Vietnam

[Catawba]

"The Vietnam War[A 3] was a Cold War-era military conflict that occurred in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia from 1 November 1955[A 1] to the fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975."

"On 15 March 1973, U.S. President Richard Nixon implied that the United States would intervene militarily if the communist side violated the ceasefire. Public and congressional reaction to Nixon's trial balloon was unfavorable and in April Nixon appointed Graham Martin as U.S. ambassador to Vietnam. Martin was a second stringer compared to previous U.S. ambassadors and his appointment was an early signal that Washington had given up on Vietnam. During his confirmation hearings in June 1973, Secretary of Defense James R. Schlesinger stated that he would recommend resumption of U.S. bombing in North Vietnam if North Vietnam launched a major offensive against South Vietnam. On 4 June 1973, the U.S. Senate passed the Case-Church Amendment to prohibit such intervention."

"The oil price shock of October 1973 caused significant damage to the South Vietnamese economy. The Vietcong resumed offensive operations when dry season began and by January 1974 it had recaptured the territory it lost during the previous dry season. After two clashes that left 55 South Vietnamese soldiers dead, President Thiệu announced on 4 January that the war had restarted and that the Paris Peace Accord was no longer in effect. There had been over 25,000 South Vietnamese casualties during the ceasefire period.[201]

Gerald Ford took over as U.S. president on 9 August 1974 after President Nixon resigned due to the Watergate scandal. At this time, Congress cut financial aid to South Vietnam from $1 billion a year to $700 million. The U.S. midterm elections in 1974 brought in a new Congress dominated by Democrats who were even more determined to confront the president on the war. Congress immediately voted in restrictions on funding and military activities to be phased in through 1975 and to culminate in a total cutoff of funding in 1976."

Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[haymarket]

We did prevent it, until the communists violated the treaty and defeated the ARVN.

That is really funny.... we did prevent it until we failed to prevent it. Most excellent!!!!

 

[haymarket]

Where's your evidence? I've yet to see it.

Where is my evidence of what?

That Viet Nam fell to the Communists and they took over the entire nation?

That the USA backed militarily and politically the side that LOST?

That the grass is green?

That the earth is round?

That the planets revolve around the sun?

 

[notquiteright]

The problem with 'conservative' revisionists is they can't remember what really happened, only the feel good propaganda they weave to soften reality.

South Vietnam was false construct to save face as the US backed French failed to hang onto their colony.

The straw of we didn't lose is as fake as a hooker's smile. We lost plenty of engagements, pumped up ESTIMATED enemy losses, and never owned over half of Vietnam by day and a sliver by night.

NVA or VC is a fake division, for most Vietnamese there was only one Vietnam. WE created a South Vietnam, most the elite of the South Vietnamese power structure were Hanoi refugees.

Nixon and Kissinger did their best to fake a victory, but everyone knew we were leaving and never coming back. Though Reagan soon taught us 'conservatives' could outspend liberals 9 ways come Sunday, the Vietnam expense seemed huge fearful. Blame congress, liberals, young people, dominoes, whatever.

We went from containment where our national interest was vital to a warped sense that any sign or weakness would have the commies on our doorstep. ANY President would be raked over the coals if he didn't puff up all John Wayne like over any sign of commie encroachment, no matter how backwater the nation was.

We never could win in Vietnam, 'they' could never lose.

 

[Navy Pride]

Where is my evidence of what?

That Viet Nam fell to the Communists and they took over the entire nation?

That the USA backed militarily and politically the side that LOST?

That the grass is green?

That the earth is round?

That the planets revolve around the sun?

Are you really and American Citizen? Why do you have such hate for our military?

 

[Oozlefinch]

Did we accomplish the political objectives we set out to achieve when we first got involved in Vietnam? The answer, by most accounts, is no, no, and hell no, and the evidence lies in the fact that today, Vietnam is a country ruled by a Communist party. To conclude that the United States was victorious in the Vietnam War in the face of these facts is lunacy and self-delusion.

This all depends on what you mean by the war.

