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.
Vietnam in HD aired on the history channel last week. I learned a lot actually.
I watch the history channel for years. It had many hours and multiple episodes dedicated to the Vietnam war. But, its the history channel.
If someone wishes, they can bring WW2 (many hours on the history channel) as yet another example of how US policies are responsible for X, Y, Z...Don't they ever get tired of the same?
I watch the history channel for years. It had many hours and multiple episodes dedicated to the Vietnam war. But, its the history channel.
If someone wishes, they can bring WW2 (many hours on the history channel) as yet another example of how US policies are responsible for X, Y, Z...Don't they ever get tired of the same?
I think its more of a historical argument, not really to do with todays world. Lessons learned from today though is, how is Afghanistan different?
We are in a country where we didn't exercise total force to begin with, and a neighbor country that we can't invade is being used with a trail and pass used by our enemy to supply the resistance.
I was in Vietnam while you were apparently being a hippy. There is merit to the anti-war position on Viet Nam, but you must be aware that the Pathet Lao were very much a part of that war just as the Khymer Rouge were in Cambodia.
We shouldn't have been there; it wasn't our war.
The people living in Phongsavonh, where vast numbers of bombs were dropped, were not part of the war.
The Pathet Lao didn't compare to the Khymer Rouge.
And we never declared war on them yet we played our little incursion games.
Travel to Lao now where you have to walk gingerly because of all of the UXO around historical sites.
Travel to Cambodia where US, Russian and Vietnamese landmines still maim hundreds of people a year.
So tell me, what were we doing there.
I was probably in college when you were stationed in Nam, and joined the military shortly thereafter. So you can take your sweet little generalizations and think on them for a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KRAMERCAT
I think the failure, aside from stupid US foreign policy, is the 'lack of will' of the American people to stand up to the government war-machine, and tell them that if they want to pick a fight with another country that has not attacked us, that they can send THEIR asses over there to fight!
When students at Jackson State and Kent State tried to do this, they were murdered by the government.
As someone who opposed that war, I still find the OP dubious.
How a thread like that pops up out of the blue? At best, it belongs to
to the history forum. But the sign of a propagandist is that he can't
hold back from attacking the US in any way or form. If needed they'll
go back to the civil war, or the punic wars if it helps attack America
one more time.
But my kudos to Vietnam. Unlike the OP or countries that continue living
the past, the vietnamese don't blow themselves up everyday to avange the past.
Instead, they chose to look forward with hope, while building their
economy and country.
What brought it to my attention was a documentary I watched on Netflix recently, called 'Bombies'. Children still being blown up with US ordnance 50 years after the war. I feel that it is our responsibility to go and help remove those bombies - after all, we OWN them.
"During the Vietnam War the U.S. Air Force dropped an estimated 90 million cluster bombs in neighboring Laos, making it the most heavily bombed country in history. Often called "the secret war," the bombing took place without congressional approval and violated the Geneva Accords of 1962, which prohibited attacking Laos. Bombies tells the story of these attacks and their legacy."
Human Rights Video Project (http://www.humanrightsproject.org/vid_detail.php?film_id=2 - broken link)
I think its more of a historical argument, not really to do with todays world. Lessons learned from today though is, how is Afghanistan different?
Everything is in the eyes of the beholder. You can find 100 similarities between Vietnam and Afghanistan, yet someone else can find 100 differences (if they really try).
However, the bottom line is:
1) In a month we are out of Iraq!
2) In 2014 (or sooner) we'll also be out of Afghanistan. They'll have elections and the "elected and legitimate" government will try to repair relations with the Taliban. Eventually, they'll invite the US troops out exactly as the Iraqi government did. And at home, the economic depression is convincing even the stubborn republicans that its time to leave.
As awful as dropping the atomic bomb was, there were no "non combatant" Japanese.
They either took up arms and fought to the death, or they killed themselves rather then surrender.
Germans supported their leader, and most that didn't left the country.
War is hell, and when you have reason, you've got to bring down the hammer, the nail, and your total force to end it as quickly, with as few casualties to both sides as possible.
You will find disagreement with me, and most people who lived in 1945 on whether or not we should have used the bomb. Its likely it saved more lives, Japanese and Americans, then it took.
I pray for peace, but I'm ready for war if it comes. That is the prayer of a soldier.
Well by the time of the Dresden bombing Germany was defeated already and Dresden was no major military centre. It housed many refugees that were fleeing the Soviets from the east where the Soviets would rape the women including nuns.
The Japanese were even considering surrendering before the Abomb hit. Its people were staving and its major cities were destroyed already.
Right hippies, and it had absolutely nothing to do with North Vietnamese communist troops retreating to these lands to regroup for more attacks.
But if Laos is a neutral country, what legal or moral right does the U.S. have in bombing it? Laos is (and was then) a fairly poor and agrarian nation, which didn't have very clearly defined national borders, so it was easy for the Vietnamese to go in and out of Laos. I could see an occasional guided missile or something, within reason, but to carpet bomb the place the way we did was just not, in my view, justified.
Moreover, a lesson that we still seem to ignore to this day, is that carpet bombing not only didn't stop the Vietnamese; it increased the popularity of communist regimes that were only moderately supported before. It turned national sentiments against American-supported rulers, and ordinary people were convinced to place their faith in communist regimes, which turned into a nightmare, but they couldn't have known that at that time.
The MIG-21 was faster than an F-4, could climb faster than, and turn inside an F-4. Ironically, a MIG-21 was shot down in Vietnam by an A-1 Skyraider (propeller powered), and an F-4 was shot down by a Korean War vintage MIG-15.
Not once they got the J-79 engine, then they could outclimb the MIG-21s. The Phantom was designed to be an interceptor not a dog fighter; one reason why it did not have a gun. It did alright in dogfights once it got better engines, more reliable missiles and a Gatling gun.
Travel to Lao now where you have to walk gingerly because of all of the UXO around historical sites.
Travel to Cambodia where US, Russian and Vietnamese landmines still maim hundreds of people a year.
So tell me, what were we doing there.
An enduring tragedy. People will be killed by that war a century from now, just as French farmers are still plowing into WW1 ordnance today. I truly feel that all mines should be degradeable so that they become inert after a set amount of time. Even Nepal is today infested with land mines that will kill and maim into the next century.
I'll tell you why I believe "we" were there: it was determined by the elite powers that there was money to be made there. I believe that is the determining factor behind most wars today.
But if Laos is a neutral country, what legal or moral right does the U.S. have in bombing it? Laos is (and was then) a fairly poor and agrarian nation, which didn't have very clearly defined national borders, so it was easy for the Vietnamese to go in and out of Laos. I could see an occasional guided missile or something, within reason, but to carpet bomb the place the way we did was just not, in my view, justified.
Moreover, a lesson that we still seem to ignore to this day, is that carpet bombing not only didn't stop the Vietnamese; it increased the popularity of communist regimes that were only moderately supported before. It turned national sentiments against American-supported rulers, and ordinary people were convinced to place their faith in communist regimes, which turned into a nightmare, but they couldn't have known that at that time.
very well said. Anyway this case is becoming familiar with the case of Iraq and increasingly Afganistan.
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.
