Why didn't the world save Vietnam?

[Rich2018]

You said the situation in Korea today justifies military intervention in the case of a North Korean intervention... but my original post was about the US intervention during the 1950 invasion - I was asking you if the same principle held true then.

Well the USA was acting under the auspices of the UN

But yes, intervention was justified.

 

[Cordelier]

Well the USA was acting under the auspices of the UN

But yes, intervention was justified.

So if the Soviet Union wasn't boycotting the UN Security Council at the time and they exercised their veto on UNSCR 83, then would intervention in the conflict still have been justified?

 

[iguanaman]

What about in 1950, though?

Korea was a war with China and unlike Vietnam we had the support of most of S. Korea. In Vietnam we were supporting the remnants of the French colonial Govt. against the will of the majority who wanted a Vietnam free of outside influence. That is why it was always doomed to fail. The S. Vietnamese President spoke French for God's sake and Saigon's newspapers were in French too. Ask anyone who was there..it was a complete **** show. The good news is that Vietnam has magnanimously forgiven us and is now a valuable ally against the Chinese who they have always hated.

 

[Cordelier]

Korea was a war with China and unlike Vietnam we had the support of most of S. Korea. In Vietnam we were supporting the remnants of the French colonial Govt. against the will of the majority who wanted a Vietnam free of outside influence. That is why it was always doomed to fail. The S. Vietnamese President spoke French for God's sake and Saigon's newspapers were in French too. Ask anyone who was there..it was a complete **** show. The good news is that Vietnam has forgiven us and is now valuable ally against the Chinese who they have always hated.

First off, China didn't enter the conflict until after we crossed the DMZ and counter-invaded the North. We didn't do that in Vietnam.

Secondly, the Government of South Vietnam - specifically Diem's - was both anti-colonialist and anti-communist. It's a mis-characterization to label them as "the remnants of the French colonial Govt."

Third, I'm unaware of any polling that was done in either South Korea or South Vietnam that gave a reliable indicator of popular support. So without any credible evidence, I'd have to say that any characterizations would be highly subjective at best. I do know that at the end of the French Indochina War, there was a significant exodus of people from the North to the South (primarily Catholics wanting to escape Communist oppression)... and the migration of people from the South to the North was negligible. People do tend to vote with their feet.

Fourth, I don't disagree that the political situation in Saigon was a complete ****show... but you know what? So was South Korea until Park Chung-hee got their act together... but Park wouldn't have had that chance if we hadn't intervened and stopped the North from taking over. If South Vietnam could have found their own version of Park, the result may well have ended very differently.

 

[iguanaman]

First off, China didn't enter the conflict until after we crossed the DMZ and counter-invaded the North. We didn't do that in Vietnam.

Secondly, the Government of South Vietnam - specifically Diem's - was both anti-colonialist and anti-communist. It's a mis-characterization to label them as "the remnants of the French colonial Govt."

Third, I'm unaware of any polling that was done in either South Korea or South Vietnam that gave a reliable indicator of popular support. So without any credible evidence, I'd have to say that any characterizations would be highly subjective at best. I do know that at the end of the French Indochina War, there was a significant exodus of people from the North to the South (primarily Catholics wanting to escape Communist oppression)... and the migration of people from the South to the North was negligible. People do tend to vote with their feet.

Fourth, I don't disagree that the political situation in Saigon was a complete ****show... but you know what? So was South Korea until Park Chung-hee got their act together... but Park wouldn't have had that chance if we hadn't intervened and stopped the North from taking over. If South Vietnam could have found their own version of Park, the result may well have ended very differently.

LOL Are you denying that Diem spoke French and his Govt. was installed by the French? Are you denying that China materially supported the N. Koreans even before they intervened too? Too much. Be happy that the Vietnamese forgave us for our stupidity and arrogance for fighting a proxy war with Russia on their land and spilling their blood. BTW the Vietnamese people never recognized the division of their country by the U.N. so why would they leave their land? The just wanted a unified country without outside influence and that is what they got.

 

[Cordelier]

LOL Are you denying that Diem spoke French and his Govt. was installed by the French? Are you denying that China materially supported the N. Koreans even before they intervened too? Too much. Be happy that the Vietnamese forgave us for our stupidity and arrogance for fighting a proxy war with Russia on their land and spilling their blood. BTW the Vietnamese people never recognized the division of their country by the U.N. so why would they leave their land? The just wanted a unified country without outside influence and that is what they got.

The French opposed Diem... he was actually in exile in the US until the French departed. The puppet government installed by France was headed by Bao Dai...but he was soon pushed aside by Diem.

I don't deny that North Korea was supported by China and the USSR prior to the invasion of the South. But you know what? So was North Vietnam. Basically, I'm just trying to understand why the same people who would have supported US intervention in the invasion of South Korea are so vocal against the US intervention in the invasion of South Vietnam. It seems hypocritical to me... from my viewpoint, the same principles ought to have applied in both cases.

So what was the difference? Is it a case of hindsight being 20/20?

