• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Viet Nam who were the good guys

Who were the good guys in Nam


  • Total voters
    22

lifeisshort

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2014
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
421
Location
the high desert
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I am reading Vietnamese Gulag by Doan Van Toi and it makes me think if I was in Nam during the wars with the French and then the US I would have been on the side of the north and fought Americans. Doan was a good communist kid who ends up in a Gulag after America leaves and becomes very disenchanted with who he chose in the war but that is another story. He grew up in a small village constantly bombed by the French and then the Americans who also installed a puppet regime in the South that did nothing but harm the people. He also watched as his society turned into nothing but whores and thieves as the American presence grew.

I know I know, THEIR were no good guys not there. Don't start on me.:lol:
 
Last edited:
Highly argumentative, each side will claim they are the "good guys" and suggest issue with the opposition. At the same time just because less than honorable things were done by some on both sides, that does not mean everyone else is guilty by association just because it is mentally elementary to make that connection.

You are going to find hundreds, perhaps thousands, of stories and accounts written about Vietnam. My advice is to take them for what they are, keep them in context, and separate for yourself those making the commands from the confines of politics that lead to these atrocities and those told to actually carry out those plans.
 
To me, wars rarely creates "good guys"

And when you look across the entire conflict... You find very little good was done.

Nobody comes out of that war looking good.

(By the way I was speaking more broadly and not about specific individuals, but about nations).
 
Last edited:
I am reading Vietnamese Gulag by Doan Van Toi and it makes me think if I was in Nam during the wars with the French and then the US I would have been on the side of the north and fought Americans. Doan was a good communist kid who ends up in a Gulag after America leaves and becomes very disenchanted with who he chose in the war but that is another story. He grew up in a small village constantly bombed by the French and then the Americans who also installed a puppet regime in the South that did nothing but harm the people. He also watched as his society turned into nothing but whores and thieves as the American presence grew.

I know I know, THEIR were no good guys not there. Don't start on me.:lol:

The Vietnamese people were the good guys. I will tell you a short story. I was in Saigon around 1965/66 and in conversation with a bar girl I liked because she spoke pretty good English and we had some great conversations. You have to understand that I was and ignorant kid of 22 that thought our government told the truth and that we were in Vietnam to help the people. Like you're gonna help someone by bombing the **** out of them, eh? Anyway, in one discussion I mentioned Ho Chi Minh, the Communist leader. She replied, "Ah Yes, Ho Chi Minh, same same you George Washington." I, of course said, NO, NO he's the bad guy. "NO, she repeats , same same you George Washington." She was just stating the common wisdom because Ho had kicked out the French and then asked the USA for help and instead we helped them by bombing the **** out of them. She was one of the good guys and she and I remained friends and after I was out of Nam, I had time to collect my thought, analyze the data, and conclude that whatever the war was about, it was not to help the Vietnamese. I keep that in mind whenever I hear we're spreading freedom and democracy because that is bull****. "War is good business, and business is good."
 
To me, wars rarely creates "good guys"

And when you look across the entire conflict... You find very little good was done.

Nobody comes out of that war looking good.

If you were a young Vietnamese kid in the 60s what side do you think you would have chosen?
 
The Vietnamese people were the good guys. I will tell you a short story. I was in Saigon around 1965/66 and in conversation with a bar girl I liked because she spoke pretty good English and we had some great conversations. You have to understand that I was and ignorant kid of 22 that thought our government told the truth and that we were in Vietnam to help the people. Like you're gonna help someone by bombing the **** out of them, eh? Anyway, in one discussion I mentioned Ho Chi Minh, the Communist leader. She replied, "Ah Yes, Ho Chi Minh, same same you George Washington." I, of course said, NO, NO he's the bad guy. "NO, she repeats , same same you George Washington." She was just stating the common wisdom because Ho had kicked out the French and then asked the USA for help and instead we helped them by bombing the **** out of them. She was one of the good guys and she and I remained friends and after I was out of Nam, I had time to collect my thought, analyze the data, and conclude that whatever the war was about, it was not to help the Vietnamese. I keep that in mind whenever I hear we're spreading freedom and democracy because that is bull****. "War is good business, and business is good."

Very good story and what I am gleaning from the book I mentioned.
 
If you were a young Vietnamese kid in the 60s what side do you think you would have chosen?

Hard to say, probably would depend what kind of family I was from, where I lived, what our occupation was etc...
 
The Vietnamese people were the "good people". They had every right to decide the fate of their country.
 
IMO it is not possible to reduce the Vietnam wars to good or bad people. They were simply people doing what they thought was right. In many cases they were just people trying to survive. Sorry, but it is my opinion that most looking back from to lofty heights of today tend to ignore the people who lived there. Many others simply use a version of history that was not available to the average person then.
 
