Some Myth Busting Facts About The Vietnam War And The Americans Who fought In It.

[Philly Rabbit]

Vietnam was the war that America wasn't allowed to win.

- Brent Bozell


We all know about the politically correct version of the Vietnam war that has been relentlessly spoon fed to us by the politically correct liberal establishment. But here are some facts that you may not have known about that long ago war in southeast Asia.



Myth: The U.S. military lost the war because they were defeated by the superior forces of Ho Chi Minh's glorious people's army.

Fact: The U.S. military in all intent and purposes had the war won on the battlefield but were stabbed in the back by Democrats in congress who cut off funding for the South Vietnamese army following President Nixon's resignation over Watergate giving the communists in the north their final triumph.

Myth: The U.S. military in Vietnam was a collection of misfit draftees who were ignorant and uneducated and who were ill equipped to handle the terrain of Vietnam.

Fact: The U.S. military in country was the best equipped military in U.S. history up to that point.
The U.S. military was the best educated military in U.S. history up to that point having their ranks
filed with considerable numbers of college graduates both officers and enlisted men.

Myth: America's military had a high casualty rate due to the incompetency of the draftees who were forced to
fight there and their redneck officers who were as incompetent as their subordinates.

Fact: Seventy percent of all U.S. casualties were enlisted men and not draftees.

[jillian]

links?

[iustitia]

Fact: The US had no problem supporting a communist like Ho Chi Minh during WWII when it was politically convenient.

Fact: The Vietnam War was started based on lies, including but not limited to the non-existent attack in the Gulf of Tonkin.

Fact: The Vietnam War was largely used as a cover for the CIA's opium trade in the Golden Triangle

Fact: 10-15% of American enlisted GI's became heroin addicts.

Fact: It only took two fucking months for the 'free' South Vietnamese regime to fall to the North militarily despite the years of training and investment the US invested in them and the heavy casualties the North took.

[Captain Obvious]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfi4s8cjLFI

[Philly Rabbit]

Fact: The US had no problem supporting a communist like Ho Chi Minh during WWII when it was politically convenient.

Fact: The Vietnam War was started based on lies, including but not limited to the non-existent attack in the Gulf of Tonkin.

Fact: The Vietnam War was largely used as a cover for the CIA's opium trade in the Golden Triangle

Fact: 10-15% of American enlisted GI's became heroin addicts.

Fact: It only took two fucking months for the 'free' South Vietnamese regime to fall to the North militarily despite the years of training and investment the US invested in them and the heavy casualties the North took.

Is this your way of saying something good about Vietnam veterans for a big change which was the main point of the post and not the war itself?

85% of the Americans who fought there didn't turn into heroin addicts?

Thanks for your input.

And by the way, the South Vietnamese army capitulated when they ran out of ammo and supplies thanks to the liberal democrats in congress who cut off their supply lines.

[nic34]

Dang those infernal "liberal democrats".... tryin' to end war and stuff...:rollseyes:

[Gerrard Winstanley]

Is this your way of saying something good about Vietnam veterans for a big change which was the main point of the post and not the war itself?

85% of the Americans who fought there didn't turn into heroin addicts?

Thanks for your input.

And by the way, the South Vietnamese army capitulated when they ran out of ammo and supplies thanks to the liberal democrats in congress who cut off their supply lines.
Hey, 58,220 U.S. servicemen died ... but, on the plus side, 477,880 didn't!

Vietnam was one of the ugliest episodes of modern U.S. history. This revisionist crap is unproductive.

[midcan5]

Why does the right find it necessary to re-write history? The figures given are inaccurate at best, other figures are notes below. Check selective service numbers in link below. Vietnam was un-winnable short of killing everyone. Today Macy's sells their clothing and if the TPP passes, I hope Brent Bozell agrees to a pay cut and accepts 28 cents an hour. Why does the right feel the need to rewrite the past - is it because they do nothing in the present? Weird the focus backward isn't it.

http://www.archives.gov/research/military/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html#category

I still have my DD 214 and SSS 223.

[Mister D]

Hey, 58,220 U.S. servicemen died ... but, on the plus side, 477,880 didn't!

Vietnam was one of the ugliest episodes of modern U.S. history. This revisionist crap is unproductive.

To be fair, history is in a perpetual state of revision. This was an interesting book.

http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Forsaken-The-Vietnam-1954-1965/dp/0521757630/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391017435&sr=8-1&keywords=Triumph+Forsaken%3A+The+Vietnam+War%2C+19 54-1965

[Mister D]

Why does the right find it necessary to re-write history? The figures given are inaccurate at best, other figures are notes below. Check selective service numbers in link below. Vietnam was un-winnable short of killing everyone. Today Macy's sells their clothing and if the TPP passes, I hope Brent Bozell agrees to a pay cut and accepts 28 cents an hour. Why does the right feel the need to rewrite the past - is it because they do nothing in the present? Weird the focus backward isn't it.

http://www.archives.gov/research/military/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html#category

I still have my DD 214 and SSS 223.

History is rewritten with every generation.

[iustitia]

Is this your way of saying something good about Vietnam veterans for a big change which was the main point of the post and not the war itself?

85% of the Americans who fought there didn't turn into heroin addicts?

Thanks for your input.

And by the way, the South Vietnamese army capitulated when they ran out of ammo and supplies thanks to the liberal democrats in congress who cut off their supply lines.

The South Vietnamese capitulated because they were corrupt and incompetent. The fact is that after over a decade of American presence there it only took two months for the South to call it quits.

And really? You think my comment was an attack on veterans? How about the CIA and government machinery that allowed opium/heroin to infect the military? Get the big red white and blue dick out of your ass and think for your self.

[Max Rockatansky]

links?

The only link I found was Philly Rabbit posting the same shit on two other forums. I think the only link is him. I Googled " The U.S. military lost the war because they were defeated by the superior forces of Ho Chi Minh's glorious people's army" and found the only matching results were his own posts.

What is it called when a person makes up their own myths and then answers them? It's not astro-turfing and it isn't a strawman argument although it does appear to be constructing a straw house only to knock it down.

FWIW, like any good lie, there is a lot of truth mixed in answers to the "myths" but those answers include myths of their own. RWNJ myths from what I can tell.

For example, the US did win the war on the battlefield, the problem wasn't post-Nixon. The Marines landed in Da Nang in 1965 and Nixon resigned in 1974. Anyone who can't figure out there was a lot more things fucked up than Nixon leaving in a 9 year war with 56,000+ dead Americans needs to read better history books.

A second clue is that PR's terminology indicates he was never in the military. Most draftees were enlisted. What he meant to say, and a veteran would have recognized it, was that almost 70% of those killed in Vietnam were volunteers, not draftees.

http://www.nationalvietnamveteransfoundation.org/statistics.htm

DRAFTEES VS. VOLUNTEERS:

25% (648,500) of total forces in country were draftees. (66% of U.S. armed forces members were drafted during WWII).


Draftees accounted for 30.4% (17,725) of combat deaths in Vietnam.


Reservists killed: 5,977


National Guard: 6,140 served: 101 died.


Total draftees (1965 - 73): 1,728,344.


Actually served in Vietnam: 38% Marine Corps Draft: 42,633.


Last man drafted: June 30, 1973.


RACE AND ETHNIC BACKGROUND:


88.4% of the men who actually served in Vietnam were Caucasian; 10.6% (275,000) were black; 1% belonged to other races.


86.3% of the men who died in Vietnam were Caucasian (includes Hispanics);


12.5% (7,241) were black; 1.2% belonged to other races.


170,000 Hispanics served in Vietnam; 3,070 (5.2% of total) died there.


70% of enlisted men killed were of North-west European descent.


86.8% of the men who were killed as a result of hostile action were Caucasian; 12.1% (5,711) were black; 1.1% belonged to other races.


14.6% (1,530) of non-combat deaths were among blacks.


34% of blacks who enlisted volunteered for the combat arms.


Overall, blacks suffered 12.5% of the deaths in Vietnam at a time when the percentage of blacks of militar y age was 13.5% of the total population.


Religion of Dead: Protestant -- 64.4%; Catholic -- 28.9%; other/none -- 6.7% SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS:


Vietnam veterans have a lower unemployment rate than the same non-vet age groups.


Vietnam veterans' personal income exceeds that of our non-veteran age group by more than 18 percent.


76% of the men sent to Vietnam were from lower middle/working class backgrounds.


Three-fourths had family incomes above the poverty level; 50% were from middle income backgrounds.


Some 23% of Vietnam vets had fathers with professional, managerial or technical occupations.


79% of the men who served in Vietnam had a high school education or better when they entered the military service. 63% of Korean War vets and only 45% of WWII vets had completed high school upon separation.


Deaths by region per 100,000 of population: South -- 31%, West --29.9%; Midwest -- 28.4%; Northeast -- 23.5%.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

To be fair, history is in a perpetual state of revision. This was an interesting book.

http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Forsaken-The-Vietnam-1954-1965/dp/0521757630/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391017435&sr=8-1&keywords=Triumph+Forsaken%3A+The+Vietnam+War%2C+19 54-1965
If the history books recall thirty years down the line how traitorous Democrat vermin lost the Glorious Vietnam War, it'll be high time for my long-planned relocation to Zambia.

[Mister D]

If the history books recall thirty years down the line how traitorous Democrat vermin lost the Glorious Vietnam War, it'll be high time for my long-planned relocation to Zambia.

It's not an excuse to make things up. I'm just saying that history is never set in stone. It's a construction. It's narrative. It changes as we change and our needs change. That is, history is not just what happened which we could never really know anyway. It's an interpretation.

[Mainecoons]

Dang those infernal "liberal democrats".... tryin' to end war and stuff...:rollseyes:

Did you forget that Nixon actually did end it and that liberal Democrat Johnson really escalated it?

Or are you just fantasizing again?

[Mainecoons]

Rabbit and Iustitia are addressing two different sides of the same coin. For that reason, I thanked both posts.

Johnson should have been shot for his actions in that war. Instead, the left shit all over the military.

[iustitia]

Nixon did end it. But he also escalated it. Every president escalated it since Eisenhower. Maybe even since Truman.

[The Xl]

Myth: The war was justified
Fact: The war was one of the most ridiculous and unnecessary wars of all time.

[Mainecoons]

No, he did not escalate it. Where did you get that idea?

Johnson really escalated it, far beyond what either Ike or JFK did.

I was there. I watched the whole thing. I demonstrated against Johnson for it.

