The Vietnam War

[dartworth]

That child, Phan Thi Kim Phuc, was burned from a Napalm run on her village.

 

[oLLie]

Originally posted by: dartworth
That child, Phan Thi Kim Phuc, was burned from a Napalm run on her village.

I believe we are all in agreement about that. I'm curious as to what the professor said was the source of the attack, and what the woman herself said on PBS (and how she would have known the origin of the attack).

I thought someone posted a source in P&N recently that stated South Vietnamese pilots dropped the napalm after being warned not to by U.S. officials.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: oLLie
What did the professor say about the second picture? Did he imply or outright state that U.S. forces dropped napalm on her village, because IIRC that is incorrect.

Turin39789 sez:

Agreed. It's a bad situation, I just think our chances of doing it right/getting out clean are very small from past history with setting up other governments in other countries.

I'd say Germany (#3 GDP I believe), Japan (#2 GDP), are successes of U.S. nation-building policy following a military victory. I don't know enough about the situation in Afghanistan to call it a success or a failure. What countries are you talking about when you say we have a "very small" chance of "doing it right" (setting up a government, a.k.a. nation-building)? Maybe one example you were thinking of is Somalia, in which case maybe we don't agree on what the U.S. purpose in Somalia was.

*edit* not sure if the second comment I made above is coming across as patronizing or not. I'm not claiming that we are 100% successful at nation-building, I'm honestly curious about what countries would be considered failures of U.S. nation-building.

Chile, Iran, Afgahnistan

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The Iraqi war is a repost.

 

[Cyberian]

Originally posted by: jumpr
My history class at the U of M (titled 20th Century American Wars as Social and Political Experiences) is currently covering the Vietnam War. On Thursday, the lecture featured a slide show of the most influential images from the war and the events surrounding it. There were three images in the slide show. They were:

Murder of a VietCong by Saigon Police Chief
Kim Phuc
Kent State

Those three images are indeed tragic, but I find it a bit disappointing that they were the only examples that could be found (used) from our 20 year involvement in 'Nam.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

It means there are still people around who are loyal to Saddam or have come in from Iran or Syria for the opportunity to try to kill Americans.

Sorta like those who came into Nam from Cambodia and Laos?

It's still a guerilla war fought by guerilla warriors, and they seldom turn out well for the occupiers.

I think it's fairly obvious to anyone who's paying attention that the level of opposition is Iraq is absolutely nothing compared to the opposition we faced in Vietnam.
I still don't know how you can even begin to compare the two.
And you didn't answer any of my previous questions.

 

[DT4K]

Arrrghh, damn dp.
wtf is up with all the dp's lately.
Must be the most recent security patch or something messing with IE.

 

[Brutuskend]

Another time perhaps, right now you're mellowing my buzz.

 

[DT4K]

lol, you suck at teh p&n.
Don't quit your day job, errr, or is that night job.
Just keep us laughing.
:beer::beer::beer:

 

[Medea]

Triumphent's right - the girl in the 3rd picture wasn't a student. She was a run-away. If I recall correctly, the 2nd picture were people running away from an Agent Orange attack.

Jumpr, you may want to take a look at Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls.

In war, you're fighting to defend - - either yourself (as a country); a monetary interest; a political interest; or some combination of the three. It is extremely rare for the reason to be solely self-defense.

 

[zener]

FYI regarding the first picture :
The guy who did the shooting just found out that his closest friend was murdered with his whole family by the band of "dac cong" (terrorists). The victim in the picture was one of those terrorists captured. I am not condoning the shooter's behavior and want to clarify the context.

 

[tcsenter]

The majority of Vietnamese did NOT want us there. One of the reasons we lost is because no matter how many VC we killed, there were always plenty more people willing to step in and fight for their country.

lol! That's a nice way to phrase it, since about 70% of the combined population of North and South Vietnam at the time lived in the communist North. Among those living in the more sparsely populated South, a significant percentage indeed wanted the US there.

The combined knowledge of the Vietnam War possessed by the AT collective would fit in a thimble. Vietnam was about "tires"? Good grief!

