The Vietnam War
 

It's not a current event, thats for sure. But it was once the most polarizing topic in America, and it continues to stir debate and controversy today. I'm sure that most of us know the reasons for, and the outcome of the war.

Practices on both sides of the conflict were appalling, both sides killed innocent people in cold blood. I'm sure I don't have to eleborate,

Personally I feel sympathetic for the Veterans that returned, only to be harrassed and made the subject of hatred. Most of them did no wrong, many of them acted out of duty, and yet were tormented by what took place there for years. I actually have a lot of family that served.

What is your opinion of this war? Although it was a failure, was the effort exerted into it (human lives being the most prominate resource sacraficed) worth what they were trying to accomplish (containment of communism)? Or do you think (like I do) that red paranoia led to one of the most massive disasters in U.S military history?

I don't really have a lot of knowledge as far as what really went down in 'Nam, but being a veteran of the Iraq war, I definitely have an interest in it and the comparisons to how the US has gone about things in the past, versus how we go about them now.

I look forward to hearing everyone's opinions and getting factual references on this subject.

The Vietnam War was an ode to ancient Chinese teachings. The US was a far superior fighting force, but we were used to fighting wars of attrition, where two armies fight each other in skirmishes that build up to large battles. By definition, this style of warfare is costly, both in terms of human life and military equipment and funding. Look at WWII and all the people who lost their lives to stop the Axis, and all the money that was poured into it.

Meanwhile the Vietcong and Vietminh fought in guerrilla style sneak attacks, using trickery and the element of surprise to weaken morale and slowly but surely diminish the American forces. Realizing that to fight the US head up in large battles would be suicide, they chose instead to play to their own strengths to negate the vast strength the US military held. At the same time the continuous loss of life to an invisible enemy weakened the resolve of soldiers and the civilians stateside. When public morale wavers, so does any war effort. No country can fight a war without the support of its own populace.

The Tet Offensive was truly the turning point of the war. Happening on Tet, or the the day of the Vietnamese New Year, it caught the South Vietnamese and the US completely off-guard. The gruesome precision with which the attack was carried out, almost simultaneously between dozens of N.Vietnamese and US command posts and military installations, was effective at first. However, the attacks abandoned the guerrilla warfare the Vietcong had prospered off of to that point. The Tet Offensive ended with massive casualties for the communist forces.

In spite of this, the Offensive crushed the resolve of the American command and further inspired hatred towards US military involvement in Vietnam in the general public. It would be the eventual cause of the end of the war, although neither side could truly be declared a winner. The ironic factor of the war, was that the US Revolution was won by guerrilla attacks weakening the superior British force and turning the public against the war, due to the fact that many felt the money was being wasted. In the same way we won our independence, failing to see the effectiveness of our own historical tactics nearly won the communist Vietcong there's.

Source: History Textbooks, Documentaries, and Personal Thoughts

I found it interesting how you likened it to the American Revolution and would like to point out one more fact about both wars: The victorious sides fought on familular soil. A huge tactical advantage. Of course that's untrue of The South Vietnamese forces but still, futhers the comparisons.

A very true statement. I would also like to point out that fighting a war on your own soil, to defend your country from a foreign country adds a degree of desperation. While the foreigner's are there to invade, many may not wish to be there. Some may not even agree with the war effort. Still others may agree with the war, but without any strong conviction. When faced with an opponent willing to fight tooth and nail, these type of soldiers will break, and along with them goes the morale of the troop.

I dont know to much about this war,except that it was messy.This is not an opinion,its pretty much the experience of a soldier from that war that I use to work with.He was a POW from that war and he only once talked about it.He got teary eyed and didnt want to go on,so I never asked again.He told me when he got out (after being freed)that he weighed 98lbs,he would drink his own piss (when captive).He said the vietnamese would put bombs on babys and blow them and US soldiers up. His buddys where interrogated on a chopper,they where thrown off it whether they gave info or not.Very horrible s*it,it fascinated me though,made me realize how some troops could very easily loose their minds,but he didnt(to a point,I guess).It blew my mind more that he was working at mickey ds with me and was making a mesely 7bucks an hour and was living in a crappy a** apartment in the hood.Deffinetely a lot of respect for these guys and current troops.I guess my opinion is that they deserve so much more.

how badly do you want the 60's back? And at what point will you realize you're living in better tiems now.

Was this directed at me? If so I have so idea of the point your trying to make. I'm 17 years old, I don't want any previous decade back.

You are saying that to the wrong person, I've never been a person to wish I lived in another era. This is a widely discussed and controversial topic and if you don't want to make a genuine stab at it then I really don't know what to tell you, try another thread maybe?

I'm not very knowledgeable about Vietnam but what I heard I don't like...the fact that agent orange was used and the fact that U.S. troops killed innocent civilians. It seems like it was a totally pointless war, but I'd never blame actual troops, since a lot of them didn't have a choice in the matter.(I read that the a lot of those civilians were murdered because they cong were embedded in the general population, so the troops became extremely paranoid and couldn't be very discriminating).

I don't really understand why people care about the Vietnam War. If we're going to discuss history, there's so much more influential/interesting things to discuss...and even those I don't really care to discuss. I mean I think the Rosenbergs were heroes but I don't really feel like making a thread about it.

Ngo Dinh Diem was a better role model for a hero then the Rosenbergs.

It's because it's a controverisal area of history that tends to be polorizing - I thought it would make a great incentive for discussion.

so what are the two major sides?

I was a good man, before the war...

It's more complicated than this but... one example may be - justification for the killing of innocent civilians (they did it because they had too, acted out of duty, etc) vs. no excuses for the kind of colateral damage (rogue officers, "children strapped with bombs" stories a cover up for their actions, Military not investigating war crimes efficiently, etc).