As far as the US is concerned, that ended in 1973. At that point there was a peace agreement in place, North Korea was no longer in or attacking South Korea. So the war was over.

In 1974, the Paris Peace Accords basically went to hell. North Vietnam consistantly broke them, and the US not only withdrew all forces (as was in the agreement), but eventually cut off all funding. The Cemocrat controlled congress in 1974 first reduced assistance funding by 30%, then by another 80%, leaving South Vietnam without anything to fight back with (even though North Vietnam continued to get large infusions of cash and weapons from the Soviets, China, Cuba and North Korea).

In December 1974, North Vietnam went on the offensive again, capturing the regional capitol of Phuoc Long, once again resuming the war in violation of the Paris Peace Accords. President Ford asked Congress to resume payments for South Vietnam so they could fight off this invasion, it was refused. And because they were included in the 1973 Oil Embargo, their military had very little money left (having spent a large portion of their budget on fuel).

The war ending in 1975 was a different war. When you have a war and then a peace treaty, what follows is historically considered to be a seperate war.

But fine. If you want to go all political on all this, the reason the US lost the Vietnam War was the Democrats. Their refusal to assist an ally to me is nothing short of criminal.

 

[Thrilla]

The problem with 'conservative' revisionists is they can't remember what really happened, only the feel good propaganda they weave to soften reality.

South Vietnam was false construct to save face as the US backed French failed to hang onto their colony.

The straw of we didn't lose is as fake as a hooker's smile. We lost plenty of engagements, pumped up ESTIMATED enemy losses, and never owned over half of Vietnam by day and a sliver by night.

NVA or VC is a fake division, for most Vietnamese there was only one Vietnam. WE created a South Vietnam, most the elite of the South Vietnamese power structure were Hanoi refugees.

Nixon and Kissinger did their best to fake a victory, but everyone knew we were leaving and never coming back. Though Reagan soon taught us 'conservatives' could outspend liberals 9 ways come Sunday, the Vietnam expense seemed huge fearful. Blame congress, liberals, young people, dominoes, whatever.

We went from containment where our national interest was vital to a warped sense that any sign or weakness would have the commies on our doorstep. ANY President would be raked over the coals if he didn't puff up all John Wayne like over any sign of commie encroachment, no matter how backwater the nation was.

We never could win in Vietnam, 'they' could never lose.

you have little room to decry revisionism...

 

[Catawba]

Are you really and American Citizen? Why do you have such hate for our military?

Since when did the truth become anti-American?

 

[Catawba]

This all depends on what you mean by the war.

As far as the US is concerned, that ended in 1973. At that point there was a peace agreement in place, North Korea was no longer in or attacking South Korea. So the war was over.

In 1974, the Paris Peace Accords basically went to hell. North Vietnam consistantly broke them, and the US not only withdrew all forces (as was in the agreement), but eventually cut off all funding. The Cemocrat controlled congress in 1974 first reduced assistance funding by 30%, then by another 80%, leaving South Vietnam without anything to fight back with (even though North Vietnam continued to get large infusions of cash and weapons from the Soviets, China, Cuba and North Korea).

In December 1974, North Vietnam went on the offensive again, capturing the regional capitol of Phuoc Long, once again resuming the war in violation of the Paris Peace Accords. President Ford asked Congress to resume payments for South Vietnam so they could fight off this invasion, it was refused. And because they were included in the 1973 Oil Embargo, their military had very little money left (having spent a large portion of their budget on fuel).

The war ending in 1975 was a different war. When you have a war and then a peace treaty, what follows is historically considered to be a seperate war.

But fine. If you want to go all political on all this, the reason the US lost the Vietnam War was the Democrats. Their refusal to assist an ally to me is nothing short of criminal.

To me the US ignoring the will of the Vietnamese peoples' wish for a unified Vietnam thereby being responsible for millions of deaths in a needless war is criminal. I am very proud that the Democrats in Congress that listened to the majority of Americans who wanted an end to the war against the Vietnamese.

 

[StillBallin75]

This all depends on what you mean by the war.

As far as the US is concerned, that ended in 1973. At that point there was a peace agreement in place, North Korea was no longer in or attacking South Korea. So the war was over.