You need to debate which gov't was worse, not which people was worse. In the end, you end up with a choice between a gov't that wanted some freedom for it's people vs. one that made it crystal clear that once they took power, they would slaughter those who opposed them. Neither were "good guys", but the North was vastly worse then the South. This issue has become so politicized and so one-sided that people forget just why there was any intervention in the first place. It wasn't some idiotic idea about starting war to make money or get rid of poor/minorities, it was a simple fact that an ally of ours went through a grossly crooked election and the winning side decided to slaughter the losers. When you couple that with a few of the neighboring countries threatening to do the exact same thing if the same "party" took control there and you have a massive humanitarian crisis. Had we not stepped in, Pot Pot's killing fields would have happened in about 1962 and would have been seen in Laos, Cambodia and Viet Nam (possibly Thailand/Burma as well). Instead of a couple million people being killed, you end up with tens of millions dead and even more living under horrific oppression.. So we step in and start to fight a war that we weren't prepared for and that got massive bad press. But what happened after we left was undeniable proof that we were on the better of the two sides.
 
You need to debate which gov't was worse, not which people was worse. In the end, you end up with a choice between a gov't that wanted some freedom for it's people vs. one that made it crystal clear that once they took power, they would slaughter those who opposed them. Neither were "good guys", but the North was vastly worse then the South. This issue has become so politicized and so one-sided that people forget just why there was any intervention in the first place. It wasn't some idiotic idea about starting war to make money or get rid of poor/minorities, it was a simple fact that an ally of ours went through a grossly crooked election and the winning side decided to slaughter the losers. When you couple that with a few of the neighboring countries threatening to do the exact same thing if the same "party" took control there and you have a massive humanitarian crisis. Had we not stepped in, Pot Pot's killing fields would have happened in about 1962 and would have been seen in Laos, Cambodia and Viet Nam (possibly Thailand/Burma as well). Instead of a couple million people being killed, you end up with tens of millions dead and even more living under horrific oppression.. So we step in and start to fight a war that we weren't prepared for and that got massive bad press. But what happened after we left was undeniable proof that we were on the better of the two sides.
As bad as the south was I think between e the two governments they were at least the lesser of two evils
 
Last edited:
Every country is made up of 'good' and 'bad' guys. And every major battle as well.

There were 'good' guys and 'bad' guys on both sides.

Besides, it was not just America and North Vietnam...there was the U.S.S.R. and China...plus Cambodia and Laos and a ton of other countries - to varying extents - involved.

Wars are proof of just how pathetically unevolved humanity still is.
 
The original bad guys were the French. It was their attempt at colonizing Vietnam that tore the country apart to begin with. Most of the hotspots and messes in the third world still going on today have the footprints of European colonialism. The communist north Vietnamese regime certainly was not the good guys. The South Vietnamese regime was not perfect, however it was certainly the lesser of two evils. Despite the comments by some on this thread, the north Vietnamese were not allowing rank and file Vietnamese to choose which side they were one or the outcome. The Soviets propped up the communist north Vietnamese regime. The US attempted to prop up the South. Like it or not, despite the controversial manner in which LBJ entered us into the war...the Americans were to good guys. The soviets were propping up a brutal dictatorship. We were simply attempting to prevent the South Vietnamese people from being overcome by it.
 
The Selective Service were the good guys.

Hey, hey, LBJ. How many kids did you kill today?

While my draft card gently burns.

Ended up moot. I was one year too young. That was Awesome! ��
 
I am reading Vietnamese Gulag by Doan Van Toi and it makes me think if I was in Nam during the wars with the French and then the US I would have been on the side of the north and fought Americans. Doan was a good communist kid who ends up in a Gulag after America leaves and becomes very disenchanted with who he chose in the war but that is another story. He grew up in a small village constantly bombed by the French and then the Americans who also installed a puppet regime in the South that did nothing but harm the people. He also watched as his society turned into nothing but whores and thieves as the American presence grew.

I know I know, THEIR were no good guys not there. Don't start on me.:lol:

Doan was a good communist kid who ends up in a Gulag after America leaves

No te comprendi Jose. How does a good commie end up in the gulag ?

He grew up in a small village constantly bombed by the French and then the Americans who also installed a puppet regime in the South...

Sounds like American liberal revisionism. Very unlikely it was Americans bombing the villages but RVAF doing the bombings.
It was the Saigon government that decided what was a "free fire zone" not the American military. That's why American soldiers in Vietnam said they had to fight a war with one arm tied behind their backs.

Any villages that were bombed were VC villages, the enemy of the RVN. If Doan Van Toi was a good commie bastard, it's very likely he lived in a commie village that was fighting against the RVN.

No puppet government was established by the Americans. But JFK tried and failed miserably. In 1961 Esienhower warned JFK not to get involved in South Vietnam because the Diem regime was to corrupt. JFK thinking he was smarter and brighter than his elders ignored the advice. It was JFK in 1963 who signed off on the CIA backed military coups that backed fired to remove the Diem regime from power. After that failed attempt, Vietnam became America's problem. Four American Presidents would try to establish a non corrupt popular government in the RVN and all failed.
 
Back
Top Bottom