Should there have ever been any troops in Vietnam?

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

no. We shouldn't never sent even one soldier. Period.

[M]

Wow, this is realy bugging you today, huh? I get like that sometimes, when something really upsets me and I view everything else threw that lens.

We should have fought the war completely differently- to win, from the beginning. The Chinese would not have come in, and if they did, we could have had a true Lorea-style settlement. I do not think we should have used nukes, I disagree with Goldwater on that and on Civil Rights more than I disagree with Great Society and LBJ's prosecution of the war, so I would have voted against one of my political heroes in 1964. (My dad loved Goldwater at the time, my mom learned to like him later when he was a mellower GOP senior statesman in the 80s).

But if you asked a slightly different question, "was the war exactly as it happened historically worth it, or would you have preferred abandoning Indochina in the late 50s"? I would have to say ditch 'em. The cultural and political havoc from the war in this country, still continuing, was just too great. (I.e., decline of patriotism, divisive politics, etc).

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

Then I don't see how anyone could possibly say McGovern was wrong. Because at that point, it was too late to do what you're describing.

McGovern is my biggest political hero, because even though his loss he woke up American to get out, and forced Nixon to end the draft. He's the greatest American of the second half of the 20th century. And he was more conservative than LBJ, one of my least favorites.

[PBrunsel]

Yes, you can't award an aggressor. Ho Chi Mihn was an aggressor. To let him just take South Vietnam was giving a big fat reward to Communist, Anti-Americans, and giving a strong blow to free people throughout the world.

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

Yes, you can't award an aggressor. Ho Chi Mihn was an aggressor. To let him just take South Vietnam was giving a big fat reward to Communist, Anti-Americans, and giving a strong blow to free people throughout the world.

actually Ho Chi Minh would've won the elections and controlled both the North and South had they not been rigged.

[PBrunsel]

Yes, you can't award an aggressor. Ho Chi Mihn was an aggressor. To let him just take South Vietnam was giving a big fat reward to Communist, Anti-Americans, and giving a strong blow to free people throughout the world.

actually Ho Chi Minh would've won the elections and controlled both the North and South had they not been rigged.

Ho Chi Mihn was no better than Hitler. He was an aggressor. He waged war on a peacefull nation.

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAA, South Vietnam was a corrupt military dictatorship. Peaceful? And it was in a way rightfully his.

[TexasGurl]

interesting thread.

[PBrunsel]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAA, South Vietnam was a corrupt military dictatorship. Peaceful? And it was in a way rightfully his.

South Vietnam never attacked North Vietnam, so North Vietnam had no reason to attack. Ho Chi Mihn followed what Hitler did. To support Mihn's War is to support Hitler's War.

[PBrunsel]

Had the U.S. not helped in Vietnam, then it would have made it seem that the U.S. could not be counted on in such treaties like NATO. It was to defend Democracy, and that is a noble cause.

[KEmperor]

Actually, the main reason the US got involved in Vietnam initially was to help prop up a French government.  Again, it's the damn French at the heart of the problem.

[PBrunsel]

Actually, the main reason the US got involved in Vietnam initially was to help prop up a French government.  Again, it's the damn French at the heart of the problem.

The French were soundly thrashed by the Vietcong. That's typical of old surrender France.

[TexasGurl]

French shouldn't have been there either.
once we were in it was right to try and win.
pulling out early is never a good thing

[PBrunsel]

Barry Goldwater said that he would of made North Vietnam into a mud puddle had he beacme president in 1964.

[TexasGurl]

Actually, the main reason the US got involved in Vietnam initially was to help prop up a French government.  Again, it's the damn French at the heart of the problem.

The French were soundly thrashed by the Vietcong. That's typical of old surrender France.

the french put up an epic fight at dien bien phu.

[PBrunsel]

Actually, the main reason the US got involved in Vietnam initially was to help prop up a French government.  Again, it's the damn French at the heart of the problem.

The French were soundly thrashed by the Vietcong. That's typical of old surrender France.

the french put up an epic fight at dien bien phu.

That, being the last battle of their war, was a good fight. If France had won there would be no Vietnam War.

[TexasGurl]

Actually, the main reason the US got involved in Vietnam initially was to help prop up a French government.  Again, it's the damn French at the heart of the problem.

The French were soundly thrashed by the Vietcong. That's typical of old surrender France.

the french put up an epic fight at dien bien phu.

That, being the last battle of their war, was a good fight. If France had won there would be no Vietnam War.

the u.s. offered to "loan" a nuke to the french for use at dien bien phu.

[M]

It is true that Ho Chi Minh would have won the democratic elections in a united Viet Nam. But that would not have stopped his aggression. And Hitler was elected democratically too.

Yes, South Viet Nam was quite corrupt, and Cambodia was an absolute mess. But we were in an effective quiet World War III from 1948-1989. (Or possibly 1945-1991). And the Viet Nam war could be viewed through that lens.

I still think if we had been any smarter we could have been able to force a real divided Viet Nam post-73. In one sense though we may have won the war. The USSR and PRC wasted a lot of materiel and finances on the North Vietnamese, which may have contributed to the decline and fall of the Soviet Union and the opening of China to the West.

[The Duke]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAA, South Vietnam was a corrupt military dictatorship. Peaceful? And it was in a way rightfully his.

No nation ever belongs to one man.  Leaders are there to serve their nation and not the other way around.

[opebo]

We should've made an example of North Vietnam - Vietnam itself was less important than proving our ruthlessness to the rest of the world, since the Hiroshima/Nagasaki effect was wearing off by about 1970.

[The Duke]

I'd say we should never have escalated the way we did, but having advisors is no problem.  Like what we're doing now in the Phillipines.

[WMS]

It is true that Ho Chi Minh would have won the democratic elections in a united Viet Nam. But that would not have stopped his aggression. And Hitler was elected democratically too.

Yes, South Viet Nam was quite corrupt, and Cambodia was an absolute mess. But we were in an effective quiet World War III from 1948-1989. (Or possibly 1945-1991). And the Viet Nam war could be viewed through that lens.

I still think if we had been any smarter we could have been able to force a real divided Viet Nam post-73. In one sense though we may have won the war. The USSR and PRC wasted a lot of materiel and finances on the North Vietnamese, which may have contributed to the decline and fall of the Soviet Union and the opening of China to the West.

Quite good points, M. I would like to add that historically, Vietnam was NOT unified! Cochin China in the North, Annam in the Center, and the delta in the south was usually Khmer. There was very much an imperialist element to what the North Vietnamese did. Why do you think the Hmong and other mountain tribes fought so hard on the U.S. side? Indochina was historically divided and mutually hostile, so all this cr*p about Vietnamese unity and brothership with Laos and Cambodia (at gun-point, I might add) is a cover for Cochin Chinese imperialism. The failure of the U.S. was in not exploiting the underlying ethnic tensions in the area. But that's what you get when you let Joseph McCarthy vet your staff...'Do you know anything at all about Indochina?' 'Well, yes, it was my area of study-' 'Pinko Communist! Fire him!'

[Sibboleth]

I blame the French
Seriously, LBJ shouldn't be blamed/demonised in the way he is... JFK was more responsible... and Eisenhower even more responsible... actually it *was* France's fault...


BTW does anyone else find BRTD's claim to be close to being a pacifist laughable?

[The Duke]

BTW does anyone else find BRTD's claim to be close to being a pacifist laughable?

Only a little (lot).

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

why? I haven't supported any wars since WWII.