Viet Nam.. What is your opinion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter distracted
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ridgerunner said:
Would it be a civil war if the U.S. conquered Canada? To most of the world’s people, Americans and Canadians are indistinguishable except for the fact that we have different governments. And, of course, we were both once ruled by the same colonial power.
Click to expand...
No, it didn’t encompass a true civil war because the South Vietnamese masses didn’t support their government, and really didn’t fight to protect it. Meanwhile, the North Vietnamese were staunchly behind Ho Chi Minh and his successors.
 
Ridgerunner said:
The U.S. was already involved before the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, with boots on the ground. All the resolution did was pretty much give Johnson a free hand in what he did; something that was not clear before.

Indisputably, though, the U.S. dropped the So Vietnamese on their heads when we “cut and ran”. The irony was that the overall situation had improved after the Tet Offensive, which was a near-disaster for the North, and was much worse for the indigenous South Vietnamese Viet Cong, which was hardly a force worth considering after that. The North set the VC up for a slaughter, from which the VC never recovered. Even before Tet, U.S. forces had seriously damaged communist forces in the Mekong Delta.

Some of the So Vietnamese units were very good, and showed it during Tet. Some were very bad. Much of the So Vietnamese army was infiltrated by communists, and were not trusted by American commanders because of it. But one should not dump on the So Vietnames too much. They were not that bad when it came to fighting the local Viet Cong. But they were (mostly) no match for the No Vietnamese. It must be remembered that No Vietnam was a communist country, with political commisars throughout the army. If you were told to charge the fortified machine gun nest, you did it, because you would be killed by the commisars if you did not, and your family would be lucky if all that happened to them was to be arrested and put in a slave labor camp. As inept as they are in running an economy, communists have historically proved very effective in running armies, because the soldiers fear them more than they fear the enemy.

The end of the war (for the U.S.) was pretty much due to a loss of resolve on the part of enough Americans that the politicians felt they could accept a defeat politically, and get out. Most definitely that loss of resolve was related to a significant degree to the network news, which was even more unrelentingly negative than they are now about the Iraq war.
Click to expand...
Can’t agree. South Vietnam had 20 years to establish itself as a viable nation, willing and able to defend itself. It didn’t do that because it lacked popular support. The people simply weren’t behind it. That’s why it folded. Yes, the U.S. did cut it off at the knees immediately after departing, but still, it failed to rally the people, while North Vietnam had no such problem. Again…North Vietnam had no such problem, and achieved everything within the exact same time-span.
 
KingAlfred said:
No, it didn’t encompass a true civil war because the South Vietnamese masses didn’t support their government, and really didn’t fight to protect it. Meanwhile, the North Vietnamese were staunchly behind Ho Chi Minh and his successors.
Click to expand...
Many did fight to protect it and gave their lives doing it.

The No Vietnamese were as staunchly behind Ho Chi Minh and his successors as the Russians were behind Stalin and his successors.

Speaking of his successors, I have a good friend who is a South Vietnamese “boat person”. He has done well here and has gone back to Viet Nam many times. He has brought a number of relatives here. He has money, and tells me that everything, EVERYTHING is for sale by those wonderful successors of Ho Chi Minh. You want somebody’s house? Pay the local party boss enough, and it’s done. You want a banana plantation? Same, just a little higher up the food chain of bosses. You want women? children? heroin? an RPG? Same.
 
SCALCO said:
I’m not sure I would classify South Vietnam as a political invention by foreigners. That is partly true and I don’t think the South Vietnamese people would completely agree. My wife is Vietnamese and I know very well about her family’s escape from the Communists and many other stories.
It’s bit unfair to say that the South Vietnamese were unwilling to fight. I think one of the reasons they did not fight well is because the U.S. had fought for them for so long. The North had adapted very well to the harsh conditions. I think the North had been bombed nearly to defeat, but it’s difficult to say.

