If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"John?] "
wrote in message . net... In article , WalterM140 wrote: We won in Viet Nam and lost in Washington and Paris. Your bitterness is misdirected. I don't see how anyone can say with a straight face that we "won" anything in Viet Nam. NVA army units siezed the capital of the south, ran up their flag -- they even changed the name. We and our allies had to flee. That's defeat. Walt You should try reading a history book sometime so perhaps you won't look like such an idiot. The last combat units left Vietnam on March 29 1973. The only American forces remaining in Vietnam after that date were the Marine guards at the embassy and the Defense Attache Office. When the NVA units seized the capitol, US forces had been gone more than two years. It's hard to flee or suffer a defeat when you are not even there. So overall then you would say the US intervention in Vetnam was a success? The lives lost worthwhile? Just interested in how far you would go with this... John |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
The question posed here is a tough one and one that probably doesn't have an
answer that can be explained on a single (or dozen) usenet posts. Bufdrvr, After viewing the original poster's personal website, I attempted to illustrate this point in a manner that I perceived might impact her thinking. You say that the question is a tough one. You, I, and many of the other frequent contributors and visitors to this newsgroup understand this. I don't think that she understands this. Hence, my response. Kurt Todoroff Markets, not mandates and mob rule. Consent, not compulsion. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
SteveM8597 wrote:
here was no clear winner, and NVN's patron, the Soviet Union, collapsed 15 years later so who really lost? That is a very good argument itself. Like I said, not an easy question to answer. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"John?] "
wrote in message . net... In article , John Mullen wrote: "John?] " wrote in message . net... In article , WalterM140 wrote: We won in Viet Nam and lost in Washington and Paris. Your bitterness is misdirected. I don't see how anyone can say with a straight face that we "won" anything in Viet Nam. NVA army units siezed the capital of the south, ran up their flag -- they even changed the name. We and our allies had to flee. That's defeat. Walt You should try reading a history book sometime so perhaps you won't look like such an idiot. The last combat units left Vietnam on March 29 1973. The only American forces remaining in Vietnam after that date were the Marine guards at the embassy and the Defense Attache Office. When the NVA units seized the capitol, US forces had been gone more than two years. It's hard to flee or suffer a defeat when you are not even there. So overall then you would say the US intervention in Vetnam was a success? The lives lost worthwhile? Just interested in how far you would go with this... John Of course it was not a success; the country fell to communist rule, but it is wrong to call it a "defeat". Words mean things, and the U.S. military was not "defeated" in Vietnam, we withdrew for political reasons. On March 29, 1973 we had a nice parade, retired the colors of the US Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, boarded chartered and military aircraft, and left in an orderly fashion. We were not "defeated" and we did not "flee". Those are the facts, plain and simple. Ok, so you say it was not a success, but it was not a defeat either. What *would* you call it? How would you say it compared with say the USSR withdrawal from Afghanistan? If you wish to play word games please continue, but you will have to do so without me. Ah but you see, words mean things. Though often a matter of opinion, sometimes thrashing out exactly what was and wasn't a defeat can be fairly interesting. John |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"John Mullen" wrote:
"John?] " wrote in message . net... In article , John Mullen wrote: "John?] " wrote in message . net... In article , WalterM140 wrote: We won in Viet Nam and lost in Washington and Paris. Your bitterness is misdirected. I don't see how anyone can say with a straight face that we "won" anything in Viet Nam. NVA army units siezed the capital of the south, ran up their flag -- they even changed the name. We and our allies had to flee. That's defeat. Walt You should try reading a history book sometime so perhaps you won't look like such an idiot. The last combat units left Vietnam on March 29 1973. The only American forces remaining in Vietnam after that date were the Marine guards at the embassy and the Defense Attache Office. When the NVA units seized the capitol, US forces had been gone more than two years. It's hard to flee or suffer a defeat when you are not even there. So overall then you would say the US intervention in Vetnam was a success? The lives lost worthwhile? Just interested in how far you would go with this... John Of course it was not a success; the country fell to communist rule, but it is wrong to call it a "defeat". Words mean things, and the U.S. military was not "defeated" in Vietnam, we withdrew for political reasons. On March 29, 1973 we had a nice parade, retired the colors of the US Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, boarded chartered and military aircraft, and left in an orderly fashion. We were not "defeated" and we did not "flee". Those are the facts, plain and simple. Ok, so you say it was not a success, but it was not a defeat either. What *would* you call it? A decision by a bunch of democratic politicians in Washington to ignore the guarantees made to the South Vietnamese by North Vietnam, the Nixon Administration and Congress. The democratic political hacks appeared to have had a problem with the idea that the Nixon Administration could be seen as having succeeded, where the policies implemented by the democratic administrations of Johnson and Kennedy were viewed as failures, especially after the minor incident that occurred in the Watergate hotel. How would you say it compared with say the USSR withdrawal from Afghanistan? It was a decision by Gorbachev to withdraw without any guarantees from the forces opposing the Soviets to respect the Afgan administration the Soviets had entered the country to support. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"BUFDRVR" wrote in message ... sharkone wrote: How many think we won in Viet Nam?Lost? What was the score in Vietnam? If you can tell me what the final score was, then I'll tell you if we won or lost. Don't forget to tell me what metrics and methodology you employed to determine that score. eg. national objectives, political objectives, military objectives, etcetera. Can you reply with this information by tomorrow? According to people in both the Kennedy and Johnson aministrations, the reason we fought in SE Asia (initially espoused by Kennedy in our support for the Laotian government) was to prevent all of South Asia from coming under communist rule and seriously threatening our position in the Pacific. You're recollection on the stated reasons for the U.S. involvement in SEA are correct but you're pinning it on the wrong administrations. The "domino theory" that fomented the U.S.'s involvement originated in the Eisenhower/Nixon administration. In fact, the first public use of the "dominos falling" terminology to defend involvement in SEA was in a presidential news conference in April 1954. Troops and the CIA were there in '53. Kennedy inherited the failed foreign policy and Johnson ran with it. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Excerpted essay by John O'Sullivan (editor, National Interest):
