|
Numbers
Dec 5, 2013 22:29:01 GMT -5
Post by Sir John on Dec 5, 2013 22:29:01 GMT -5
Did they get Laos and Cambodia?
|
|
|
Numbers
Dec 5, 2013 22:32:10 GMT -5
Post by hornet32 on Dec 5, 2013 22:32:10 GMT -5
By 1968 the war in VN was a war of wills America spent tons of money showing the South Vietnamese they were much better off with a Democracy while the North Vietnamese were trying to show the SVN that it was a good thing to join forces and kick out the imperialist out then something happen on 1/31/'68 the tet offensive it was said that the Americans were caught off guard they were taken aback by the size of the of the offensive but they came back with a viciousness that startled the enemy the American combat soldier was after blood a lot of blood 24/7 8 weeks of it the kill ratio 8 -1 in favor of the Americans .
|
|
|
Numbers
Dec 5, 2013 23:15:54 GMT -5
Post by Swampy on Dec 5, 2013 23:15:54 GMT -5
Did they get Laos and Cambodia? My thoughts exactly.
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Dec 6, 2013 0:13:53 GMT -5
Slightly OT, but in those years the 'Malayan Emergency' was still fresh in the West's minds.
The communists had tried hard to get Malaya and Singapore, but were stumped by the British Empire. Anti communist unrest in Indonesia was also rife, and an estimated one million Indonesian communists were slaughtered.
SJ
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Dec 6, 2013 8:55:33 GMT -5
Of course the south would have treated the northerners better - look at the difference between Taiwan and Maoist China, as well as between South Korea and the North. Not only that, when Saigon fell, the Hmong tribesmen had to flee, which they didn't before, as well as the Vietnamese Chinese. Last, but perhaps not least, over a million northerners fled, and more would have gone if the communists hadn't put a stop to it. Those million plus were not ill-treated, and there's a reason why they didn't want to stay. As for the northerners ill-treating the southerners, that's not the explanatory factor; the explanatory factor is the evils of communism - look at how the Viet Cong terrorized the peasants, the worst being the Hue Massacre. As for the requirement to join the commie party, the effect of communism is brutality - the evidence in Asia, particularly VN, is clear. So you really do believe to be a commie, the main requirement is to be an a**hole. But I wonder why all the a**holes are born in the north. -Don- SSF, CA
|
|
|
Post by hornet32 on Dec 6, 2013 9:43:09 GMT -5
And a lot of arse holes can be found in CA .
|
|
|
Numbers
Dec 6, 2013 10:33:19 GMT -5
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Dec 6, 2013 10:33:19 GMT -5
Arguing with Don about Vietnam is an exercise in futility. He personally resents being drafted and required to serve a year in that country. In his resentment he looks for any reason to discount the US involvement to the extent that he will excuse any act of the communists in trying to impose their rule on the south (who were not all that 'pure' themselves, since graft and corruption were a way of life in that part of the world). If anyone would take the time to talk with a "man in the street" type Vietnamese, I would be willing to bet that most of them couldn't give a rat's ass about who or what was ruling their country as long as they had food on the table and a dry place to sleep (like most citizens anywhere in the world). People don't fight wars - rulers fight wars using other people....
|
|
|
Numbers
Dec 6, 2013 14:04:42 GMT -5
Post by dontom on Dec 6, 2013 14:04:42 GMT -5
And a lot of arse holes can be found in CA . Or anywhere else. You don't have to be a commie to be an a**hole. For an example, Hilter's regime wasn't commies. In fact, I hear they hated the commies. My point has been most people who are leaders of countries are a**holes, not just the commies. Think about the countless leaders of various countries, Saddam Insane, Hitler, Kadaffy and the countless others who were NOT commie but perhaps even bigger a**holes than most of the commie leaders. But unfortunately, one of the much rarer better nice guy leaders, Nelson Mandela, just died. RIP Nelson. -Don- SSF, CA
|
|
|
Numbers
Dec 6, 2013 14:20:21 GMT -5
Post by dontom on Dec 6, 2013 14:20:21 GMT -5
Arguing with Don about Vietnam is an exercise in futility. I never argue (stop laughing, Tommy!). I only debate. There's a difference. And in my many debates, I find often most people disagree with me, but I am very used to being the only one of a large group who is correct. . However, I think outside of a military forum, most people will agree with me about Vietnam. Not many my age or younger believed the war was something we should have been involved in. But those who are older, were fed a lot of BS that they still believe to this day, but the war even started with BS, such as the Tonkin Bay incident that never even happened. He personally resents being drafted and required to serve a year in that country. In his resentment he looks for any reason to discount the US involvement to the extent that he will excuse any act of the communists in trying to impose their rule on the south (who were not all that 'pure' themselves, since graft and corruption were a way of life in that part of the world). If anyone would take the time to talk with a "man in the street" type Vietnamese, I would be willing to bet that most of them couldn't give a rat's ass about who or what was ruling their country as long as they had food on the table and a dry place to sleep (like most citizens anywhere in the world). People don't fight wars - rulers fight wars using other people.... IMO, we should stay out of anything that even remotely looks somewhat like a civil war anywhere. That would even include Korea. Let people fight their own in-country battles. In wars worth fighting, I am a real superhawk. Remember how I felt about getting Iraq out of Kuwait. If I were running that war, Iraq would no longer exist today. -Don- SSF, CA
