BF2S Forums Vietnam war

You mean the war in Vietnam?  Yeah, Viet-fucking-nam!

Edit: As a side note, I don't recommend using Wikipedia as the sole reference to any argument.  Wikipedia is user-edited, which means that certain articles may be biased one way or another.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-04-12 10:05:53)

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

I remember they made a movie about it. Well, maybe two...

Forrest Gump and Three Kings, right?

three kings was about saddam and 3 guys tryin 2 steel gold or somin. but full metal jacket , platoon , Hamburger hill , we were soldiers , Bat 21 , apocalypse now and good morning vietnam were all films about vietnam

I don't have anything to say about the Viet Nam war other then it should be laid to rest .

Vietnam war is an exampart that i had, and well they started it with the 'tonkin incident' wich was fake (based on ex-CIA agent) i believe. they wanted to hold back communisme with containment politics so they pomped money and other things in south vietnam so they could hold back north vietnam and they sended  soldiers later.
well it has happened, but we shouldn't forget it.


(this is based on what i've learned so)

$kelet0r wrote:

Vietnam was a political defeat not a military one. The US Army won the battles but the politicians lost the war.
there are 2 schools of thought
1. that they shouldnt have been there in the first place (Iraq anyone)
2. that the war should have been prosecuted in full from the start (as the 1st Gulf War was)

Took the words right out of my mouth.  Thank you, it is refreshing to not have to be the one to say this.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Ho Chi Minh was elected in democratic elections.  The US did not agree with Ho Chi Minh's ideals, and the fact that he had beat a US friendly politician, Diem(?) in the election.

Not correct.  The accord after the French withdrawl specified that there would be elections in the North and South, and the country would be re-unified.  Those accords were not ratified by any representative of the South Vietnam, and thus were not recognized by them (nor by the US), and the election specified in the accord was never held.  Ho Chi Minh was never elected anywhere except North Vietnam and, as is normally the case in a Communist Autocracy, those elections hardly typified the democratic ideal.

Please, let's not dignify Ho Chi Minh as a wronged democratic idealist.  He was a bloodthirsty tyrant, and his legacy includes tens of thousands murdered, and hundreds of thousands re-educated in the South after the Northern victory (I know he was dead by then, but if you think it would have been any different had he survived, you are fooling yourself).

Last edited by whittsend (2006-04-12 12:37:34)

Yes, I was a little confused as to the exact details, and by no means was I trying to dignify Ho Chi Minh as a mislead democratic idealist.  However, to say he was a "communist" is not technically correct.  He had socialist leanings, and he had democratic leanings.  He favored "communist" thought after he was rebuked by the US and given aid by the Soviets ("communist" being Soviet communism).  All I was trying to point out is that the conflict in Vietnam was allegedly about containment, the Domino Theory, and all that rhetoric, when it wasn't.  Thank you for clarifying what I meant, because I was a little shaky on the exact election process after France left.

There have been those, formerly in the State Department, who have said that if they had realised that Ho Chi Minh's nationalism was more important to him than his Communism, they might have made more of an effort to deal with him on that level.  You (KEN-JENNINGS) have a point, he was a nationalist first, and a Communist second.

BUT, let's make no mistakes, he was a Communist, and not merely a Socialist.  He was a confirmed Communist dating back to his studies in France.  It was probably the knowledge of his Communist past in France which convinced successive US governments that he was an irretrievable Communist, and thus an enemy.  They should have taken their cue, instead, from his Nom de Guerre during the First indochina war (against the French): Nguyen the Patriot.  In any case, there is no mistaking the tack taken by his government, while he was at the helm, and even more so, after his death; that tack was clearly Communist.  Nevertheless, you may be correct in thinking that had the US engaged his nationalism, he might have been coaxed from that view.  But that is far from certain.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-04-12 13:11:28)

whittsend wrote:

$kelet0r wrote:

Vietnam was a political defeat not a military one. The US Army won the battles but the politicians lost the war.
there are 2 schools of thought
1. that they shouldnt have been there in the first place (Iraq anyone)
2. that the war should have been prosecuted in full from the start (as the 1st Gulf War was)

