The Vietnam War

[15357]

Probably one of the biggest uh... what was that word... 'why are we fighting?' type of war in modern history.

Let us discuss.

Personally, I find the vietnam war to have been for a good cause, better dead than red. Also, its effects were very, very, good.

 

[GiaOmerta]

Vietnam wasn't a war. It was a pussy-foot police action and alot of young men and women were left to die in the middle.

 

[15357]

Still, its benefits were huge.

 

[CptStern]

Probably one of the biggest uh... what was that word... 'why are we fighting?' type of war in modern history.

Let us discuss.

Personally, I find the vietnam war to have been for a good cause, better dead than red. Also, its effects were very, very, good.

I tire of your immaturity ..any life is preferrable to death. no one should ever die for ideology


pussy footing? what the hell are you guys talking about? bombing the shit out of cambodia was "pussy footing?" carpet bombing huge areas to take out a handful of guerrilla fighters was pussy footing? use napalm to incinarte whole villages was pussyfooting? massacring 500 civilians in a single day was pussyfooting? is there some other vietnam war that I'm unfamiliar with?

I cant help but feel some of you need to step out of your little cushy little existance and see what the world is really like (moreso for numbers)

 

[15357]

any life is preferrable to death

Really?

What about mercy killing?

 

[GiaOmerta]

War is war. You destroy your enemy. Your break their will completely into utter surrender. The continious bombardment becomes routine in the mind of the enemy. If you are unwilling to destroy your enemy and rape them of peace, life and everything that is good, you shouldnt declare war and waste the time and lives of brave young men and women.

 

[15357]

War is war. You destroy your enemy. Your break their will completely into utter surrender. The continious bombardment becomes routine in the mind of the enemy. If you are unwilling to destroy your enemy and rape them of peace, life and everything that is good, you shouldnt declare war and waste the time and lives of brave young men and women.

Ah, but the US were ready, and willing, until the "home front" things happened.

 

[CptStern]

dont give me that crap please ..there's a difference between destroying the enemy and laying waste to an entire country

war is rarely about achieving peace, you'd think you guys would have realised that by now

Really?

What about mercy killing?

apples and oranges ..you dont make the choice for them

 

[Neutrino]

It disturbs me someone could use "good cause" and "better dead than red" in the same sentence.

 

[GiaOmerta]

dont give me that crap please ..there's a difference between destroying the enemy and laying waste to an entire country

war is rarely about achieving peace, you'd think you guys would have realised that by now

If that is what it takes. That's what it takes, but on the flipside it's all preventable by not declaring war and committing. War isnt to be taken lightly.

 

[15357]

"This war, like the next war, is a war to end war."

apples and oranges ..you dont make the choice for them

What are you talking about?



Anyway, I find Vietnam to have been a good war, for a good cause, and with superb benefits, but a sad ending.

 

[CptStern]

"This war, like the next war, is a war to end war."




What are you talking about?

mercy killing? you're not the one who decides they should live or die ..that's up to the patient/family ..simply killing someone because they follow an ideology is wrong (you would think this would be self-evident, but you hardly surprise me anymore Numbers)

Anyway, I find Vietnam to have been a good war, for a good cause, and with superb benefits, but a sad ending.

you are completely deluded

If that is what it takes. That's what it takes, but on the flipside it's all preventable by not declaring war and committing. War isnt to be taken lightly.

so the ends justify the means? ...occupying/destroying a nation just to further your own goals is somehow justified? I still cant understand how americans can possibly believe their motiviations are pure when in reality history has proven it's not

 

[Neutrino]

"This war, like the next war, is a war to end war."

Um, now you're arguing all wars are ultimately futile? Am I the only one getting mixed messages here?

What are you talking about?

He is saying that by comparing death in war to the death of mercy killing is like comparing apples to oranges, as in it's not a legitimate comparison in terms of morality. In mercy killing the decision to end life resides with the person who's life is ending. Not so with war.

Anyway, I find Vietnam to have been a good war, for a good cause, and with superb benefits, but a sad ending.

I think there may have been necessary wars, but I don't think there is such a thing as a "good" war. And I'm probably going to regret asking, but what specifically do you consider good about the Vietnam war? What specifically was the "good cause" and what were the superb benefits?

 

[Solaris]

What Were They Like?

1) Did the people of Viet Nam
use lanterns of stone?


2) Did they hold ceremonies
to reverence the opening of buds?


3) Were they inclined to rippling laughter?


4) Did they use bone and ivory,
jade and silver, for ornament?
5) Had they an epic poem?


6) Did they distinguish between speech and singing?

1) Sir, their light hearts turned to stone.
It is not remembered whether in gardens
stone lanterns illumined pleasant ways.


2) Perhaps they gathered once to delight in blossom,
but after the children were killed
there were no more buds.


3) Sir, laughter is bitter to the burned mouth.


4) A dream ago, perhaps. Ornament is for joy.
All the bones were charred.


5) It is not remembered. Remember,
most were peasants; their life
was in rice and bamboo.
When peaceful clouds were reflected in the paddies
and the water-buffalo stepped surely along terraces,
maybe fathers told their sons old tales.
When bombs smashed the mirrors
there was time only to scream.