But you probably weren't asking me that because you wanted to know, for whatever reason you seem to have a problem with this thread and with me in general and I don't seem to remember doing anything to deserve it.

Oh jesus, why don't you have yourself a good cry.

The reason I asked is because no one believes you should kill innocent civilians, and no one beleives it was an honorerable war. Thats why I asked about you wanting it to be the 60's earlier.

I don't know a single person who feels that Vietnam was justified. In fact the president then said "if we're going to go into Vietnam, why don't we go into Cuba since its of much higher national securities interest."

So I don't think, especially on MB, that anyones going to "justify" killing people. And for christ's sake its an internet form, stop assuming people hate you because of their interactions on it.

Perhaps you are having trouble understanding what I am trying to get across. I didn't say anyone would justify killing civilians - but used as an example the stories of children and other non-combatants being strapped with explosives by Viet Cong operatives, so the killing of civilians (even those who weren't a threat) was nessicary in order to protect the platoon's safety.

Others say this was a story invented afterwards to soften war crimes committed by some of the American G.I's.

You see what I'm saying? If you have no interest in discussing it I struggle to understand why you want to raise such a fuss about it. I didn't expect this thread to blow up and be filled with activity and passionate debate - I just wanted viewpoints and to discuss this with people.

I've chatted with people and veterans about this before and found it to be an interestng topic... not to mention the recent comparisons to current U.S Military actions abroad.

No matter how many times I've tried to be friendly you continue to either ignore what I say or insult my posts. I'm sure if we met somewhere you'd be a perfectly nice person and I don't think you "hate" me... but you have been a tad, well, rude in the past.

This was your original post so I'm going to stand by what I said.

And don't recoil into "everyones opinion is dandy." I asked a question and you got all bent out of shape.

I have no idea what you're refering to with this "I don't like you" stuff. My question of why you're asking this is still valid.

Yes, that was my original post. And the questions I asked in it are as valid as any other thread - why I'm asking is so I can have an interesting discussion... kind of what this website is for?

Just comment on the war please.Stop asking questions on "oh why do you keep bringing up the 60s?"
bu bye now.

the Vietnam war was a money maker nothing more nothing less...

Well that seems a bit far fetched, don't you think? Sure taxes and all but I think the total cost of the war exceeds any potential profit that could be made from it.

not to the ppl making the weapons and bullets..
BTW obama in mid war has raised taxes on bullets and all that jazz.. im sure with a bit of reading you will see how it all adds up.

in the richest eyes grunts are expendable... I would say this war is one of the best examples of this hands down...

I can understand where ppl might find this offensive and i mean no disrespect to our fallen, but someone has to be honest..

If it wasn't the way i am laying it out than we would have no discussion about the war at all.


This war was a designed failure.

So basically your saying that the Government gets massively in debt so that private companies (which offer little to the U.S besides their manufactoring services and whatever taxes they owe) can make some money? Sounds reasonable.

Who gets the tax money off the weapons and bullets?

Little to offer in the way of taxes? I think not.

What you are saying doesn't make sense. Tax doesn't exceed the initial sale! Therefor money put in = more than money recieved.

The point of taxing the sale of weapons higher is to help support the war effort, not pay for it all and leave profit behind.

right now since you set that trap whos funding the governments debt? Where is the money coming from? Who?

What? I'm confused at what you mean by this. Who's funding the government's debt? That question doesn't make sense to me.

Do you mean where does the Government get it's money? Still doesn't make sense since that would be an entirely irrelevent question.

The United States prints the majority of it's currency. The U.S Dollar was once backed in gold but since that standard has been dropped. This doesn't make the dollar worthless however as it is "backed" by the natural resources the production of this unit consumes.

This money is regulated by a system of banks.

The U.S Government makes money off of the collective system of taxes (as well as other, irrelevent means). The total wealth of the nation always exceeds that of the U.S Government. For the U.S to spend money to make less money in return (i.e by starting aa war for those reasons) simply doesn't make sense.

not really...

we fund the gov by stimulating the economy with our own income.

"our" tax dollars pay for war (but not all of it)..

also it has been stated (Conspiracy) that there is some barrowing from other "sources" with debt attached before the first bullet is fired.. These "sources" are some of the weathiest ppl in the world.

Since it is like you say... not a profit to collect taxes on a product that sells for more than the taxes yeild, the money has to come form somewhere...

^ Edited my last post.

Also, there is such a thing as a war budget... a portion of the Government's total budget set aside specifically for military matters. If the budget needs to be extended, that has to be approved by Congress.

Who said we started a war? Who said it was the governments gain?

painfully true!!
who said government?
Where am i confused?

You did... remember? About 5 posts ago?

i said the war was a money maker nothing more nothing less... All it did was make the richest richer... Greed fuels wars.. Not the government.

So... you've lost me.

read dont think so hard all the time ur gonna blow a fuse.

I'm just a little confused though. If you say the war was a money maker, nothing more... why did the war start? If somebody didn't deliberetly start it with dollar signs in their eyes than wouldn't that mean the war was "something more", or that it served a different purpose than making money?

Umm we didnt start vietnam.. we got involved.. kill 10's of thousands.. even when loosing or winning wasnt the issue we kept dying over there... Give me a reason why and help me snuff my conspiracy theories...

To stop the spread of communism?? Sounds like a good excuse...

I didn't say we started Vietnam (although I'll admit that's what I thought you said at first). I see what your saying now, and it's more of a valid point than I originally took it for.

Sweet..

I don't wanna argue just put a lil something out there. However I could be 100% wrong... Now we move to the God thread and see if the lord jesus christ shows up to put the proof in the pudding ... lol:offtopic::clap::thumb: