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

[BasketCase]

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.

Veterans also get a biased view of war, in the same way that police officers get a biased view of society: they see the worst of it all, because their job specifically requires them to do so.

The real picture is an amalgam of the fighting, all those areas where no real fighting happened, and the local politics--which stank on both sides.

Viewed from the current-day politically-correct angle of "Invasion Is Always Bad, No Matter What", the North's invasion of the south was wrong.

 

[BasketCase]

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 ?

No--because BOTH sides do this almost all the time. There never has been a war that was fought "perfectly" anywhere in human history.

(Except one Civ3 game on Regent level where I committed massive Reload Abuse and conquered the world without losing a single unit....)

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

Yeah, well, mistakes are obviously being made in Iraq, and I still say the results are worth it. So there.

 

[Jawz II]

Veterans also get a biased view of war, in the same way that police officers get a biased view of society: they see the worst of it all, because their job specifically requires them to do so.

The real picture is an amalgam of the fighting, all those areas where no real fighting happened, and the local politics--which stank on both sides.

Viewed from the current-day politically-correct angle of "Invasion Is Always Bad, No Matter What", the North's invasion of the south was wrong.

you have to remember the majority of the south vietnamese wanted to reunite with the north vietnamese, basicly all ho chi min wanted was for the south vietnamese to vote; to keep the corrupted dictator, or to unite with north and go socialist

this is one demand they repeated in all the the peace negotiations with americans, to no result

so if you want to be politcly correct, you shouuldnt keep a corrupt evil dictator in power


plus there was never an invasion in the words real meaning on the norths behalf, well not untill after americans left, vc gave americans trouble, just like the iraqis are doing now

was there nva elements mized with the vc? sure, but im not sure of the numbers,couldnt be that many if it was anything like iraq now

like how fox news is always screeching "foreign fighters!! foreign fighters!" when in fact less than 5% of the iraqi insurgents are foreigners

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

you have to remember the majority of the south vietnamese wanted to reunite with the north vietnamese

Actually not really true as implied (they did want a united Vietnam, but not with a communist regime). The 'left' always quote this and the 'right' always quotes that the 'vc' were pawns of the 'nva'. Both are wrong. Read the book I recommended in an early post for a completely different view of the Vietcong and their goals from a former member currently living in France.

 

[Jawz II]

its like saying that iraqis now dont support the insurgents, which would not be true

all in all i dont think iraqis want an insurgency, but then again they want the american occupation even less than they want the insurgency

i can guarantee you one thing, if there was a fire fight going on, and you asked every single iraqi, which side he/she hopes will win the fight, iraqis or americans, you would get around +90% hoping the iraqis win


maybe a large part of vietnamese were anti communist, but a much larger part of them, if not close to all, were anti-US, dont doubt that even for 1 second!

when someone travels from the otherside of the world, to your country and starts killing your kind, politics and political enemies are forgotten and people united, real fast! (thats how all societies work, not only vietnamese)

 

[FriendlyFire]

No--because BOTH sides do this almost all the time. There never has been a war that was fought "perfectly" anywhere in human history.

If this is true then all war and conflicts are decided mearly on pure luck. Since military, political, technological, socialm geographic, historical and cultural equation has no effect what so ever.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

i can guarantee you one thing, if there was a fire fight going on, and you asked every single iraqi, which side he/she hopes will win the fight, iraqis or americans, you would get around +90% hoping the iraqis win

Not really. In Iraq there are 3 general groups, Sunni Arabs, Sunni Kurds, and Shia. The insurgency consists of Sunni Arabs and foreign fighters, mostly the former. If there was a firefight between the US and Sunni Arabs, most Kurds and Shia would be more sympathetic to the US soldiers while most Sunni Arabs would be more sympathetic to the insurgents. Although my evidence is so limited it isn't reliable, and a real poll would need to be done, this is the reaction I got from civilians while I was in the Middle East.

 

[Jawz II]

Not really. In Iraq there are 3 general groups, Sunni Arabs, Sunni Kurds, and Shia. The insurgency consists of Sunni Arabs and foreign fighters, mostly the former. If there was a firefight between the US and Sunni Arabs, most Kurds and Shia would be more sympathetic to the US soldiers while most Sunni Arabs would be more sympathetic to the insurgents. Although my evidence is so limited it isn't reliable, and a real poll would need to be done, this is the reaction I got from civilians while I was in the Middle East.

kurds, maybe, after the crappy end of the stick theyve been handed by arabs for years, its very possible

shias, no way in hell no sir!
remeber the mehdi army? muqtada al sadr?

