Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [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)
View Poll Results: Would you support/have supported North Vietnam?
Yes 8 18.60%
No 35 81.40%
Voters: 43. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-05-2012, 08:52 PM
 
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,606 posts, read 55,920,063 times
Reputation: 11862

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boompa View Post
I always believed that only people who had volunteered for service should be sent to Vietnam. That would have deflated the anti-war movement just as it does now. The first thing would have been to pay enlistees twice what conscripts got. Second would have been to stop promotions above E-4 outside of Vietnam.
Yeah what right does a government have to send troops to fight in a war they are apathetic or ideologically opposed to? I wonder what the percentage of conscripts who had any great interest in the cause were? In contrast most Vietcong fighters believed they were fighting for their homeland. I'm sure south South Vietnamese did too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-05-2012, 08:57 PM
 
Location: Atlantis
3,016 posts, read 3,901,388 times
Reputation: 8867
I have never understood the Union's war policy.


Enter WWII to conquer Germany and then leave half of Europe for Russia to take over and do so through communism and a tyrant like Stalin.

South Vietnam, South Korea, Kuwait, and countless other examples.

But oh wait. . . . The sovereign and independent Souther Confederacy had to be invaded and taken over. The hypocrisy is so blatantly obvious.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2012, 01:13 AM
 
7,473 posts, read 4,000,240 times
Reputation: 6462
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Revolutionaries always seem brutal to the supporters of the other side. Che did not have state of the art technological weaponry to carry out blanket slaughters of entire inconvenient villages. His revolution was fought on the ground, but at least the Cuban revolutionaries were fighting for their own country.

When facing an opposition that can destroy you, you do what you have to do to win. When playing to win, you cannot afford the luxury of mercy on your enemies. Americans do not understand the concept of fighting a war to win. When the Americans get into a war, they can simply quit and go home, with nothing to lose. It's not the same as when fighting on the ground of your own country.

If you had been Cuban swinging a machete in the cane fields, would you have sided with Che/Fidel, or with Batista? If you had been a Vietnamese villager, would you have taken up arms for Ho, or for another White superpower coming in to replace the French?

I met some of those villagers who took up arms against Ho.........
Vietnam war was just as much a civil war as anything........
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2012, 01:21 AM
 
7,473 posts, read 4,000,240 times
Reputation: 6462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20 View Post
Yeah what right does a government have to send troops to fight in a war they are apathetic or ideologically opposed to? I wonder what the percentage of conscripts who had any great interest in the cause were? In contrast most Vietcong fighters believed they were fighting for their homeland. I'm sure south South Vietnamese did too.
Do you actually think all those North Vietnamese whom Ho sent to fight in the south were "volunteers"? They were forced to fight as well.......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2012, 11:17 AM
 
Location: Earth
17,440 posts, read 28,540,053 times
Reputation: 7477
I would not have supported North Vietnam during the Vietnam War.

I would have argued that the US had no business being in Vietnam and should have stayed out, and that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was heavily fabricated. But that does not mean that I would have supported the north.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2012, 06:19 PM
 
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,606 posts, read 55,920,063 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffdoorgunner View Post
Do you actually think all those North Vietnamese whom Ho sent to fight in the south were "volunteers"? They were forced to fight as well.......
Yes many were, but there is a whole different psyche between someone who believes they are fighting to defend their homeland vs someone sent to some unfamiliar place to fight a war for some macro-political ideological reason they cannot personally comprehend.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2012, 06:27 PM
 
32,516 posts, read 37,091,970 times
Reputation: 32578
OP: Why are you referencing the Viet Minh in your title and not the Viet Cong?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2012, 11:51 AM
 
5,718 posts, read 7,231,474 times
Reputation: 10798
I like the "National Lampoon" poster, "Is Nothing Sacred", that shows the famous photo of Che Guevera - with a pie in his face.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2012, 06:00 PM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
17,531 posts, read 24,650,996 times
Reputation: 9980
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffdoorgunner View Post
I met some of those villagers who took up arms against o.........
Vietnam war was just as much a civil war as anything........
There were villages in the Iron Triangle that the ARVN evacuated and reesettled the women and children, we then bombed the villages and dumped enough agents orange and purple that they are still uninhabitable to this day. The women and children killed their ARVN appointed village chief, drove off the ARVN off aand disappeared into the woods.

As I said before, much of the VietCong was not Communist in the begining, it was religious and ethnic militias. It was not really until the North got into it during the American buildup that the Communists took over because they were supplying the guns and ammunition
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 06:28 PM
 
7,473 posts, read 4,000,240 times
Reputation: 6462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20 View Post
Yes many were, but there is a whole different psyche between someone who believes they are fighting to defend their homeland vs someone sent to some unfamiliar place to fight a war for some macro-political ideological reason they cannot personally comprehend.
Whom are you referring to? the NVA or the ARVN? Or both?
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 > History
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:36 AM.

© 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