Vietnam War Vets . . .

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
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.

Too bad neither Vietnam or Iraq were worth starting... but irregardless of that, the idea that you would never consider changing your course of action regardless of what happens in order to somehow justify past deaths is insane.

How about instead of grandiose statements about lofty ideals we just apply a little rationality to how we view the world? When the costs in Iraq outweigh the benefits... we leave. Since I cannot imagine what benefits Iraq holds for us currently, the answer is clear.

 

[Seekermeister]

eskimospy,

Perhaps, if we could simply leave Iraq and let the situation take care of itself, you might be right. But, our presence there is the only thing that has kept that powderkeg from blowing up. The Iraq situation is merely the fuse that will ignite the entire Middle East. If you believe that Iraq is costly, it doesn't even compare with the cost of a full fledged war, because it shall not be limited to just the Middle East and we would have to return to fight an even greater war.

 

[daniel49]

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?

an inroad of influence in the reigon? In an attempt to counter chinas influence?
Its odd but it seems maybe by planting a seed in the south viets the north has now also been afflicted with the seed of progress perhaps with progress and a larger middle class more freedoms can evolve. I hope so

 

[Vaktathi]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

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?

So you would have no problem putting Saddam back in power?

That is a remarkably silly thing to say. There was an obvious point to the original post, that being that your enemy as a nation needs to be forgiven, not individuals. How you could miss that is beyond me.

Seekermeister, I do have to agree with you about Iraq. It was stupid to go in there, we never should have done it, but to leave now would be a disaster for the Iraqi's, whether they know it or not. If anything, we should be increasing troop levels instead of withdrawing them. However, we also need to change pace from "inquisitorial terrorist hunters" to "peacekeepers", that is to say, we need to work more on keeping the peace and less on chasing after boogeymen. I think we can all agree that Zarqawi's death did little to stem the tide of violence, we need to start activley stopping the internal violence, instead of sitting on the sidelines for most of it and only chasing targets that are hostile to us.

However staying in Iraq for the amount of time that would be needed, at the troop levels that would be required, WILL have a significant impact both on our economy (the military is an expensive consumer good, meaning its a huge money sink) and our militaries effectivness to respond to other threats that may arise in the next 10-15 years.

 

[Seekermeister]

Vaktathi,

I'm not really sure about what you mean? How would we become peacekeepers without targeting terrorists?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
eskimospy,

Perhaps, if we could simply leave Iraq and let the situation take care of itself, you might be right. But, our presence there is the only thing that has kept that powderkeg from blowing up. The Iraq situation is merely the fuse that will ignite the entire Middle East. If you believe that Iraq is costly, it doesn't even compare with the cost of a full fledged war, because it shall not be limited to just the Middle East and we would have to return to fight an even greater war.

Sounds an awful lot like the domino theory to me, and that argument is crap.

It is amazing to me that we can use the exact same rhetoric as we did almost 40 years ago, and nobody seems to have learned a thing. What has our presence in Iraq done? What have we stabilized? What goals have we accomplished there? If you look at those questions honestly you will see that we are wasting time, money, and lives. I fail to see the difference between admitting we lost now, and admitting we lost 5 years from now. Actually there is a difference, thousands more of our troops will be alive.

I'll repeat what I said before, victory for us there is not possible. You cannot defeat popular insurgencies by force of arms. It simply can't be done. Don't take my word for it... there are resources all over the internet you can read. Hell, even Henry Kissinger thinks we can't win. If that militaristic nutball thinks you can't win.. you are really screwed.

 

[Seekermeister]

eskimospy,

Where did I say anything about winning? It is simply a matter of delaying the inevitable as long as possible. I never suggested that we would be able to remove all terrorists and settle the Middle East tensions by occupying Iraq. It comes down to a choice between a cup of bitterness or an ocean full.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
eskimospy,

Where did I say anything about winning? It is simply a matter of delaying the inevitable as long as possible. I never suggested that we would be able to remove all terrorists and settle the Middle East tensions by occupying Iraq. It comes down to a choice between a cup of bitterness or an ocean full.

This sounds like something that Kerry was aluding to . . .

"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?

So then, how many more you want to kill to save face for a bunch of self serving fools?

 

[Vaktathi]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Vaktathi,

I'm not really sure about what you mean? How would we become peacekeepers without targeting terrorists?