On another note, I visited Saigon about 5 years ago and while the Catholic population is still comparably small, there was a big attendance at Mass. At one Church there were so many people they were standing outside in the streets.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Nonetheless, I think you underestimate the significance of North Vietnam’s relentless military pressure on South Vietnam, extended over such a long period, and then its total annihilation of South Vietnam between '73 and '75. South Vietnam was eaten alive, in such a way as to indicate it never stood a chance on its own. Meanwhile, North Vietnam achieved the victory primarily through its own tactical efforts, enduring tremendous hardship along the way.

What I’m trying to say is that the U.S. backed a doomed country, and only realized that sad fact after losing 58,000 troops, and experiencing massive political turmoil over the issue at home. South Vietnam was *no match *for its northern, Communist counterpart – none whatsoever.😦
 
The government of South Viet Nam was very corrupt and unpopular with its people. Unlike the corruption in US governments (Federal, State, and Local)… it was a corruption which personally benefitted those in positions of power. In the US (I’m from Chicago where sometimes a bit of political corruption has been uncovered… stuff still gets done. Roads are paved, schools are built and staffed, water is clean etc.

Not so in South Viet Nam. US involvement began well before any American servicemen had even heard of the place. The Eisenhower administration funded the French fight to regain their colony.

There’s lots of woulda-coulda-shoulda when discussing historical events. Perhaps one reason that the US military was unsuccessful in Viet Nam was the policy of rotating soldiers after one year tours. No collective wisdom gained through experience could be built upon and furthered. As John Paul Vann stated, “The US wasn’t in Viet Nam for 10 years… it was in Viet Nam for one year ten times.”

Who knows? Suffering is a part of our human condition and God knows the Vietnamese have seen their share. It’s all very sad I think.

But what do I know? My uncle, who arrived “in-country” as a 21 year old helicopter pilot just after the Tet Offensive in 1968 describes the 18 months he spent there as “the best time of my life… it’s all been downhill since.”
 
KingAlfred said:
Interesting. Nonetheless, I think you underestimate the significance of North Vietnam’s relentless military pressure on South Vietnam, extended over such a long period, and then its total annihilation of South Vietnam between '73 and '75. South Vietnam was eaten alive, in such a way as to indicate it never stood a chance on its own. Meanwhile, North Vietnam achieved the victory primarily through its own tactical efforts, enduring tremendous hardship along the way.

What I’m trying to say is that the U.S. backed a doomed country, and only realized that sad fact after losing 58,000 troops, and experiencing massive political turmoil over the issue at home. South Vietnam was *no match *for its northern, Communist counterpart – none whatsoever.😦
Click to expand...
I agree that S. Vietnam could not stand on its own. My 77 yr old Vietnamese Mother-in-Law who was one of the 1 million Catholics who went South in the 1950’s to escape the communists says the South Vietnamese were lazy. Maybe it’s because they didn’t support the government the same way as the North.
 
SCALCO said:
I agree that S. Vietnam could not stand on its own. My 77 yr old Vietnamese Mother-in-Law who was one of the 1 million Catholics who went South in the 1950’s to escape the communists says the South Vietnamese were lazy. Maybe it’s because they didn’t support the government the same way as the North.
Click to expand...
Communists do have a way of making a population toe the line. No question about that. But that doesn’t make it superior in any other way.
 
KingAlfred said:
No, it didn’t encompass a true civil war because the South Vietnamese masses didn’t support their government, and really didn’t fight to protect it. Meanwhile, the North Vietnamese were staunchly behind Ho Chi Minh and his successors.
Click to expand...
The South Vietnamese did not staunchly support their government, to be sure, but they most definitely did NOT want a Communist takeover. A bit like the US civil war I think - I don’t imagine people in the South were passionately pro-Jefferson Davis but they were definitely anti-North if not anti-Abraham Lincoln!
 
I was there watching the conflict escalate. It was a pointless show of force. A maneuver during the Cold War. It was a game the Russians would repeat in Afghanistan.

I srongly recommend people pick up a history book before recommending opinions on something as complicated as this. The United States was involved, first during World War II with the OSS and later, much the same people in the CIA.

