|
|
| |||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 The Vietnam Waren.wikipedia.org |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
US won the Cold War ! Cold war is a result of indirect confrontation between Capitalist US on one side and communist China + Soviet union on the other side. Both have nuclear weapons and so nuclear war could not be fought because if there was nuclear war nobody could win and mutual destruction is assured. If so, we can see indirect war between the two factions in developing nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America. We can now say that Vietnam War was an indirect confrontation between the 2 factions. Former Soviet Union and communist China support North Vietnam with arms and ammunition. Senator McCain was shot down over N Vietnam by Soviet SAM missiles. In other words, the cold war is the clash between the two economic systems of Capitalism and Communism. Finally, the communism was defeated with the collapse of Soviet Union. Look and review the communist countries of Russia, China and Vietnam. They all now embrace capitalism. Vietnam is more friendly with US than China. US capitalist economic system defeated the communist economic system in cold war including Vietnam war. I can surely say, this is the correct interpretation on history. |
||||||||
|
ace Uh: Duh? |
||||||||
|
we didn't lose |
||||||||
|
chaz Neither did I, but I once met, talked with, took the extended hand of and was graciously thanked by Chang Kai Shek's son. It was an exclusively a one-on-one, 10-minute or so experience between he and I (you once suggested that I write a "Navy-story" about the encounter.) |
||||||||
|
mo-one |
||||||||
|
Chaz |
||||||||
|
chaz I was an E-2 at the time and was the only non-brass in sight (among 50 or so) other than the USS Oklahoma City CLG-5 assigned Marine band and they were ALSO at rigid Marine style attention (just like the 3-4 high brass Marines). The Navy does attention in a somewhat more relaxed way. Go Navy, Lads and Laddies. |
||||||||
|
Chaz Ans: Only in my brain. |
||||||||
|
Brig Congratulations to WAR!!! You forgot to mention the million Vietnamese mothers, brig. |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
brig |
||||||||
|
Miss Mo It's okay to be proud of war's magnificent accomplishments, Brig. |
||||||||
|
The end justifies the means. We won the cold war. Can you guess how many millions of their own citizens were killed by their communist regimes ? In former Soviet Union over 20 millions were killed by the communist regime. It was worst under Stalin. By mere suspicion, you can be put into exile in Siberian prisons (gulag ) where you can die without food or medicine and hard labor. Please read Alexander Solzhenitsyn novels. More people died in USSR during Stalin's purges than they died in second world war. Under Mao regime in former Communist China 40 to 60 millions Chines were killed during Mao's Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. Not only the Russian citizens but also the eastern European countries suffered a lot under Soviet communist iron curtain. USA tried to save the rest of the world by NATO in Europe and in Asia by Korean and Vietnam wars from communist aggression. |
||||||||
|
ace Those are both ugly, false, hand-me-down statements. |
||||||||
|
Mo 1 en.wikipedia.org I just listened to two idiot's here at work say, we should take out Iran. I said yeah who needs all those wemon and children right? Oh as long as someone else is doing the killing and the dieing right? So many people who have never been close to war, are so happy to hit the war button. It's appalling. |
||||||||
|
Mo So what? Destroying God's gift of plant life is what Monsanto designed Agent Orange to do. Mo |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
An absolute must read. It is a beautifully developed, exacting story about the Vietnam War. "Hello, mo-one, I had not considered the matter in that light. On consideration, a good deal of the motivation behind the Vietnamese might well have been provided, in turn, by the French, the Japanese, the French again, and finally the USA and its allies (of which Australia was an enthusiastic one and New Zealand, reluctantly, the other), and mercenaries (Koreans). Notably, once out, France stayed out. (Back in 1985 I wrote a paper for my BA Honours degree about this very topic, focusing on New Zealand-US relations at the time. A lot of 'External Affairs' files having just come off the 30-year 'secret' list, I got to look at, and interesting they were! I got my First, but I have to admit, in hindsight, the thing could have been improved considerably). US involvement began in 1954, in a rather unofficial way, but the 'boots on the ground' in significant numbers started 10 years later (1964). There seems to have been at least some US involvement from even before 1954. In 1964 The US government machinery used a non-incident in the Bay of Tonkin to manufacture a 'casus belli' openly to land troops (Marines, I think) onto Vietnam's beaches. I don't know how long US history reckons its 'Vietnam war' to have lasted, but its involvement was at least 20 years - 1955 to 1975. Before then, Vietnam had been at war with their colonial overlords, France, for at