Since when did the Vietnam war become a good thing to Americans?

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I mean you have so twisted cause and effect of the VN war, that I would not be suprised if you took the side of the "poor" Confederates who wanted to peaceably live free as they choose. That included having slaves, but that's ok, since slaves were property. If you have that perspective, I suggest you keep it under wraps. Or better, don't.

Dang, no wonder why you love Bush and Rummy and this Iraq war. It like VN all over again, except it was perpetrated by your other heros Johnson and Robert McNamara. Rummy's war. Fitting.

Your POV about VN largely died later in the war, because everyone saw it was BS. Even Mac came to realize that the North wasnt about "spreading communism". Communism was the latest excuse in a long line of regional aggressions. Simply, the North wanted to beat the South. Communism was incidental. After we pulled out the whole of Asia could have been taken over. It wasnt. The VC didn't want it. It was a stupid war fought for the wrong reasons. It was about something like the Tonkin as "clearer than truth". Damn, we hoped we would have brought up kids smarter than us, but you show we failed miserably.

Edit- Apologies to the younger generation smart enough not to swallow this snake oil.

and the communist alternative is better? ROFL!! your to funny smith, after spouting off then getting your clock cleaned with facts you respond with ad-hom trash.

again the "aggression" was by the NV. read a history book and learn a thing or two. and now the people there are paying the price with genocide...also KENNEDY was president when we committed to vietnam, johnson was president AFTER him.

No kidding that Kennedy brought troops in. I suppose he did Tonkin, right? Kennedy used it to escalate the war? I lost friends and loved ones in that abomination of a lie, and you praise it. In case you didnt notice in you clock cleaning WE LOST. Communism stayed put. Why? Because the whole expansion premise was crap.

I remember those days better that you, since you werent around. Try reading history books without National Lampoon written on them.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: rbV5

also KENNEDY was president when we committed to vietnam, johnson was president AFTER him.

US involvement in Vietnam began during the Eisenhower administration .

Involvement began, but in a different form. Kennedy decided to escalate the war. Eisenhower also advised Kennedy to beware VN, but in those days, Kennedy thought as Shadowhawk.

 

[tnitsuj]

IMHO Kennedy was one of the worst presidents in US history.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
IMHO Kennedy was one of the worst presidents in US history.

Kennedy made a great many mistakes, and I understand why people liked him and Johnson for that matter based on civil rights issues. The thing I am glad for is that he was in office during the Cuban missle crisis.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Hawk -

"but diem was later deposed"

Don't you think the proper term is 'Assassinated by the United States CIA operatives', for not co-operating enough ?

'Nam started under Eisenhower in the early 50's, well before the French got wiped at Dien Bien Phu.
Why don't you go to the library and get a copy of 'Street without Joy' by Bernard B. Fall - it was required reading
for US Officers, those who were stationed with the 1st Cav at An Khe, which just happens to be where the
French Mobile Group 100 departed from on the route to their Chaing Mai Pass Massacure, which was depicted
at the begining of 'We Were Soldiers Once - and Young' . You just might learn some facts about history there.

Communist Threat ? Now ? Who the hell are you kidding ?
The 'Communist Threat' is a collapsed and doomed experiment in social terror.
The Soviet Union disentegtated from within and went bankrupt, hell - we are proping them up financially now.
China ? They don't even do the 'Old Style' Commie thing anymore - we buy way too much from them, thanks Dick Nixon.
Cuba ? What a joke, a handfull of 'Our Terrorists' - our Anti-Castro friends, are politically influencing the majority of
our thinking (or lack of thinking) by a bunch of insecure polititians in arms around Bubba Jeb Bush.
We could wipe out Castro in a week - just by opening trade relations with Cuba, and Castro would be yesterdays toast.
Old bitter activists in Miami won't come up and live in the present - they still want to hold on to 1957.

Oh - remember Haliburton and Brown, Root, Jones ? Where do you think they got their start ?
The RMK-BRJ group, as they were known back then were building bases throughout Vietnam in the mid 60's
I watched them build Phu Kat with the Core of Army Engineers Triple Nickel '555', and their craftmanship at
Cam Rahn Bay was superb - dump the crap, collect the money, and let the GI's actually do the work themselves.