 

[iguanaman]

The French opposed Diem... he was actually in exile in the US until the French departed. The puppet government installed by France was headed by Bao Dai...but he was soon pushed aside by Diem.

I don't deny that North Korea was supported by China and the USSR prior to the invasion of the South. But you know what? So was North Vietnam. Basically, I'm just trying to understand why the same people who would have supported US intervention in the invasion of South Korea are so vocal against the US intervention in the invasion of South Vietnam. It seems hypocritical to me... from my viewpoint, the same principles ought to have applied in both cases.

So what was the difference? Is it a case of hindsight being 20/20?

I explained the difference and if Diem was so anti-colonial we would not have kept speaking French or supported another colonial nation keeping him in office. N. Vietnam took Soviet help for the same reason Castro did. They needed help and the USSR offered it. We could have supported a unified Vietnam too but decided to side with France and fight a proxy war with Russia.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Given the fact that Ho Chi Minh and his henchmen murdered over 200,000 people to take power in the North?

Teachers, doctors, and any possible political adversaries.

Some folks on here need to read up.

 

[iguanaman]

Given the fact that Ho Chi Minh and his henchmen murdered over 200,000 people to take power in the North?

Teachers, doctors, and any possible political adversaries.

Some folks on here need to read up.

How many died in our Civil War? Should we have stayed divided like Vietnam was?

 

[RetiredUSN]

How many died in our Civil War?

:roll:

It wasn't a civil war.

It was a communist dictator and his group of henchmen telling people how to live.

Did Lincoln assassinate southern political adversaries before the civil war began?

 

[iguanaman]

:roll:

It wasn't a civil war.

It was a communist dictator and his group of henchmen telling people how to live.

Did Lincoln assassinate southern political adversaries before the civil war began?

It was a civil war against foreign colonial domination. You were told falsehoods, we all were. The politics were secondary. Why is Vietnam our ally now? Our own civil war was full of horrors too, Don't be so naive.

 

[Cordelier]

I explained the difference and if Diem was so anti-colonial we would not have kept speaking French or supported another colonial nation keeping him in office. N. Vietnam took Soviet help for the same reason Castro did. They needed help and the USSR offered it. We could have supported a unified Vietnam too but decided to side with France and fight a proxy war with Russia.

Um, I'd hardly call the US a "colonial nation". Sure, we supported Saigon, just like the Soviets and the Chinese supported Hanoi... so why aren't they "colonial powers"?

Secondly, you seem to put a lot of weight on Diem's language.... Ho Chi Minh spoke French too - did that make him a French puppet?

 

[Cordelier]

How many died in our Civil War? Should we have stayed divided like Vietnam was?

I've got nothing against reunification... so long as it is done peacefully through negotiations - not from the barrel of a gun.

 

[iguanaman]

Um, I'd hardly call the US a "colonial nation". Sure, we supported Saigon, just like the Soviets and the Chinese supported Hanoi... so why aren't they "colonial powers"?

Secondly, you seem to put a lot of weight on Diem's language.... Ho Chi Minh spoke French too - did that make him a French puppet?

We took over after the French left so there is that. The leader of N. Vietnam spoke only Vietnamese to the people and he cut his teeth fighting the French. All the politicians in Saigon spoke French for Govt. business and the newspapers were in French too. Not to mention that the N. Vietnamese stood for reunification which is what the people wanted. Our own civil war was for reunification too. Few people know that there was a border dispute with China soon after we left and the Vietnamese kicked their butts out real quick. They wanted their own country with no one else butting in.....like most of us do here. For that we should demonize them? I applaud them for their patriotism and the peace they secured by kicking us out and reunifying their nation. The Koreans were not so lucky.

 

[Cordelier]

The leader of N. Vietnam spoke only Vietnamese to the people for one. All the politicians in Saigon spoke French and the newspapers were in French too. Not to mention that the N. Vietnamese stood for reunification which is what the people wanted. Our own civil are was for reunification too.

Not quite... our Civil War was to put down an armed rebellion. Big difference.

 

[iguanaman]

Not quite... our Civil War was to put down an armed rebellion. Big difference.

The South tried to succeed from the Union you mean. You can't argue that the Vietnamese secured peace by reunifying their country as we also did? They have not had a war since except a little skirmish with China where they were also victorious.

 

[Cordelier]

We took over after the French left so there is that. The leader of N. Vietnam spoke only Vietnamese to the people and he cut his teeth fighting the French. All the politicians in Saigon spoke French for Govt. business and the newspapers were in French too. Not to mention that the N. Vietnamese stood for reunification which is what the people wanted. Our own civil war was for reunification too. Few people know that there was a border dispute with China soon after we left and the Vietnamese kicked their butts out real quick. They wanted their own country with no one else butting in.....like most of us do here. For that we should demonize them? I applaud them for their patriotism and the peace they secured by kicking us out and reunifying their nation. The Koreans were not so lucky.

