Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-12-2017, 06:54 AM
 
14,337 posts, read 14,141,398 times
Reputation: 45585

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
Good points all but what would have been wrong with fighting back into countries that attacked our allies? I am not advocating that we should have gone on the offensive. But I have read a lot of magazine articles from the era in Commentary Magazine. They considered that it was a serious mistake to let the Communists pick the venue of each fight with no risks, no consequences.
Well, we did exactly that in Korea. Do you remember what happened? General McArthur insisted on pursuing the North Korean Army into North Korea. He seized their capitol of Pyongyang. At some points, American troops actually reached the border with China at the Yalu River. Than, one cold day in December, Red China entered the war and did so with a vengeance. They cut off and almost obliterated some of the American forces operating in North Korea. We were forced to retreat and even ended up temporarily giving Seoul back to the combined force of Chinese and North Koreans. That was in 1950, just after the Soviet Union (a North Korean ally) exploded its first atomic bomb. At that time, nuclear war with the USSR or China were not significant threats because the Soviets didn't have time to yet to build significant numbers of atomic bombs. The point is though that an attack on a communist country ended up having pretty dire consequences for the USA.

By the 1960's, not only the Soviet Union, but Red China possessed atomic bombs as well. An invasion of North Vietnam could well have resulted in a nuclear war. That is why it was never pursued as American strategy during the Vietnam War. Perhaps, neither the Chinese, nor the Russians would have used nuclear weapons to defend North Vietnam, but was it worth taking the risk? I would say definitely not. Red China could also have sent massive numbers of troops to fight us in North Vietnam. This would have increased American casualties substantially.

People who talk about "going on the offensive" against the communist countries seldom show an understanding of the huge geopolitical consequences that such a move would have had.

I have no doubt that we pursued the best strategy that we could--as the facts appeared at the time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-12-2017, 11:00 AM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,290 posts, read 23,893,601 times
Reputation: 32621
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
...

People who talk about "going on the offensive" against the communist countries seldom show an understanding of the huge geopolitical consequences that such a move would have had.

...
Yes. I often think it's a mentality about the United States should always have its own way, with a damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead attitude. When what it really comes down to is (for example) hegemony by the United States versus hegemony by the old Soviet Union or China. Don't get me wrong, I think our version of hegemony is far less insidious, but I still think it comes down to 3 major players with various iterations of hegemony.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2017, 02:40 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
26,941 posts, read 13,180,224 times
Reputation: 19182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
The US drew first blood by murdering Kim Koo, so that Syngman Rhee would win the election, while instigating the Korean War. According to Rhee...

"We started this fight in the first place in the hope that Communist would be destroyed."

Syngman Rhee's comments in the August 1954 edition of U.S. News & World Report
If you started it then it was the blood of those young men in regiments such as the Glosters that ended it.

The day 650 Glosters faced 10,000 Chinese - Telegraph

The National Archives | Exhibitions | American Presidential Citation - 1st Battalion, the Gloucester Regiment and C Troop, Light Mortar Battery, Royal Artillery.

The National Archives | Exhibitions | The Battle of Imjin River









Last edited by Brave New World; 01-13-2017 at 02:49 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2017, 11:08 AM
Status: "A solution in search of a problem" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: New York Area
34,559 posts, read 16,622,216 times
Reputation: 29710
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
I actually agree with that, and I feel that the Domino Theory in SE Asia made sense...even though it only partially happened.
Thanks.

As far as the domino theory, I do think the fact that we spent time on Vietnam slowed the Communist juggernaut enough that even when we ultimately lost, such countries as Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and Burma (now Myanmar) had stablized. That was why the fall of Vietnam was only accompanied by the fall of Democratic Kampuchea (Cambodia) and Laos.

Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
However, I also remember watching one of LBJ' speeches during the Vietnam War (yes, I'm that old), and he started talking about "our good friends the South Vietnamese", and I thought "good friends"? Americans know nothing about the Vietnamese, and most couldn't even point out the country on a map, let alone know anything about its culture.