[iustitia]

No, he did not escalate it. Where did you get that idea?

Johnson really escalated it, far beyond what either Ike or JFK did.

I was there. I watched the whole thing. I demonstrated against Johnson for it.

There is the whole glaring example of invading and bombing a neutral country of Buddhists to make Vietnam 'go away'.

An excerpt from The CIA's Greatest Hits-

In 1955, when CIA intervention in Cambodia began, there was no communist threat to rationalize it. Sandwiched as he was between two US client states, Thailand and South Vietnam, Prince Norodom Sihanouk, the popular sovereign of Cambodia, had one overriding goal-to keep his country from becoming involved in the Vietnam War. To that end, he stuck tenaciously to a policy of neutralism from 1955 to 1970, accepting aid from both communist and capitalist states but criticizing each on occasion.Sihanouk dismissed as fraudulent CIA documents that predicted imminent Communist aggression against him, but the plots and coup attempts by US-backed factions were all too real. In his memoir, My War with the CIA, Sihanouk alleges at least two assassination plots against him. There were also numerous incursions by Thai, South Vietnamese and US troops, a 1958 CIA-backed coup attempt and countless "accidental" bombing runs into Cambodian territory. Sihanouk's unwillingness to join the crusade against Communism made him the CIA's enemy. Perhaps the final straw was when Sihanouk denounced US military incursions into Cambodia at a major press conference (dutifully, the US media barely mentioned his charges). In March 1970, Sihanouk was deposed by a CIA puppet named Lon Nol, who immediately began committing Cambodian troops to the war in Vietnam. With Sihanouk out of the way, war quickly engulfed Cambodia. US bombing intensified near the Vietnamese border, driving North Vietnamese and NLF troops deeper into Cambodia. From 1969 to 1975, US bombing killed 600,000 Cambodians and created a full-scale famine. Not surprisingly, forces opposed to Lon Nol's regime grew rapidly. In 1975, one of them, the Communist Khmer Rouge, took power (before Lon Nol, they'd been a tiny, marginal group). As depicted in the film The Killing Fields, the Khmer Rouge carried out many atrocities, executing probably between 100,000 and 350,000 people. For propaganda purposes, Western reporters inflated the total by adding famine deaths to it. The Khmer Rouge's hideous crimes didn't prevent the CIA from supporting it after Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1979, and for many years thereafter. As the Arabs say, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Of course, that's just one country he fucked up. Let's not get into his and Kissinger's legacies around the world.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

No, he did not escalate it. Where did you get that idea?
Pummeling neighboring Cambodia until it could barely fend off the Khmer Rouge, maybe?

[Max Rockatansky]

Did you forget that Nixon actually did end it and that liberal Democrat Johnson really escalated it?

Or are you just fantasizing again?

Agreed. LBJ ramped up the war. It was his war, for all intents and purposes. Nixon campaigned on a slogan of "Peace with Honor". That wasn't quite true, but he knew he had to wrap up our presence in Southeast Asia. He bombed Hanoi into coming to the Paris peace talks and sent US troops over the border into Cambodia and Laos to attack the VC supplies and positions which had set up there since our previous ROE didn't allow us to attack them.

http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/O-W/The-Vietnam-War-and-Its-Impact-Nixon-s-peace-with-honor.html

How do you bring a war to a conclusion? I'll tell you how Korea was ended. We got in there and had this messy war on our hands. Eisenhower let the word get out—let the word go out diplomatically to the Chinese and the North Koreans that we would not tolerate this continued round of attrition. And within a matter of months, they negotiated.

When Nixon took office in January 1969, the United States had been involved in combat operations in Vietnam for nearly four years. U.S. military forces totaled 536,040, the bulk of which were ground combat troops. More than 30,000 Americans had lost their lives to then and the war cost $30 billion in fiscal year 1969. In 1968 alone, more than 14,500 U.S. troops were killed.


His speech after the peace talks.
http://watergate.info/1973/01/23/nixon-peace-with-honor-broadcast.html

[Max Rockatansky]

Pummeling neighboring Cambodia until it could barely fend off the Khmer Rouge, maybe?

Blaming the US for all the woes of the world while neglecting to mention the actions of the Chicoms and Soviets is to ignore a large part of history.

[Mainecoons]

In 1955, when CIA intervention in Cambodia

OK, I stand corrected, he did ramp up the bombing of Vietcong/NVA staging areas. But screwing with Cambodia predated his election.

The whole thing was a cluster fuck. Don't think for a minute I supported any of it.

Korea was a cluster fuck too. Did we really need to get a bunch of Americans killed to make the world safe for Hyundais?

Look how each country turned out. We "lost" in Vietnam yet when the two countries were reunified, they have gradually evolved towards greater freedom. We "won" in Korea and thereby created North Korea.

We "won" in Iraq and the country is now another Islamic state and still deep in chaos and killing.

The only place we really succeeded as world policeman was deterring the Russians from invading Europe. Without getting a lot of people killed.

[Contrails]

links?
He quoted Brent Bozell, isn't that enough?

[jillian]

Is this your way of saying something good about Vietnam veterans for a big change which was the main point of the post and not the war itself?

no it wasn't. your point was to try to justify the vietnam war.... a huge mistake that was unjustifiable.

that has nothing to do with the vets sent to fight.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

Blaming the US for all the woes of the world while neglecting to mention the actions of the Chicoms and Soviets is to ignore a large part of history.
The Khmer Rouge was a marginal faction prior the decimation of Cambodia's infrastructure by U.S. bombing. Sorry for stating the truth.

[iustitia]

OK, I stand corrected, he did ramp up the bombing of Vietcong/NVA staging areas. But screwing with Cambodia predated his election.

The whole thing was a cluster fuck. Don't think for a minute I supported any of it.




[/COLOR]I'm not blaming you. Nor was the war caused by Nixon. I hold most presidencies of the 20th century, regardless of party, in contempt.

Regardless...

Myth: Young people overwhelmingly opposed the war.

Fact: Young people statistically, from start to finish, were some of the biggest supporters of the Vietnam War.

It was the middle-aged and elderly who were least supportive of the conflict, contrary to the popular notion that only radical young people would resist the traditional American war machine. Perhaps because the older generations had fought in WWII and Korea and saw first hand the carnage. Not to be a dick, but young people historically are not the brave dissenters they're often portrayed as, but actually often the most gung-ho. 'MURICA.

[Max Rockatansky]

The Khmer Rouge was a marginal faction prior the decimation of Cambodia's infrastructure by U.S. bombing. Sorry for stating the truth.

Likewise, terrorism would have had a smaller foothold if we'd left the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein in place.

I take it, you favored letting China and North Vietnam overrun the South unopposed and so they'd be free to slowly move West to India? My, my. How history would have changed, eh? We could all be wearing red stars and celebrating May Day!

[Gerrard Winstanley]

Likewise, terrorism would have had a smaller foothold if we'd left the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein in place.

I take it, you favored letting China and North Vietnam overrun the South unopposed and so they'd be free to slowly move West to India? My, my. How history would have changed, eh? We could all be wearing red stars and celebrating May Day!
You can't fight something as infectious as communism with napalm and bullets. It's no coincidence reds only gained a foothold in dirt-poor, corruption-plagued sinkholes in the distant corners of Earth.

[Contrails]

Fact: Seventy percent of all U.S. casualties were enlisted men and not draftees.

Since nearly 50% of enlistments in the 1970's joined simply to avoid adverse placement via the draft, suggesting that they were "volunteers" is highly misleading.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2290386?uid=3739920&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103356461907

[Mainecoons]

But if that is true why was the majority of the force in Vietnam enlistees?

[Max Rockatansky]

He quoted Brent Bozell, isn't that enough?

Even that quote appears to be a misquote. The closest thing I can find is on Amazon from his endorsement of the linked book:

http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Vietnam-Guides/dp/product-description/1596985674

Praise for The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to The Vietnam War“Phil Jennings has something to say, namely that the historical record, as selectively compiled and presented by the political Left, has done a terrible disservice to the hundreds of thousands of men who fought in The Vietnam War. With great passion, an unapologetic love of his country, and—drum roll, please—the truth to support his case—Captain Jennings walks us through this tragic struggle, the war America never lost, but wasn’t allowed to win, either.”

—L. Brent Bozell III, nationally syndicated columnist and president of the Media Research Center

[Mainecoons]

How could anyone pretend America didn't lose that war?

[Mister D]

Since nearly 50% of enlistments in the 1970's joined simply to avoid adverse placement via the draft, suggesting that they were "volunteers" is highly misleading.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2290386?uid=3739920&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103356461907

The height of US involvement was from 1965-1969 when the prioportion of volunteers was very high. That's also when the vast majority of casualties occurred.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

How could anyone pretend America didn't lose that war?
It didn't. The war was an anticlimax. America lost the peace.

[Max Rockatansky]

How could anyone pretend America didn't lose that war?

Cutting and running isn't a loss. It's quitting. We never lost a strategic battle. Even Tet was a win. Surprised the shit out of us like the Germans did at the Battle of the Bulge, but it was a win. Of course, we did lose on the home front. People saw it as a loss and pushed even harder for us to exit as quickly as possible.

[nic34]

Did you forget that Nixon actually did end it and that liberal Democrat Johnson really escalated it?

Or are you just fantasizing again?

So "liberal Democrat Johnson" represented the majority of dems' view on VN?

Try again...

[Beevee]

Vietnam was the war that America wasn't allowed to win.

- Brent Bozell


We all know about the politically correct version of the Vietnam war that has been relentlessly spoon fed to us by the politically correct liberal establishment. But here are some facts that you may not have known about that long ago war in southeast Asia.



Myth: The U.S. military lost the war because they were defeated by the superior forces of Ho Chi Minh's glorious people's army.

Fact: The U.S. military in all intent and purposes had the war won on the battlefield but were stabbed in the back by Democrats in congress who cut off funding for the South Vietnamese army following President Nixon's resignation over Watergate giving the communists in the north their final triumph.

Myth: The U.S. military in Vietnam was a collection of misfit draftees who were ignorant and uneducated and who were ill equipped to handle the terrain of Vietnam.

Fact: The U.S. military in country was the best equipped military in U.S. history up to that point.
The U.S. military was the best educated military in U.S. history up to that point having their ranks
filed with considerable numbers of college graduates both officers and enlisted men.

Myth: America's military had a high casualty rate due to the incompetency of the draftees who were forced to
fight there and their redneck officers who were as incompetent as their subordinates.