It was a huge waste of lives.

Peace,
Ed
 
distracted said:
i admit i don’t know as much about the Vietnamese war as i would like… but in light of what i have heard/read… it occurs to me that we could have won that war and that we should have kept trying…

I feel that the war was stopped because of pressure by war demonstrators, who, frankly, probably didn’t know much about the whole issue: the evils of Communism, how awful it is to live under that kind of rule… etc,

I hate war as much as anyone… but i feel that if an evil dictator is trying to take over a country and force its evil designs on them… (Communists don’t seem to have much respect for human life, much less human freedom…) and also when this form of government is spreading… and could become a greater threat to US… then something should be done…

Again, i admit i don’t know as much as others do on this subject… which is why i am asking… I would particularly like to hear from those who have BEEn there…
Click to expand...
Having served two tours in country, been wounded multiple times, and watched a goodly number of young people die from an extremely close vantage point (I still carry bone fragments from one in my body), I believe I can qualify as having “BEEn there”.

First, it is good that you put in a disclaimer, because you seem to know absolutely nothing about the Vietnam war. Protests did not stop the war. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that ‘winning’ was missed due to determination or investment. Both ideas have been distorted through time for various reasons.

Some folks rewrite history and reality that way because it is easier than admitting the truth, it was a spectacularly stupid venture to begin with and was never an endeavor with realizable strategic goals. It is human nature to prefer blaming ‘damn dirty hippies’ over accepting one’s own massive departure from reason and reality.

Others are driven by what I think of as the demons of sacrifice. Considering how hard it is for my generation’s Chickenhawks to accept that they played stupid with other people’s lives and money, it is small wonder that a portion of my comrades from the conflict have redirected rage and resentment about their own sacrifices and the sacrifices of their friends. This seems to be the origin of the ‘common understanding’ that the ‘damn dirty hippies’ were positively vile and abusive to US troops.

Everyone has heard stories about soldiers getting spat on by hippie women - but here is the thing, these seem to have no verifiable basis in reality. That is not to say that it never happened, but it never happened on any scale, or in any way that leaves a paper trail - stories in a paper, arrest records, statements in state or national government bodies, etc. The reality was much like what we see today. Virtually no one blamed US troops, even for attrocities (which are inevitable in war). Resentment was at the policies and policy makers.

Then, as now, both sides would proclaim, with some logic, that they were, in fact, supporting US troops. Certainly, I received sympathy and support from many quarters.

If you want to learn anything from Vietnam, learn that the Church is right, we behave best when we love our neighbor as ourselves. It is much easier to wage war with other people’s blood, and their children’s treasure. When both tolls start being felt by oneself, we start making better decisions. When the cost of Vietnam starting hammering the middle class, political pressure mounted and congress ended the war by defunding it.

Iraq and Afghanistan are interesting in that the government has savvily limited the cost to the most miniscule group of individuals possible and primarily shifted the cost to the financial solvency of our great grand children. Normally, this would make the public very, very tolerant. Some people ponder why there haven’t been more protests, but I am amazed at how unpopular the conflicts are with the public now, when we overwhelmingly aren’t even dying or paying for it. I am not sure if that means that a generation learned from Vietnam, or if it just means that the conflicts have been handled so poorly that even keeping things tucked away from the day to day lives of the public is not enough to hide the stench. One thing I know is that Americans hate being losers, hate being seen as bad guys, and hate being perceived as incompetent.

The first one can be used to rally support for a war, but not if the other two are patently obvious as well.
 
KingAlfred said:
It was really quite untenable. South Vietnam was a fake country, run by elitists to whom the people couldn’t relate. Meanwhile, Marxism was naturally attractive to ordinary Vietnamese because it appropriated the nationalist cause and coincided psychologically with Confucianism, that which the Vietnamese had subscribed to and practiced for centuries.
Click to expand...
The Vietnamese are buddhist and Catholic.
 