In 1974, the Paris Peace Accords basically went to hell. North Vietnam consistantly broke them, and the US not only withdrew all forces (as was in the agreement), but eventually cut off all funding. The Cemocrat controlled congress in 1974 first reduced assistance funding by 30%, then by another 80%, leaving South Vietnam without anything to fight back with (even though North Vietnam continued to get large infusions of cash and weapons from the Soviets, China, Cuba and North Korea).

In December 1974, North Vietnam went on the offensive again, capturing the regional capitol of Phuoc Long, once again resuming the war in violation of the Paris Peace Accords. President Ford asked Congress to resume payments for South Vietnam so they could fight off this invasion, it was refused. And because they were included in the 1973 Oil Embargo, their military had very little money left (having spent a large portion of their budget on fuel).

The war ending in 1975 was a different war. When you have a war and then a peace treaty, what follows is historically considered to be a seperate war.

But fine. If you want to go all political on all this, the reason the US lost the Vietnam War was the Democrats. Their refusal to assist an ally to me is nothing short of criminal.

1) Whatever distinction you choose to draw between the "Vietnam War" and what happened after the Paris Peace Accords, is in my opinion, largely irrelevant. The simple matter is we failed to accomplish what we set out to achieve in Vietnam. We failed to impose our will on the enemy and shape outcomes to our advantage. We withdrew from the area without having achieved our political objectives (i.e. whatever reason we were fighting the war in the first place). This is what I mean when I say the United States lost the Vietnam War.

Allow me to pose a hypothetical:

If we withdraw from Afghanistan the next few years, we sign some sort of treaty or agreement with Mullah Omar that nominally allows for a democratic Afghanistan, and the Taliban renege on the deal and subsequently take over Afghanistan once again and return it to the status quo ante bellum, would you consider the "War in Afghanistan" to be some sort of victory? I really don't see how you could convince any intelligent person that that would be the case.

So you can talk about the Paris Peace Accords that we signed with the North Vietnamese, but my point is that those agreements became largely irrelevant once the NVA took over the whole country, and their signing has absolutely no bearing on whether we won or lost that conflict. I mean I guess you could say "we won, they cheated!" but we both know that's not how war works. War is about what you can do, what you're willing to do, and the marriage of military means to political ends. At the end of the day, the North achieved what they set out to achieve when they started fighting. We didn't. Everything else is immaterial.

2) I'd argue the reason the US lost the Vietnam War was because it was a conflict that was never meant to be fought to begin with and was never worth the trouble, but I'll chalk that up to a difference of opinion :shrug:

Those who were fighting against us essentially felt that they had lots more at stake than we did, and the side that has more to fight for usually ends up with a psychological advantage (i.e. "I'm defending and fighting for the future and survival of my country" vs. "Why the hell are my friends and I fighting and dying in this Third World ****hole country that nobody back home gives two ****s about and probably couldn't even locate on a map?")

The fact also that we allied ourselves with a regime that, in my opinion, was just as despicable and criminal as the one we were fighting against is nothing short of disgusting to me. It was not a regime in my opinion that was worth defending. Like I said, I'll simply chalk that up to difference of opinion.

 

[Thrilla]

To me the US ignoring the will of the Vietnamese peoples' wish for a unified Vietnam thereby being responsible for millions of deaths in a needless war is criminal. I am very proud that the Democrats in Congress that listened to the majority of Americans who wanted an end to the war against the Vietnamese.

yes, Democrats did a great service to the Communist parties in Vietnam and Cambodia...who in turn, thanked them by exterminating millions more than were killed in the war during US involvement.
the purges, the persecutions, the outright murders, the peoples tribunals, re-eduction camps, torture, genocide.. yeah... something to be proud of for sure.
there's your "will of the people" right there Cat...bask in it.