I can see you being Gung-Ho about being in the 'Cav, been there - done that, but time does move on.
In some cases the maturity level never seems to catch up with those who can't look outside themselves
and their own personal wants. Yeah, 'Boys with Toys' is a fitting description, live forever don't we.

 

[Witling]

I haven't read through all the bickering since my last post but I do have a couple of observations. Before the McCarthy era in the '50s, the communists took over mainland China. The Democrats got "credit" for that and they weren't about to get "credit" for loosing southeast asia.

ShadowHawk has a couple of entries about demonstrating against the war and communists. Another popular antic of the '50s that persisted through the '60s -- and, if I can believe the Shadow, exists today, is the -- you're just a communist dupe argument. (1) Gee, us dummies aren't smart enought to figure this out by ourselves. (2) The communists also believe this. (3) Therefore, we must be being duped by the communists.

Shad, the communists believe in the law of gravity. Do I have to give up that belief too?

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I mean you have so twisted cause and effect of the VN war, that I would not be suprised if you took the side of the "poor" Confederates who wanted to peaceably live free as they choose. That included having slaves, but that's ok, since slaves were property. If you have that perspective, I suggest you keep it under wraps. Or better, don't.

Dang, no wonder why you love Bush and Rummy and this Iraq war. It like VN all over again, except it was perpetrated by your other heros Johnson and Robert McNamara. Rummy's war. Fitting.

Your POV about VN largely died later in the war, because everyone saw it was BS. Even Mac came to realize that the North wasnt about "spreading communism". Communism was the latest excuse in a long line of regional aggressions. Simply, the North wanted to beat the South. Communism was incidental. After we pulled out the whole of Asia could have been taken over. It wasnt. The VC didn't want it. It was a stupid war fought for the wrong reasons. It was about something like the Tonkin as "clearer than truth". Damn, we hoped we would have brought up kids smarter than us, but you show we failed miserably.

Edit- Apologies to the younger generation smart enough not to swallow this snake oil.

and the communist alternative is better? ROFL!! your to funny smith, after spouting off then getting your clock cleaned with facts you respond with ad-hom trash.

again the "aggression" was by the NV. read a history book and learn a thing or two. and now the people there are paying the price with genocide...also KENNEDY was president when we committed to vietnam, johnson was president AFTER him.

No kidding that Kennedy brought troops in. I suppose he did Tonkin, right? Kennedy used it to escalate the war? I lost friends and loved ones in that abomination of a lie, and you praise it. In case you didnt notice in you clock cleaning WE LOST. Communism stayed put. Why? Because the whole expansion premise was crap.

I remember those days better that you, since you werent around. Try reading history books without National Lampoon written on them.

actually eisenhower told kennedy "you're going to have to send troops over there." i lost family over there, who along with your freinds and loved ones are now lives wasted. donr preach at me i wore the uniform and i bled spare me your ad-hom trash.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I mean you have so twisted cause and effect of the VN war, that I would not be suprised if you took the side of the "poor" Confederates who wanted to peaceably live free as they choose. That included having slaves, but that's ok, since slaves were property. If you have that perspective, I suggest you keep it under wraps. Or better, don't.

Dang, no wonder why you love Bush and Rummy and this Iraq war. It like VN all over again, except it was perpetrated by your other heros Johnson and Robert McNamara. Rummy's war. Fitting.

Your POV about VN largely died later in the war, because everyone saw it was BS. Even Mac came to realize that the North wasnt about "spreading communism". Communism was the latest excuse in a long line of regional aggressions. Simply, the North wanted to beat the South. Communism was incidental. After we pulled out the whole of Asia could have been taken over. It wasnt. The VC didn't want it. It was a stupid war fought for the wrong reasons. It was about something like the Tonkin as "clearer than truth". Damn, we hoped we would have brought up kids smarter than us, but you show we failed miserably.

Edit- Apologies to the younger generation smart enough not to swallow this snake oil.

and the communist alternative is better? ROFL!! your to funny smith, after spouting off then getting your clock cleaned with facts you respond with ad-hom trash.

again the "aggression" was by the NV. read a history book and learn a thing or two. and now the people there are paying the price with genocide...also KENNEDY was president when we committed to vietnam, johnson was president AFTER him.