Let me get this straight... Diem peacefully opposed French colonial rule and Ho did it through violence... and in your viewpoint, this makes Ho morally superior?

That's a pretty twisted point of view, if you ask me.

 

[iguanaman]

Let me get this straight... Diem peacefully opposed French colonial rule and Ho did it through violence... and in your viewpoint, this makes Ho morally superior?

That's a pretty twisted point of view, if you ask me.

So you also believe we should have let the South succeed from our country too? Our civil war was quite violent in case you forgot. But we secured peace and that was worth it in the end. The British were helping the Confederacy keep their succession intact too. Did that make them in the right like we were doing in Vietnam? You keep ignoring the good news that our defeat ended up with Vietnam as an ally and trading partner. If we didn't leave none of that would have happened. They would still be fighting us.

 

[Cordelier]

The South tried to succeed from the Union you mean. Can you argue that the Vietnamese secured peace by reunifying their country as we also did? They have not had a war since except a little skirmish with China where they were also victorious.

I mean what I said... the Confederacy started an armed rebellion against the United States. There is no provision in the US Constitution for secession. There are provisions, however, for dealing with insurrection and rebellion.

We didn't reunify our country as it was never divided. According to the US Constitution, the Confederacy was a legal fiction. What we did was put down a rebellion. That's the key difference.

 

[Cordelier]

So you also believe we should have let the South succeed from our country too? Our civil war was quite violent in case you forgot. But we secured peace and that was worth it in the end. The British were helping the Confederacy keep their succession intact too. Did that make them in the right like we were doing in Vietnam? You keep ignoring the good news that our defeat ended up with Vietnam as an ally and trading partner. If we didn't leave none of that would have happened. They would still be fighting us.

You keep talking in hindsight. But you still haven't addressed my fundamental point.... why was it wrong for us to intervene in Vietnam but right for us to do so in Korea?

 

[iguanaman]

You keep talking in hindsight. But you still haven't addressed my fundamental point.... why was it wrong for us to intervene in Vietnam but right for us to do so in Korea?

We can't forget history or the reality that most who actually fought in Vietnam agree that it was a mistake. Why would they say that? Notice I called it a mistake and not an evil plot to kill the Vietnamese. You are free to admit that we are not perfect as a nation and we can make mistakes. Give it up.

 

[Cordelier]

We can't forget history or the reality that most who actually fought in Vietnam agree that it was a mistake. Why would they say that? Notice I called it a mistake and not an evil plot to kill the Vietnamese. You are free to admit that we are not perfect as a nation and we can make mistakes. Give it up.

Of course we're not perfect... the US Constitution itself acknowledges that in it's preamble. It charges us to make a "more perfect Union" - the implication being that the work is never done. That's why I'm engaged in this debate - to try and determine - at least where it comes to foreign policy - when armed intervention is justified and when it is not. What's the principle at play here? We have adversaries in the world and we have allies... when our allies are invaded by a stronger neighbor, should we intervene? What about when the invasion is for national reunification? Is that reason to stay out of it?

For me, the textbook case is the appeasement of Nazi Germany prior to World War II....Hitler took one provocative step after another in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. So at what point should we have intervened and stood up to him? When he remilitarized the Rhineland? Anschluss? The Sudetenland? The rest of Czechoslovakia? Poland? Even later? Would you have stood up to him at all?

 

[iguanaman]

Of course we're not perfect... the US Constitution itself acknowledges that in it's preamble. It charges us to make a "more perfect Union" - the implication being that the work is never done. That's why I'm engaged in this debate - to try and determine - at least where it comes to foreign policy - when armed intervention is justified and when it is not. What's the principle at play here? We have adversaries in the world and we have allies... when our allies are invaded by a stronger neighbor, should we intervene? What about when the invasion is for national reunification? Is that reason to stay out of it?

For me, the textbook case is the appeasement of Nazi Germany prior to World War II....Hitler took one provocative step after another in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. So at what point should we have intervened and stood up to him? When he remilitarized the Rhineland? Anschluss? The Sudetenland? The rest of Czechoslovakia? Poland? Even later? Would you have stood up to him at all?

Do you favor appeasement of Putin like Trump is doing? History does seem to repeat itself. As far as getting involved in civil wars I'm afraid our track record speaks for itself. BTW I don't believe Korea was a "normal" civil war, it was more like a military coup assisted by China. I don't believe that N. Korea's leader ever had the support of the people like Ho had in Vietnam.

 

[RetiredUSN]

It was a civil war against foreign colonial domination. You were told falsehoods, we all were. The politics were secondary. Why is Vietnam our ally now? Our own civil war was full of horrors too, Don't be so naive.

You have a very slanted view on this and would be better off doing some research.

Ho Chi Minh didn't give a rats ass about the people or reunification unless he and his henchmen were in power.

 

[RetiredUSN]

It was a civil war against foreign colonial domination. You were told falsehoods, we all were. The politics were secondary. Why is Vietnam our ally now? Our own civil war was full of horrors too, Don't be so naive.

You are ignorant on the subject.