• 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!

Vietnam War Symbolism; Time to Stop Nursing Grievances and Get Over the Past

chuckiechan said:
Everyone thought bombing the little bastards back into the stone age would make them give up but they were a proxy war supported by Russian and China and had the ability to fight to the last man. Plus they didnt' have to consult the population about how they felt about dying. Flying over S. Viet Nam looked like you were flying over the moon given all the craters. Christ what a mess.
Click to expand...

I was going to post comments about JoG's silliness but then I read yours...

The Vietnam was as as much a proxy war as our War of Independence. Sure France wanted to take a shot at England's might and funding us was better than attacking the British Fleet on the High Seas-

But for both the colonists and Vietnamese it was a war of independence and that was quite a different mindset. There would be no bomb, missile, or corporate assembly line of death going to force a change of mind on the Vietnamese.

Not sure where you get fight to the last man as a slag, no amount of ComBloc equipment is useful without patriots willing to die to RE-UNITE their nation (lest we forget that 'tiny' detail) Afterall why would Union soldiers die in bloody assaults against stubborn Reb fortifications like Cold Harbor for a race they didn't like, against a nation now reduced to subsistence existence, friendless in the international world...

They did it to reunite their nation, even if the renegade part wanted to be separate... :doh

This crap of 'fighting to the last man' is pure ignorance. The fight is till YOU die once the two way range opens up. JoG mentioned how forced the North Vietnamese soldiers were- ahhhh compared to our CONSCRIPT army that gave the 'choice' of prison or being a grunt in the jungle??? Where Congress surrendered it's Constitutional duty after two destroyers THOUGHT they were under attack??? Where only AFTER the citizens of our country turned out en masse to protest the war...

We didn't bomb the North back to the stone age, we didn't sent 1 million troops because we feared China jumping in and the thought of another near debacle like the Yalu River in Korea froze the blood of all but the most ardent war hawks.

Yeah we didn't bomb the North back to the stone age, we did our damnedest to do that to the Country we were 'saving'...

'We had to destroy Ben Tre in order to save it'...
 
Tigerace117 said:
And yet, we'd still broken the back of the Viet Cong and NVA. Had we left even a few Air Force bomber units behind to launch raids when the North Vietnamese broke the treaty, well, maybe there'd still be a South Vietnam. Not to mention, of course, that despite your claims that the US "routinely committed war crimes" even the North Vietnamese admit they committed plenty themselves. But you don't care about that.
Click to expand...

No you don't understand how wars are won. No amount of bombing would have stopped the North, they weren't broken, they were bloody and now EXTREMELY determined to OUTLAST us, like they did everyone before us.

Now the bombers of that day couldn't 'see' into the jungle, or have much in the way of guided ordinance. Without South Vietnamese troops willing to die to defend key positions the North was always going to win. The North's troops believed in their cause, the South's soldiers didn't. The NVA fought to REUNITE their country, the ARVNs to keep a petty dictator and his kin in power.

The 'broken' NVA attacked and sent fleeing whole ARVN units. ARVN units that had a decade to train up to 'defend' freedom and democracy while American troops fought their battles for them. ARVN units we had spent a King's ransom on...

I do like any umbrage over the North breaking 'the treaty' that covered us tucking tail and hauling buttocks. WE broke the treaty stating the countries would vote on reunion that started our engagement in a land war in Asia... :peace
 
Tigerace117 said:
Aw, are you still mad because Lincoln crushed your slaveocracy?

I hate to break it to you but no, the Vietnam War was not fought for anything close to the same reasons as the Civil War.
Click to expand...


Lincoln PAID for his own sins to his nation with his life; I have NO problem with that history

what U do NOT understand is this: Lincoln pissed on state' rights, period.

I was never about slavery.

Lincoln & the Civil War set the stage for the federal level of government to **** all over state's right, period.

maybe U & others could ponder that scenario INSTEAD of making BS assumptions ...............
 
notquiteright said:
No you don't understand how wars are won. No amount of bombing would have stopped the North, they weren't broken, they were bloody and now EXTREMELY determined to OUTLAST us, like they did everyone before us.

Now the bombers of that day couldn't 'see' into the jungle, or have much in the way of guided ordinance. Without South Vietnamese troops willing to die to defend key positions the North was always going to win. The North's troops believed in their cause, the South's soldiers didn't. The NVA fought to REUNITE their country, the ARVNs to keep a petty dictator and his kin in power.

The 'broken' NVA attacked and sent fleeing whole ARVN units. ARVN units that had a decade to train up to 'defend' freedom and democracy while American troops fought their battles for them. ARVN units we had spent a King's ransom on...

I do like any umbrage over the North breaking 'the treaty' that covered us tucking tail and hauling buttocks. WE broke the treaty stating the countries would vote on reunion that started our engagement in a land war in Asia... :peace
Click to expand...

They were utterly terrified of the USAF's bombing runs. The North Vietnamese were not interested in once more been pummeled from the sky by the immense bombs we were dropping. Had we punished their violation of the treaty with even a few raids, they would have backed down.