Vietnam on the Mind HANOI, SAIGON, NHA TRANG — ... [i]f Vietnam is to be the comparison of first resort in whatever conflict the U.S. finds itself, we need a better understanding of its general significance. Vietnam was really two wars — a war between the Communist North and the anti-Communist South, and a local skirmish in the Cold War that pitted the U.S. and its allies against the Soviet Union and its allies. North Vietnam won the first of those wars in 1975 — or so it seemed at the time. But the ruthless imposition of a Stalinist straitjacket on the whole of Vietnam led not only to the forced departure of hundreds of thousands of "boat people" but also to hopeless economic stagnation. Victory brought not prosperity but poverty and isolation. Eventually the North Vietnamese political leadership realized that reform was necessary and in 1988 embarked on a program of liberalization on the Chinese model — that is, a gradualist program of free-market economic reforms under a continuing one-party "socialist" government. Market reforms were slow, reluctant and inadequate at first, but they have accelerated sharply in the last three years. While Vietnam is still a very poor country — its annual per capita income is only $477 compared to South Korea¹s $18,000 — it is growing rapidly. A visitor to the cities like Hanoi and Saigon is overwhelmed by signs of economic vitality, of small business growth, of a building boom, and above all of a youthful, Westernized, energetic population. About 70 percent of the Vietnamese were born in the aftermath of the war of which they have little memory and apparently less resentment. ... [A] Martian landing in Saigon or Hanoi today with no knowledge of history since 1970 would assume that the South must have won the war. These cities have all the boutiques and designer labels of London or Venice — and more homegrown entrepreneurial vitality than both. (He would probably dismiss the occasional hammer-and-sickle in neon lights or Red Star poster as the kind of kitsch nostalgia for Marxism-Leninism found also in Manhattan night-clubs or on Paris¹s left Bank.) A few years ago, the more far-sighted Vietnamese had a saying: "Our past is French; our present is Russian; our future is American." That future is almost here — with foreign investment beginning to feel secure, with Vietnamese exiles in France and the U.S. returning to establish businesses, ... Whether this progress continues will depend, of course, on whether the Hanoi government continues to liberalize. Western investors need the security of the rule of law, especially contract and property law, if they are to remain for the long haul. But the signs are promising. And if that happens, then the North's victory in 1975 will have achieved little more than postpone the rise of another capitalist "Asian Tiger" by about 25 years. What of the significance of Vietnam as a local skirmish in the Cold War? Here we have the testimony of Asia's principal elder statesman, Lee Kuan Yew, First minister of Singapore. He has pointed out that the American intervention in the war halted the onward march of Communism southwards for 15 years — roughly from 1960 to 1975. In that crucial period, the new ex-colonial states of Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, maybe India itself, took advantage of this incidental American protection to develop their economies from poor agricultural and trading post economies into modern industrial and information societies. By the time the war was over and North Vietnamese tanks were surging into Saigon, these countries were prosperous NICs (i.e. newly industrializing countries), more or less immune to the Communist virus and capable of resisting external attack. Nor does the story end with the safety of Singapore. In the late 1980s, when the Soviet politburo was debating perestroika, Mikhail Gorbachev cited its success — tiny Singapore, exported more in value than the vast Soviet Union — as demonstrating the need to dismantle the socialist command economy. (At the exact same moment, Hanoi was embarking on its own hesitant liberalization. Coincidence?) If Lee Kuan Yew is to be believed, then, the U.S. intervention in Vietnam was a major factor is achieving the West's overall victory in the Cold War. It held the line while freedom and prosperity were established in non-Communist Asia — and that provided the rest of the world, including the evil empire itself, with a "demonstration effect" of how freedom led to prosperity. ... Chris Mark |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Kennedy inherited the failed foreign policy and Johnson ran with it.
The first president to support that war was Harry Truman. He provided a US airlift to move French troops back into "French Indo China" when the Japanese lost the war and moved out. Every subsequent president escalated that miserable goddam war -- some lots, some less. The biggest escalator was Nixon -- but who conversely and eventually got our ass out of there. (Apparently the French blackmailed HST to get the support. "If the USA won't help us retake our colony, we won't join NATO.") Quent |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
As for France "blackmailing" HST. Let's note that NATO was formed in
1949 and the French didn't withdraw until after Dien Bien Phu in 1954!!! Exactly. Truman provided transport for the French to re-enter "French Indo China" in about '45 -- before NATO was firmed up. I have no idea how the French got OUT after Dien Bien Phu but any form of transport (no matter how humble) was, I'm sure, highly welcome. Quent |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What F-102 units were called up for Viet Nam | Tarver Engineering | Military Aviation | 101 | March 5th 06 03:13 AM |
Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve | WalterM140 | Military Aviation | 196 | June 14th 04 11:33 PM |
GWB and the Air Guard | JD | Military Aviation | 77 | March 17th 04 10:52 AM |
Simpy One of Many Stories of a Time Not So Long Ago | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 40 | March 16th 04 06:35 PM |
B-57 in Viet Nam | Chris Spierings | Military Aviation | 13 | October 13th 03 12:24 AM |