• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Vietnam War Vets . . .

CaptnKirk

CaptnKirk

Lifer
By Bush and Rice on their visit to Vietnam?

Doing the Pro-Commie Polka


I was there during the hot war, and the kiss-up by the Bush Admninistrastion disgusts me.
Too many of my fellow soldiers died there for me to forgive and forget.
My feelings are that what they are doing is worse than anything Kerry ever did, and approaches that
which was symbolized by 'Hanoi Jane' Fonda.

'Fair trade with a Communist Country? You got to be kidding me, ain't nothing fair about the way they do business.
My question is what special intrest behind Bush will be the one to benefit and profiteer from these dealings.
Big Oil ? Haliburton & the Cheney Monster?

Shameful and disgusting.
 
The war was over 30 years ago, both governments have changed a great deal.

The pupose of opening trade negotiations is for the US to gain advantage of cheap Industry in Vietnam, and for Vietnam to industrialize and get more money into its economy.

Vietnam is a very rapidly growing country, with a very different government than the government of 30 years ago. yes they still consider themselves "communist" but its about the same "communist" as China, meaning they allow capitalist industry and while retaining control if they feel the need to use it.

There is no point to keep fighting them, why must the common people of Vietnam, most of whom had nothing to do with the war or were not even alive then, suffer economically because of our bad memories? It was OUR choice to be there, OUR decision to fight, it was a totally optional war.

the US saw it as a war against the spread of communism, they saw it as a war of liberation against a foriegn power, two very differnt ideologies for fighting with only one real conclusion.

as for who benefits, the Vietnamese will benefit far more than Bush and his cronies, and in the long run, it benefits the global economy as a whole as Vietnam becomes more developed (and as it develops, it will inevitably have to change its government structure and methods more and more).

Also, remember that not all Vietnamese were pro-communist, and that we were there ostensibly to protect that group, why punish them now in defeat further?

 
Originally posted by: Vaktathi
The war was over 30 years ago, both governments have changed a great deal.

The pupose of opening trade negotiations is for the US to gain advantage of cheap Industry in Vietnam, and for Vietnam to industrialize and get more money into its economy.

Vietnam is a very rapidly growing country, with a very different government than the government of 30 years ago. yes they still consider themselves "communist" but its about the same "communist" as China, meaning they allow capitalist industry and while retaining control if they feel the need to use it.

There is no point to keep fighting them, why must the common people of Vietnam, most of whom had nothing to do with the war or were not even alive then, suffer economically because of our bad memories? It was OUR choice to be there, OUR decision to fight, it was a totally optional war.

the US saw it as a war against the spread of communism, they saw it as a war of liberation against a foriegn power, two very differnt ideologies for fighting with only one real conclusion.

as for who benefits, the Vietnamese will benefit far more than Bush and his cronies, and in the long run, it benefits the global economy as a whole as Vietnam becomes more developed (and as it develops, it will inevitably have to change its government structure and methods more and more).

Also, remember that not all Vietnamese were pro-communist, and that we were there ostensibly to protect that group, why punish them now in defeat further?
Click to expand...

QFT
 
I was in Vietnam, and I can say that it is not easy to forget. But, the enemies of war have to be forgiven eventually. The veterans of WWII had some very strong feeling about the Germans, Italians and Japanese, but they are now considered friends (more or less). The only difference between Vietnam and other wars, was that we were not permitted to finish the job, and that we faced alot of hostility here at home. How long can we consider the Vietnamese an enemy? The only thing that I question about this, is exactly what would the US gain by any trade agreement with them?
 
"The only difference between Vietnam and other wars, was that we were not permitted to finish the job, . . ." Yeah, well that and the fact that the Vietnamese didn't attack foreigners or try to seize any land that wasn't theres. Other than that, just like WWII.
 
Originally posted by: Witling
"The only difference between Vietnam and other wars, was that we were not permitted to finish the job, . . ." Yeah, well that and the fact that the Vietnamese didn't attack foreigners or try to seize any land that wasn't theres. Other than that, just like WWII.
Click to expand...
I believe that the French and Americans qualify as foreigners, but then I suppose that you were referring to invasion of foreign lands. However, the invasion was by the North against the South, and the fact that this was within the boundaries of Vietnam doesn't really matter, especially since the North was being supported by Russia, which was also a foreign power.

As far as them taking land that didn't belong to them, that is exactly what South Vietnam was.
 
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Seekermeister - what is "finishing the job."
Click to expand...
When we left Vietnam, we had already won the war. All that we needed to do was to topple the North Vietnamese government and unify the country.

The OP asked whether any vets felt betrayed, and the fact is that most of them would say yes, but not so much to the current situation, as much as to the betrayal here at home.
 
I don't believe, speaking for myself that the U.S. couldn't win that war - in fact they did.... Thing is, that after the might of our forces hit and did the job set to them, then what?

The men who fought that war were sent into a conflict without end... As with Iraq, there's going to be groups in country that would just keep fighting - no matter what...

/which brings us today, the with President visiting that country that we wanted to "save from the commies..."