Fact: Seventy percent of all U.S. casualties were enlisted men and not draftees.

LOL

My amusement of the day accomplished.

Thanks!

[Philly Rabbit]

The South Vietnamese capitulated because they were corrupt and incompetent. The fact is that after over a decade of American presence there it only took two months for the South to call it quits.

And really? You think my comment was an attack on veterans? How about the CIA and government machinery that allowed opium/heroin to infect the military? Get the big red white and blue dick out of your ass and think for your self.

The South Vietnamese army was overrun by the communists because they had nothing left to fight with thanks to liberal democrats in congress. Weapons need ammo and when the ammo runs out the weapons are worthless unless you consider using them to throw at the enemy or use as clubs.

[Philly Rabbit]

Nixon did end it. But he also escalated it. Every president escalated it since Eisenhower. Maybe even since Truman.

Nixon got most of the U.S. troops out by a strategy called Vietnamization which gave the brunt of the fighting to the finally equipped and trained South Vietnamese army. Nixon didn't end the war but he did bomb the North Vietnamese communists and forced them to start getting serious at the Paris peace talks.

When Nixon resigned over Watergate the liberal democrats in congress went berserk with his blood in the water and cut off the funding as frosting on the cake.

[Philly Rabbit]

no it wasn't. your point was to try to justify the vietnam war.... a huge mistake that was unjustifiable.

that has nothing to do with the vets sent to fight.


Myth: You can make fun of liberal feminists all you want here as long as you do it on the rant board.

Fact: You try it anywhere in here including on the rant board and you'll get banned faster than you can say: I hate men.

[donttread]

The truth I'm interested in is that we had no business killing and dying in that place, nor have we in Korea, Afgahnistan 1, Afghanistan now, or Iraq either 1 or 2.

[Ivan88]

Like all our wars, the Vietnam war was based on lies and was designed to further the goals of the super-rich.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_EXqJ8f-0

[Contrails]

But if that is true why was the majority of the force in Vietnam enlistees?

About 2/3's of Vietnam veterans were enlisted with the other 1/3 drafted. If half of the enlisted, or 1/3, were simply avoiding the randomness of a draft, then only 1/3 can truly be considered "voluntary".

[darroll]

The NVA,VC started shooting Americans, are we supposed to run and hide?

[Max Rockatansky]

About 2/3's of Vietnam veterans were enlisted with the other 1/3 drafted. If half of the enlisted, or 1/3, were simply avoiding the randomness of a draft, then only 1/3 can truly be considered "voluntary".

I'm not sure I'm buying the logic that 1/3 of those who enlisted in the Army to go to Vietnam did so to avoid the draft. Sure, some people did enlist prior to the draft so as to go in the Air Force or Navy rather than be given 8 weeks of training, handed a rifle and a ticket to Vietnam. If they were going to Vietnam anyway that doesn't make sense.

I'm thinking it has more to do with Americans had more of a sense of duty in those days. We were only 20 years from WWII. About the same amount of time between now and Clinton being elected. Things were different in this country back in the 1960s. Some good, some bad. My life was different than most as a military dependent, but I still saw the attitudes of others when I went to public, as opposed to DOD, schools.

[Mister D]

I'm not sure I'm buying the logic that 1/3 of those who enlisted in the Army to go to Vietnam did so to avoid the draft. Sure, some people did enlist prior to the draft so as to go in the Air Force or Navy rather than be given 8 weeks of training, handed a rifle and a ticket to Vietnam. If they were going to Vietnam anyway that doesn't make sense.

I'm thinking it has more to do with Americans had more of a sense of duty in those days. We were only 20 years from WWII. About the same amount of time between now and Clinton being elected. Things were different in this country back in the 1960s. Some good, some bad. My life was different than most as a military dependent, but I still saw the attitudes of others when I went to public, as opposed to DOD, schools.

Agreed. That is, IMO, the most unfortunate consequence of Vietnam and of the counter culture

[Newpublius]

I'm not sure I'm buying the logic that 1/3 of those who enlisted in the Army to go to Vietnam did so to avoid the draft. Sure, some people did enlist prior to the draft so as to go in the Air Force or Navy rather than be given 8 weeks of training, handed a rifle and a ticket to Vietnam. If they were going to Vietnam anyway that doesn't make sense.

I'm thinking it has more to do with Americans had more of a sense of duty in those days. We were only 20 years from WWII. About the same amount of time between now and Clinton being elected. Things were different in this country back in the 1960s. Some good, some bad. My life was different than most as a military dependent, but I still saw the attitudes of others when I went to public, as opposed to DOD, schools.

just as as an aside my dad "pushed up his draft" in essence volunteering to be drafted.....

[Max Rockatansky]

just as as an aside my dad "pushed up his draft" in essence volunteering to be drafted.....

What was his reasoning?

[Max Rockatansky]

Agreed. That is, IMO, the most unfortunate consequence of Vietnam and of the counter culture

Agreed. It was a loss of innocence. Some good, some bad. The world changes and we need to adapt to those changes. We can't turn back the clock, but we can certainly learn from our mistakes and go in a better direction.

A number one complaint by Americans today is they don't like the direction the country is headed. Two out three Americans believe we're on the wrong track: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/27/22471530-nbc-news-poll-pessimism-defines-the-state-of-the-union?lite

As President Barack Obama enters his sixth year in the White House, 68 percent of Americans say the country is either stagnant or worse off since he took office, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.Just 31 percent say the country is better off, and a deep pessimism continues to fuel the public's mood. Most respondents used words like “divided,” “troubled,” and “deteriorating” to describe the current state of the nation.
On the eve of Tuesday’s State of the Union address, more than six-in-10 Americans believe that the nation is headed in the wrong direction and 70 percent are dissatisfied with the economy.

[Contrails]

I'm not sure I'm buying the logic that 1/3 of those who enlisted in the Army to go to Vietnam did so to avoid the draft. Sure, some people did enlist prior to the draft so as to go in the Air Force or Navy rather than be given 8 weeks of training, handed a rifle and a ticket to Vietnam. If they were going to Vietnam anyway that doesn't make sense.
It's not a question of duty, otherwise they would have gone for a deferment or even dodged the draft, but it really isn't hard to understand. If you were drafted, you went into the service and unit the military selected for you. If you enlisted, you could choose which service and possibly even which unit. Don't you think most people would want at least some control over where they ended up in the miltary?

[jillian]

Agreed. That is, IMO, the most unfortunate consequence of Vietnam and of the counter culture

a lot of things happened during that time aside from the unnecessary and damaging vietnam war.

a president and a presidential candidate were assassinated.

a civil rights leader was assassinated.

blacks had to march for civil rights and people died to protect their right to vote.

women had to march for equality.

people peacefully protesting were murdered on a college campus.

and that's just off the top of my head.

there was a lot to lead to a loss of innocence, imo.

[Max Rockatansky]

It's not a question of duty, otherwise they would have gone for a deferment or even dodged the draft, but it really isn't hard to understand. If you were drafted, you went into the service and unit the military selected for you. If you enlisted, you could choose which service and possibly even which unit. Don't you think most people would want at least some control over where they ended up in the miltary?

How is dodging the draft or seeking a deferment doing one's duty? I consider those people assholes regardless if they are Bill Clinton, Rush Limbaugh or Dick Cheney.

You're missing the point. A full third of those who died in Vietnam voluntarily enlisted and chose infantry Vietnam. It's the riskiest and most difficult of all the choices available. Your assertion that people enlisted in order to have control over their lives, implying legally dodging an infantry combat tour in Vietnam, doesn't hold water for those that chose the position. IMO, it wasn't a selfish choice to enlist, but out of a sense of duty. When viewed by region, the percentages of casualties are about equal, but there is a significant difference between the Northeast, the South and the rest of the country: http://www.nationalvietnamveteransfoundation.org/statistics.htm

Deaths by region per 100,000 of population: South -- 31%, West --29.9%; Midwest -- 28.4%; Northeast -- 23.5%. I submit that the differences, which hold true in other wars, is due to "cultural" differences regarding religion and duty to country.

http://www.archives.gov/research/military/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html

A factual presentation of "Facts, Stats & Myths" about Vietnam: http://www.uswings.com/vietnamfacts.asp

http://www.lzcenter.com/Myths%20and%20Facts.html

The widely held belief that many more poor and working class youths died in the Vietnam War than their middle and upperclass counterparts is "a great exaggeration," say MIT researchers who studied the family incomes of the 58,000 American war dead in Vietnam......

.....Another calculation involved the fact that public discontent with the war grew steadily over time. "A concentration of casualties among wealthy citizens towards the start of the war, therefore, might imply that such citizens rapidly withdrew from participating in the conflict once they ceased supporting it," they said. "Date-of-casualty data indicate, however, that deaths of servicemen from the richest 10 percent of the nation's communities had essentially the same distribution over time as the deaths of other servicemen."

Other specialized calculations estimated that, among the dead, those from prosperous communities were about twice as likely as the others to have been officers (24 percent vs. 13 percent) and that men from such communities who went to Vietnam were about 10 percent likelier to die there than were other servicemen.

They explained: "That excess reflects the disproportionate presence of the affluent in such hazardous roles as pilots or infantry captains and lieutenants. Even if few affluent youths were among the `grunts' in the Vietnam front lines, it could be fallacious to infer from that circumstance that well-off Americans were out of harm's way."......

......"One should be cautious in advancing that viewpoint," they said, "given strong evidence that many `volunteers' only enlisted as an alternative to imminent induction. But suppose that middle- and upper-class youths were in fact far better equipped than other Americans to avoid the military draft. To reconcile that premise with the findings in our paper, one would have to infer that the affluent did not proceed en masse to exploit their special advantages. Less vulnerable than other youths to unrelenting pressure to serve in Vietnam, they nonetheless appear to have gone there in sizeable numbers."

[Gerrard Winstanley]

How is dodging the draft or seeking a deferment doing one's duty? I consider those people assholes regardless if they are Bill Clinton, Rush Limbaugh or Dick Cheney.
Is there really a strong ethical case for conscripting young men, fresh out of high school, into a war they didn't necessarily agree with?

[Max Rockatansky]

Is there really a strong ethical case for conscripting young men, fresh out of high school, into a war they didn't necessarily agree with?

Yes:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

As events proved, the Cold War fighting the spread of Communism was the correct choice. Is there any doubt the South Koreans are better off than the North Koreans? That those Chinese living in special economic zones allowing capitalism are better off than those in the interior living strictly under the socialist state?

