wukong Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Any discussion of our involvement in Viet Nam has to be placed in context which is probably impossible in a forum. About 20 years ago my college age daughter ask me how American could have put up with HUAC. My answer to her was that Americans were in effect scared of the international political situation (ie the Soviets had the bomb). As a nation we had just fought an expensive world war where the human cost had touched just about every community in the US. The political policies that led to our involvement in Viet Nam grew out of that war. All war is politics and the politics were to not let that war lead to a nuclear confrontation or expansion further into the Asian continent. It is pretty difficult to sustain a war when on one hand you ask the nation to sacrifice and on the other hand execute policies that essentially tell the citizenry that the war is not a critical concern for the survival of our nation. I have no regrets for having flown the C-130 in Southeast Asia. We (all of our service brothers) never lost a military engagement yet we "lost" our war. However in the longer term I believe that our country has won the longer term struggle and I would not be surprised to see our armed forces conducting combined operations with Vietnamese forces in the near future. Nations do not have allies, they have common interests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinwhistle Posted January 15, 2012 Author Share Posted January 15, 2012 I reply to this most recent post with great trepidation. I hope that Casey is at hand and if you are and you deem it necessary, please remove it. I agree with little of what wukong just wrote. "We" did not "lose" the Vietnam War. Please read my post that started this thread. Our country has been brain washed into this kind of thinking. We abandoned South Vietnam as we just recently abandoned Iraq. The United states had then and has now vital common interests in both countries and our governmental leadership choose not to safe guard those national interests. Please, please, I do not want to start a "blogg war"........Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EClark Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 I agree with you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWoods Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Nice writing Tinwhistle, I have always believed that our mistakes concerning Vietnam go back to WWII when Ho Chi Minh was our ally against the Japanese. I believe that he was initally driven by the desire to get the French the hell out of his country. When we helped setup the government of South Vietnam he had two choices, give up and submit or ask for help from Russia or China and what with the cold war they were both happy and willing. The ultimate outcome is what Uncle Ho wished for and fought for. We could have saved many lifes and millions of dollars by backing Ho Chi Minh. So what if was a Marxist/Leninist, compared to some of our other allies he doesn't look so bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 I reply to this most recent post with great trepidation. I hope that Casey is at hand and if you are and you deem it necessary, please remove it. I agree with little of what wukong just wrote. "We" did not "lose" the Vietnam War. Please read my post that started this thread. Our country has been brain washed into this kind of thinking. We abandoned South Vietnam as we just recently abandoned Iraq. The United states had then and has now vital common interests in both countries and our governmental leadership choose not to safe guard those national interests. Please, please, I do not want to start a "blogg war"........Chris I agree with you Despite my personal opinion on the subject, Wukong is just stating his opinion. The Vietnam War is a sensitive subject and can often lead to passionate discussion. Should any one's emotions push them to cross the line between civil discussion and useless insults, "flaming" and the like; I will step in. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutch Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Way to go Casey! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Way to go Casey! Just trying to be fair to everyone.:cool: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nascarpop Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Some of us are Red, White and Blue through and through. But always remember, without us protecting everyone's rights we would probably not be here to disagree! We are the 0.45%! Dallas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wukong Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Tinwhistle, There is no reason that the war in Viet Nam cannot be discussed if we are civil with one another. Also Casey is right when he states that my opinions are just that. The subject of Viet Nam does raise passions that WWII does not and this is due to the fact that this military action was costly in both lives and treasure and did not in it self pose a direct threat to the survival of the United States. That said, the contest of whether the we "won" or "lost" this war hinges on a definition as a recent President of the US would aver, "That depends on what the meaning of is, is." Anyone can paint their own picture of how we won but I would like to have the picture painted against the two most cited "policy" objectives. 1. The domino theory of stopping "monolithic" communist aggression and 2. the survival of the political entity of a sovereign South Viet Nam. 1. Monolithic communism as an international force never existed. This is evidenced by Tito in Yugoslavia in 1948 when he basically told Stalin to shove it. I will grant that the tea leaves were somewhat clouded by the conflict in Korea. History seems to be a bit thin on US attempts to exploit the nationalistic differences that the "communists" continually paper over. There never were any true communists in either the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact Countries or the PRC. Stalin and Mao killed them all. 2. If the political survival of a South Viet Nam was the an objective, it should be considered a highly speculative venture from the start. Foremost this government was created out of thin air with no historical underpinning or popular support. The Diem regime was imposed by what were considered "Colonial Powers" and enjoyed no legitimacy to the majority of Asians. South Viet Nam was essentially a Buddhist majority ruled by a Catholic minority that could only be sustained by an outside military force. I've lost any bitterness that I felt 20 - 30 years ago and ask the philosophical question, "Just what did we win?" I can only say that Coca Cola is in Viet Nam and Russia and China are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jconner2 Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Tinwhistle, First I enjoyed your paper. I don't agree 100% with all your points, but your opinion is well presented. If the professor grades you down for what you wrote rather than how well you presented your case, he will be at fault not you. I would add that news media coverage in Vietnam was unedited and mostly unsupervised by the military which was a first. The impact of that reporting on the public at home was significant. Second, the economic factors contributing to that war were larger even than WW II. Contracts for supporting Vietnam were huge. I certainly remember wondering how Hawaiian Punch and Salem cigarettes scored their immense contracts. I certainly would have preferred Coke or Dr. Pepper over Hawaiian Punch. Still won't drink that crap. Any way, great job, well done and I hope you get an A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wukong Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Let me second jconner2 and say that I enjoyed your paper after finally getting around to reading it. Reading a piece from the perspective of one who has "skin in the game" is always relevant. I would say that your anger shows through out the paper. From a historical perspective I think you were a bit overboard in opinion not supported by any facts. However it is history as you participated in the events or had real time exposure to the events. Perhaps in the future some historian will cite your work in their take on the 20th Century. That is if the world survives catastrophic global warming or is it climate change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinwhistle Posted January 17, 2012 Author Share Posted January 17, 2012 I had made up my mind to ignore this whole thread from yesterday forward, however, wukong, your last line of your most recent post made me laugh. It seems lately I do not laugh enough......Thanks wukong!!!!!!! P.S. the posts by wukong and jconner2 are exceptionally well written, thanks to both. chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWoods Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I certainly remember wondering how Hawaiian Punch I felt that same way about Carling Red Label. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wukong Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 tinwhistle, I'm glad that you have seen fit to continue a formal education. At the ripe old age of 63 on Valentines Day, I am working on a BS in Electrical Engineering at FSU Panama City. When I finish this quest I look forward to a second career as an engineer. Perhaps I'll retire a second time after another 40 years. As an ancient sage once said "Illigitamus Noncorburundum" or something like that. (Don't let the bastards grind you down) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.