least 8 years; and I believe there was Indochinese resistance to Japanese occupation from 1942-1945. Tellingly, when the Colonial powers resumed control with the defeat of Japan, they temporarily armed the Japanese military with batons and had them patrolling the streets so as to keep 'order'. Seems the Vietnamese wanted all foreign powers out. Who could blame them? Oh, yeah. Those same 'foreign powers'. It was France that brought the United States in. In 1954, France's hold on Indo-China was slipping, after their defeat at Dien Bien Phu. It is hard to see what France's motivation was, unless it was out of sheer vindictiveness. Unable to accept defeat, they sicced the US onto the country as punishment for their effrontery in overthrowing their colonial masters. Then France simply buggered off. US paranoia in respect of Communism did the rest. The US reacted to their defeat with the same vindictiveness displayed by France; to place the country under economic embargo that lasted for years, and pushing this 'missing airmen' tripe, for all the world as though Vietnam was under some obligation to recover each and every US airman who failed to return from a bombing mission. (Did anyone ever see the US returning 'missing' Vietnamese?) The war with the United States is known in Vietnam as the Resistance War Against America, a nomenclature that might have excited US sympathy given its own genesis as an independent nation. But Vietnam had to fight for three times as long as the US did against Great Britain. The legitimacy of the governments the Western powers set up in Saigon might measured by the ease with which North Vietnam conquered the South once the US had left the scene. The US policy makers don't seem to have learned much from that war. The outcome and aftermath ought to have demonstrated its utter pointlessness. That elementary lesson seems not to have got across. Cheers, Ion" Thank's Duke for your notably more than worthy contribution. Mo |
||||||||
|
i agree |
||||||||
|
Thanks... The My Lai massacre sealed the deal for mine. If the US wants to see itself as a force for good in the world, then the US has at least to LOOK like a force for good, and the best way to do that is to ACT like a force for good. And that means that the US must hold itself up to the standards it demands of others. Time was, the US at least kept up, more a less, a pretence. Somehow, since WW2, the mask has been allowed to slip. (Incidentally, I recommend the movie 'Casualties of War' (Michael J. Fox, Sean Penn) for social comment). But, as someone before me has remarked: Nations that call themselves 'civilized' are not overfond of holding themselves to the rules and standards they demand of and impose upon others. The United States is by no means the first and only. Just by the way, I don't reckon the US can preen itself overmuch about 'winning' the battles in Vietnam. When things went wrong in the field, as they sometimes did, they always had the resources of air and gun power to up the ante until it was 'sufficient unto the day'. The Viet Cong and North Vietnamese had far fewer resources to call upon. As I indicated earlier, by 1964, when the US really started in with significant ground forces, Indo-China, not over-endowed with wealth, had already been in conflict to a greater or lesser degree for 20 years or more already. The ten years from 1964 to 1974, and more tonnage of bombs dropped on North Vietnam than was dropped on Germany in WW2, yet the resources and wealth of probably the most powerful nation on the planet at the time, were not sufficient to bring the conflict to a 'successful' conclusion. The example of Afghanistan, since, suggests that had the US stuck it for another ten years, North Vietnam and the Viet Cong in the South would still have been resisting. mo-one is right: it was the Vietnamese people who resisted, and that on both sides of the 17th Parallel. Quisling governments aren't apt to draw or to retain popular support. Victory in war does not go to whoever won the last battle. It goes to whoever gets the other guys to quit. |
||||||||
|
Possible reason (IMHO) Russia supplied a lot of weaponry, anti air, Jets, artillery , munitions and small arm's. Russia also supplied personnel. Carlos Hathcock "White feather" a Marine sniper. Recounted Killing a Russian officer. Who was giving consultation to the NVA. It was also mentioned by Richard "Dick" Marcinko, Navy Seal and former Seal team 6 Commander. That Both Russia and China had special opperations who were very active in Veitnam. Of course this rational "of possible reason" is pure supposition. I will add that it is also a stupid reason. If anything it would only be part of the reason or rational. There was a fear of communism that bordered on zealotry. The capitalist agenda must prevail at all cost Mentality. Then there are the ones who profit from Government contract's and weapon sales. Then there is send the poor and minorities "culling the heard" While the rich complain of bone spurs or go to college to avoid the draft. As long as the money keeps flowing in and someone else is doing the killing and dieing. Go profits! Greed is good remember? |
||||||||
|
mo-oneandmore 22-Jul-19, 19:54 |
Deleted by mo-oneandmore on 22-Jul-19, 19:54.