Isolationists say we shouldn't care and that all American interests should be restricted to inside our own borders. As posted in another thread, shouldn't we look at the world more holistically? The Western fight against the spread of communism during the Cold War was doing exactly that; viewing the world as a whole and the consequences of both action and inaction. Sometimes this means sending young men to war even though they don't want to go or don't support the effort.

A secondary reason for a draft, which I continue to support, is to educate 18-20 year olds beyond their own family and friends network. This doesn't mean strictly military. It could include a two-three year stint in the Peace Corps, Dept. of Health, Americorps, etc.

[Mainecoons]

No, much of the deaths "fighting communism" were truly wasted, as evidenced by Vietnam. The deaths in Korea created a bigger problem than a unified Korea would have been. Subsequent events in SE Asia proved the domino theory incorrect. Communism did not take the region over even after the defeat of the U.S. in Vietnam.

The strategy that proved successful was defense, not actual warfare. The Russians knew that they could not take western Europe because of the defense we built there. As per usual in the course of history, their empire which included Eastern Europe collapsed of its own weight because it was based on bad ideology and economics. That collapse did not require us to fire a shot, just to wait them out. Unfortunately, our government is taking the U.S. down a similar road of bad ideology and economics, which will lead to the same end if not corrected.

While we were getting killed in useless wars like Vietnam, much closer to home we failed to step on the pox of Cuba, right in our back yard. That should have been cleaned out by JFK. It has been a problem for this entire hemisphere, a source of communist infection which should have been cut out. What were the Russians going to do if we had done so? Start a nuclear war? Try and put an army on ships and send it there to defend the place?

The stupidity of the policy that gave us Korea and Vietnam while tolerating a Cuba literally a few minutes from our shores could hardly be called a successful policy. Europe was a success but the rest of it, hardly so.

[Max Rockatansky]

No, much of the deaths "fighting communism" were truly wasted, as evidenced by Vietnam. The deaths in Korea created a bigger problem than a unified Korea would have been. Subsequent events in SE Asia proved the domino theory incorrect. Communism did not take the region over even after the defeat of the U.S. in Vietnam.

Disagreed on the major conclusions, but agreed we wasted lives. If we don't go for a win, we shouldn't go at all. Vietnam was a disaster because we were trading body counts, not advancing and taking territory. When the enemy is willing to expend ten of theirs for one of ours, that's a losing proposition. It drove home the entire idea of not going using our military without an exit strategy. This is what Colin Powell tried to tell the Bush administration, including chickenhawks Cheney and Rumsfeld, but ultimately failed to convince them.

Nevertheless, the idea of fighting communism was the correct idea. How we did it was the matter up for debate.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

Yes:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

As events proved, the Cold War fighting the spread of Communism was the correct choice. Is there any doubt the South Koreans are better off than the North Koreans? That those Chinese living in special economic zones allowing capitalism are better off than those in the interior living strictly under the socialist state?

Isolationists say we shouldn't care and that all American interests should be restricted to inside our own borders. As posted in another thread, shouldn't we look at the world more holistically? The Western fight against the spread of communism during the Cold War was doing exactly that; viewing the world as a whole and the consequences of both action and inaction. Sometimes this means sending young men to war even though they don't want to go or don't support the effort.

A secondary reason for a draft, which I continue to support, is to educate 18-20 year olds beyond their own family and friends network. This doesn't mean strictly military. It could include a two-three year stint in the Peace Corps, Dept. of Health, Americorps, etc.
Yes, but what right does the government have to conscript me, against my will, for their own dire purposes? The guys fighting on the ground in Vietnam weren't fighting for "their country". They were fighting to prop up an incompetent puppet of a nation-state that collapsed the moment American attention wandered.

I'm not an isolationist, and some modern wars can be justified. World War II was justified. Afghanistan was justified. The wider Cold War was essentially justified, although it was fought with frequently dubious means. Vietnam was just a nasty, wasteful clusterfuck.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

Disagreed on the major conclusions, but agreed we wasted lives. If we don't go for a win, we shouldn't go at all. Vietnam was a disaster because we were trading body counts, not advancing and taking territory. When the enemy is willing to expend ten of theirs for one of ours, that's a losing proposition. It drove home the entire idea of not going using our military without an exit strategy. This is what Colin Powell tried to tell the Bush administration, including chickenhawks Cheney and Rumsfeld, but ultimately failed to convince them.

Nevertheless, the idea of fighting communism was the correct idea. How we did it was the matter up for debate.
Vietnam was basically a no-go from the start. The NLF was insidious, with no shortage of recruits, material and sympathizers, and could only be 'defeated' in any meaningful sense of the word when it miscalculated in the open (e.g. the Tet Offensive). Of course, the military could have gone full throttle and invaded the North, which was the root of the problem anyway ... except that likely would have triggered a nuclear exchange with the Chinese.

[nathanbforrest45]

My objection to all this is the constant myth that most Vietnam vets returned as drug addicts, mind warped, psychotic, homeless, zombies. We did not. Most of us returned exactly as we were when we entered this fray. All wars change you to a degree and frankly I am tired of being considered "damaged goods" for something that occurred 40 years ago

[Max Rockatansky]

Yes, but what right does the government have to conscript me, against my will, for their own dire purposes?

Offhand, I'd say the same right it has to tax my blood, sweat and tears then redistribute it to artists and academics so they can participate in anti-war protests and bitch how much this country sucks.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

Offhand, I'd say the same right it has to tax my blood, sweat and tears then redistribute it to artists and academics so they can participate in anti-war protests and bitch how much this country sucks.
Agreed.

[Max Rockatansky]

My objection to all this is the constant myth that most Vietnam vets returned as drug addicts, mind warped, psychotic, homeless, zombies. We did not. Most of us returned exactly as we were when we entered this fray. All wars change you to a degree and frankly I am tired of being considered "damaged goods" for something that occurred 40 years ago
I haven't seen that "myth". What I have seen, and this was verified in the vet's link provided, that far more people claim to be Vietnam vets than ever went to Vietnam.

Additionally, while I have the greatest respect for all who served, claiming to be a combat infantry vet while slinging hash or issuing boots in Saigon is wrong. It took 10 military personnel to support one combat soldier on the front lines. That number is reduced slightly today because we contract out much of this support to people like Halliburton and Blackwater who do it for profit, not patriotism. Nevertheless, regardless of their duties or even if they never left the USA, I respect all vets and they should be proud of their service to our nation.

[Mainecoons]

Max, keep up the good work. You are one of the most interesting and informative posters here.

[sotmfs]

Max, keep up the good work. You are one of the most interesting and informative posters here.

I agree with you.

[Ivan88]

Is there really a strong ethical case for conscripting young men, fresh out of high school, into a war they didn't necessarily agree with?

http://antioligarch.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/kissinger-mk-military.jpg
The young and stupid are easier to manipulate into self destruction.

[Captain Obvious]

http://antioligarch.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/kissinger-mk-military.jpg
The young and stupid are easier to manipulate into self destruction.

As are Muslim children.

Our men and women willingly put themselves in harms way via the military, Muslim children are forced to wear nail bombs to be detonated in areas frequented by women and children for the sake of extremist Islam cowardice.

[sotmfs]

Offhand, I'd say the same right it has to tax my blood, sweat and tears then redistribute it to artists and academics so they can participate in anti-war protests and bitch how much this country sucks.
Protesting against the war and other things one believes is wrong does not make one unpatriotic
Taking tax money from the protesters to pay for the war ...........................

[sotmfs]

As are Muslim children.

Our men and women willingly put themselves in harms way via the military, Muslim children are forced to wear nail bombs to be detonated in areas frequented by women and children for the sake of extremist Islam cowardice.

I would like to see how often that was done.

[Ivan88]

For Captain Finger:

First of all 'Muslims' are not the subject of this thread.

2. Real Muslims and Real Christians do not deceive their young into self destruction.

3. But, Talmudized "Christians & Muslims" accept and ratify all sorts of bloody oppression.

4. In Iraq, it was the USA that was responsible for most, if not all, terrorist bombing. Same goes for our terrorist wars on Yugoslavia, Russia, Libya, Afghanistan, Katanga, Philippines, China, Native Americans, Germany, Japan, Korea, Syria, Yemen, Vietnam, and other countries.
5741

[Captain Obvious]

For Captain Finger:

First of all 'Muslims' are not the subject of this thread.

2. Real Muslims and Real Christians do not deceive their young into self destruction.

3. But, Talmudized "Christians & Muslims" accept and ratify all sorts of bloody oppression.

4. In Iraq, it was the USA that was responsible for most, if not all, terrorist bombing. Same goes for our terrorist wars on Yugoslavia, Russia, Libya, Afghanistan, Katanga, Philippines, China, Native Americans, Germany, Japan, Korea, Syria, Yemen, Vietnam, and other countries.
5741

Now all of the sudden you're objective.

Funny how that works.

Sorry, your people send their children on suicide missions to kill other women and children.

Americans do not do that.

That's a fact you can never deny.

[sotmfs]

The Talmud is an old book written by old men that expresses their opinions on life the way they want it to be.The majority of people have never heard of it and those that have show little interest in it.
The people that are interested in it study it ,it is part of Jewish history.Some people use it to show why and how jews think.They ignore the fact that most Jews have little interest in the book.Those that are experts in jews(hating jews )claim the Talmud is the most important book in Judiasm.Jews and Jews that are experts on Jews claim the Torah is the most important book.

[sotmfs]

Now all of the sudden you're objective.

Funny how that works.

Sorry, your people send their children on suicide missions to kill other women and children.

Americans do not do that.

That's a fact you can never deny.

Americans would never harm children.Check it out.Look at our history.

[Captain Obvious]

Americans would never harm children.Check it out.Look at our history.

Dude - you got it backwards, go back and re-read it.

Put the bong down.

:laugh:

[Captain Obvious]

This fucking choad comes here every day bashing America and calling us murderers and cowards - meanwhile Muslims regularly send their children into crowded markets with bombs strapped to them to kill more children and women.

This guy needs to make sure his house is fucking cleaned up first before he complains about his neighbors dirty house.

Hypocrite, hater, douche.

[sotmfs]

Dude - you got it backwards, go back and re-read it.

Put the bong down.

:laugh:

Don't smoke.

Americans do not do that.I took that to mean Americans would never harm children.esp send their children on suicide missions to kill other women and children.