|
|
|
Numbers
Dec 6, 2013 14:31:00 GMT -5
Post by dontom on Dec 6, 2013 14:31:00 GMT -5
By 1968 the war in VN was a war of wills America spent tons of money showing the South Vietnamese they were much better off with a Democracy Then how come the planned all-Vietnam vote never happened? Was it because it was still so clear that the north would win an honest all Vietnam election, that we did everything we could to make sure it never happened? Why let the majority people have a vote when we can simply kill most of them? -Don- SSF, CA
|
|
|
Numbers
Dec 6, 2013 14:35:45 GMT -5
Post by Swampy on Dec 6, 2013 14:35:45 GMT -5
By 1968 the war in VN was a war of wills America spent tons of money showing the South Vietnamese they were much better off with a Democracy Then how come the planned all-Vietnam vote never happened? Was it because it was still so clear that the north would win an honest all Vietnam election, that we did everything we could to make sure it never happened? Why let the majority people have a vote when we can simply kill most of them? -Don- SSF, CA You're trying to divert the issue. Even if they would have won 100% of the vote in the north and south, the point still remains that the communist regime committed serious atrocities, and the Vietnamese in southern Vietnam - and the north - would have been better off if we had won the VN war.
|
|
|
Numbers
Dec 6, 2013 17:05:46 GMT -5
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Dec 6, 2013 17:05:46 GMT -5
Interesting commentary on the lack of wisdom exhibited by older folks.....must have been what gave rise to the slogan "don't trust anyone over 30", as we all know their lack of experience makes anything they believe suspect.
(The fact that we had a treaty with South Vietnam should have been ignored because Don and his cohort thought that promises just don't matter when it means their lives may be disrupted or even ended....Just too bad older folks think that promises made should be promises kept. Like "if you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance...period.")
|
|
|
Numbers
Dec 6, 2013 19:57:33 GMT -5
Post by dontom on Dec 6, 2013 19:57:33 GMT -5
You're trying to divert the issue. Even if they would have won 100% of the vote in the north and south, the point still remains that the communist regime committed serious atrocities, and the Vietnamese in southern Vietnam - and the north - would have been better off if we had won the VN war. The USA committed some "serious atrocities" too. You remember the one that got exposed? My Lai? I wonder how many times something like that has happened when everybody kept their mouth shut since. And with any war, the losers are worse off than before, regardless of who wins. Or do you believe the good guys always win? Wars are not just, who wins has nothing to do with who was more in the right. It has to do with who is the most powerful. Usually, the more powerful country wins, but not when there were so many from NV fighting for what they strongly believed in, regardless if we thought it was wrong or right. -Don- SSF, CA
|
|
|
Numbers
Dec 6, 2013 20:18:15 GMT -5
Post by Swampy on Dec 6, 2013 20:18:15 GMT -5
You're trying to divert the issue. Even if they would have won 100% of the vote in the north and south, the point still remains that the communist regime committed serious atrocities, and the Vietnamese in southern Vietnam - and the north - would have been better off if we had won the VN war. The USA committed some "serious atrocities" too. You remember the one that got exposed? My Lai? I wonder how many times something like that has happened when everybody kept their mouth shut since. And with any war, the losers are worse off than before, regardless of who wins. Or do you believe the good guys always win? Wars are not just, who wins has nothing to do with who was more in the right. It has to do with who is the most powerful. Usually, the more powerful country wins, but not when there were so many from NV fighting for what they strongly believed in, regardless if we though it was wrong or right. -Don- SSF, CA That is NOTHING compare to the Hue Massacre, not to mention the genocide that happened after Saigon fell.
|
|
|
Numbers
Dec 6, 2013 22:51:50 GMT -5
Post by dontom on Dec 6, 2013 22:51:50 GMT -5
That is NOTHING compare to the Hue Massacre, Because the US troops in My Lai couldn't find as many people to kill as the VC did in Hue? not to mention the genocide that happened after Saigon fell. I think we already covered that one. You think the north should just do nothing with the people in the south who were resisting them? No all will agree the war is over on the exact same hour. There might be a few ARVN's or whoever who will fight until they are killed. But I admit those would be rather rare for the ARVN forces. Now WRT a much more interesting subject . . . . . It's now official. All paperwork is filed and completed. I WILL be retired on the first day of 2014. That's what I call freedom! -Don- (in rainy SSF, CA)
|
|