocities by the N.V.A and the V.C. include the Húe Massacre (2000-6000 dead) and the Dak Son massacre (300 dead). Apart from this, there is the testimonies of former POWs and fleeing refugees who report barbaric and savage torture and mutilations committed by the VC and the NVA.

I recommend you read “Five Years To Freedom”, an enlightening book on the Vietnam War written on an american soldier who was taken as a POW by the Viet Cong and not only felt their brutality himself but witnessed their cruelty to their own people.

The South Vietnamese people did not want Communism, nor did they want Ho Chi Minh. If they did, than they would not have fled in a mass exodus immediately afterwards and the Montagnards (an ethnic minority in Vietnam which supported the Americans) would not have kept fighting for two decades after the war.

U.S. efforts to defend the liberty of South Vietnam were totally justified, and the only reason it did not end in stalemate was because lack of support at home forced the U.S. A to give up too early.

 

[tabycat]

Okey, here is my rebuttal to that claim.

Wars are justified when fighting in them is less damaging than standing aside and doing nothing. The Quote below sums up my belief in why some wars are justified.

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” - Patrick Henry

If we assume that this is also talking about other people and not just ourselves, than it is clear that a war to defend a free nation from tyranny is almost always justified. Now we just need to know if Ho Chi Minh is a tyrannical leader. For this, let’s look at his conduct.

The North Vietnamese Army and the Viet Cong have both committed numerous and unimaginably brutal atrocities, not as a result of failing discipline (which caused the U.S. atrocity of Mi Lai) but out of policy. Two examples of atrocities by the N.V.A and the V.C. include the Húe Massacre (2000-6000 dead) and the Dak Son massacre (300 dead). Apart from this, there is the testimonies of former POWs and fleeing refugees who report barbaric and savage torture and mutilations committed by the VC and the NVA.

I recommend you read “Five Years To Freedom”, an enlightening book on the Vietnam War written on an american soldier who was taken as a POW by the Viet Cong and not only felt their brutality himself but witnessed their cruelty to their own people.

The South Vietnamese people did not want Communism, nor did they want Ho Chi Minh. If they did, than they would not have fled in a mass exodus immediately afterwards and the Montagnards (an ethnic minority in Vietnam which supported the Americans) would not have kept fighting for two decades after the war.

U.S. efforts to defend the liberty of South Vietnam were totally justified, and the only reason it did not end in stalemate was because lack of support at home forced the U.S. A to give up too early.

:tiphat:

 

[DaveBj]

The UN was involved in the Korean War, but I was unaware that the UN had any involvement in the Vietnam War. As I remember, the involvement, especially on the side of South Vietnam, was only the U.S. and the few allies that our government at the time was able at attract, as listed in the OP.

 

[mdgspencer]

One major justification used at the time for U.S. involvement, as I remember myself, was a domino theory. According to the theory, if South Vietnam fell to Communism, other countries in the area would fall to communism too. But when South Vietnam fell, no other countries in the area fell too, showing this theory was wrong.
On a purely practical level, though the U.S. became involved, South Vietnam fell to communism. So the U.S. effort was wasted. This included very many U.S. soldiers who lost their lives. In this respect alone, the war in Vietnam was a tragedy.
I thought myself as it was occurring that the U.S. was wrong to become involved, though I understand why others feel differently.

 

[BornInMarch]

I am not sure what this question means, since it was not a UN backed war against North Vietnam like the Korean War.
The justification used at the time for U.S. involvement, as I remember myself, was a domino theory. According to the theory, if South Vietnam fell to Communism, other countries in the area would fall to communism too. But when South Vietnam fell, no other countries in the area fell too, showing this theory was wrong.
On a purely practical level, though the U.S. became involved, South Vietnam fell to communism. So the U.S. effort was wasted. This included very many U.S. soldiers who lost their lives. In this respect alone, the war in Vietnam was a tragedy.
I thought myself as it was occurring that the U.S. was wrong to become involved, though I understand why others feel differently.

What I meant was that several nations which held power in the U.N.

Actually, the Establishment of the Kemer Rogue could be seen as the result in part of Vietnam falling to communism.
Apart from that, I have seen others argue that the U.S. even being involved for the time that they were was enough time for other nearby republics to establish themselves. It is possible that if the U.S. and its allies had not even gotten involved to begin with that the Philippines might have fallen to communism.

In any case, if the Allies had not given up and pulled out, than the war could have ended with a stalemate like the one in Korea did. South Vietnam, like South Korea, would have had a thriving economy. The Nation of South Vietnam only fell to communism because of lack of support.