My point was that we don't seem to be doing a whole lot of anything other than pursuing our own targets in Iraq, which may or may not actually be worth much in the big picture to the stability of the country (Zarqawi for example, we killed him, didnt do a damn thing for the problem as a whole, other groups took up the slack). We need to get more into actually preventing attacks on the populace and less worried about the flashy boogeymen. If we could go out and provide more troops to stop things like the mass kidnappings that have occured, or crackdown on the death squads freely roaming the streets, deplete their actual manpower and remove the immediate threats, it would be far more effective than occaisionally taking out a high profile, but replaceable leader. (kinda like we did in Afghanistan, we wrecked Al-Qaeda's and the Taliban's actual infrastructure, and while they are still a threat, they have much less to stand on now than they did, even if Bin-Laden is still alive, they no longer have the control they once did)

 

[Seekermeister]

I would be the first to agree that we should do more than we are, if possible. But, it is not possible to stop all terrorist activity, regardless of how many troops that we have there. Perhaps taking out the head of the snake hasn't had the effect that we hoped for, but we do work on the tail when possible also. How are we to know who is a terrorist until they commit an act of terrorism? Just like with police here, they cannot stop crimes from happening, all that they can do is to act afterward.

 

[fskimospy]

So you want people to die in order to delay a result you consider inevitable? That's a truly awful thing to say.... and a horrendous thing to do to those poor people who are stuck over there. Think about the implications of what you said....

 

[eleison]

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.

We defeated the insurgents in Japan (after ww2).. we defeated the apache native americans.. we defeated insurgents in Germany (after ww2)... Right or wrong, the central americans defeated the insurgents in central america during the 60-70's. The US wiped off the face of the earth, the Viet Cong insurgency in sourth vietname during the tet offensive (read your history books).. it can be done, but it takes time and the moral fortitude. Even in ancient history, there are records. How many insurgencies did Julies Caeser put down.. Alexander the great, etc... many..

In those time, as now, insurgencies can be put down.. it just depends if we, as a country, want to...

-Eleison

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
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.

This begs the question, what do we do now? What are the benchmarks, what is it we have to do to win this thing?

 

[Craig234]

Eleison, love how you say the Centreal AMerican terrorism and death squads were questionable, but you don't say the same about things like the genocide of Native Americans.

but it takes time and the moral fortitude

The word 'moral' is tossed around way too much by the war people. It takes some things, but moral fortitude isn't usually one. In fact a lack of morality is sometimes pretty essential.

Insurgencies can be impractical, and wrong, to 'put down'. We could nuke Iraq and end the insurgency; we shouldn't.

Why is it that so many right-wingers think that any moral standards are somehow doing a big favor, and not a moral obligation?

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Too many of my fellow soldiers died there for me to forgive and forget.

C'mon, my brother, too many died there not to.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Too many of my fellow soldiers died there for me to forgive and forget.

C'mon, my brother, too many died there not to.

But not for Bush's buddies to use as a tool for profit.
That country has no assets that I want, we invested too many soldiers lives, and blood money for Corporate
Incentives don't add up in a down payment alone, let alone 40+ years of intrest.

Hell - today Bush himself stood at the opening of the VietNam Stock Exchange

Struggling country my ass - Communists usisng the people as pawns to make money for their ruling elite
while selling us what? Rice Beetles? Betel Nut? Nuc Mam? Ba Moi Ba? Boom Boom Water Buffalo?
There's not a god damn thing that they have that I want. Not even their Citroen sedans.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Struggling country my ass - Communists usisng the people as pawns to make money for their ruling elite

Yeah, but they're their bastards, and that beleaguered country gets to make it's own slow, generational march towards something hopefully better.

As for a Ba Moi Ba, hell, I've been thirsty enough for one before, and I'm betting that so, my brother, have you. :beer:

We trade with mainland China like monkies grabbing for bananas, there's no good goddamn reason to freeze 'Nam out.

 

[biggestmuff]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
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.

Do you feel the same way about Cuba and N. Korea? Cutting off trade to those countries only hurts the people living there. The rulers and ones in power will get outside goods regardless of their own laws.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

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.

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.

You do recall that the Geneva Accords split Vietnam at the 17 th parallel right.. and that they promised elections to see if the population wished unification... Not sure the year.. but, 1953 rings a bell..

Of course no elections were held... and the Viet Nim.. I think they were called .. the southern freedom fighters wanted rid of the corrupt government of the South.. as did Kennedy in '63...

So who invaded what?.. Vietnam was a unified place once upon a time..