So,correct me on my backwardness,Thanks

[jillian]

The Talmud is an old book written by old men that expresses their opinions on life the way they want it to be.The majority of people have never heard of it and those that have show little interest in it.
The people that are interested in it study it ,it is part of Jewish history.Some people use it to show why and how jews think.They ignore the fact that most Jews have little interest in the book.Those that are experts in jews(hating jews )claim the Talmud is the most important book in Judiasm.Jews and Jews that are experts on Jews claim the Torah is the most important book.

actually, there is a very large population of orthodox jews who care very much about what the talmud says. it isn't an historical document, but a religious one.

and the negative views of it come largely from lies and/or distortions about what is contained in the talmud from anti-semites a la the protocols of the learned elders of zion.

[sotmfs]

actually, there is a very large population of orthodox jews who care very much about what the talmud says. it isn't an historical document, but a religious one.

and the negative views of it come largely from lies and/or distortions about what is contained in the talmud from anti-semites a la the protocols of the learned elders of zion.

My point is it was written by men communicating with god thousands of years ago.It is an historical document in the sense it is a record of what the thinking of god and religion ,as interpreted by these guys,was at the time.Of course to those that care about it and study it is a religious document.

From my understanding the Talmud is not a priority or used by many Jews.The Torah(OLD Testament)is the important book.

Of course the anti-semites,who are indignant at being called anti-semetic ,for merely criticizing the Jews use the Talmud ,distorting and taking quotes out of context to define jews.All Jews,because all Jews are the same.

The people that wrote the ancient religious books talked to god.Similar people talk to god today.Pat Robertson,Billy Graham,you know the good moral guys.

[Philly Rabbit]

I haven't seen that "myth". What I have seen, and this was verified in the vet's link provided, that far more people claim to be Vietnam vets than ever went to Vietnam.

Additionally, while I have the greatest respect for all who served, claiming to be a combat infantry vet while slinging hash or issuing boots in Saigon is wrong.

I think you've got us mixed up with the Woodstock crowd. There were at least 10 million people in the country who claimed they were at that mud slinging event.

There's no need for you to insult him with fraudulent suggestions because you're in no position to. Vietnam doesn't give you a license to do it either.

[Philly Rabbit]

Max, keep up the good work. You are one of the most interesting and informative posters here.

Is that so?

Then tell me why anyone who says he was combat infantry in country immediately comes under fraudulent claims from him?

So according to him, no one's allowed to say they served under fire in country because it's dishonorable to say it because it's fraudulent. And this on both your parts is called the Vietnam syndrome about and over Vietnam vets.

[Philly Rabbit]

My objection to all this is the constant myth that most Vietnam vets returned as drug addicts, mind warped, psychotic, homeless, zombies. We did not. Most of us returned exactly as we were when we entered this fray. All wars change you to a degree and frankly I am tired of being considered "damaged goods" for something that occurred 40 years ago

You're never going to stop being a whipping boy for these college philosophers because they all think that veterans of that war like you are fair targets for their narcissistic scrutiny. It's politically correct and their Marxist professors told them it's politically correct.

But I'm not telling you anything you don't already know because I'm sure you're well used to it by now.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Vietnam was the war that America wasn't allowed to win.

- Brent Bozell


We all know about the politically correct version of the Vietnam war that has been relentlessly spoon fed to us by the politically correct liberal establishment. But here are some facts that you may not have known about that long ago war in southeast Asia.



Myth: The U.S. military lost the war because they were defeated by the superior forces of Ho Chi Minh's glorious people's army.

Fact: The U.S. military in all intent and purposes had the war won on the battlefield but were stabbed in the back by Democrats in congress who cut off funding for the South Vietnamese army following President Nixon's resignation over Watergate giving the communists in the north their final triumph.

Myth: The U.S. military in Vietnam was a collection of misfit draftees who were ignorant and uneducated and who were ill equipped to handle the terrain of Vietnam.

Fact: The U.S. military in country was the best equipped military in U.S. history up to that point.
The U.S. military was the best educated military in U.S. history up to that point having their ranks
filed with considerable numbers of college graduates both officers and enlisted men.

Myth: America's military had a high casualty rate due to the incompetency of the draftees who were forced to
fight there and their redneck officers who were as incompetent as their subordinates.

Fact: Seventy percent of all U.S. casualties were enlisted men and not draftees.

Since the 1%'s Fortunate Sons like sissyboy Dubya and their brown-nosing wannabe flunkies like Dick Cheney weren't at risk, there was no incentive to either fight to win or to get out quickly if they saw they couldn't win. Also, the plutes wanted to kill off the bravest of the working class troops or so demoralize them through handcuffing Rules of Engagement that it would take the fight out of them before they could come back home and get revenge. Some day, the Unfortunate Sons will come back and set up their machineguns at prep school graduations.

The reason Virgin Mary Cheney of the Immaculate Conception turned dyke was that her Daddy was a draftdodging sissyboy. With that fake Darth Vader (more like Rick Moranis's Darth) as what would have been a normal daughter's model for a husband, she had nothing but contempt for men.

[Philly Rabbit]

Since the 1%'s Fortunate Sons like sissyboy Dubya and their brown-nosing wannabe flunkies like Dick Cheney weren't at risk, there was no incentive to either fight to win or to get out quickly if they saw they couldn't win. Also, the plutes wanted to kill off the bravest of the working class troops or so demoralize them through handcuffing Rules of Engagement that it would take the fight out of them before they could come back home and get revenge. Some day, the Unfortunate Sons will come back and set up their machineguns at prep school graduations.

The reason Virgin Mary Cheney of the Immaculate Conception turned dyke was that her Daddy was a draftdodging sissyboy. With that fake Darth Vader (more like Rick Moranis's Darth) as what would have been a normal daughter's model for a husband, she had nothing but contempt for men.

:grin:

I agree with you - haha ha ha

[The Sage of Main Street]

Hey, 58,220 U.S. servicemen died ... but, on the plus side, 477,880 didn't!

Vietnam was one of the ugliest episodes of modern U.S. history. This revisionist crap is unproductive.

Even though it wasn't worth the loss in lives and treasure, you could make the case that it delayed the expansion of Communism for ten years and made it lose momentum. As a consequence, after a few more conquests Communism fell in on itself and collapsed. Also, that the Soviet Union was sucked into Afghanistan because the Communists there demanded that the Russians do the same thing for them the Americans had done for the anti-Communists in Vietnam.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Why does the right find it necessary to re-write history? The figures given are inaccurate at best, other figures are notes below. Check selective service numbers in link below. Vietnam was un-winnable short of killing everyone. Today Macy's sells their clothing and if the TPP passes, I hope Brent Bozell agrees to a pay cut and accepts 28 cents an hour. Why does the right feel the need to rewrite the past - is it because they do nothing in the present? Weird the focus backward isn't it.

http://www.archives.gov/research/military/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html#category

I still have my DD 214 and SSS 223.

Some data there are misleading. Regular Marine officers are officially Reservists (USMCR) for quite a while and are in no way from activated Reserve units (34 days a year regular service). Navy deaths include Marine Corps medics, who are put right in the line of fire and aren't really sailors.

[The Sage of Main Street]

The South Vietnamese capitulated because they were corrupt and incompetent. The fact is that after over a decade of American presence there it only took two months for the South to call it quits.

And really? You think my comment was an attack on veterans? How about the CIA and government machinery that allowed opium/heroin to infect the military? Get the big red white and blue dick out of your ass and think for your self.

Chickenhawk-lovers don't have dicks, they have dildos.

[sotmfs]

My objection to all this is the constant myth that most Vietnam vets returned as drug addicts, mind warped, psychotic, homeless, zombies. We did not. Most of us returned exactly as we were when we entered this fray. All wars change you to a degree and frankly I am tired of being considered "damaged goods" for something that occurred 40 years ago

What years were you there Nathan?

[The Sage of Main Street]

Myth: Young people overwhelmingly opposed the war.

Fact: Young people statistically, from start to finish, were some of the biggest supporters of the Vietnam War.

young people historically are not the brave dissenters they're often portrayed as, but actually often the most gung-ho. 'MURICA.

Not preppies like Bush, Romney, Quayle, and Howard Dean. Not self-centered class-climbers like Dick Cheney and Joe Biden. None of those traitors should have been allowed to hold public office. The select and small elitist group that the media anointed to stand for a whole generation was overwhelmingly anti-war. To tell the truth, if that is allowed on the Internet, they were really anti-working-class snobs and that was their true motivation for opposing the war. They had been brought up on movies glorifying working-class World War II heroes and wanted to make sure that America never again respected those born into that class.

As for their fathers, they went along apathetically and made no protest against their sons getting sacrificed while college students, rich kids, and athletes were exempt. The Greatest Generation is also a media fantasy.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Tet was a win. Surprised the shit out of us like the Germans did at the Battle of the Bulge, but it was a win. Of course, we did lose on the home front. People saw it as a loss and pushed even harder for us to exit as quickly as possible.

Just like the JEWS stabbed Germany in the back in WWI, after the glorious spike-helmeted army had won on the battlefield? Not that I'm accusing you of being a Nazi just because you use the same witch-hunting excuse that they did. As low as the swastikers were, at least they themselves and even their upper class Bushlings put their lives on the line in that war, so any American who doesn't think gutless pro-war flag-waving pukes like Bush, Cheney, and practically all GOP officeholders should have faced a firing squad for weaseling out of Vietnam is lower than a Nazi.

[The Sage of Main Street]

The South Vietnamese army was overrun by the communists because they had nothing left to fight with thanks to liberal democrats in congress. Weapons need ammo and when the ammo runs out the weapons are worthless unless you consider using them to throw at the enemy or use as clubs.

The South Vietnamese were crooks, cowards, and collaborators. ARVN casualties were caused by being shot in the back like Chickenhawks, just like practically all of the 250,000 Persian dead at Plataea (as opposed to 10,000 Greek dead) had been killed after they threw away their weapons and took off running instead of standing their ground like men.

In An Hoa, the Marines we relieved from 3/9 informed us that when they first got there, the South Vietnamese army had an unauthorized truce with the Viet Cong. While we were there, the ARVN base was lit up all night long and never attacked.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Myth: You can make fun of liberal feminists all you want here as long as you do it on the rant board.

Fact: You try it anywhere in here including on the rant board and you'll get banned faster than you can say: I hate men.

You mean we can't criticize screeching femininny titwits here? Thanks for the heads up!