And I thought I had heard them all...

 

[Chaotic42]

I just hope that we don't leave our fighting men behind in hell ever again. We should go and get every American POW back.

 

[ed21x]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Ever since WWII our country has made it a habit of sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong or isn't wanted.

Viet Nam will NOT be the last.

IMO if you follow the $$$ you will see why we get involved in things like this. In Nam it was about rubber, Iraq oil.

I agree, however, look at the death count. The second Iraq starts to even compare to the number of people who died during the Vietnam conflict, then I will be really pissed off.

Wow... with the original Brutuskend comment, I can't believe how much ignorance and empty generalities some people on this board comes up with. There's a difference in context. Nam was about the containment of communism. Much like how we are currently preventing the take over of Taiwan from China. If Iraq was about Oil, how come we didn't jack all the oil after the first Gulf War?

If China wanted to move into Taiwan there is absolutely nothing we, the U.S., could do about it short of nuclear war. If/when China decides it's time we will back off and let them have it.

With your previous comments on how the US enjoys intervening with other nation's affairs, your coment on how we'll back off and let them have Taiwan comes as a slight surprise to me. Truth is, Taiwan enjoys overwhelming support from both parties in the US congress The US continues to support Taiwan in all cases in the past. Heck, I would hardly call sending 2 US carrier groups down the Taiwan straight in '96 when China sent signals of invasion a sign of 'will back off.' And what benefits did that sacrifice have for the United States? Basically none. Taiwan's affect on the US economy is almost nill compared to that of China. It would be more beneficial to the United States to be on better terms rather than directly oppose China on various issues such as pledging free exchange of military technologies to Taiwan despite manufacturing of hardware directly on the Island (re. IDF, Ching-kuo SAA missiles, etc).

From outer perspectives the actions of the United States is extremely appreciated in many cases, especially from the countries we're directly trying to help (like Taiwan, or the majority or Iraq's Population). But of course, the news only reports on the negative aspects of US intervention because they usually hold a deeper psychological impact to the people at home, who don't reap the benefits of what the US are doing for the other nations, but more likely bear the loss and consequences of such altruistic actions. The appreciation often goes unheard, but go to Taiwan, and you'll definitely get a feel for what the US has done for others.

<~Taiwanese

 

[Red Dawn]

I think a valid comparrison right now between Iraq and Vietnam is that our Governments tied the hands of the Military. In Vietnam, like Iraq, the Military decisions were left up to the Politicians. Rummy and the Neo Cons trying to execute the occupation of Iraq on the cheap is and will cost unnecessary Causulties among our Servicemen which in turn will most certainly cause their morale to disenigrate. Another valid comparrison is that in both wars the American People were misled by our government regarding the reason we are over there

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Maybe outwardly they STATED it was to stop "The Red Hoard", but I think the real reason was as I stated above.

Our government HAD to say that, who in their right mind would fight for their next tire? I think too many of the younger generation believes blindly whatever the powers that be tell them. I grew up during Nam, and served in the Marines during the latter part of it, though I never went over seas. One thing those times taught me was NOT to trust what I was told just because it came from someone in charge.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right. But I firmly believe that it's money that REALLY pulls the strings in this country.

Your're Right about that...that is why we got militarily involved in the Vietnam war because LBJ had economic intersts that were being compromised.


Ausm

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Maybe outwardly they STATED it was to stop "The Red Hoard", but I think the real reason was as I stated above.

Our government HAD to say that, who in their right mind would fight for their next tire? I think too many of the younger generation believes blindly whatever the powers that be tell them. I grew up during Nam, and served in the Marines during the latter part of it, though I never went over seas. One thing those times taught me was NOT to trust what I was told just because it came from someone in charge.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right. But I firmly believe that it's money that REALLY pulls the strings in this country.

Your're Right about that...that is why we got militarily involved in the Vietnam war because LBJ had economic intersts that were being compromised.


Ausm

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ausm

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Maybe outwardly they STATED it was to stop "The Red Hoard", but I think the real reason was as I stated above.