 
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Seekermeister - what is "finishing the job."
Click to expand...
When we left Vietnam, we had already won the war. All that we needed to do was to topple the North Vietnamese government and unify the country.

The OP asked whether any vets felt betrayed, and the fact is that most of them would say yes, but not so much to the current situation, as much as to the betrayal here at home.
Click to expand...

The US military did decisivley defeat every North Vietnamese offense sent against them and destroyed much of its fighting capability. This does not mean that we would have been able to topple the North Vietnamese government with the forces available in Vietnam at the time, and if we had gone on to do that, what would have been the reaction from the Soviet Union?

again, it was an optional war with vague goals, we were fighting against an enemy that saw us as an occupying foriegn power and believed they were fighting a national war of liberation and unification, seeking independece and freedom from foreign dominations and influence (also, the South Vietnamese government wasnt all that great of a government either, it was massivley corrupt and self serving and dependent on the US).

when you have opposing goals like that, you may have victory in the field, but probably not total victory as you'd like it. If you smash an enemies army, if they believe they are fighting for liberation, they will come back again and again. As long as the ideology persisted and the viewpoint remained popular, the South was always going to lose out after we left.

as an aside, if we'd just agreed to help the Vietnamese gain independence through negotiation with the French when Ho Chi Mihn had come to us for help, the whole war would probably not have happened (he turned to the russians after that, thus creating our involvment through the help they provided)

Additionally, from an economic perspective, the US gains cheaper industrial inputs as well as cheaper low scale industry from trade with Vietnam, thus leaving us more resources to reinvest elsewhere at home, and Vietnam gains financial capital to develop its economy and grow (and most likely grow out of its "communist" ideology in the long run)
 
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
I was in Vietnam, and I can say that it is not easy to forget. But, the enemies of war have to be forgiven eventually. The veterans of WWII had some very strong feeling about the Germans, Italians and Japanese, but they are now considered friends (more or less). The only difference between Vietnam and other wars, was that we were not permitted to finish the job, and that we faced alot of hostility here at home. How long can we consider the Vietnamese an enemy? The only thing that I question about this, is exactly what would the US gain by any trade agreement with them?
Click to expand...

😕 How about cheap stuff made in sweat shops?

What does this new deal change? Hasn't the US been trading with Vietnam for years? I know I've seen clothes labeled from Vietnam.
 
The only reason that Vietnam was potentially a war without end, is because of our government's policy of treating it as a police action, rather than a true war. It would have been fairly simple to have toppled the North, with or without the Russians. Russia would never have placed all of it's cards on the table there.
 
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
The only reason that Vietnam was potentially a war without end, is because of our government's policy of treating it as a police action, rather than a true war. It would have been fairly simple to have toppled the North, with or without the Russians. Russia would never have placed all of it's cards on the table there.
Click to expand...

Would it have been worth the human cost? What would the result have been after we left? And even if Russia did not become fully involved, it still could have done enough to escalate the toppling of the North to a much bloodier level. And were we even there for the right reasons? (gulf of tonkin incident anyone?)

Would vietnam be better off today if we HAD gone in and toppled the north? looking at the South Vietnamese government, even a Vietnam War vet would have to think long and hard about that, and would the South Vietnamese government even have been able to hold on to the nation as a whole after we left?
 
*sigh* ideas like these are why we're still going to be in Iraq 10 years from now saying "6 more months and we'll win!" Vietnam was a popular insurgency more then anything else. You cannot defeat a popular insurgency by force of arms. Examples. Russia in Chechnya, Russia in Afghanistan, the US in Iraq, French in Algeria, etc. etc. We couldn't win Vietnam. Not possible.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
*sigh* ideas like these are why we're still going to be in Iraq 10 years from now saying "6 more months and we'll win!" Vietnam was a popular insurgency more then anything else. You cannot defeat a popular insurgency by force of arms. Examples. Russia in Chechnya, Russia in Afghanistan, the US in Iraq, French in Algeria, etc. etc. We couldn't win Vietnam. Not possible.
Click to expand...

Yes, a key element of those popular insurgencies was the peoples' desire for self-determination. The presence of foreign troops only exasperates the situation while they try to sort out their internal conflicts.
 
If the only way we could 'win' in Vietnam was to change the victory conditions, then that doesn't really say much for our side.
 
If a war is worth starting, it's worth finishing. Soldiers die order to either improve or safeguard what exists. The shame of Vietnam is that the soldiers gave their lives for nothing. I believe that the majority of soldiers in Iraq would feel the same way if we prematurely left there, as we did Vietnam. When the first soldier died in either war, we had a stake in those wars that could never be paid via trade or any other economic factor.
 
i had to think long and hard on this one. in fact this is my third try at posting something that i felt was true to my concience.

let me start by saying my views on the war in 'nam have changed in accordance with my becoming older and wiser.

what got me through my tour there was my youthful ignorance and my ability to find fun in things you weren't supoosed to be able to. i didn't care about anything outside of my immediate influence. the army took car of the rest. politics? what good was that going to do me out in the boonies? protests? protest this *m-f*

making life as simple and as safe as possible was the goal. finding little victories all the time kept me going; like scoring equip't that made life more bearable. or not having to go on latrine detail any more because you upped your pay grade enough to get out of it.