Took the words right out of my mouth.  Thank you, it is refreshing to not have to be the one to say this.

that is simply the facts - don't get me wrong, the US Army came out of that war disgraced by their own actions
they shouldn't have been there to begin with, Kissinger was a maniac, the domino theory was rubbish and it humiliated America at a time when it should have been a beacon of democracy and peace - it was setting up dictatorships, destroying democracy, waging vicious war
The Soviet Union was a saint compared to the foreign policies that the US engaged in - at least the USSR kept it's dirty deeds within it's own borders

$kelet0r wrote:

whittsend wrote:

$kelet0r wrote:

Vietnam was a political defeat not a military one. The US Army won the battles but the politicians lost the war.
there are 2 schools of thought
1. that they shouldnt have been there in the first place (Iraq anyone)
2. that the war should have been prosecuted in full from the start (as the 1st Gulf War was)

Took the words right out of my mouth.  Thank you, it is refreshing to not have to be the one to say this.

that is simply the facts - don't get me wrong, the US Army came out of that war disgraced by their own actions
they shouldn't have been there to begin with, Kissinger was a maniac, the domino theory was rubbish and it humiliated America at a time when it should have been a beacon of democracy and peace - it was setting up dictatorships, destroying democracy, waging vicious war
The Soviet Union was a saint compared to the foreign policies that the US engaged in - at least the USSR kept it's dirty deeds within it's own borders

Cuba

Nicaragua

Czechoslovkia

Poland

Angola

Afghanistan


thats off the top of my head.  Good example of the saintlyhood of Soviet foreign policy

$kelet0r wrote:

that is simply the facts - don't get me wrong, the US Army came out of that war disgraced by their own actions
they shouldn't have been there to begin with, Kissinger was a maniac, the domino theory was rubbish and it humiliated America at a time when it should have been a beacon of democracy and peace - it was setting up dictatorships, destroying democracy, waging vicious war
The Soviet Union was a saint compared to the foreign policies that the US engaged in - at least the USSR kept it's dirty deeds within it's own borders

Ah well, too good to be true!  At least we agree on the facts.

The Domino theory wasn't rubbish.  See South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia.  Communist supporters attempted to export it to other neighboring countries also, but were unsuccessful.

Kissinger was a political realist.  I don't have time to get into that in depth, but let's just say that philosophy has its advantages and disadvantages.  If it works properly, your country spends a lot less time fighting, even with idealogical enemies (see Russia, China, detente); but on the downside, one ends up associating with some very unsavory characters (Chilean Dictators, etc.).  One thing is beyond doubt:  Kissinger was one of the most intelligent people who has served in Government anywhere, at any time.  Read some of his work.  The man is gifted.  Paul Warnke, a Leftish State Department wonk, once said of himself (I'm paraphrasing from memory) that he was a sensible realist like Kissinger, and that if the realists were left to handle foreign relations, things would be run more smoothly.  Don't mistake Kissinger with Nixon (who was probably actually paranoid - although he was far from stupid himself:  Stephen Ambrose said of Nixon - while acknowledging his faults - that he might have been the most intelligent President of the 20th Century).

The Soviet Union was NEVER saintly, in comparison with any regime except perhaps that of Idi Amin (and then only because Amin actually ate people), and they absolutely did NOT keep their dirty deeds inside thier own borders.

$kelet0r wrote:

Ah a good debate. finally!

Poland, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan I consider to be within the USSR's borders - domestic policy

Do not agree.  All were their own countries before USSR got to them.  The USSR had a deliberate policy to influence countries to turn to Soviet Communism.  I cannot remember the names of the Soviet groups off the top of my head, but it is well documented.

$kelet0r wrote:

The US destroyed Nicaragua and much of South America - if anything the MOnroe Doctrine that the US enforced during the Cold War saw the ridiculous situation of the USSR supporting democracy and the US undermining it and destroying it
Chile?
Bolivia?
Argentina?