SoCalRC said:
Having served two tours in country, been wounded multiple times, and watched a goodly number of young people die from an extremely close vantage point (I still carry bone fragments from one in my body), I believe I can qualify as having “BEEn there”.

First, it is good that you put in a disclaimer, because you seem to know absolutely nothing about the Vietnam war. Protests did not stop the war. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that ‘winning’ was missed due to determination or investment. Both ideas have been distorted through time for various reasons.

Some folks rewrite history and reality that way because it is easier than admitting the truth, it was a spectacularly stupid venture to begin with and was never an endeavor with realizable strategic goals. It is human nature to prefer blaming ‘damn dirty hippies’ over accepting one’s own massive departure from reason and reality.

Others are driven by what I think of as the demons of sacrifice. Considering how hard it is for my generation’s Chickenhawks to accept that they played stupid with other people’s lives and money, it is small wonder that a portion of my comrades from the conflict have redirected rage and resentment about their own sacrifices and the sacrifices of their friends. This seems to be the origin of the ‘common understanding’ that the ‘damn dirty hippies’ were positively vile and abusive to US troops.

Everyone has heard stories about soldiers getting spat on by hippie women - but here is the thing, these seem to have no verifiable basis in reality. That is not to say that it never happened, but it never happened on any scale, or in any way that leaves a paper trail - stories in a paper, arrest records, statements in state or national government bodies, etc. The reality was much like what we see today. Virtually no one blamed US troops, even for attrocities (which are inevitable in war). Resentment was at the policies and policy makers.

Then, as now, both sides would proclaim, with some logic, that they were, in fact, supporting US troops. Certainly, I received sympathy and support from many quarters.

If you want to learn anything from Vietnam, learn that the Church is right, we behave best when we love our neighbor as ourselves. It is much easier to wage war with other people’s blood, and their children’s treasure. When both tolls start being felt by oneself, we start making better decisions. When the cost of Vietnam starting hammering the middle class, political pressure mounted and congress ended the war by defunding it.

Iraq and Afghanistan are interesting in that the government has savvily limited the cost to the most miniscule group of individuals possible and primarily shifted the cost to the financial solvency of our great grand children. Normally, this would make the public very, very tolerant. Some people ponder why there haven’t been more protests, but I am amazed at how unpopular the conflicts are with the public now, when we overwhelmingly aren’t even dying or paying for it. I am not sure if that means that a generation learned from Vietnam, or if it just means that the conflicts have been handled so poorly that even keeping things tucked away from the day to day lives of the public is not enough to hide the stench. One thing I know is that Americans hate being losers, hate being seen as bad guys, and hate being perceived as incompetent.

The first one can be used to rally support for a war, but not if the other two are patently obvious as well.
Click to expand...
Do you think fighting communism was/is worthwhile? When they persecute and kill Catholics, are we to sit by?
 
grandfather said:
The Vietnamese are buddhist and Catholic.
Click to expand...
***Catholic??? ***Please. Only a small percentage is Catholic, and was viewed as an elitist, French, colonial clientele by the masses. Also, Confucianism co-exists with Buddhism. It’s a philosophy and a religion, just as Buddhism is both. Asian religious syncretism has made their co-existence not only possible, but very popular throughout Asia. The essence of Confucian thought is civic responsibility, which, when matched with Vietnamese agrarian, communal values, made Communism much more appealing to the masses than either capitalism or democracy. The U.S. stood no chance of changing those dynamics. There was literally nothing naturally Vietnamese about South Vietnam. In the eyes of the masses, it was a confusing, foreign invention.
 