 

[Fruityfact]

Someone must have quoted this before but it is still very relevant: "What terrifies one generation is likely to bring only a puzzled smile to the next"-Arthur Miller
What was a bigger issue- The Red Scare vs "Whatever the heck is going on right now"

 

[Thrilla]

1) Whatever distinction you choose to draw between the "Vietnam War" and what happened after the Paris Peace Accords, is in my opinion, largely irrelevant. The simple matter is we failed to accomplish what we set out to achieve in Vietnam. We failed to impose our will on the enemy and shape outcomes to our advantage. We withdrew from the area without having achieved our political objectives (i.e. whatever reason we were fighting the war in the first place). This is what I mean when I say the United States lost the Vietnam War.

if what happened after the Paris Peace accords is "largely irrelevant", than you cannot declare defeat for the US.... the entire argument ( and I do mean entire) of the US losing the war in Vietnam is based solely on what happened 2 years after the Paris Peace accords.

if you say that it is irrelevant, then we can only look at the time period of before the accords... a time period in which we accomplished our mission with flying colors, culminating in peace accords.

you have to remember what our mission was... it was simply to protect the South from being conquered.
if our mission was to conquer the North, I would join you in saying we failed... but it wasn't , so I can't

 

[StillBallin75]

if what happened after the Paris Peace accords is "largely irrelevant", than you cannot declare defeat for the US.... the entire argument ( and I do mean entire) of the US losing the war in Vietnam is based solely on what happened 2 years after the Paris Peace accords.

if you say that it is irrelevant, then we can only look at the time period of before the accords... a time period in which we accomplished our mission with flying colors, culminating in peace accords.

That's not what I said. It damn sure as hell is relevant. What I said is that any distinction one draws between OUR involvement in Vietnam (aka the "Vietnam War") and the Communist takeover of the entire country two years afterwards is irrelevant when it comes to discussing whether or not the outcome of the Vietnam War was a strategic victory for the US. Because such a distinction isn't relevant, and the outcome was NOT a strategic victory for the US any way you look at it. Keep in mind, i'm looking at the big picture here.

you have to remember what our mission was... it was simply to protect the South from being conquered.
if our mission was to conquer the North, I would join you in saying we failed... but it wasn't , so I can't

Well, that didn't really work out all that well, did it?

 

[Catawba]

yes, Democrats did a great service to the Communist parties in Vietnam and Cambodia...who in turn, thanked them by exterminating millions more than were killed in the war during US involvement.
the purges, the persecutions, the outright murders, the peoples tribunals, re-eduction camps, torture, genocide.. yeah... something to be proud of for sure.
there's your "will of the people" right there Cat...bask in it.

Evidently, I put more stock in the will of the majorities of American people and the Vietnam people than you do. Had we not interfered in Vietnam the people would have voted for Ho, and millions fewer would have died. Under your scenario, we would just have sacrificed more of our young people and the end result would have been the same.

Trying to force democracy on a people against their will at the end of a gun simply doesn't work, as Vietnam proved.

 

[Thrilla]

That's not what I said. It damn sure as hell is relevant. What I said is that any distinction one draws between OUR involvement in Vietnam (aka the "Vietnam War") and the Communist takeover of the entire country two years afterwards is irrelevant when it comes to discussing whether or not the outcome of the Vietnam War was a strategic victory for the US. Because such a distinction isn't relevant, and the outcome was NOT a strategic victory for the US.

ahh.. ok.. I misunderstood you before.

why would you consider this distinction irrelevant?.. I do not understand that line of thought at all.

Well, that didn't really work out all that well, did it?

It worked fabulously... at no time was the South in fear of being conquered while we provided protection... not even for a minute.
a couple of years after we disengaged and remanded responsibility to the South... it didn't go so well... it went horribly wrong, in fact...lots of bad **** ensued.

 

[Thrilla]

Evidently, I put more stock in the will of the majorities of American people and the Vietnam people than you do. Had we not interfered in Vietnam the people would have voted for Ho, and millions fewer would have died. Under your scenario, we would just have sacrificed more of our young people and the end result would have been the same.