I already mentioned above the moral reasons why the war was justified.

 

[mdgspencer]

Actually, the Khmer Rouge took power in Cambodia the same month South Vietnam fell to the Communists, April 1975, so the fall of Vietnam did not lead to the victory of the Khmer Rouge. The domino theory then espoused by the U.S. administration at the time that after Vietnam fell, other area countries would fall to the communists, as incorrect.
These two events may have been unfortunate, but one did not lead to the other.
When it comes to the Philippines, I live in the Philippines, and there is no chance Communists will take over here.

 

[JimG]

“America fought the war in Vietnam because of geopolitics, and forfeited the war because of domestic politics.”

Domestic politics trumped geopolitics, and it led to death or misery for thousands to whom we had pledged our support. But no matter. The U.S. was tired of geopolitics.

That pretty much sums up the war, which, in the end, was forfeited, not lost. It was forfeited by the U.S. Congress. I recommend a reading of Michael Lind’s “Vietnam, the Necessary War.” A review can be found here.

 

[BornInMarch]

Actually, the Khmer Rouge took power in Cambodia the same month South Vietnam fell to the Communists, April 1975, so the fall of Vietnam did not lead to the victory of the Khmer Rouge. The domino theory then espoused by the U.S. administration at the time that after Vietnam fell, other area countries would fall to the communists, as incorrect.
These two events may have been unfortunate, but one did not lead to the other.
When it comes to the Philippines, I live in the Philippines, and there is no chance Communists will take over here.

While that may be true, the fact is that Pol Pot might have been stopped in his tracks if a stable Democratic Republic like South Vietnam was around provide stability to the region.

I never said the Philippines will fall to communism, I just said that the reason they and other countries never will is because the nations of the Malay Archipelago were able stabilize their capitalist economies so that the communist Guerrillas would be unable to gain support needed to become anything bigger than terrorist cells.

I will agree that the U.S. government should have spread more awareness of the atrocities that the NVA was committing against their own people. But Domino Theory isn’t just paranoia: Communism was able to spread very quickly throughout Asia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America.

Thank God the U.S.S.R. fell and Communism is as good as dead.

 

[BornInMarch]

“America fought the war in Vietnam because of geopolitics, and forfeited the war because of domestic politics.”

Domestic politics trumped geopolitics, and it led to death or misery for thousands to whom we had pledged our support. But no matter. The U.S. was tired of geopolitics.

That pretty much sums up the war, which, in the end, was forfeited, not lost. It was forfeited by the U.S. Congress. I recommend a reading of Michael Lind’s “Vietnam, the Necessary War.” A review can be found here.

Thank you.

If the U.S. Armed Forces had not been stabbed in the back, than they would have been able to bring the war to a stalemate similar to what happened in Korea. I don’t know if the Stars and Stripes would have flown over Haoni, but at least the Hammer and Sickle would never have flown over Saigon.

I especially appreciate that you mentioned what matters most: the Vietnamese People. Many were purged in mass killings (like in the Hue massacre), many were sent to reeducation camps and reeducated to death with machetes, and the lucky ones fled in a mass exodus to escape the Red Flag of Communism. All who stayed behind were doomed to hunger, poverty, and never getting to vote.

If you ask a survivor of the Hue Massacre, he would tell you that the war was justified.

 

[Valhk]

Okey, here is my rebuttal to that claim.

Wars are justified when fighting in them is less damaging than standing aside and doing nothing. The Quote below sums up my belief in why some wars are justified.

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” - Patrick Henry

If we assume that this is also talking about other people and not just ourselves, than it is clear that a war to defend a free nation from tyranny is almost always justified. Now we just need to know if Ho Chi Minh is a tyrannical leader. For this, let’s look at his conduct.

The North Vietnamese Army and the Viet Cong have both committed numerous and unimaginably brutal atrocities, not as a result of failing discipline (which caused the U.S. atrocity of Mi Lai) but out of policy. Two examples of atrocities by the N.V.A and the V.C. include the Húe Massacre (2000-6000 dead) and the Dak Son massacre (300 dead). Apart from this, there is the testimonies of former POWs and fleeing refugees who report barbaric and savage torture and mutilations committed by the VC and the NVA.

I recommend you read “Five Years To Freedom”, an enlightening book on the Vietnam War written on an american soldier who was taken as a POW by the Viet Cong and not only felt their brutality himself but witnessed their cruelty to their own people.