remember, those shias fought for saddam for years, against other shias, the iranians, one could argue they didnt have much of a choice, but the iranians tried to stir up some crap there with the iraqi shias to maybe get an insurgency going against saddam, didnt work

bush the older one also tried, and he got it started after desert storm, but it lacked popular support and the insurgency ran outta fuel soon

just like the iraqis tried to get the arab minority in southern iran to fight the other iranians, during the 80s war, without succes

remember how after 9/11 all americans were united?

if you knew a bit about nationalism and nationalistic pride, and how people all stand united, in the face of danger (american bombs) you would realize, the hate they have for each other isnt nearly as intense compared to the hate they have for a foreign invader that is killing their young ones

it is true now, as it has been trough history

ill para phrase an arabic saying someone posted here on cfc:

me against my borther, me and my brother against my cousin, me, my brother and my cousin against some other dude (the rest of it prolly goes: all of use against some foreign guy)

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

The Shia uprising only failed because they were slaughtered. I met many of them who had escaped to Kuwait and other places. They were very upset (understatement of the year) the US didn't help them when Bush 41 implied he would.

They only fought Iran because it was fight or die. Many 'surrendered' whenever they could and fought back against Saddam. Only heavy use of chemical weapons by Saddam (and US and other Western weaponry, etc.) stopped Iran from winning.

You can't transplant US or Western style nationalistic thought onto Iraq. For Vietnam it is far, far more appropriate and real.

 

[Jawz II]

i know many americans think they are the good guys and very special and diffrent from other people at other places, so they have a reason to be nationalist and no one else dose...

whoever told you that lied and you blieved it!

theres nothing western or american about nationalism whatsoever

cgannon belives it too, he was surprised after the US killed 20,000 conscripts and crippled at least twice that many in the recent iraq war, that they would vote anti-US, like BIG SURPRISE!! not...

people everywhere think their own little piece of land is the best one in the world!! (which is the main reason i think nationalism is stoopid)


not many iraqis defected to iran, to fight other iraqis at all, im sure the number isnt even close to 1% (which is prolly similar to the number of iranian arabs who defected to iraq)

and that shia uprising you describe is just another reason for the shias to dislike americans, not to like them

which is what you were arguing

bush senior said he would back them up, he did, only in words, a stab in the back to the shias

 

[Serutan]

I didn't vote, because my opinion doesn't fit the options.

The biggest problem in Vietnam was that we went in without
any goals. That is, there was no defined endgame strategy.
Given, then, that there was no "victory condition", people over
here finally decided that it was not worth fighting a war
which looked like it could go on indefinitely. The Left became
the mouthpiece for that opposition.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

i know many americans think they are the good guys and very special and diffrent from other people at other places, so they have a reason to be nationalist and no one else dose...

whoever told you that lied and you blieved it!

I have no illusions about the US being perfect, or that is the only place worthy of being nationalistic. I've seen the evil and stupid things we've done, or at least their results, firsthand. However, I absolutely believe the US is special and different. The people are no better, but it is the only viable military superpower in the world today and is also the wealthiest nation on Earth. This makes it unique, with increadible power and wealth. Many on both the right and left believe that gives us privilege; I believe it gives us great responsibility. Although it is critically important not to be arrogant, trying to be the world police or force our values down others throats; it is also critically important to fight tyranny in the world as no one else has been able to do. This is an impossible and delicate balance, but one that must be done.

We were beyond arrogant in Vietnam and many other places. Clinton was a little timid and Bush is a little arrogant, but both are great men who believe in the spread of freedom. From Rwanda to Haiti to Bosnia to Afghanistan to Iraq and many, many other places you little hear about due to only the use of diplomatic persuasion, freedom is being spread.

I also understand how nationalism works in the Middle East, having lived there and taken Masters level classes on the region. Iran is unique as they are Shia Muslims with Persian pride. Very interesting combination. I understand Iraqs unique blend of nationalism and cultural/ethnic issues/hatreds. Each is very unique.

 

[nonconformist]

You can't "spread freedom". It's hypocritical.

 

[BasketCase]

so if you want to be politcly correct, you shouuldnt keep a corrupt evil dictator in power

No, the current Politically Correct mantra is this: a corrupt evil dictator may be bad, but you are NOT permitted to remove him from power by force, because Invasion Is Always Bad.

Note that the Politically Correct do change their mantra from time to time. Me, I always thought it was a load of crap. God or Evolution (one of the two) gave me a brain, I'm gonna use it and figure out right and wrong for myself.

 

[Elrohir]

We shouldn't have gotten involved in Vietnam in the first place, but once we did, we shouldn't have stabbed the SV in the back like we did. We said we would protect them, then left. That was inexcusable.

 

[Jawz II]

No, the current Politically Correct mantra is this: a corrupt evil dictator may be bad, but you are NOT permitted to remove him from power by force, because Invasion Is Always Bad.