Trying to force democracy on a people against their will at the end of a gun simply doesn't work, as Vietnam proved.

i'm uninterested in your speculations... you've no credibility with me whatsoever, sorry.
you can't run from facts by creating hypothetical... no matter how hard you try, there's always some asshole that will bring you back to reality.

we didn't force democracy on a people in Vietnam... at the point of a gun, or otherwise..... of course, I'd point out that your brethren in the North forced Communism on the people of the south at the point of a gun, but you'll just ignore it.

as is evident, we tolerated and allowed the people in the North to live under whatever system they wanted...a toleration that was not shared by the Communists, obviously.

 

[Catawba]

i'm uninterested in your speculations... you've no credibility with me whatsoever, sorry.
you can't run from facts by creating hypothetical... no matter how hard you try, there's always some asshole that will bring you back to reality.

we didn't force democracy on a people in Vietnam... at the point of a gun, or otherwise..... of course, I'd point out that your brethren in the North forced Communism on the people of the south at the point of a gun, but you'll just ignore it.

as is evident, we tolerated and allowed the people in the North to live under whatever system they wanted...a toleration that was not shared by the Communists, obviously.

It is not my just my opinion that the the Vietnamese people would have overwhelmingly voted for unification of Vietnam had we allowed it.

"President Eisenhower noted that had the Geneva Accords been held, "possibly 80 percent of the population would have voted for Communist Ho Chi Minh"

Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Thrilla]

It is not my just my opinion that the the Vietnamese people would have overwhelmingly voted for unification of Vietnam had we allowed it.

"President Eisenhower noted that had the Geneva Accords been held, "possibly 80 percent of the population would have voted for Communist Ho Chi Minh"

Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ok,so you adopted someone else's speculation... it still doesn't change reality.

 

[Oozlefinch]

To me the US ignoring the will of the Vietnamese peoples' wish for a unified Vietnam thereby being responsible for millions of deaths in a needless war is criminal. I am very proud that the Democrats in Congress that listened to the majority of Americans who wanted an end to the war against the Vietnamese.

Ahhh. ANd are you proud of the million plus Vietnamese that were slaughtered once the North Vietnamese "unified" the nation? The over 3 million Vietnamese that fled the nation in order to keep from being slaughtered?

And when you boil it all down, all of those millions of people during the entire war were slaughtered by the North Vietnamese nation. Because if they had not started the war in the first place, none of them would have died.

1 million deaths and the diaspora of over 3 million more. I guess somebody has to be proud of that, am glad you claim it and not me.

 

[Oozlefinch]

If we withdraw from Afghanistan the next few years, we sign some sort of treaty or agreement with Mullah Omar that nominally allows for a democratic Afghanistan, and the Taliban renege on the deal and subsequently take over Afghanistan once again and return it to the status quo ante bellum, would you consider the "War in Afghanistan" to be some sort of victory? I really don't see how you could convince any intelligent person that that would be the case.

Non-sequetor. Mullah Omar is not the ruler of a nation. Therefore, we can not "make peace" with him. You might as well talk about making peace with Fred Phelps.

And even if we were foolish enough to do such a thing, I expect it to last about as long as North Vietnam respected their treaty. The ink would not even be dry before they started to violate it. So if nothing else, this claim should be used as an example of why you can't even think of negotiating with individuals like that.

 

[Catawba]

ok,so you adopted someone else's speculation... it still doesn't change reality.

"Diem announced, with American approval, that he was not going to carry out national elections as called for by the Geneva Accords. He refused even to hold a conference with the Viet Minh to discuss nationwide elections. Instead he renamed the State of Vietnam as the Republic of Vietnam, and held separate elections in South Vietnam to choose the government of the Republic of Vietnam. These elections had no international supervision, and there was not even a pretence of honesty in the counting of the votes. (In Saigon, which had about 450,000 registered voters, the official vote tally said that there had been about 600,000 votes cast for Diem.) Diem declared that he had gotten more than 98% of the votes, and that he was now President of the Republic of Vietnam."

