Should the left be blamed for the US loss in Vietnam? [New Thread]

[Sims2789]

In my opinion, blaming the left for losing the war by protesting its realities, among those attrocities commited by both sides, the sheer loss of life, and the corrupt, non-democratic regimes of South Vietnam that the US defended while claiming to be defending democracy, is just absurd. If it was worth fighting, there would have been no need to cover up the attrocities commited by the United States.

NOTE: Answer 1 is the "Yes, negative blame" answer, as in it was a bad thing that the left stopped the war, whereas Answer 2 is "The left did not stop the war OR the left stopped it but it was a good thing."

 

[cgannon64]

The left certainly brought the war to a close earlier than it would have. But whether that means they stopped us from victory, I don't know.

EDIT: Sims, what you really seem to be saying is that it is absurd to want victory in Vietnam, not that it is absurd to say that victory could have been acheived.

 

[Sims2789]

Kind-of. It is very absurd to want victory in Vietnam, but it is illogical (absurd is too strong a word) to say that victory could have been acheived.

 

[cgannon64]

Why is it absurd to want victory in Vietnam? Is it bad to want to prevent a country from being invaded by aggressors?

 

[Bugfatty300]

North Vietnam and the Viet Cong were by far not invincible. This was proved when the North was forced into the Paris peace treaty in 1973 after choosing between complete destruction of Hanoi or a cease fire much like the end of the Korean War. Of course the North choose the cease fire. This efectively ended the "war" between the US and North Vietnam. As we very well knew they would do, the North simply waited until after the US left to reopen their war against the south.

The US simply bombed its way out of the war wrather than admit painful defeat.

The Korean war had tought the US a lesson and the single biggest fear of the Nixon admin and US military in Vietnam was not defeat by the Vietnamese communists but further escalation.

The question should be if saving South Vietnam in 1973-75 was worth 60,000+ Americans and the possibility of another bloody war with China or even the Soviet Union. America as a whole (not just the left wingers) decided that it wasn't and the pullout began.

 

[bombshoo]

Considering 70% or more of the population wanted to be communist, and the South was as much a dictatorship as the North, I think it was probaly wrong to get involved...

Pulling out we had to due...Its almost impossible to win a geurilla war, unless you are the geurillas I mean...They weren't invincable, but they had alot more to fight for then the Americans did in the war, and thus fought harder.

The two exceptions where major geurilla movements have been defeated are the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya, and Communist attacks in Malaysia, both with extremly high casulties for the size of the conflicts.

 

[Taliesin]

The war was colonial; America was in Vietnam as an imperial power from the early fifties at least. It was an invasion of South Vietnam to support a corrupt regime hated by 90% of the population and to prevent a popular socialist government from arising. It was sold and perpetuated by manipulations of the highest order. Most of the damage was done to South Vietnam, not the North.
Further, it could have ended in 1967, if Henry Kissinger hadn't committed treason by privately negotiating with the South Vietnamese government in order to secure Nixon the election. Next to Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler, he's about the worst unpunished war criminal of the century. Good to know he's still advising the US government.

 

[BasketCase]

The public didn't see the reality of Vietnam--they saw the media blitz. The public got conned in the same way that the U.S. public has again and again been conned into voting for politicians who look good and say all the right things even though their policies suck.

It's the media blitz that caused us to leave. Where that media blitz came from, I leave to the reader. Some readers think the media are biased to the left, others think it's biased to the right. Either way, reporters of any stripe will usually go straight for the news with the most shock value.

 

[Zarn]

The Vietnam CONFLICT was a bad idea. North Vietnam wasn't that bad (as far as Communists go, anyway).

 

[blindside]

Bad choices. The US would have won the war if there wasn't so much dissent back home but that doesn't mean the war was just.

 

[Sims2789]

The public didn't see the reality of Vietnam--they saw the media blitz. The public got conned in the same way that the U.S. public has again and again been conned into voting for politicians who look good and say all the right things even though their policies suck.