6) There is an echo yet, it is said,
of their speech which was like a song.
It is reported their singing resembled
the flight of moths in moonlight.
Who can say? It is silent now.


-Denise Levertov

 

[CptStern]

neutrino you wont get a answer any more indepth than "dead commies" ...this is Numbers after all

welcome back btw, nice to see you around again

 

[15357]

@Stern

#1. Ah.

#2. Am I? AM I? HAHAHAHaa.... Seriously, Am I?

@Neutrino

#1. It was a quote that I remembered. No reason. One day, war will happen, and there won't be a next.

#2. Ah, ok.

#3. Good cause: Freedom from communism.

Benefits: The US exchanged economical goods and benefits in return for our 30,000 soldiers in Vietnam. It provided the very foundations of my country's economy, and there probably wouldn't have been a Samsung Electronics, or a trillion dollar GDP. A people of mercenaries, a nation of mercenaries....

 

[Solaris]

The Vietnam war was horrific, imperialism at it's most disgusting.

 

[CptStern]

2. yes, Numbers you are deluded ..almost comically so

 

[Neutrino]

neutrino you wont get a answer any more indepth than "dead commies" ...this is Numbers after all

Ya, I was kind of suspecting as much. I guess my question stemmed from my natural allergy to bullshit. My doctor has prescribed some nasal sprays, but it doesn't seem to be helping.

welcome back btw, nice to see you around again

Thanks. Nice to see you're still here fighting the good fight.:bounce:

Yes, I've returned from my adventurous sebatical where I traveled the world and found myself. (Actually, I've been cooped up in the library for the last two years studying engineering. But a man can dream can't he?)

#1. It was a quote that I remembered. No reason. One day, war will happen, and there won't be a next.

That's not what that quote means. It's talking about the futility of war in that every war has been fought to end war, just like every future war will be to end war. It's about the false hope of war as a means to peace.

Thaks for answering my other questions. I've got to get going, but I might try to come back to this thread later.

 

[CptStern]

there's plety of time to travel after engineering ..dedication/hard work will send you places

a friend of mine is currently in southern spain on a (civil) engineering job, before that he was in south america

 

[Neutrino]

there's plety of time to travel after engineering ..dedication/hard work will send you places

a friend of mine is currently in southern spain on a (civil) engineering job, before that he was in south america

Ya, I definitely want to get out of the US for a while once I'm done with school. I'm getting a bit tired of my own culture to be honest. Lately I've been considering joining the peace corps, but we'll see.

Just a random thought I had concerning the discussion of war. Can you imagine how people would react if you went back to say 1920 and told everyone that history called the war "World War One." So much for "the war to end all wars" or the "great war."

 

[Polaris]

The Vietnam war was horrific, imperialism at it's most disgusting.

Just like invasion of my country, Afghanistan and Hungary by Soviet forces.

 

[Solaris]

Just like invasion of my country, Afghanistan and Hungary by Soviet forces.

Very much so.

 

[kirovman]

Good war.
9/10 Loads of weapons and killings.
5/10 replayability, similarities to Iraq.
10/10 Fighting Communism HELL YEAH DIE COMMIES.
2/10 early withdrawel.

8/10 overall. - "Don't miss this war." - John Kerry to George Bush.

 

[KagePrototype]

Pros:

- Platoon

Cons:

- The rest of Oliver Stone's career

 

[<RJMC>]

I dont know much about that war but the USA lose right?

also the reason was cuz the USA was affraid of the comunisn to spread right?

 

[kathaksung]

But Iraq is not Vietnam war.

The Iraq government is a puppet of the US. The execution of Saddam must be approved by its master(or ordered by) - Bush administration. Why do they perform such an execution in current situation?

The Neocon's plan in Mid-east is bigger than the Iraq war. After Iraq, the next target is Iran and Syria. To prepare for the Iran and Syria war, US troops must stay in Iraq. That's why we saw there was a continued riot in Iraq. America people are tired of this unjust war. It's them who paid money and lives for it. What's the tactic Bush uses to deal with them? He said if US withdraw from Iraq, then terrorists win and US loses. No people want to admit they support terrorist, no people want to be cowards. Bush uses patriotism to halt anti-war movement.

What excuse the Neocon use to have US troops staying in Iraq? Insurgence and riot. Although some people said Iraq war is like Vietnam war, it is not. There were two big countries: Soviet Union and China behind the Vietnam. It was their support of weapons and economic aids which helped North Vietnam to win the war. There was none such support for Iraq. Iran and Syria, are much weaker and smaller than Soviet Union and China then. They themselves know they are the next target of the Neocon. They dare not to offend US by supporting the Iraq insurgence. To stay in Iraq, Neocon try to make a mess in Iraq - they need a civil war of Iraq.

Al Qaida is a tool of US intelligence. The 911 attack was carried out in the name of Al Qaida. The purpose was to justify the Mid-east war. It succeeded. To provoke a civil war in Iraq, Al Qaida was once again involved.