The South Vietnamese people did not want Communism, nor did they want Ho Chi Minh. If they did, than they would not have fled in a mass exodus immediately afterwards and the Montagnards (an ethnic minority in Vietnam which supported the Americans) would not have kept fighting for two decades after the war.

U.S. efforts to defend the liberty of South Vietnam were totally justified, and the only reason it did not end in stalemate was because lack of support at home forced the U.S. A to give up too early.

I would love to agree with you that wars are justified, but as I look back I see no war that was. The United States has always and will always fight in wars in which it has the ability to profit, not because of a moral high ground. Here’s an excerpt from a pbs article by Samantha Power titled “Never Again, The World’s Most Unfulfilled Promise” that sums up my point quite well.

“Irrespective of the political affiliation of the President at the time, the major genocides of the post-war era – Cambodia (Carter), northern Iraq (Reagan, Bush), Bosnia (Bush, Clinton) and Rwanda (Clinton) – have yielded virtually no American action and few stern words. American leaders have not merely refrained from sending GIs to combat genocide; when it came to atrocities in Cambodia, Iraq and Rwanda, the United States also refrained from condemning the crimes or imposing economic sanctions; and, again in Rwanda, the United States refused to authorize the deployment of a multinational U.N. force, and also squabbled over who would foot the bill for American transport vehicles.”

The lack of intervention doesn’t end here. The United States has always picked and choose wars in order to profit.

-Philippine-American War (These guys wanted Freedom and we wanted profit)
-World War I (Which nation entered a time of economic boom? The war-torn European Nations? Or the guy who mopped up?)
-World War II (We showed up late to the party again. Showed up because Japan pulled us in, not because we sought to help. Look up the fire-bombings of Japan. What country burns people alive and then tries to take a moral high ground?)

These are a couple brief instances of the causes of war and the consequences, but that doesn’t acknowledge why I see all wars as non-justifiable. Wars cannot be justified because they (in theory if the moral high ground is taken) seek to fix something that only Jesus Christ can fix. Genocide, Poverty, Hatred, you give of an example of an atrocity and explain how there has ever been a war to cause it to cease. There will always be genocide, poverty, and hatred as long as Jesus Christ isn’t their Savior by choice.

Try reading some of Leo Tolstoy’s works.

 

[BornInMarch]

The fact is that wars are sometimes justified. You mentioned that some nations had genocides but the U.S. didn’t do anything, but I personally think that is less proof of war being useless and more proof of its necessity: the Bosnian Genocide might not have happened if the UN had simply declared war on Serbia right away. Same goes with Cambodia. The reason the US did nothing was because people made the mistake of thinking war is not even justified when preventing genocide.

Also, it is unfair to assume that all wars are for profit. Things are more complicated.

Philippine American War- Remember that America had just recently driven out the Spanish. If they U.S. treated the Philippines as equals as appose to subjects than it could have been avoided.

World War I - The United States did not just wait to mop stuff up. The reason it was late to the world wars is that people in the U.S. at the time held anti-war sentiment and wanted to remain isolationist. However, this does not change the fact that the U.S. was giving invaluable supplies to Britain and France, or the fact that the U.S. was already in an unofficial naval war with Germany (U.S. ships had orders to sink the Kaisers Subs).

World War II - The United States again stayed back because they believed that War was inherently bad, and so
On the conduct of the US: the US did not “burn people”. Bombings were a common tactic and still are.

Germany spent the entire war “burning people”, twelve million people in fact.
Japan was also no slouch in the crimes against humanity department: there was the Nanking Massacre (where rape was used as a battle tactic), Unit 731 (nazi like experiments), and the Bataan death march (mistreatment of POWs).

So you’re cynical “no war for oil” mentality just doesn’t hold water.

 

[Valhk]

The fact is that wars are sometimes justified. You mentioned that some nations had genocides but the U.S. didn’t do anything, but I personally think that is less proof of war being useless and more proof of its necessity: the Bosnian Genocide might not have happened if the UN had simply declared war on Serbia right away. Same goes with Cambodia. The reason the US did nothing was because people made the mistake of thinking war is not even justified when preventing genocide.

Also, it is unfair to assume that all wars are for profit. Things are more complicated.

Philippine American War- Remember that America had just recently driven out the Spanish. If they U.S. treated the Philippines as equals as appose to subjects than it could have been avoided.

