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.
Win, lose or draw, the price that was paid by Americans, for whatever plateau has been reached there, was far too much for us to invest in ANY other society but our own.
Although some lessons are learned sooner than later, the 35 year wait, to see this newly found, financial emergence, will never justify the blood that was spilled by the valorous
Americans who fought and died there in Southeast Asia.
Win, lose or draw, the price that was paid by Americans, for whatever plateau has been reached there, was far too much for us to invest in ANY other society but our own.
Do you disagree with US involvement in Korea?
What about WWI?
If VN had ended up favoring the USA,I wonder if people would think differently of the losses.
I don't know about the rest of you learned gentleman but I was there during part of 1966 and 1967 serving in the US Navy supporting and participating in the Riverine Assault Forces. The native irregulars, the NVA was not that far south in '66, extracted a huge blood price for a mission never accomplished. I lost so many friends I stopped trying to make any.
When I heard that the VP of the RVN was a flyer in the French colonial air force I realized we were on the wrong side of that war. Yes, we lost. There was no way we could win. The only winners in that, and our subsequent, wars were the warmongering owners of our military suppliers and the morally corrupt financiers and politicians that provided the funding. They are the people that damaged our own country and are still doing so.
I am not surprised the Vietnamese have opened a stock exchange. They never stopped doing business during the war and are still doing business as they have for millennia. I'll bet they are not "doing business" our way with an economy dominated by a greedy bunch of Ivy League preppies that went to the same schools and were in the same fraternities. We are not an open capitalist economy we are crony capitalism with huge government subsidies to the connected. The Vietnamese have won both the war and the peace. May they prosper in their own manner without our interference.
Well said and thank you for your contribution to this thread.
I'd also like to thank you for your service to our country!
In order to lose something, you have to have it in the first place. Vietnam was a major league French colonial mess, which the United States gallantly agreed to take over (so that the French could concentrate on the colony they really cared about--Algeria, which boiled over into a war of its own in 1954).
We never had Vietnam. And we never had a chance to "win" in Vietnam, because we sent a traditional fighting force against what amounted to a guerrilla army. We were on their home turf, in other words, and our rules didn't apply as far as they were concerned.
On top of everything else, South Vietnam was hardly a legitimate nation-state. It was an artificial construction that wasn't going to last without us propping it up. Which was precisely what happened.
We can argue semantics here but we "had" Viet Nam the minute we started propping up Diem along with the military backed government that followed him. The foreign aid and military advisors started flowing in from 1963 to 1965. We also invested 500,000 ground forces, hundreds of millions of dollars and 58,000+ lives. The United States government spun the news and propaganda to make the American people and the world believe the war was "winnable". The fact that became obvious that the War was NOT winnable without a massive increase in resources that the American people would not support basically destroyed the Presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson.
Hate to break it to you guys, but the socioeconomic system is FAR more likely to resemble China's authoritarian, state-directed "capitalism" than the Western-style free market democracy....
I don't seriously see the Communist party there losing their group on power anytime in the near future...
What you are describing is an educated minority and not the "populace". In addition, America was far from the sole contributor to the difficulties of the North government.
Unfortunately Mr Gallop, Rasmussen et al, had begun polling the populace so we really don't know. But that is of little consequence in the context of this discussion, unless of course winning the debate is your sole objective, because the fact remains that Lord North's resignation was as a direct result of the defeat of the British Army at Yorktown, it may not have been the sole reason, but it was THE reason. Writing in his diary upon news of Yorktown Lord North noted, "Oh God! It's all over." Rather Johnsoneque if you ask me.
In addition, America was far from the sole contributor to the difficulties of the North government. The victory in the 7 years war had increased Britain's international footprint to an extent that she did not have the military resources to hold it all at the same time and fight a major rebellion. There was also considerable domestic unrest.
Sounds rather familiar doesn't it.
The point remains, Great Britain had 747,670 men at arms, only 60,000 of whom were deployed in the the colonies. The war lasted another two years, and at the end of the day the British still occupied New York City, Charleston and Savannah, unlike our history books which give the false impression that the war was ended with Cornwallis' surrender.
Quote:
My other point is that economic development is more powerful than military intervention. I don't really understand what point you are trying to make in this regard.
Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. As for the point that I was that your original post gave the impression that you were speaking in terms of economic intervention vs one of a military nature. If that were the case, then the as I pointed out, economic neo-colonialism was what the Vietnamese were fighting against. But I suppose that wasn't your point. My bad.
Hate to break it to you guys, but the socioeconomic system is FAR more likely to resemble China's authoritarian, state-directed "capitalism" than the Western-style free market democracy....
I don't seriously see the Communist party there losing their group on power anytime in the near future...
Whatever they are doing for an economic standpoint they are executing it well. The country has a strong economic growth rate and they are producing jobs. It will be very interesting to see how Vietnam develops economically over the next 20 years. If they invest in infrastructure and education it will sustain their long term economic growth.
Whatever they are doing for an economic standpoint they are executing it well. The country has a strong economic growth rate and they are producing jobs. It will be very interesting to see how Vietnam develops economically over the next 20 years. If they invest in infrastructure and education it will sustain their long term economic growth.
As long as they produce their own economic solutions that don't just blindly emulate China's or the US's economic theories, Vietnam could be an economic powerhouse...
The Vietnam War was won by the US. The original goal of the war was to stop the spread of communism in Southeast Asia. Prior to Vietnam, the US and other world nations, fought in Korea; again, to stop the spread of communism. The British fought several "wars," in Borneo, Malaysia, and Aden. Again, the were fighting against communist back rebels.
Then, of course, there was the ever popular Cold War. Russia vs the US. Billions of dollars spent.
Now, Vietnam. The north was backed basically by Russia and China. Yes, the Poles, Czech's, etc helped; however, all communist countries. The south? American, Austrailian, and New Zealand (there were
others).
After the US left Vietnam in 1975, Russia invaded Afghanistan. Who backed the rebels in Afghanistan? The US, UK, and the rest of the free world. We can argue if direct ground forces were ever used (they were), but definitely money, and supplies. The outcome? A horrible defeat for Russia (Soviet Union or whatever you want to call it these days).
1983. Berlin Wall came down and Russia, as we knew it came to an end. With the exception of China, there are NO MORE major communist nations, although North Korea, is causing problems, left in the old. Smll countries with issues yes, but not major ones.
Vietnam was puppet country, fought over by two major superpoers. The US showed Russia we were willing to stand up for what is right, for fighting for Vietnam? What was there? Some rubber fields? The bottom line: The US out spent and out fought Russia; thus ending the Cold War. The War in Vietnam was a crucial part; a part we won, not lost.
Last edited by Phil306; 09-01-2010 at 05:57 PM..
Reason: Sorry for the spelling, typing on my IPAD
Vietnam was puppet country, fought over by two major superpoers. The US showed Russia we were willing to stand up for what is right, for fighting for Vietnam? What was there? Some rubber fields? The bottom line: The US out spent and out fought Russia; thus ending the Cold War. The War in Vietnam was a crucial part; a part we won, not lost.
Nice piece of revisionist history, not based in any form of reality, but a nice piece of revisionist history nonetheless.
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.
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.