It's the media blitz that caused us to leave. Where that media blitz came from, I leave to the reader. Some readers think the media are biased to the left, others think it's biased to the right. Either way, reporters of any stripe will usually go straight for the news with the most shock value.

The media wasn't anywhere near completely accurate, but as a general statement, it portrayed Vietnam accurately. I base this on facts, such as that over a million people were killed in the war, and from speaking with veterans from that war, such as my grandfather and people alive today in my area.

 

[blindside]

The media wasn't anywhere near completely accurate, but as a general statement, it portrayed Vietnam accurately. I base this on facts, such as that over a million people were killed in the war, and from speaking with veterans from that war, such as my grandfather and people alive today in my area.

Your grandfather was a veteran of Vietnam? Strange. I thought most grandfathers of kids from our generation fought in the second world war.

 

[FriendlyFire]

The public didn't see the reality of Vietnam--they saw the media blitz. The public got conned in the same way that the U.S. public has again and again been conned into voting for politicians who look good and say all the right things even though their policies suck.

It's the media blitz that caused us to leave. Where that media blitz came from, I leave to the reader. Some readers think the media are biased to the left, others think it's biased to the right. Either way, reporters of any stripe will usually go straight for the news with the most shock value.

So it didnt have anything to do with corruption, incompetence, misconceptions, confused objectives, bankrupt poltical driven goals, militray restrictions, failures of military command, lack of ability to change and adapt tactics ?

These were the lessons of Vietnam.
I fear the US is making the same mistakes all ove in Iraq

 

[Sarevok]

absolutely. Those wimps lost vietnam.

 

[Jawz II]

i think some military people in america use the left as a scapegoat to blame an unwinnable situation like vietnam on the left

its like when you lose a fight and blame the weather

sure left wing people were against the war, but many right wing people were too, the closer to the end, the more people saw the writing on the wall and wanted to cut americas loss and get out

the only way vietnam couldve been won is if the us didnt get involved to begin with

its like when you put down a bad hand in poker (fold)

 

[nonconformist]

Vietnam was a bad choice. It wasn't as Zarn said, a bad country.

Chiefs of staff: Oh noes! Some guys all the way in Asia have beaten the French from Indochina! They threaten our way of life! We will have to tiol while they eat our babaies!

Rational people: Right......

-------------------------

Vietnam was completely unwinnable. There is no chance in hell the US could have won.

 

[Gelion]

Well considering that North Vietnamese were Communists (left) than I should've answered "yes".

Seriously, I think wars like Vietnam are never won. US had 2 choices:
1. Admit defeat and pull out (therefore stop loosing troops)
2. Continue to fight in this endless war (and keep loosing troops)

In the Cold War atmosphere of checks an balances the US couldn't have used sufficient power to wipe the North out (the only way to win in this bloody war) and thus the war could've gone on for ever. Whether people at home like the war or not is another issue, but I doubt that had a powerfull affect on the army's ability to fight.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

In my opinion the people of South Vietnam lost no matter who won. The US was idealistically opposing communism by stupidly supporting an evil dictator and had no desire to understand the local culture. North Vietnam had a communist government that wouldn't be (and isn't) good for the people either.

Read the following book: A Vietcong Memoir : An Inside Account of the Vietnam War and Its Aftermath by TROUNG NHU TANG.

Absolutely excellent book that will change your mind about Vietnam. Whether you are liberal or conservative, you probably have the wrong opinion now. Really, read this book.

 

[Gif Warrior]

Ok, at least I can vote now. I still fall somewhere between the two but I can vote to the one that I am closer to. I think the war was just and we should have won it but we didnt and we should accept that and get on with life. I am not saying forget the MIA/POW's just get over the politics and not let it happen again. Of course, it will because each person gets a slightly different lesson out of it and those lessons will probably be repeated.

 

[Gelion]

Read the following book: A Vietcong Memoir : An Inside Account of the Vietnam War and Its Aftermath by TROUNG NHU TANG.

Probably a good book, thanks for the info!