World War I - The United States did not just wait to mop stuff up. The reason it was late to the world wars is that people in the U.S. at the time held anti-war sentiment and wanted to remain isolationist. However, this does not change the fact that the U.S. was giving invaluable supplies to Britain and France, or the fact that the U.S. was already in an unofficial naval war with Germany (U.S. ships had orders to sink the Kaisers Subs).

World War II - The United States again stayed back because they believed that War was inherently bad, and so
On the conduct of the US: the US did not “burn people”. Bombings were a common tactic and still are.

Germany spent the entire war “burning people”, twelve million people in fact.
Japan was also no slouch in the crimes against humanity department: there was the Nanking Massacre (where rape was used as a battle tactic), Unit 731 (nazi like experiments), and the Bataan death march (mistreatment of POWs).

So you’re cynical “no war for oil” mentality just doesn’t hold water.

I politely disagree with you. It seems you do not understand the severity of our actions. We didn’t just bomb Japan. We annihilated people. The firebombing of Tokyo was accomplished by dropping napalm into the wooden buildings of Tokyo’s civilian population. The didn’t just die; they burned. Can you hear the screams of women and children and the smell of burning flesh? We paid Japan back 1000 times over for Pearl Harbor. Did you know that when Truman nuked Hiroshima, he murdered Christians? The same goes for Nagasaki. In what scenario is it appropriate to murder those of the faith?

War cannot be justified because war is hate and God is love. The first tactic of war is to lie to your people and make the enemy seem less than human. “Love your neighbor as yourself” makes us reevaluate our relationship to people; both good and evil. To kill is to declare to that person that your life is more valued above that of theirs.

As a side note; I’m sorry if it seems that these words are prompted to you in a cynical way. I’m not out to hurt anyone’s feelings, just their preconceived notions

 

[on_the_hill]

During the Cold War, a civil war was fought in Vietnam.

The southern part of the country was supported by the United States, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea.

The northern part of the country was supported by the United Soviet Socialist Republic, the People Republic of China, and North Korea.

Do you think the war was justified? Why or why not?

Please, and I can not stress this enough, use evidence and specific details.

What is this, an AP History essay question?

My answer: I don’t know. In the context of the early 1960s, it was justified. By the late 1960s, people began to question it, and by now nearly everyone believes it was not justified.

 

[BornInMarch]

What is this, an AP History essay question?

My answer: I don’t know. In the context of the early 1960s, it was justified. By the late 1960s, people began to question it, and by now nearly everyone believes it was not justified.

Just because the majority of people think one way doesn’t make it so. An in any case, there is no problem with thinking about these things.

 

[JimG]

I politely disagree with you. It seems you do not understand the severity of our actions. We didn’t just bomb Japan. We annihilated people. The firebombing of Tokyo was accomplished by dropping napalm into the wooden buildings of Tokyo’s civilian population. The didn’t just die; they burned. Can you hear the screams of women and children and the smell of burning flesh? We paid Japan back 1000 times over for Pearl Harbor. Did you know that when Truman nuked Hiroshima, he murdered Christians? The same goes for Nagasaki. In what scenario is it appropriate to murder those of the faith?

War cannot be justified because war is hate and God is love. The first tactic of war is to lie to your people and make the enemy seem less than human. “Love your neighbor as yourself” makes us reevaluate our relationship to people; both good and evil. To kill is to declare to that person that your life is more valued above that of theirs.

As a side note; I’m sorry if it seems that these words are prompted to you in a cynical way. I’m not out to hurt anyone’s feelings, just their preconceived notions

It’s true, the fire bombing of Tokyo killed more people than the atomic bombs. An allied invasion of Japan, which was being prepared for, would have killed more than that, on both sides. Truman’s intent in using the atomic bombs was to end the war. It did end the war. One can and will argue about the morality of the weapons (as well as the fire bombing of Tokyo), but ending the war sooner rather than later saved thousands of lives per month on both sides.

(This specific topic, incidentally, has been the discussion of some lengthy threads on CAF throughout the years.)

But it is not really a Catholic position to say that war is never justified.

 

[fred_conty]

What is this, an AP History essay question?

My answer: I don’t know. In the context of the early 1960s, it was justified. By the late 1960s, people began to question it, and by now nearly everyone believes it was not justified.

Good insight. I remember the same thing. And as the war progressed, our boys came and went, and we didn’t really give them their due…we just ignored them. In other wars they were heroes. I felt sorry for them at the time. This is one of the unsung heartburns of the war. Our own boys not appreciated. Our country was very divided over it.