so when i separated with that thankyouverymuch wouldyouliketojointhereserves speech thrown at me i thought what the hell, i did my tour, i can't go back, hey, more benefits to get me through college. chicks, sex, surf, school, getting drunk, getting loaded. good times ahead, no looking back.

all the crap i endured while in-country vanished. all the hard times, the bad times, the really scary times became a memory to make jokes and laugh about. every time somebody started talking about the war that was still going on there i just tuned them out.

i never really dealt with what that war actually did to me until alot of years went by and i had enough maturity to deal with it head-on. and it's all good.

our country is trying to find grounds for the mutual exploitation of resources that we and the vietnamese have. i'm fine with that. all i care about is that a fair trade deal gets made that doesn't include turning vietnam into another dumping ground for US jobs.

are we still being branded by them in their schools as those evil, murderous capitalist imperialist rapists? probably so in some form or another. do i care? only if you try to make me me go back there in full battle load to make war on them again.

 
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
If a war is worth starting, it's worth finishing.
Click to expand...

I unfortunatley have to disagree with this statement. How many wars throughout history have been needlessly fought? How many people have died in wars that went on far after it would have been prudent to withdraw of sue for peace (what if Germany had called it quits in 1944 and saved itself half its casualties, or if Japan had brought Russia to terms earlier in the 1904 war instead of going on to make gains at the cost of thousands of men it that it gave back after the peace agreement? Or if the Soviets had pulled out of Afghanistan instead of getting embroiled in years of guerilla fighting?)

Honestly, I can understand the sentiment of wanting to finish the job in Vietnam, but look back on it, would it really have been for the better? I don't know if anybody can say that with any confidence. Let's be real, the South Vietnamese government wasn't exactly...capable, or very responsible (they killed communist sympathizers as readily as the North killed collaboraters) and its hard to stamp out ideologies & beliefs without being excessivley brutal, and what would that have accomplished us if we were there to bring peace and democracy?
 
If the South Vietnamese had the determination of the VC and North Vietnamese we would have won the war. Same goes for the Iraqi's. If they had the determination of the insurgents and the Religious factions were willing to work with each other instead of slaughtering each other the Noecons pipe dream of Iraq would have been well on it's way to friutation.

IMO niether the South Vietnamese nor the Iraqis were/are worth one American Soldiers life.
 
I'm Vietnam era but was blessed by an extremely high draft number so I don't feel qualified to respond. But I will point out that my father and uncles had to go through the same issues visa vie Japan and Germany. Frankly, I don't know how the Pacific War vets made that transition, for from everything I have read or heard the Japanese military in WWII was about as barbaric as you could imagine.

I will say that even I recognize GWB's stated lessons from Vietnam as pure BS-either he is lying through his teeth or he learned absolutely nothing from what this country went through then.
 
Originally posted by: Seekermeister
I was in Vietnam, and I can say that it is not easy to forget. But, the enemies of war have to be forgiven eventually.

The veterans of WWII had some very strong feeling about the Germans, Italians and Japanese, but they are now considered friends (more or less). The only difference between Vietnam and other wars, was that we were not permitted to finish the job, and that we faced alot of hostility here at home. How long can we consider the Vietnamese an enemy? The only thing that I question about this, is exactly what would the US gain by any trade agreement with them?
Click to expand...

So you would have no problem putting Saddam back in power?
 
Too many of my fellow soldiers died there for me to forgive and forget.
Click to expand...

The side that has the right to forgive is the Vietnamese people forgiving YOU for going into THEIR country and killing 2 million of them. You have some nerve talking about whether you forgive them.

Viet Nam was a country wanting to be free of foreign occupation. Ho Chi Minh begged the US to take their side against occupation, especially after WWII when the Japanese were expelled. The US instead sided with the French on re-colonizing them, and were eventually paying 90% of the French war costs, then going in to Viet Nam ourselves.

The Vietnamese finally got rid of foreign occupation, years and 2 million killed too late because of the US. Ask the 2 million killed how much they care that you thought you had a good reason to go and kill Vietnamese. You should be asking about the morality of the US attacking Viet Nam before you talk about forgiving the Vietnamese.
 
You basically don't understand the structure of the War in Vietnam.

Part of it was againmst Imperialism - and the foriegn dominance of a culture from the West -
Started by the French (French Indo-China) and another part being a civil war for internal dominance
which had been carried from internal conflicts since 79 AD.

In Vietnam itself the conflict was for control of the Rice-Bowl, the Mecong Delta which produces
one third of the entire world rice crop. In an area that includes China as a main cultural force,
the control of that much food source is the key to dominance of the region.
Along with the French developed Michlin Rubber Plantations and the Tea Plantations in the Central Highlands.
The economic forces were being exploited by a corrupt South Vietnamese Government which we supported.

The Vietnamese didn't giva a damn about us and our politics, they simply wanted to be left alone and not exploited
by any government - either their own, the French, or ours.


And then they discovered oil . .

Yep, the Holy Grail of Oil

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top