[The Sage of Main Street]

The NVA,VC started shooting Americans, are we supposed to run and hide?

No, we should have Daddy get us into the Heir Guard, where we can go on hungover joyrides playing Snoopy and the Red Baron.

[The Sage of Main Street]

I haven't seen that "myth". What I have seen, and this was verified in the vet's link provided, that far more people claim to be Vietnam vets than ever went to Vietnam.

Additionally, while I have the greatest respect for all who served, claiming to be a combat infantry vet while slinging hash or issuing boots in Saigon is wrong. It took 10 military personnel to support one combat soldier on the front lines. That number is reduced slightly today because we contract out much of this support to people like Halliburton and Blackwater who do it for profit, not patriotism. Nevertheless, regardless of their duties or even if they never left the USA, I respect all vets and they should be proud of their service to our nation.

Only 4% of the GIs in Vietnam were in any serious danger. In my own unit during a half-tour, 38 out of 150 Marines died. That meant I only had a 50-50 chance of finishing my tour alive. In talking to other combat vets, I come up with the same odds. Of course, there may have been 300 to 500 Marines who temporarily filled a position (T/0) in my infantry company during that year. The lieutenants and corpsmen only had to spend half their time in the real combat zone.

[Philly Rabbit]

What years were you there Nathan?

Doesn't matter, he said he was there. And he shouldn't have to be scrutinized with a quote because where he was was in country. If he would have been a veteran of any other war he would have never done that to him.

[The Sage of Main Street]

:grin:

I agree with you - haha ha ha

Another Chickenhawk, Ronald Reagan's adopted son Michael, always whines about being molested as a teen by a Hollywood pedophile. To me, anyone who would later commit treason by having his Mommy dig him up a way out of defending his class from Communists must have had a slimey character all his life. So I believe he came on to the ped. Ronaldus Magnus practically abandoned him after he and Jane Wyman got divorced, so I think little Mikey was looking for a substitute Daddy. He had no more excuse for that than for his draftdodging

[The Sage of Main Street]

Doesn't matter, he said he was there. And he shouldn't have to be scrutinized with a quote because where he was was in country. If he would have been a veteran of any other war he would have never done that to him.

To paraphrase George C. Scott in Patton, the thing is not to be bitter, but to make the 1% feel bitter after we slaughter their sons in a revolution.

[darroll]

The South Vietnamese were crooks, cowards, and collaborators. ARVN casualties were caused by being shot in the back like Chickenhawks, just like practically all of the 250,000 Persian dead at Plataea (as opposed to 10,000 Greek dead) had been killed after they threw away their weapons and took off running instead of standing their ground like men.

In An Hoa, the Marines we relieved from 3/9 informed us that when they first got there, the South Vietnamese army had an unauthorized truce with the Viet Cong. While we were there, the ARVN base was lit up all night long and never attacked.
So were our ICS (communication)sites because they used them to move enemy forces.

[sotmfs]

Doesn't matter, he said he was there. And he shouldn't have to be scrutinized with a quote because where he was was in country. If he would have been a veteran of any other war he would have never done that to him.

You know what,it does not matter when He was there.I never doubted He was not there.I have respect for Nathan and I was curious as to what years He was there.And if you are saying I did something to him,you are way off base.
Nathan can answer for himself,He does not need a spokesperson that has no clue about my post.

[Mister D]

250,000 Persian dead at Plataea? There weren't even that many Persians present. not even close. Ancient sources are notoriously unreliable when it comes to that sort of thing.

[iustitia]

The South Vietnamese army was overrun by the communists because they had nothing left to fight with thanks to liberal democrats in congress. Weapons need ammo and when the ammo runs out the weapons are worthless unless you consider using them to throw at the enemy or use as clubs.

Nixon got most of the U.S. troops out by a strategy called Vietnamization which gave the brunt of the fighting to the finally equipped and trained South Vietnamese army. Nixon didn't end the war but he did bomb the North Vietnamese communists and forced them to start getting serious at the Paris peace talks.

When Nixon resigned over Watergate the liberal democrats in congress went berserk with his blood in the water and cut off the funding as frosting on the cake.Is this what you learned in public school or from Wikipedia? Seriously? The South, despite billions in spending, training and investments by the US, couldn't hold off the North for more than two months all because your political party wasn't in charge? Do you seriously think that any amount of arms would've changed the outcome in a war that wasn't supported by the people of either America or Vietnam, in which the US wouldn't re-involve itself militarily, where our allies as usual were a corrupt military dictatorship as opposed to the "democracy" we claimed to support, and the Vietminh had been fighting and/or waiting since WWII?

The Republic of Vietnam, like the Republic of China or Republic of Korea, contrary to popular opinion, was not a free country but a military dictatorship. We were not fighting for freedom in Vietnam. And shocker the North had no intention of ever agreeing to "peace treaties" and considering we rarely respect them ourselves why the fuck should they have not finished the job when we left? lol "getting serious about peace talks". The Vietnamese were conquered four times by the Chinese Empire and then by the French as part of the Indochina colony, then by the Japanese, then the French again, then occupied by us.

Now the Communists were scumbags, but look who we were supporting.
If the US gave a shit about democracy it wouldn't have gone to war in Korea to support a mass-murdering dictatorship of Syngman Rhee which lasted for 12 fuckin years. But yeah, tens of thousands of Americans and even more Koreans died on behalf of South Korea's opposition-slaughtering ruler, but it's ok because we finally got our hands on Korea which we'd been trying to do since the 1870's plus all that good war contracting.

If the US gave a shit about democracy it wouldn't have supported the military dictatorship of Chiang Kai Shek which lasted 50 fuckin years. Not to mention, the Nationalist Chinese weren't even capitalists - the Kuomintang was a nationalist socialist party. The Nationalists and Communists both supported dictatorship, both supported socialism, both committed genocide/killed millions of their opposition. So what the fuck difference was there between them and the Communists? Well, Mao offered land to the peasants that fought for him, and Chiang's government was full of embezzlers, crooks, and aristocrats that loved helping the US traffic heroin.

If the US gave a shit about democracy it wouldn't have opposed elections in Vietnam under Eisenhower. When Ho Chi Minh asked for help from the US in gaining independence from colonial powers multiple times from different presidents since Wilson, decades before the Vietnam War, we either ignored him or told him to fuck off. Yet we had no problem supporting him when his commies were fighting the Japanese in WWII. After that we were more interested in propping up dying, imperialist empires like France and controlling the drug trade of the Golden Triangle. Ho Chi Minh was a Communist, no shit. People like to pretend he was really a nationalist and not a communist, as if they're mutually exclusive. But it's besides the point. Ho Chi Minh wanted an independent Vietnam, was widely supported by his people, and would have won a general election against the scumbag puppet we supported. A guy who rigged elections to justify his existence. The government of South Vietnam was, like in China, run by crooks who pocketed millions in US aid at the expense of their people. The reason the ROV fell so quick was the same reason the ROC fell; the people had a hero in the bloody commie and the guy we supported was a rich asshole and a dictator. And when that asshole Diem lost his usefulness, we had him killed and the military took over without a useless figurehead. So we supported French imperialism, drug trafficking, corruption, a dictator and then a military junta, but not democracy.

I mean, these are just the most glaring examples of ERMAGERD COMMUNISM VS DEMOCRACY. We overthrew democracy in Iran to support British Petroleum, in Guatemala for the United Fruit Company, in Ecuador for oil. Chile, Greece, Indonesia, Laos, Angola, Grenada, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Cuba, Belau, Fiji, Nicaragua, el Salvador, Haiti, Zaire, the Dominican Republic. Communism was never the monolithic international threat we were told. It was a convenient cover for the military-industrial complex, and neo-mercantilism.


The NVA,VC started shooting Americans, are we supposed to run and hide?Except that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was completely manufactured. 60,000 Americans and who knows how many millions of Vietnamese dead over a lie.

[sotmfs]

is this what you learned in public school or from wikipedia? Seriously? The south, despite billions in spending, training and investments by the us, couldn't hold off the north for more than two months all because your political party wasn't in charge? Do you seriously think that any amount of arms would've changed the outcome in a war that wasn't supported by the people of either america or vietnam, in which the us wouldn't re-involve itself militarily, where our allies as usual were a corrupt military dictatorship as opposed to the "democracy" we claimed to support, and the vietminh had been fighting and/or waiting since wwii?

The republic of vietnam, like the republic of china or republic of korea, contrary to popular opinion, was not a free country but a military dictatorship. We were not fighting for freedom in vietnam. And shocker the north had no intention of ever agreeing to "peace treaties" and considering we rarely respect them ourselves why the fuck should they have not finished the job when we left? Lol "getting serious about peace talks". The vietnamese were conquered four times by the chinese empire and then by the french as part of the indochina colony, then by the japanese, then the french again, then occupied by us.

Now the communists were scumbags, but look who we were supporting.
If the us gave a shit about democracy it wouldn't have gone to war in korea to support a mass-murdering dictatorship of syngman rhee which lasted for 12 fuckin years. But yeah, tens of thousands of americans and even more koreans died on behalf of south korea's opposition-slaughtering ruler, but it's ok because we finally got our hands on korea which we'd been trying to do since the 1870's plus all that good war contracting.

If the us gave a shit about democracy it wouldn't have supported the military dictatorship of chiang kai shek which lasted 50 fuckin years. Not to mention, the nationalist chinese weren't even capitalists - the kuomintang was a nationalist socialist party. The nationalists and communists both supported dictatorship, both supported socialism, both committed genocide/killed millions of their opposition. So what the fuck difference was there between them and the communists? Well, mao offered land to the peasants that fought for him, and chiang's government was full of embezzlers, crooks, and aristocrats that loved helping the us traffic heroin.

If the us gave a shit about democracy it wouldn't have opposed elections in vietnam under eisenhower. When ho chi minh asked for help from the us in gaining independence from colonial powers multiple times from different presidents since wilson, decades before the vietnam war, we either ignored him or told him to fuck off. Yet we had no problem supporting him when his commies were fighting the japanese in wwii. After that we were more interested in propping up dying, imperialist empires like france and controlling the drug trade of the golden triangle. Ho chi minh was a communist, no shit. People like to pretend he was really a nationalist and not a communist, as if they're mutually exclusive. But it's besides the point. Ho chi minh wanted an independent vietnam, was widely supported by his people, and would have won a general election against the scumbag puppet we supported. A guy who rigged elections to justify his existence. The government of south vietnam was, like in china, run by crooks who pocketed millions in us aid at the expense of their people. The reason the rov fell so quick was the same reason the roc fell; the people had a hero in the bloody commie and the guy we supported was a rich asshole and a dictator. And when that asshole diem lost his usefulness, we had him killed and the military took over without a useless figurehead. So we supported french imperialism, drug trafficking, corruption, a dictator and then a military junta, but not democracy.