SCALCO said:
Do you think fighting communism was/is worthwhile? When they persecute and kill Catholics, are we to sit by?
Click to expand...
You didn’t ask me, but I’d like to take a shot at it. Yes – fighting Communism was and remains worthwhile. That doesn’t mean, however, that we can win all the time, everywhere. Vietnam was one such occasion. We charged in without first thoughtfully analyzing the situation, the history of the place or the nature of the people. We’ve made a frighteningly similar mistake in Iraq. A place where we succeeded, however, was El Salvador. I personally worked a small part of that mission, under the leadership of an absolute genius on counter-insurgency (US Army General Gorman). We won in El Salvador, to an appeciable extent, because we carefully applied lessons learned from Vietnam. Of course the setting was totally different, too.
 
distracted said:
I feel that the war was stopped because of pressure by war demonstrators, who, frankly, probably didn’t know much about the whole issue.
Click to expand...
I won’t comment on the war, but I want to respond to the above paragraph:

Some of the people most vehemently opposed to the war were Vietnam veterans. They came home, grew their hair long, dropped out of society, and were already drug addicts before they stepped off the plane. I was married to one.
  • Westy
 
KingAlfred said:
A place where we succeeded, however, was El Salvador. I personally worked a small part of that mission, under the leadership of an absolute genius on counter-insurgency (US Army General Gorman). We won in El Salvador, to an appeciable extent, because we carefully applied lessons learned from Vietnam. Of course the setting was totally different, too.
Click to expand...
We won? We succeeded? Who’s this we? Not me. I lived in Central America for 15 years. I saw and continue to see the damage done by the largely US-sponsored mayhem that devastated those countries during the 70’s and 80’s. 70,000 dead, the great majority civilians, including numerous priests and four US nuns, in 13 years of fighting in El Salvador. 90% of the dead were victims of government and paramilitary violence, all paid for by my and other US citizens’ tax dollars. Many of those brutally tortured to death by death squads. A legacy of violence (one of the world’s highest murder rates) and poverty that lives on today. A neocon adventure in the Third World (with many of the same players as today, i.e. the Bush family, John Negroponte, Eliot Abrams, etc.) that achieved nothing but destroy a whole country, fattening the pockets of military contractors and generating bragging material for scumbags like you and your CIA buddies.
 
Hi Distracted:

I hope you have had a good flavor from varying opinions about the Vietnam war. There are books, and the likes, out there that would help you to further your research. Opinions on this forum will go on and on. I had my opportunties to express my opinions and they are one man’s opinions. If they are wrong, I beg for your forgiveness.

War is just bad. They should only be used as an absolute, absolute last resort. Even in wars that are deemed “justified”, it is still always the people and their children in generations to come that suffer and face the consequences. They are the ones that deal with the true loss of wars: Wives losing husbands; children losing parents and grandparents; destroyed cities and roads, loss of generations of wisdom and knowledge; and much more to list here. Come to think of it, death is just one portion of the loss of wars. The people who start wars are usually gone by then. They usually do not have to face or even see the mess they created (At least not on earth. But they will have to stand judgment before God in due time). Their pundits, or supporters, usually have a field day using every means, and after the fact annidotes, possible to defend them or blame others for them. But what about the people and children from the land where wars took place. Who help them? What did they do to derserve all that? Symphathy goes a long way and is good. But it’s never enough. It does not bring food to the table, or medines to the sick, or build roads, schools, hospitals or churches, to those who suffer. What about their children? And their children’s children?

Let’s remove ourselves from the heat for a moment. Let’s truly talk about what is truly the issue here. War is another sign where God is ignored. It is a sign where man says I am both the judge and the jury here. A sign where man pushes God aside and says You are not relevant. I bet the devil rejoices. What the devastation of wars signals to us is that we need God and His love and mercy more than ever. The best weapon against war and the devil is prayers. Ask for our Holy Mother to intercede for us. Pray for the conversion of all sinners and pray for God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

May God bless us and have mercy on us.

“Ave Maria, gratia plena. Dominus tecum…
Ora pro nobis peccatoribus. Nunc et in hora mortis. Amen.”
 
distracted said:
thank you so much for the mention of the books… This confirms my suspicions that the US really did get out of Viet N too soon… Communisim is a worse menace to this world than people realize… It is scary when certain people in our government system lean towards it… (socialism… etc)…
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with socialism. Look at Scandinavia. Highest standed of living in the world. Low crime, equality between the sexes. Freedom. No such thing as “working poor”. Everybody has housing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top