And so the question becomes when is it in our interest to fight. My partial answer to that is that I don't know...but I know we fought too often in situations that had no real importance to our nation. We played international chess too often, moving the pieces but sometimes not being directly involved.
I agree we may often not have an interest in a country per se. It is important to reassure our imprtant allies that our hand is firm, and hold the fort against destabilization and takeover of nearby countries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2017, 11:10 AM
Status: "A solution in search of a problem" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: New York Area
34,559 posts, read 16,622,216 times
Reputation: 29710
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
Well, we did exactly that in Korea. Do you remember what happened? General McArthur insisted on pursuing the North Korean Army into North Korea. He seized their capitol of Pyongyang. At some points, American troops actually reached the border with China at the Yalu River. Than, one cold day in December, Red China entered the war and did so with a vengeance. They cut off and almost obliterated some of the American forces operating in North Korea. We were forced to retreat and even ended up temporarily giving Seoul back to the combined force of Chinese and North Koreans. That was in 1950, just after the Soviet Union (a North Korean ally) exploded its first atomic bomb. At that time, nuclear war with the USSR or China were not significant threats because the Soviets didn't have time to yet to build significant numbers of atomic bombs. The point is though that an attack on a communist country ended up having pretty dire consequences for the USA.

By the 1960's, not only the Soviet Union, but Red China possessed atomic bombs as well. An invasion of North Vietnam could well have resulted in a nuclear war. That is why it was never pursued as American strategy during the Vietnam War. Perhaps, neither the Chinese, nor the Russians would have used nuclear weapons to defend North Vietnam, but was it worth taking the risk? I would say definitely not. Red China could also have sent massive numbers of troops to fight us in North Vietnam. This would have increased American casualties substantially.

People who talk about "going on the offensive" against the communist countries seldom show an understanding of the huge geopolitical consequences that such a move would have had.

I have no doubt that we pursued the best strategy that we could--as the facts appeared at the time.
We were forced back from the Yalu River and Pyongyang by executive (read State Department) decision not to win, not by military force. We could have deposed the Democratic Republic of Korea government with little additional effort.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2017, 11:32 AM
 
35,309 posts, read 52,057,891 times
Reputation: 30999
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
War is sometimes necessary, but it's a shame that some see and seek war as misplaced love of country.
Looks like our next war is already in the making.=
China CALLS OUT Trump: Beijing declares it will go to WAR with US over disputed islands | World | News | Daily Express
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2017, 12:21 PM
Status: "A solution in search of a problem" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: New York Area
34,559 posts, read 16,622,216 times
Reputation: 29710
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambo101 View Post
I'd love them to try. I'm not quaking in my boots.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2017, 01:11 PM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,290 posts, read 23,893,601 times
Reputation: 32621
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
Thanks.

As far as the domino theory, I do think the fact that we spent time on Vietnam slowed the Communist juggernaut enough that even when we ultimately lost, such countries as Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and Burma (now Myanmar) had stablized. That was why the fall of Vietnam was only accompanied by the fall of Democratic Kampuchea (Cambodia) and Laos.

I agree we may often not have an interest in a country per se. It is important to reassure our imprtant allies that our hand is firm, and hold the fort against destabilization and takeover of nearby countries.
We have been destabilizing as often as we have fought destabiliztion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2017, 01:13 PM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,290 posts, read 23,893,601 times
Reputation: 32621
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
I'd love them to try. I'm not quaking in my boots.
And there we have it -- you like and want war.

Maybe you ought to quake just a bit. 2 nuclear nations coming to blows is always a tremendous risk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2017, 01:40 PM
Status: "A solution in search of a problem" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: New York Area
34,559 posts, read 16,622,216 times
Reputation: 29710
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
And there we have it -- you like and want war.

Maybe you ought to quake just a bit. 2 nuclear nations coming to blows is always a tremendous risk.
I have a real problem with China trying to seize property by building islands in the ocean. Isn't it bad for the environment as well? Or is that only when the West pollutes?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top