I mean, these are just the most glaring examples of ermagerd communism vs democracy. We overthrew democracy in iran to support british petroleum, in guatemala for the united fruit company, in ecuador for oil. Chile, greece, indonesia, laos, angola, grenada, el salvador, nicaragua, cuba, belau, fiji, nicaragua, el salvador, haiti, zaire, the dominican republic. Communism was never the monolithic international threat we were told. It was a convenient cover for the military-industrial complex, and neo-mercantilism.

Except that the gulf of tonkin incident was completely manufactured. 60,000 americans and who knows how many millions of vietnamese dead over a lie.

great post!!

[darroll]

South Vietnam asked us for help as they said the Communists were trying to overthrow Thieu.
Later in about 1968 we found out that the whole country were 80% communist and they love being a communist country.
Westmoreland said woops.
We were planning on ending the war after that but our politicians ended the war before we could leave with some kind of honorable withdraw..
It got so bad that we had to steal ammo from the navy.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

Is this what you learned in public school or from Wikipedia? Seriously? The South, despite billions in spending, training and investments by the US, couldn't hold off the North for more than two months all because your political party wasn't in charge? Do you seriously think that any amount of arms would've changed the outcome in a war that wasn't supported by the people of either America or Vietnam, in which the US wouldn't re-involve itself militarily, where our allies as usual were a corrupt military dictatorship as opposed to the "democracy" we claimed to support, and the Vietminh had been fighting and/or waiting since WWII?

The Republic of Vietnam, like the Republic of China or Republic of Korea, contrary to popular opinion, was not a free country but a military dictatorship. We were not fighting for freedom in Vietnam. And shocker the North had no intention of ever agreeing to "peace treaties" and considering we rarely respect them ourselves why the fuck should they have not finished the job when we left? lol "getting serious about peace talks". The Vietnamese were conquered four times by the Chinese Empire and then by the French as part of the Indochina colony, then by the Japanese, then the French again, then occupied by us.

Now the Communists were scumbags, but look who we were supporting.
If the US gave a shit about democracy it wouldn't have gone to war in Korea to support a mass-murdering dictatorship of Syngman Rhee which lasted for 12 fuckin years. But yeah, tens of thousands of Americans and even more Koreans died on behalf of South Korea's opposition-slaughtering ruler, but it's ok because we finally got our hands on Korea which we'd been trying to do since the 1870's plus all that good war contracting.

If the US gave a shit about democracy it wouldn't have supported the military dictatorship of Chiang Kai Shek which lasted 50 fuckin years. Not to mention, the Nationalist Chinese weren't even capitalists - the Kuomintang was a nationalist socialist party. The Nationalists and Communists both supported dictatorship, both supported socialism, both committed genocide/killed millions of their opposition. So what the fuck difference was there between them and the Communists? Well, Mao offered land to the peasants that fought for him, and Chiang's government was full of embezzlers, crooks, and aristocrats that loved helping the US traffic heroin.

If the US gave a shit about democracy it wouldn't have opposed elections in Vietnam under Eisenhower. When Ho Chi Minh asked for help from the US in gaining independence from colonial powers multiple times from different presidents since Wilson, decades before the Vietnam War, we either ignored him or told him to fuck off. Yet we had no problem supporting him when his commies were fighting the Japanese in WWII. After that we were more interested in propping up dying, imperialist empires like France and controlling the drug trade of the Golden Triangle. Ho Chi Minh was a Communist, no shit. People like to pretend he was really a nationalist and not a communist, as if they're mutually exclusive. But it's besides the point. Ho Chi Minh wanted an independent Vietnam, was widely supported by his people, and would have won a general election against the scumbag puppet we supported. A guy who rigged elections to justify his existence. The government of South Vietnam was, like in China, run by crooks who pocketed millions in US aid at the expense of their people. The reason the ROV fell so quick was the same reason the ROC fell; the people had a hero in the bloody commie and the guy we supported was a rich asshole and a dictator. And when that asshole Diem lost his usefulness, we had him killed and the military took over without a useless figurehead. So we supported French imperialism, drug trafficking, corruption, a dictator and then a military junta, but not democracy.

I mean, these are just the most glaring examples of ERMAGERD COMMUNISM VS DEMOCRACY. We overthrew democracy in Iran to support British Petroleum, in Guatemala for the United Fruit Company, in Ecuador for oil. Chile, Greece, Indonesia, Laos, Angola, Grenada, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Cuba, Belau, Fiji, Nicaragua, el Salvador, Haiti, Zaire, the Dominican Republic. Communism was never the monolithic international threat we were told. It was a convenient cover for the military-industrial complex, and neo-mercantilism.

Except that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was completely manufactured. 60,000 Americans and who knows how many millions of Vietnamese dead over a lie.
Wow, pure truth.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

Even though it wasn't worth the loss in lives and treasure, you could make the case that it delayed the expansion of Communism for ten years and made it lose momentum. As a consequence, after a few more conquests Communism fell in on itself and collapsed. Also, that the Soviet Union was sucked into Afghanistan because the Communists there demanded that the Russians do the same thing for them the Americans had done for the anti-Communists in Vietnam.
Once again, you can't fight ideas like communism with bullets and napalm. Communism has only ever found solid appeal among the poor and oppressed in developing world snakepits. Nothing the military did in Vietnam actually addressed the basic issues at hand.

[Max Rockatansky]

Once again, you can't fight ideas like communism with bullets and napalm. Communism has only ever found solid appeal among the poor and oppressed in developing world snakepits. Nothing the military did in Vietnam actually addressed the basic issues at hand.

You can't fight ideas except with ideas. You can fight bullets with bullets.

The current example is Fundamentalist Islam. We can't kill an idea with bullets, so the best way to fight it is to promote better ideas. In the Muslim world, this is best done with the Quran. Using Muslims to fight the Fundies is every effective in the war of ideas.

OTOH, when a terrorist group blows up some buildings or take a hotel hostage and murders guests, military action is needed. Not only to neutralize every terrorist who participated, but to hunt down everyone who supported them, enabled them, funded them and all resources that they used.

The same goes for anything, including communism. It wasn't South Vietnam funding guerrillas to attack Hanoi and terrorize villages like the Viet Cong. It wasn't South Korea that first crossed the DMZ and pushed their way to the opposite borders. It wasn't West Berlin that build a wall to prevent citizens from fleeing into East Berlin or blocked East Berlin in an attempt to starve them out.

While you are correct that you can't fight ideas with bullets, as the actions above demonstrate, you also can't fight bullets with ideas. At least not effectively enough to save the lives of those endangered.

[The Sage of Main Street]

South Vietnam asked us for help as they said the Communists were trying to overthrow Thieu.
Later in about 1968 we found out that the whole country were 80% communist and they love being a communist country.
Westmoreland said woops.
We were planning on ending the war after that but our politicians ended the war before we could leave with some kind of honorable withdraw..
It got so bad that we had to steal ammo from the navy.

The South Vietnamese people were of the same character as the scumbags in their government. Don't give them the excuse that they had nothing to fight for; they were cowards, moochers, and thieves who deserved the Communist takeover. We should not only be careful about what kind of native government we try to save, but we should also judge if the natives themselves are worth saving. There is a reason that Southeast Asians wound up living in the No Man's Land of a primitive jungle.

Fighting there was like playing football where the spectators were allowed to freely wander onto the field and even help the other side. Our troops there suffered under the same ignorant ROE as our troops did in the Chickenhawk's wars. In the 1920s, the formerly Great Britain defeated the Iraqis in 6 months because they fought the Iraqis as a whole and not some imaginary stranger oppressing an alienated people.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Once again, you can't fight ideas like communism with bullets and napalm. Communism has only ever found solid appeal among the poor and oppressed in developing world snakepits. .

Snakes live in snakepits. And they weren't developing; they were unevolved creatures with no talent for conquering nature. Prehistorically, they settled in the jungle because they were fugitives from justice. And this oppression excuse assumes that they wouldn't have done the same thing if they had taken over the government. This contradicts history, which has shown that when an evil people overthrow an evil government, they replace it with still more evil. That is not progress, that is taking turns.

[Max Rockatansky]

For those who want a more factual analysis of the war, there is "Ten Thousand Day War: Vietnam : 1945-1975" by Michael MacLear
http://www.amazon.com/Ten-Thousand-Day-War-1945-1975/dp/0312790945/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1391187305&sr=1-1&keywords=Vietnam%3A+The+Ten+Thousand+Day+War


And a documentary written by Peter Arnett:
http://www.amazon.com/Vietnam-The-Ten-Thousand-Day/dp/6305873461

[Philly Rabbit]

You know what,it does not matter when He was there.I never doubted He was not there.I have respect for Nathan and I was curious as to what years He was there.And if you are saying I did something to him,you are way off base.
Nathan can answer for himself,He does not need a spokesperson that has no clue about my post.

I wasn't talking about you sir and my response wasn't meant to be smart. I still say that if his service contained any other theater of operations other than Vietnam, a discussion about fraud combat veterans would have never occurred.

There were plenty of fraud combat veterans in Kerry's group by the way who tossed their fake medals over the white house fence.

[Max Rockatansky]

There were plenty of fraud combat veterans in Kerry's group by the way who tossed their fake medals over the white house fence.

Are you deny that John Kerry or any of the men who served with him aren't Vietnam combat veterans?

[iustitia]

If anyone would like to read about the uncomfortable facts of the Cold War such as what was really going on in Korea, Indochina and the rest of the world I recommend the following-

The Korean War: A history by Bruce Cummings
http://www.docdroid.net/8q5s/the-korean-war-a-history.pdf.html

The Politics of Heroin In Southeast Asia by Alfred W. McCoy
http://www.scribd.com/doc/203692223/The-Politics-of-Heroin-in-Southeast-Asia

The CIA's Greatest Hits by Mark Zepezauer
http://www.scribd.com/doc/201491219/The-CIA-s-Greatest-Hits

[Gerrard Winstanley]

You can't fight ideas except with ideas. You can fight bullets with bullets.