Note that the Politically Correct do change their mantra from time to time. Me, I always thought it was a load of crap. God or Evolution (one of the two) gave me a brain, I'm gonna use it and figure out right and wrong for myself.

sounds like youve had quite the revelation there chief

tell you what, if you all were exil iraqis (or north iraqi, maybe kurd? there is no country called north iraq so...) no one would have a problem if you did change the regime in iraq

you arent


theres no such thing as "Invasion Is Always Bad"
hell theres no such thing as "always"!

there are no rules of thumb, people have to figure out what to do in any given situation

was it a bad choice to invade iraq? absolutely

was it a misstake to get involved in vietnam? yes very bad choice

you can draw parallels but thats it, diffrent places,diffrent situations and altogether new ways to F up

 

[Jawz II]

double post

 

[Jawz II]

I have no illusions about the US being perfect, or that is the only place worthy of being nationalistic. I've seen the evil and stupid things we've done, or at least their results, firsthand. However, I absolutely believe the US is special and different. The people are no better, but it is the only viable military superpower in the world today and is also the wealthiest nation on Earth. This makes it unique, with increadible power and wealth. Many on both the right and left believe that gives us privilege; I believe it gives us great responsibility. Although it is critically important not to be arrogant, trying to be the world police or force our values down others throats; it is also critically important to fight tyranny in the world as no one else has been able to do. This is an impossible and delicate balance, but one that must be done..

well how you feel about your country, isnt really what were talking about here, in fact the poorer someones country is, usually they are more fanatic about loving it and wave that flag like theres no tommorrow

example, in america you will find far more nationalists in a dirt poor trailer park, than you would in some place rich people hang out

you talk of fighting tyranny (i can almost hear bush go freedom, liberty, liberty freedom, freedom etc)

when you go around and decide who is the bad guy in the world, and start bombing their countries, that is tyranny

"war on terror" is the dumbest expression there is, war is terror

you cant bomb people for freedom, i shouldnt even have to tell you this, too obvious!

you can bomb them, but then when they dont see you as liberators, but as terrorists and oppressors, really, where is the surprise?

We were beyond arrogant in Vietnam and many other places. Clinton was a little timid and Bush is a little arrogant, but both are great men who believe in the spread of freedom. From Rwanda to Haiti to Bosnia to Afghanistan to Iraq and many, many other places you little hear about due to only the use of diplomatic persuasion, freedom is being spread.

I also understand how nationalism works in the Middle East, having lived there and taken Masters level classes on the region. Iran is unique as they are Shia Muslims with Persian pride. Very interesting combination. I understand Iraqs unique blend of nationalism and cultural/ethnic issues/hatreds. Each is very unique.

rwanda? what are you talking about? the us didnt do anything to stop rwanda from happening no one did!
haiti? man did america drop the boll there!

ive spent some time in the middle east too, hell i was in the UAE at the time kuwait happened, i saw all the rich kuwaiti refugees in their limos..

i have a big intrest in the region too, i even picked up a few arabic words in my time there (now i just remember how to say "hello", "how are you" and "whore")




nationalism isnt the only reason people unite and stand up to what they percive as the enemy, the aggressor
thats what people do when they percive a threat of violence, danger, whatever makes us scared

its psychology, its just how people work, not that arabs arent nationalist, cause they are

look up where the word "dictator" comes from, why do you think people call fox news "fear mongers" ?

when american people are scared, the american weapon industry dose very well, and no ones messes with the pres on domestic issues, same goes for all people, every where

 

[Flak]

Well for one thing, your subject line doesn't match your poll options. You ask if the left should be blamed for the loss in Vietnam and your options have to do with justification of the war. These are two different things so I'm not going to vote. But I will give my opinion in relation to the actual subject line question.

The reason for the loss in Vietnam had little to do with the media at home no matter matter what their political leanings might have been. It had to do with the Vietnamese people. These are a people who have sufferred generation upon generation of foreign countries coming in and trying to impose their will. This history goes back over the last 2 thousand years. The Vietnamese were going fight until the end of their existance or until they won. Period. This was irrespective of who they were fighting and even, in my opinion, completely irrespective of the politics. They were willing to do anything to get rid of the foreign occupation of their land. The United States just happen to be one more example caught up in the long bitter line of nations attempting to occupy the land of these people.

We had no chance unless we were willing to commit genocide and physically wipe that entire land clean.

 

[Flak]

That said, I do believe that war justified. We simply had to make a stand against communism. We fought a brutal, on some occassions, no holds barred fight. We were willing to sacrifice sixty thousand troops for this cause and kill millions of others. The Vietnam war put a harsh stopper into the Domino theory. Once we demonstated to the world, especially the communist world, the extent we were willing to go through prevent the spread of their form of that government, they couldn't convince, by any means, enough support to overthrow another country afterwords.