The conflict between Sunni and Shiiti in Iraq was provoked by the bombing of a Shiiti Muslim Shirine by Al Qaida.
Al Qaida then helped Sunni Muslim in a series of conflict with Shiiti. The purpose is to push for a civil war.

You can view Saddam as a shrine of Sunni Muslim. Kill Saddam is to pour oil on a fire. It will flame a civil war.
America people voted Democratic Party to the House on the hope that the Congress can help US army withdraw from Iraq. Now with this strategy step, Bush will say, the situation is worsen. On contrary, we need more troops there instead of withdraw. A draft may be revived.

The next target in Neocon's map is Iran and Syria. For the coming war, US army has to stay in Iraq. To justify the staying, Neocon needs a riot in Iraq. Saddam's death is one step to reach this goal. Any politicians with brain know the execution at this time will stir the storm not calm it.

(Though Syria and Saudi may be treated as allies in Neocon's plan to deal with Iran, it is only temporary. Remember Saddam also once was an ally of US when he was used to fight against Iran. )

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

But Iraq is not Vietnam war.

Correct.
Stay on topic or I'll start censoring you.

 

[jondy]

I dont know much about that war but the USA lose right?

also the reason was cuz the USA was affraid of the comunisn to spread right?

Pretty much mate, yes

lol@ Kathaksung being censored

 

[<RJMC>]

and the USA dont wanted the comunisn to spread for the fear of putting da nuclear mizzles in that territory aiming at the USA?

 

[Gunner]

These threads are in essence disguised "pie rulez, discuss" variations. Don't waste your time with numbers, it's not like he actually wants to learn anything.

 

[kirovman]

Why does Kathaksung tend to post on approximately the 9th, 19th or 29th?

Federal Conspiracy :shh:

 

[Flyingdebris]

The vietnam war was a dirty conflict on all parts and was basically a war by proxy between the US and the Soviet Union. The USSR and China at the time were very much in fact on an agenda to spread communism to everyf***ingwhere and it was in the USA's best interests to try to stop them whenever they could.

However i think people learned the wrong lesson from Vietnam. The lesson isn't that war is a horrible thing, or that Vietnam was fought for no good reason. Because all wars are pretty bad in and of themselves, and the US of A had a very good reason for wanting to stop what they percieved was a global threat.

No the lesson to be learned is that you do not let politicians dictate on how to run a war because they have no clue wtf they're doing. Not being allowed to attack into cambodia where the NVA where pouring in from, being issued m16s into a humid jungle environment, intentionally holding back on bombing campaigns, and a host of other screw ups. Because of the US's self imposed hamstringing the war dragged on when it could have been a lot shorter, people died, public support waned, US pulled out, south vietnam was allowed to be completely overrun, and returning vets came back welcomed as baby killers and murderers.

The second lesson is that hippies suck. What the hell does a bearded pot smoking guy in sandals and tiedye know about geo political issues?

 

[jondy]

I hate double posts with a burning passion deep within my loins, like a golden hawk.

 

[jondy]

Why does Kathaksung tend to post on approximately the 9th, 19th or 29th?

Federal Conspiracy :shh:

They're the days he's allowed computer access in the facility

The USSR and China at the time were very much in fact on an agenda to spread communism to everyf***ingwhere and it was in the USA's best interests to try to stop them whenever they could.

That's not a fact. War by proxy /= direct conflict, and the USSR and China weren't going to cross lines that risked international war.

 

[Flyingdebris]

thats what a war by proxy is. You don't fight your enemy directly, you fight the enemy through someone or somewhere else.

 

[CptStern]

laying waste to each country as they went by ..most of central/south america was a battleground

 

[jondy]

thats what a war by proxy is. You don't fight your enemy directly, you fight the enemy through someone or somewhere else.

That's fine, but you miss my point - Russia/China weren't willing to risk direct conflict, which kindof limits any pretensions they may or may not have had of spreading communism 'every****ingwhere'.

 

[GiaOmerta]

so the ends justify the means? ...occupying/destroying a nation just to further your own goals is somehow justified? I still cant understand how americans can possibly believe their motiviations are pure when in reality history has proven it's not

I said war shouldnt be declared and carried out unless your willing to completely destroy your enemy: physically, mentally, emotionally, etc. We werent willing to do such, in Vietnam; in turn we didnt belong there. You fight to win and if you can't win or your not willing to win. You shouldnt fight.

 

[CptStern]

you have such a clinical/academic view of things ...it's all nice on paper but the reality is not so clear cut ..the overwelming majority of casualties in any conflict are civilians ..in vietnam alone (not including cambodia, laos) 1 to 4 million civilians were killed ...what would the total look like if the US "were willing to utterly physically, mentally, emotionally" destroy the enemy (which I believe to be the case ..the US fights to win, methods/morality notwithstanding)

the US lost because they couldnt fight a foreign war on a foreign land ..especially because the enemy was mostly unseen (which is proving to be the case in Iraq)Guerrilla warefare can stretch for decades whereas military conflict is relatively short lived due to the scale, expense and the destructive nature of the conflict