No kidding that Kennedy brought troops in. I suppose he did Tonkin, right? Kennedy used it to escalate the war? I lost friends and loved ones in that abomination of a lie, and you praise it. In case you didnt notice in you clock cleaning WE LOST. Communism stayed put. Why? Because the whole expansion premise was crap.

I remember those days better that you, since you werent around. Try reading history books without National Lampoon written on them.

actually eisenhower told kennedy "you're going to have to send troops over there." i lost family over there, who along with your freinds and loved ones are now lives wasted. donr preach at me i wore the uniform and i bled spare me your ad-hom trash.

Well thats great. We are even. My family and friends died, but in your case I dont see much of a return on the investment. BTW Eisenhower warned Kennedy about VN. He was concerned about the whole thing, was worried what Kennedy might have to do. I might have to shoot someone, but that does not mean I have to be happy and glad to do it.

Have fun.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Hey Beavis - Kennedy didn't do the Tonkin Gulf thing - he was dead, remember !
Johnson did the Tonkin - based on fradulent data feed to him by McNamerra.
Johnson refused to run for re-election based on the fact that he felt he had been
comprimised by his cabinent, especially McNamerra - and had been lied to.
The president had been presented false information by his inner circle of advisors, imagine that.
Couldn't happen again, could it ? The present Administration is perfect you know.

Johnson refused to run, Nixon stepped in, and turned the US on to Corrupt Politics
And introduced the American Society to the inner working of Communist China.
Good job for one of McCarthy's old 'Anti-Communist' buddies, don't you think ?

Oh yeah, by the way - Kissinger had to talk Nixon out of using Nukes in 'Nam.
Tricky Dick kept moving his finger towards the button.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Witling
I haven't read through all the bickering since my last post but I do have a couple of observations. Before the McCarthy era in the '50s, the communists took over mainland China. The Democrats got "credit" for that and they weren't about to get "credit" for loosing southeast asia.

ShadowHawk has a couple of entries about demonstrating against the war and communists. Another popular antic of the '50s that persisted through the '60s -- and, if I can believe the Shadow, exists today, is the -- you're just a communist dupe argument. (1) Gee, us dummies aren't smart enought to figure this out by ourselves. (2) The communists also believe this. (3) Therefore, we must be being duped by the communists.

Shad, the communists believe in the law of gravity. Do I have to give up that belief too?

translation:
Shad0hawK has brought up historical events that are true, but i am going to us the usual tactic of trying to discredit him not using one fact at all to dispute anything he says, followed by a comment using sophomoric humor that makes no sense or have any logic.

so tell me wit, are you saying that the american communist party was not a sponor/co-sponsor of many of the biggest demonstrations? including ones put on by the VVAW?

 

[Witling]

I don't know that the communists cosponsored the antiwar rallies, but I'm willing to believe that they did. the sponsored a bunch of progressive movements when the regular parties sure wouldn't. OK, now so what? They still believe in the law of gravity; can I believe in it too?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
I remember just a few years ago, it was a bad, unjust war. Now Kerry is bragging about fighting in it, and being bashed for defecting from it and heading Vietnam Veterans Against the War. WTF?

it was portrayed as a bad unjust war by those on the extreme left

The extreme left, the Moderates and in the end even Christian Conservatives like my Mother who now is a die hard Dub backer.
Tell me, what was your first recollection of that war? Mine was watchi8ng all the carnage on TV. Later on it was my friends who were a couple of years older than me who came back after being drafted and serving over in that hell Hole. Not one of them said we were doing the right thing there and not one had a problem with the protests.

with backing and sponsorship from the american communist party. who also helped VVAW, an organization co founded by kerry and hanoi jane.

it only makes sense that communists in this country would do everything they can to help the communists from north vietnam invade and take over south vietnam.9/


VVAW demonstartions included marching with north vietnamese and viet cong flags, at the demonstration where some veterans threw thier medals over the fence, did not throw his, but instead threw someone elses medals and pretended they were his.

you do not hear much about atrocities commited by the VC and NVA, who even this day pursue the practice of "creeping genocide" by forcibly sterilizing the montagnards(native tribesmen) and forcing them to renounce christianity. not to mention the murder rape and torture of the south vietnemese, who were invaded by the north.