The current example is Fundamentalist Islam. We can't kill an idea with bullets, so the best way to fight it is to promote better ideas. In the Muslim world, this is best done with the Quran. Using Muslims to fight the Fundies is every effective in the war of ideas.

OTOH, when a terrorist group blows up some buildings or take a hotel hostage and murders guests, military action is needed. Not only to neutralize every terrorist who participated, but to hunt down everyone who supported them, enabled them, funded them and all resources that they used.

The same goes for anything, including communism. It wasn't South Vietnam funding guerrillas to attack Hanoi and terrorize villages like the Viet Cong. It wasn't South Korea that first crossed the DMZ and pushed their way to the opposite borders. It wasn't West Berlin that build a wall to prevent citizens from fleeing into East Berlin or blocked East Berlin in an attempt to starve them out.

While you are correct that you can't fight ideas with bullets, as the actions above demonstrate, you also can't fight bullets with ideas. At least not effectively enough to save the lives of those endangered.
Isn't that exactly what the NLF / North Vietnam pulled off with resounding success? Sustained a campaign of ideological pressure for over a decade, despite all the hideouts eradicated and the fighters killed, before achieving final victory in 1975? They took on the brunt of American power, with all odds stacked against them, and won.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

Snakes live in snakepits. And they weren't developing; they were unevolved creatures with no talent for conquering nature. Prehistorically, they settled in the jungle because they were fugitives from justice. And this oppression excuse assumes that they wouldn't have done the same thing if they had taken over the government. This contradicts history, which has shown that when an evil people overthrow an evil government, they replace it with still more evil. That is not progress, that is taking turns.
Had the South incorporated into its political ethos a couple of proper democratic functions, represented the Vietnamese majority (rather than the interests of the hated landowning class), and generally made an effort to shake the impression of a foreign puppet government, there's not a shred of doubt it would have survived.

[darroll]

The South Vietnamese people were of the same character as the scumbags in their government. Don't give them the excuse that they had nothing to fight for; they were cowards, moochers, and thieves who deserved the Communist takeover. We should not only be careful about what kind of native government we try to save, but we should also judge if the natives themselves are worth saving. There is a reason that Southeast Asians wound up living in the No Man's Land of a primitive jungle.

The Chinese people threw out the Vietnamese in their early years, and they all populated Vietnam.
Yes they were know to have sold their kids, robbed anyone with a dong, etc.
The leaders of Vietnam lied to us about their problem with the north.
What are you supposed to do when a so called friend asks for help?

[Mister D]

Had the South incorporated into its political ethos a couple of proper democratic functions, represented the Vietnamese majority (rather than the interests of the hated landowning class), and generally made an effort to shake the impression of a foreign puppet government, there's not a shred of doubt it would have survived.

Some suggest that was precisely the wrong thing to do in a culture that respected order, stability, and power. Pushing western liberlaism on an alien culture besieged by an uncomprising enemy had predictable results. The problem, IMO, is that we did not understabnd Vietnam and we still don't understand non-western cultures.

[Max Rockatansky]

Some suggest that was precisely the wrong thing to do in a culture that respected order, stability, and power. Pushing western liberlaism on an alien culture besieged by an uncomprising enemy had predictable results. The problem, IMO, is that we did not understabnd Vietnam and we still don't understand non-western cultures.

True but I think it's more "we don't want to understand" as opposed to "cannot understand". As a culture, we're still in the mindset of Manifest Destiny and the superiority of WASP superiority over all others. Just bring up a debate between the values of American culture compared to Middle Eastern cultures and see what I mean.

[Max Rockatansky]

Isn't that exactly what the NLF / North Vietnam pulled off with resounding success? Sustained a campaign of ideological pressure for over a decade, despite all the hideouts eradicated and the fighters killed, before achieving final victory in 1975? They took on the brunt of American power, with all odds stacked against them, and won.

No, they fought with bullets. They won with perseverance and AK-47s.

Saigon didn't fall because of an onslaught of ideas. It fell because 30,000 South Vietnamese soldiers couldn't hold off 120,000 North Vietnamese soldiers commanded by General Văn Tiến Dũng.

http://hoibaotonlichsuvanhoa.org/wp-content/gallery/saigon-30-4-1975/vietnam_war_1975.jpg

[Max Rockatansky]

Anyone else notice those attack forces on South Vietnam came from the Cambodian and Laotian side of the border?

[darroll]

Anyone else notice those attack forces on South Vietnam came from the Cambodian and Laotian side of the border?
That was the only safe area for the NVA. Wonder why we could not go into Laos or Cambodia? (and get caught)

[Max Rockatansky]

That was the only safe area for the NVA. Wonder why we could not go into Laos or Cambodia? (and get caught)Agreed. Bad guys don't respect borders and ROEs. It's why the NVA used it to their advantage and why the Taliban are doing the same in Pakistan.

[darroll]

This was our theme song.
The choppers would come in with this song blaring on their speakers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz2L1v7Wkx8

[Max Rockatansky]

This was our theme song.
The choppers would come in with this song blaring on their speakers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz2L1v7Wkx8

So the choppers fly around for 10 minutes playing this a few times and the VC would slit their own throats.

So what did you do with the bodies?

[Dr. Who]

Rabbit and Iustitia are addressing two different sides of the same coin. For that reason, I thanked both posts.

Johnson should have been shot for his actions in that war. Instead, the left shit all over the military.

True but Johnson wasn't really a Dem by today's standards, he was simply a political opportunist with no real political allegiance other than to his own rise to power. Of course the same could be said for many others. In fact, I'm not really certain that there are any politicians that have any real definitive political point of view - only the point of view that gets them elected.

[Dr. Who]

OK, I stand corrected, he did ramp up the bombing of Vietcong/NVA staging areas. But screwing with Cambodia predated his election.

The whole thing was a cluster fuck. Don't think for a minute I supported any of it.

Korea was a cluster fuck too. Did we really need to get a bunch of Americans killed to make the world safe for Hyundais?

Look how each country turned out. We "lost" in Vietnam yet when the two countries were reunified, they have gradually evolved towards greater freedom. We "won" in Korea and thereby created North Korea.

We "won" in Iraq and the country is now another Islamic state and still deep in chaos and killing.

The only place we really succeeded as world policeman was deterring the Russians from invading Europe. Without getting a lot of people killed.






I see agendas at work everywhere that had nothing to do with the apparent rationale for being there.

[The Sage of Main Street]

If anyone would like to read about the uncomfortable facts of the Cold War such as what was really going on in Korea, Indochina and the rest of the world I recommend the following-

The Korean War: A history by Bruce Cummings
http://www.docdroid.net/8q5s/the-korean-war-a-history.pdf.html

The Politics of Heroin In Southeast Asia by Alfred W. McCoy
http://www.scribd.com/doc/203692223/The-Politics-of-Heroin-in-Southeast-Asia

The CIA's Greatest Hits by Mark Zepezauer
http://www.scribd.com/doc/201491219/The-CIA-s-Greatest-Hits

Not related to the war, but the curious thing about Korean history was what kind of decadent ruling class had let the Koreans get colonized after thousands of years of independence? Their collapse was preceded by a failed peasants' revolt against absolutist tyranny, which mean that the subhuman hereditary rule had reached its inevitable conclusion. Familyism is more primitive than the savages' tribalism, so until we dispossess our own Heirheads, America's freedom will be sliding towards a cliff.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Had the South incorporated into its political ethos a couple of proper democratic functions, represented the Vietnamese majority (rather than the interests of the hated landowning class), and generally made an effort to shake the impression of a foreign puppet government, there's not a shred of doubt it would have survived.

The majority were scum too. Their democracy would have immediately become corrupt and oppressive. The mistake of thinking that these people were anything at all like us was repeated in Iraq. The Vietnamese weren't worth saving; we should have let the Khmer Rouge invade and take care of them. Academics come from a sheltered and escapist fantasyworld and can only tell us about a world that they want to exist, a world without the unpleasant impressions caused by facing reality.

[The Sage of Main Street]

The Chinese people threw out the Vietnamese in their early years, and they all populated Vietnam.
Yes they were know to have sold their kids, robbed anyone with a dong, etc.
The leaders of Vietnam lied to us about their problem with the north.
What are you supposed to do when a so called friend asks for help?

Just say no. But first you have to take down the multiculties' warning sign that screams BIG BROTHERHOOD IS WATCHING YOU!!!

[The Sage of Main Street]

That was the only safe area for the NVA. Wonder why we could not go into Laos or Cambodia? (and get caught)

Provided that there was any reason to be there in the first place, we and any ARVN we could have dragged with us should have invaded North Vietnam in 1965 and captured Hanoi. It was a Russian ally. Even if the Chinese had loved the NVA, we should have taken the chance instead of sit there in the South as sitting ducks.
Which is more proof that our ruling class is nothing but quacks.

[Contrails]

How is dodging the draft or seeking a deferment doing one's duty? I consider those people assholes regardless if they are Bill Clinton, Rush Limbaugh or Dick Cheney.

That's not what I said. But enlisting was just as good a way to avoid serving in Vietnam.

[Max Rockatansky]

That's not what I said. But enlisting was just as good a way to avoid serving in Vietnam.

And that's not what was being discussed.


I'm not sure I'm buying the logic that 1/3 of those who enlisted in the Army to go to Vietnam did so to avoid the draft. Sure, some people did enlist prior to the draft so as to go in the Air Force or Navy rather than be given 8 weeks of training, handed a rifle and a ticket to Vietnam. If they were going to Vietnam anyway that doesn't make sense.

I'm thinking it has more to do with Americans had more of a sense of duty in those days. We were only 20 years from WWII. About the same amount of time between now and Clinton being elected. Things were different in this country back in the 1960s. Some good, some bad. My life was different than most as a military dependent, but I still saw the attitudes of others when I went to public, as opposed to DOD, schools.
It's not a question of duty, otherwise they would have gone for a deferment or even dodged the draft, but it really isn't hard to understand. If you were drafted, you went into the service and unit the military selected for you. If you enlisted, you could choose which service and possibly even which unit. Don't you think most people would want at least some control over where they ended up in the miltary?

[The Sage of Main Street]

WARNING: ORIGINALITY ALERT! NO LINKS EXCEPT TO MYSELF! READ AT YOUR OWN RISK!

Jimmy Carter was a draftdodger. Obviously not a military type, he got into Annapolis in order to avoid active duty. I don't know what the other countries did to prevent Chickenhawks from doing that. They should have shut the academies down for the duration.