 

[NoShangriLa]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
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

The excuse to be in Vietnam was to halt the spread of Communism, however horticulture & minerals (mainly easy accessible high quality coal) gain was the French main reason to colonize Vietnam.

At the end of the Indo French era oil was suspected and there were test drilling between South Vietnam, Philippine, and Brunei water. There were suggestions among the South Vietnamese elites that the US supported the French due to oil potential.

3 oil test rigs discovered oil in shallow water of the coast of Vietnam in the early 70s (less than 3 miles from the main land & one were with in a mile of a fishing island).The oil rigs was caped and destroyed by the retreated American on the last week of the pull out (last week of April 1975). The American act perceived by the North & South Vietnamese as a vendetta against the struggling Viets.

1974 China annex the Paracel Islands where several large Western oil companies were test drilling for oil with the blessing of Vietnam.

1976 oil was discovered off the coast of the Philippine in the Paracel Islands (200 miles off the coast of the nearest Chinese Island)

1978 China annex and sank 2 Vietnamese war ships over the dispute of the Spratly Islands (600 miles off the closest Chinese Island).

China flexes its mussel from 1990 to the present in the area and pisses off the Vietnamese/Philippines by blatantly declare everything is own by the People Republic of China. And, commencing to heavily exploit the oil including slant drilling into existing Philippine oil patch since 1976.

February 1994, the shameful embargo was lifted from Vietnam because the US wanted to get into the oil action before the ramping Chinese industry suck it dry.

November 2006, Bush&Co visit Ha Noi, Vietnam under the pretext of normalization the relationship & trading with Vietnam, but we all know that they are after the oil just like they did there before, and presently in Iraq.

'Americans are willing to shake hand with the devil as long as oil is involve' is a common saying from the older Vietnamese generation.

I'm not a Vet, but I'm a Vietnamese that lived in Vietnam during the war. IMHO, The US government is trying its best to secure fuel for the American public, but I'm unsure as to the interest is purely for the people of America or it is for the big oil companies.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
But not for Bush's buddies to use as a tool for profit.
That country has no assets that I want, we invested too many soldiers lives, and blood money for Corporate
Incentives don't add up in a down payment alone, let alone 40+ years of intrest.

Hell - today Bush himself stood at the opening of the VietNam Stocdk Exchange

Struggling country my ass - Communists usisng the people as pawns to make money for their ruling elite
while selling us what? Rice Beetles? Betel Nut? Nuc Mam? Ba Moi Ba? Bang Bang Water Buffalo?
There's not a god damn thing that they have that I want. Not even their Citroen sedans.

They may not have anything that you want but they have something American industry wants more than anything else: cheap labor. The Chinese labor is starting to rise in price! Hurry! Gotta find a less developed nation.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
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..."

If one thing is demonstratable from Alexander to WW2 - You kill enough you'll win like any war. We had our hands tied behind back and fighting PC war. Same thing that's losing Iraq.

 

[Drift3r]

Some people need to wake up and realize that the Vietnamese were fighting for a very long time to regain their country. From the Moguls, Chinese, French, Japanese, French again and then a French/US puppet South Vietnamese government. It was a war of independence and unification that was being fought. When you had a extremely corrupt South Vietnamese government which was put in place by the French to spite and deny the election results which the north won.

A government that was rife with corruption and theft that stole all the aide given to it by our nation and tucked it away in hidden bank accounts. Not to mention the lies and manipulation within our government which was involved to get us to fight a war that really was a lost French war against a former colony. Sorry but you were lied to and the job some of you wanted to finish was a job created by dishonest men to keep a country broken in two. Had we sided with Ho Chi Minh after WW2 ( which we didn't because this country did not want to side with some dark skin Asian guy looking to throw out a fellow European from his country ) when he came to us and aided him against the French and their colonialism then more then likely you wouldn't of had 60,000+ names on some wall in Washington DC. Let's do everyone a favor and not repeat the same mistakes of thinking that we are the great saviors of the world.

 

[Seekermeister]

Drift3r,

I would appear that you and LunerRay disagree about whether there was ever such an election as you mentioned. Perhaps you could be more specific. I did find a copy of the Geneva Accords mentioned, but I found no mention of any election in it either:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/genevacc.htm

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Drift3r,

I would appear that you and LunerRay disagree about whether there was ever such an election as you mentioned. Perhaps you could be more specific. I did find a copy of the Geneva Accords mentioned, but I found no mention of any election in it either:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/genevacc.htm

He was right and I was wrong. Elections where scheduled but canceled by the South Vietnamese president and the decision was backed by the US.