Under Diem the large Buddhist minority in South Vietnam was brutalized as much if not more than any Vietnamese Christians by either the North or the South. On top of that, the South Vietnamese were as brutal to their own people as the North were. Of course the worse were the Cong who happened to be South Vietnamese themselves. You see a lot of the tactics the Cong used against us in Nam be used against us in Iraq today by the insurgents there.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
IMHO Kennedy was one of the worst presidents in US history.

I agree. But to be fair, he didn't really have much time to do anything substantial.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Witling
I don't know that the communists cosponsored the antiwar rallies, but I'm willing to believe that they did. the sponsored a bunch of progressive movements when the regular parties sure wouldn't. OK, now so what? They still believe in the law of gravity; can I believe in it too?

as i pointed out earlier, it should come as no great surprise the communist party here would sympathize and help the communist country we were fighting. as far as your gravity comment, it really has no basis in the discusion other than the usual sophomoric humor many use to try and counter historic fact. adding the tag "progressive" does not make a proven bad idea good.

i see from other posts you do not like komrade kerry, who would have been your candidate of choice?

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
IMHO Kennedy was one of the worst presidents in US history.

I agree. But to be fair, he didn't really have much time to do anything substantial.

I think The Bay of Pigs, and the expansion of Vietnam is enough. I am not too wild about the way he handled the Cuban missile crises either. Bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war seems massively unwise. He placed the future of the world in the willingness of an enemy we did not fully understand to back down. This was not wise IMHO.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
IMHO Kennedy was one of the worst presidents in US history.

I agree. But to be fair, he didn't really have much time to do anything substantial.

I think The Bay of Pigs, and the expansion of Vietnam is enough. I am not too wild about the way he handled the Cuban missile crises either. Bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war seems massively unwise. He placed the future of the world in the willingness of an enemy we did not fully understand to back down. This was not wise IMHO.

yes, it would have been better to let them place all those nukes in cuba.

 

[chess9]

Shadohawk:

Are you sure you wouldn't like to raise the level of debate by calling Kerry a Hitler, or Idi Amin? I'll be happy to raise the ante and call Bush a Nazi if that will get you in the spirit for your kind of debating.


-Robert

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
IMHO Kennedy was one of the worst presidents in US history.

I agree. But to be fair, he didn't really have much time to do anything substantial.

I think The Bay of Pigs, and the expansion of Vietnam is enough. I am not too wild about the way he handled the Cuban missile crises either. Bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war seems massively unwise. He placed the future of the world in the willingness of an enemy we did not fully understand to back down. This was not wise IMHO.

yes, it would have been better to let them place all those nukes in cuba.

I didn't say that. A massive public military confrontation should not have been the 1st option. The situation went from zero to crises in two weeks, and the final result depended on the actions of our enemies in a direct confrontation. That is unnaceptable IMHO.

We ended up doing a quid pro qou type deal where we withdrew the jupiter missiles from Turkey while they didn't put the missiles in Cuba in the end. He should have confronted the Soviets privately 1st and then raised hell. We may have come to the same deal.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Well thats great. We are even. My family and friends died, but in your case I dont see much of a return on the investment. BTW Eisenhower warned Kennedy about VN. He was concerned about the whole thing, was worried what Kennedy might have to do. I might have to shoot someone, but that does not mean I have to be happy and glad to do it.

Have fun.

you did not notice there was no "return on the investment" at all. they died for NOTHING. but the libs and thier communist sponsors sure were happy about it.

and if you want to get ultra technical, the first US vietnam casualty was in 1945, a man named LT. dewey. so that would put it on truman.

BTW would you explain what you mean exactly by "in your case I dont see much of a return on the investment" i would like you to elucidate on that.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
IMHO Kennedy was one of the worst presidents in US history.

I agree. But to be fair, he didn't really have much time to do anything substantial.

I think The Bay of Pigs, and the expansion of Vietnam is enough. I am not too wild about the way he handled the Cuban missile crises either. Bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war seems massively unwise. He placed the future of the world in the willingness of an enemy we did not fully understand to back down. This was not wise IMHO.

yes, it would have been better to let them place all those nukes in cuba.

I didn't say that. A massive public military confrontation should not have been the 1st option. The situation went from zero to crises in two weeks, and the final result depended on the actions of our enemies in a direct confrontation. That is unnaceptable IMHO.