Then you look further afield at America destroying -
Iranian democracy
Installing Saddam Hussein in Iraq
Syria
Egypt
Lebanon

Not to mention SE asia
Vietnam
Laos
Camobodia
The Phillipines
South Korea

And the USSR's aggresive foreign policy?
Nothing

Romania, Czech, Poland to name a few, were the recipients of aggressive USSR foreign policy.  Afghanistan.  You cannot simply say that you consider them part of the USSR to make your statement work.

$kelet0r wrote:

whittsend wrote:

Kissinger was a political realist.  I don't have time to get into that in depth, but let's just say that philosophy has its advantages and disadvantages.  If it works properly, your country spends a lot less time fighting, even with idealogical enemies (see Russia, China, detente); but on the downside, one ends up associating with some very unsavory characters (Chilean Dictators, etc.).  One thing is beyond doubt:  Kissinger was one of the most intelligent people who has served in Government anywhere, at any time.  Read some of his work.  The man is gifted.  Paul Warnke, a Leftish State Department wonk, once said of himself (I'm paraphrasing from memory) that he was a sensible realist like Kissinger, and that if the realists were left to handle foreign relations, things would be run more smoothly.  Don't mistake Kissinger with Nixon (who was probably actually paranoid - although he was far from stupid himself:  Stephen Ambrose said of Nixon - while acknowledging his faults - that he might have been the most intelligent President of the 20th Century).

As a rule i despise apologists for this war criminal and monster - no insult intended
He is perhaps one of the most evil men in post WW2 politics - saying he was a politic realist and a genius is like saying that Mao Tse Tung was a gifted philosopher and visionary nation founder
And the domino theory was rubbish - correlation does not mean causation
Socialism was more likely to be powerful in countries with large working classes or extreme poverty which is obvious. the domino theory mistook the rise to power of a socialist government as the rise to power of communism and the spread of the contagion which was utter nonsense

I agree with you on this one.  The ends do not justify the means in the case of Kissinger.  Knew what he needed to do to get things done, yes.  Intelligent, debatable.  War Criminal and ruthless politician, most definitely.

Xaritix wrote:

MaddOps wrote:

Unless you're a Vietnam Veteran, or your old man was, I'd highly suggest you not start this line of reasoning.

My dad did 2 1/2 tours from 1969 through 1971.  Volunteered of his own accord.  I've seen the file on him.  I've seen awards listed for reasons classified.  I've seen support ops in Cambodia.  He also did a year and a half in Afghanistan at age 57.  If was such a bad deal I don't think he would have volunteered for multiple tours or to go back to a different Asian country almost 35 years after the last conflict.

Did the Government not let the US win the war, YOU BET!  I've heard lists of things and places they weren't allowed to destroy.  Ever buy Michelin tires?  All their rubber comes from rubber plants grown in.....anyone.....anyone.....anyone.....that's right, Vietnam. 

But it's the same with almost all conflicts.  There hasn't been a war of necessity since WW2 and we elbowed our way into that one.  You can't go all out to win, there are no clear objectives, and nobody except the guy who says we're going to attack really knows why. 

Innocent people get fucked in other men's schemes.  The ones sending the orders to march aren't out there fighting and dying.  It's mostly kids, who either end up dead, or return with some sort of problem, be it medical or mental.  It's wrong on many levels, but that's the system.  Either you fight it, or you take what you got coming to you.

My dad was in 'nam, and we both think that the vi-et-naym war was just a crock of UN crap created to stop the spread of communism

Hey CIA guys, if the soviet union invaded the US, a small country smaller that california wont make any difference, we'd STILL be worshiping Vladimir Lenin and eating potatos for breakfast, lunch and dinner, I know, I seriosly have a friend that used to be in the KGB, he constantly screams about the soviet union and crap, and he thinks: "Soviet Union exists today still, in ze blood of every russian on earth, and if it wasn't for us, zer vould be nazi flag in zat...vashingmachine decee".  he also obsesses about that he is from Kazahkstan

Plus, we lost anyway!!! so **** you, Dicky Nixon

the U.N. wasnt behind vietnam