VN Wars: 1954-1961

Published in History Review 2008

"By 1954 the war in Vietnam had become increasingly unpopular in France. The defeat of French troops by Communist forces at Dienbienphu left France exhausted, exasperated and keen to withdraw. At the international conference convened to discuss French Indochina at Geneva in May 1954, the French exit was formalised. Vietnam was temporarily divided, with Ho Chi Minh in control of the north and the Emperor Bao Dai in control of the south. The Geneva Accords declared that there were to be nationwide elections leading to reunification of Vietnam in 1956. However, US intervention ensured that this ‘temporary division’ was to last for more than 20 years.

The United States refused to sign the Geneva Accords and moved to defy them within weeks. Eisenhower's Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, organised allies such as Britain in the South-east Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO). The SEATO signatories agreed to protect South Vietnam, in defiance of the Geneva Accords, which had forbidden the Vietnamese from entering into foreign alliances or to allow foreign troops in Vietnam.

The Eisenhower administration encouraged Bao Dai to appoint Ngo Dinh Diem as his prime minister, and then proceeded to engage in ‘nation building’. Eisenhower and Dulles created a new state, in defiance (yet again) of the Geneva Accords and of what was known to be the will of the Vietnamese people. Eisenhower recorded in his memoirs that he knew that if there had been genuine democratic elections in Vietnam in 1956, Ho Chi Minh would have won around 80 per cent of the vote. In order to avoid a wholly Communist Vietnam, the US had sponsored an artificial political creation, the state of South Vietnam."

Turning Points in the Vietnam War | History Today


I have to go with the historians and the memoirs of President Eisenhower himself over the unsubstantiated opinion of an anonymous internet guy, but that's just me.......

 

[Quantrill]

Ahhh. ANd are you proud of the million plus Vietnamese that were slaughtered once the North Vietnamese "unified" the nation? The over 3 million Vietnamese that fled the nation in order to keep from being slaughtered?

And when you boil it all down, all of those millions of people during the entire war were slaughtered by the North Vietnamese nation. Because if they had not started the war in the first place, none of them would have died.

1 million deaths and the diaspora of over 3 million more. I guess somebody has to be proud of that, am glad you claim it and not me.

Such slaughter probably never would have occurred if the US had allowed the elections.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

This all depends on what you mean by the war.

As far as the US is concerned, that ended in 1973. At that point there was a peace agreement in place, North Korea was no longer in or attacking South Korea. So the war was over.

In 1974, the Paris Peace Accords basically went to hell. North Vietnam consistantly broke them, and the US not only withdrew all forces (as was in the agreement), but eventually cut off all funding. The Cemocrat controlled congress in 1974 first reduced assistance funding by 30%, then by another 80%, leaving South Vietnam without anything to fight back with (even though North Vietnam continued to get large infusions of cash and weapons from the Soviets, China, Cuba and North Korea).

In December 1974, North Vietnam went on the offensive again, capturing the regional capitol of Phuoc Long, once again resuming the war in violation of the Paris Peace Accords. President Ford asked Congress to resume payments for South Vietnam so they could fight off this invasion, it was refused. And because they were included in the 1973 Oil Embargo, their military had very little money left (having spent a large portion of their budget on fuel).

The war ending in 1975 was a different war. When you have a war and then a peace treaty, what follows is historically considered to be a seperate war.

But fine. If you want to go all political on all this, the reason the US lost the Vietnam War was the Democrats. Their refusal to assist an ally to me is nothing short of criminal.

The Peace Agreement left the NVA in the field and the US had to leave. Thats defeat. The NVA were not required to remove their armies from the South. We were. Thats defeat anyway you look at it.

Why do you fear to admit defeat?

Quantrill

 

[Catawba]

Ahhh. ANd are you proud of the million plus Vietnamese that were slaughtered once the North Vietnamese "unified" the nation? The over 3 million Vietnamese that fled the nation in order to keep from being slaughtered?

And when you boil it all down, all of those millions of people during the entire war were slaughtered by the North Vietnamese nation. Because if they had not started the war in the first place, none of them would have died.

1 million deaths and the diaspora of over 3 million more. I guess somebody has to be proud of that, am glad you claim it and not me.

As Quantrill put so succinctly,

Such slaughter probably never would have occurred if the US had allowed the elections.

Quantrill

...............