We ended up doing a quid pro qou type deal where we withdrew the jupiter missiles from Turkey while they didn't put the missiles in Cuba in the end. He should have confronted the Soviets privately 1st and then raised hell. We may have come to the same deal.

so what alternative would you have suggested? kennedy did go through private channels first and "raise hell".

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
IMHO Kennedy was one of the worst presidents in US history.

I agree. But to be fair, he didn't really have much time to do anything substantial.

I think The Bay of Pigs, and the expansion of Vietnam is enough. I am not too wild about the way he handled the Cuban missile crises either. Bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war seems massively unwise. He placed the future of the world in the willingness of an enemy we did not fully understand to back down. This was not wise IMHO.

yes, it would have been better to let them place all those nukes in cuba.

I didn't say that. A massive public military confrontation should not have been the 1st option. The situation went from zero to crises in two weeks, and the final result depended on the actions of our enemies in a direct confrontation. That is unnaceptable IMHO.

We ended up doing a quid pro qou type deal where we withdrew the jupiter missiles from Turkey while they didn't put the missiles in Cuba in the end. He should have confronted the Soviets privately 1st and then raised hell. We may have come to the same deal.

so what alternative would you have suggested?

I just suggested one.

As far as I know he didn't try and talk directly to Kruschev only to the foriegn minister. He also screwed up in the Vienna conference some months back and projected an image of weakness to Kruschev. He should have gone directly to Kruschev and made our position clear before going public. He would have had the air strike, blockade, invasion options as a fallback if that didn't work. Failing to do this was reckless IMHO.

I may be misinformed, but I don't believe he ever talked directly to Kruschev.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj


I just suggested one.

As far as I know he didn't try and talk directly to Kruschev only to the foriegn minister. He also screwed up in the Vienna conference some months back and projected an image of weakness to Kruschev. He should have gone directly to Kruschev and made our position clear before going public. He would have had the air strike, blockade, invasion options as a fallback if that didn't work. Failing to do this was reckless IMHO.

I may be misinformed, but I don't believe he ever talked directly to Kruschev.

i edited a bit to late...


i wa sunder the impression he did, now i have an excuse to read some more history

 

[Shad0hawK]

this is an interesting site

linky

 

[Jhhnn]

Actually, the US supported the Viet Minh during ww2, then turned on them under Truman. Harry made a lot of mistakes, too...

http://www.bergen.org/AAST/Projects/Vietnam/background2.html

With Diem in power in the South, the eisenhower Admin encourged him to prohibit the agreed upon elections in 1956, believing the Communists would have won...

Our entire involvement was based on a lack of understanding and knee-jerk mccarthyite anti-communism. Vietnam is one Country, and the Viet Minh and Viet Cong were the mujahedin of their era and area. There was no clear line of control as in Korea, much of the South was in Communist hands in 1954, and remained so despite our best efforts.

Vietnam was a lost cause from square one. Even McNamara figured out that part, before it was over. Guys like Kerry figured it out firsthand, and came home to promote an end to the stupidity. The VVAW was a prime vehicle in that effort, and welcomed support from anybody opposed to the war, and there were plenty of us opposed.

No, I didn't serve, but I lived that era, being born in 1949... Only the forgetfulness of time, 9/11, and the ascendency of a clique of neocon nitwits allowed for the invasion of Iraq- Vietnam was a very bitter lesson in the limits of power, one best remembered strongly.

Like CaptKirk, or even John McCain, I hold no particular grudges against anybody's actions from that era- just so long as they're honest about it....

Dubya should have fessed up long ago. He used his family's connections to get into the guard, and more of the same to cover his sorry drunken butt when he dodged even those relatively lenient obligations. And that's OK, just so long as he doesn't claim it was something else....

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
IMHO Kennedy was one of the worst presidents in US history.

I agree. But to be fair, he didn't really have much time to do anything substantial.

I think The Bay of Pigs, and the expansion of Vietnam is enough. I am not too wild about the way he handled the Cuban missile crises either. Bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war seems massively unwise. He placed the future of the world in the willingness of an enemy we did not fully understand to back down. This was not wise IMHO.

I totally agree with you. That's twice in one week! :Q