Our government HAD to say that, who in their right mind would fight for their next tire? I think too many of the younger generation believes blindly whatever the powers that be tell them. I grew up during Nam, and served in the Marines during the latter part of it, though I never went over seas. One thing those times taught me was NOT to trust what I was told just because it came from someone in charge.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right. But I firmly believe that it's money that REALLY pulls the strings in this country.

Your're Right about that...that is why we got militarily involved in the Vietnam war because LBJ had economic intersts that were being compromised.


Ausm

LBJ?? Try everyone in Government. War back then was a great opportunity to make money for those in power...kind of like today.

 

Originally posted by: TRUMPHENT

Originally posted by: Kev
whats up with that 3rd one?

That picture or another from a different angle was the cover of Time or Newsweek following the incident. I don't remember the woman's name but I recall she wasn't a student. Crosby Stills and Nash capitalized on the episode with a song "Ohio". I was very young when that happened.

She was a 15 year-old runaway. Not connected w/KSU at all. She was screaming over the body of a student who got shot by the OH Nat'l Guard during a protest rally at KSU.

 

[Brutuskend]

A few good links about VietNam
The Causes of the Vietnam War
Cause and Effect: The Vietnam War
VietNam Vet contacts
Vietnam: The War AND the Country

Notice that rubber, next to rice was their biggest export.
Do you really think rubber had NO influence in our involvement?

Economically, the raw materials and markets of Indochina were no longer under the control of a power ideologically friendly to the U.S.. Prior to the war, Vietnam was one of the world's largest exporters of rice and rubber. North Vietnam is rich in coal, and South Vietnam has large oil reserves. The United States lost easy access to these raw materials, and its political adversaries controlled them.

From here

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
VietNam Vet contacts

Thanks for that link. I just sent it to my dad.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Maybe outwardly they STATED it was to stop "The Red Hoard", but I think the real reason was as I stated above.

Our government HAD to say that, who in their right mind would fight for their next tire? I think too many of the younger generation believes blindly whatever the powers that be tell them. I grew up during Nam, and served in the Marines during the latter part of it, though I never went over seas. One thing those times taught me was NOT to trust what I was told just because it came from someone in charge.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right. But I firmly believe that it's money that REALLY pulls the strings in this country.

wise words





:beer:

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Maybe outwardly they STATED it was to stop "The Red Hoard", but I think the real reason was as I stated above.

Our government HAD to say that, who in their right mind would fight for their next tire? I think too many of the younger generation believes blindly whatever the powers that be tell them. I grew up during Nam, and served in the Marines during the latter part of it, though I never went over seas. One thing those times taught me was NOT to trust what I was told just because it came from someone in charge.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right. But I firmly believe that it's money that REALLY pulls the strings in this country.

wise words





:beer:

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Maybe outwardly they STATED it was to stop "The Red Hoard", but I think the real reason was as I stated above.

Our government HAD to say that, who in their right mind would fight for their next tire? I think too many of the younger generation believes blindly whatever the powers that be tell them. I grew up during Nam, and served in the Marines during the latter part of it, though I never went over seas. One thing those times taught me was NOT to trust what I was told just because it came from someone in charge.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right. But I firmly believe that it's money that REALLY pulls the strings in this country.

dp

fusetalk is getting on my nerves

 

[Brutuskend]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

The majority of Vietnamese did NOT want us there. One of the reasons we lost is because no matter how many VC we killed, there were always plenty more people willing to step in and fight for their country.

lol! That's a nice way to phrase it, since about 70% of the combined population of North and South Vietnam at the time lived in the communist North. Among those living in the more sparsely populated South, a significant percentage indeed wanted the US there.

The combined knowledge of the Vietnam War possessed by the AT collective would fit in a thimble. Vietnam was about "tires"? Good grief!

And I thought I had heard them all...

DO you think the common man in the rice paddy wanted us there? No, the people who had something to loose if the country fell to the north wanted us there, those who had money and power wanted us there. The common man just wanted to live....