|
||||||||
|
Duke Mo |
||||||||
|
stalhandske 22-Jul-19, 21:49 |
AD: <Just by the way, I don't reckon the US can preen itself overmuch about 'winning' the battles in Vietnam.> All depends on how you define it. Surely, the US did not achieve what they went out to achieve in Vietnam, but withdrew and those who were their enemies took over. I would definitely call that losing the war quite independently of having won several individual "battles". It is irrelevant (and a method of trying to hide the defeat) to mix in the cold war, or the communist regimes in the USSR and China. The North Vietnamese simply freed their country from colonialists, not too different a principle from what Americans did in the latter part of the 18th century. Except that the role of the Americans was the opposite in the two cases. This is where Ace's logic fails: how could America have been right in both cases? |
||||||||
|
Russia's and China's involvement... Four years later, China invaded Vietnam as a punitive measure for the latter's involvement in the Cambodia shambles. For the life of me I can not understand why China should have backed the horrible Khmer Rouge regime. Perhaps that is why the Khmer Rouge called itself 'Communist', I don't know (like a lot of things, Communist is as Communist does, and as the Khmer Rouge didn't, the Khmer Rouge wasn't). At any rate, though costly in lives and materiel, this conflict didn't last long. China pretty much kept to the reassurances offered to the USSR and USA of its means and end. By so doing, China kept the Soviet Union's involvement down to advisory and material support, and kept the conflict within bounds. |
||||||||
|
By withdrawing the troops, US won the Vietnam war. Although the Korean war is a stalemate, it is a success story for US. Compared to North Korea, South Korea has much freedom and wealthy. North Koreans are starving to death and lives in slave like conditions. It was a wrong strategy to invade Vietnam. US cannot fight asymmetric long guerrilla warfare. Although the intention is good, it did not workout that way in Vietnam. Vietnam War spanned several both GOP and US presidents. President Nixon did the right thing when he withdrew the US troops from Vietnam. The rest is history. Now, the crucial question that people, especially Vietnam US veterans would like to ask, " If Vietnam war was unnecessary, why did they were sent there, and sacrificed their lives for nothing?" That is a good and tough question but I would like to say that in retrospect it was a wrong move to send the US troops there. By withdrawing the US troops we made it right. My opinion may be biased. Please read at your own discretion. |
||||||||
|
US intentions in Vietnam... What the US - and Western in general - ruling classes knew was that they stood to lose, and lose big, were Communism to take hold in their countries. And so they made out that if the Fat Cats would lose, everyone would lose. In the US, the Left - Socialists, Communists, even those who merely sought a better deal for workers - were so marginalised and silenced that the Left, properly speaking, doesn't even exist any more. What is now popularly call 'the Left' these days would have been even just 50 years ago, Toryism. That paranoia - the fear of and hostility against workers - predated even Communism. Ever since the Agricultural Revolution began, workers and ordinary people have put their lives on the line for the precarious rights they enjoy. And even having won them, at no cheap price, they discovered that the fat Cattists were ever ready to roll them back. And that is what happened, and not only in the United States, over the last 50 years. I wonder if THAT is why the Vietnam War was really fought by the US. As a cover for the beginnings of the class war that is being waged in the US, as even some Fat Cats acknowledge, to this very day. The whole political spectrum has lurched to the right with three-quarters of its length lopped off the left-hand end. Meanwhile, Vietnam remained Communist, and, just by the way, hoiked US chestnuts out of the fires of Moloch that was what Cambodia had become. Vietnamese leadership, Communists as they called themselves, better recognised the Khmer Rouge for the monstrous regime it was than the US did at the time. The US did more to create the 'domino effect' they feared; and Vietnam did more than the US to 'contain' it. It took me a while to figure out what had happened to the political spectrum. Why on earth were the Democrats in the US and their supporters, called 'the Left'? They're Tory Lite, for Heaven's sake, and not so 'Lite' at that. How can they possibly be regarded as 'the Left'? The only way is for the entire political spectrum left of the Democrats to be so obliterated, expunged, wiped out, as if never to have existed. It is as if the whole visible spectrum of electromagnetic radiation had been moved, so that all the colours from red to indigo, and most of violet, had been rendered invisible to our vision, and the 'blue' end extended into the near ultra-violet. |
||||||||
|
Ace of Aces If humans could stop fighting one another or trying to dominate one another. We would advance ten times faster. I guess it is just something we can't seem to get through to our primative ceribrum. We aren't interested in truth, but relish the game of deception. We aren't interested in peace, but controlled war for profit. In the end our collective wisdom will trick ourselves into extinction. Unless we change, unless we listen, unless we embrace truth and Love. |
||||||||
| |||||||||