The VC's back had been broken. Large columns of mechanized and armored forces like the NVA finally brought into play in their climatic invasion of the south can not melt into the jungle like guerilla infantry units can.

The NVA's troops fought because communist countries don't take well to people telling them "well, I'd really rather sit this one out." When your options are fervent patriotism or slave labor camps, most people are going to choose fervent patriotism.

The North Vietnamese were never the same after Tet, and they themselves admitted it. We talked ourselves into defeat there and elsewhere.
 
cuban smokes said:
Lincoln PAID for his own sins to his nation with his life; I have NO problem with that history

what U do NOT understand is this: Lincoln pissed on state' rights, period.

I was never about slavery.

Lincoln & the Civil War set the stage for the federal level of government to **** all over state's right, period.

maybe U & others could ponder that scenario INSTEAD of making BS assumptions ...............
Click to expand...

There were no "sins". Crushing slavery was not a sin. Neither was destroying your Confederacy.

There is no such thing as a "state's right" to own other human beings.

It was always about slavery.

The Civil War is about southerners desperately trying to preserve their ownership of other human beings.

It set the stage for states to no longer have the power to preserve evil and vile instutions like slavery.
 
Tigerace117 said:
There were no "sins". Crushing slavery was not a sin. Neither was destroying your Confederacy.

There is no such thing as a "state's right" to own other human beings.

It was always about slavery.

The Civil War is about southerners desperately trying to preserve their ownership of other human beings.

It set the stage for states to no longer have the power to preserve evil and vile instutions like slavery.
Click to expand...


wow, the content of that post is beyond ignorant but then one would have to consider the source .............
 
Grand Mal said:
My son toured SE Asia a few years ago with a couple Vietnamese friends from school. He had nothing but good things to say about Vietnam. The people are prospering (by the standards of SE Asia), there's small-scale private enterprise, and none of the street prostitution he saw in Phnom Penh. And he had a few beers with a couple of American vets who said they were well-treated in-country. They've recovered from the war nicely and after generations of rule by China, France, Japan and US they seem to be doing well with having their own country.
Were you there? Maybe you should go back, check it out.
Click to expand...

The US occupation taught them the way.
 
Tigerace117 said:
They were utterly terrified of the USAF's bombing runs. The North Vietnamese were not interested in once more been pummeled from the sky by the immense bombs we were dropping. Had we punished their violation of the treaty with even a few raids, they would have backed down.

The VC's back had been broken. Large columns of mechanized and armored forces like the NVA finally brought into play in their climatic invasion of the south can not melt into the jungle like guerilla infantry units can.

The NVA's troops fought because communist countries don't take well to people telling them "well, I'd really rather sit this one out." When your options are fervent patriotism or slave labor camps, most people are going to choose fervent patriotism.

The North Vietnamese were never the same after Tet, and they themselves admitted it. We talked ourselves into defeat there and elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Truer words were never spoken.
 
chuckiechan said:
Unless you can hang it on Trump, it's a non starter. Speaking of starting, it was started by Kennedy, and really got bloody with Johnson costing most of US lives, and we got out under Nixon. But the left will blame Nixon and Trump.
Click to expand...
Eisenhower took over France's role in training and aiding the SV military by sending US military personnel. JFK raised the number to 13,000, then Johnson upped the number to more than half a million in country, and Nixon got stuck holding the bag.
 
cuban smokes said:
Funny, how people would think that the US won the war.

the US incurred over 58K KIA in Vietnam, over 150K wounded, and over 21K disabled.
The financial cost of the US war in Vietnam in current dollars is over $1 trillion.
The war divided a nation & forever changed the public perception of war.

anyone that believes the US won the Vietnam war would have to be many fries short of a 'happy meal.'
Click to expand...

War is never a win win occupation for all. But the investment very much paid out for most Americans, as I pointed out. It stabilized the area quite nicely till the Cold War was won. In that respect, Vietnam might possibly be better considered a hot battle in a long Cold War.
 
cuban smokes said:
So much talk lately concerning getting rid of memorials & tributes, and particularly so when it comes to the ‘side’ which lost a war

I thought I would borrow a thread theme & also a quote from a member in another thread & apply the general concept to the failed Vietnam War, a war which the US clearly lost



Now, to re-phrase that quote in the context of the Vietnam War in which the US lost, a war in which millions of Vietnamese were slaughtered by US forces

The US lost, they should lose their statues & memorials, they have had over 40 years to get over it

let's see how that works ............
Click to expand...

It is just as pointless as the original quote.
 
Perotista said:
I'm sure those who fought in the civil war didn't get over it just because it was over. Perhaps all of those alive at the time and the new born, born right after. Now there still are some Vietnam vets still alive. We were the scum of the earth to many civilians from the end of the war until desert storm made it alright to be military again. Strange as it may be, we now have many who protested that war now saying they fought in it. Time sure have changed.

I think each war, Vietnam and the civil war needs to be placed into the context of the times they happened. Not so doing results in statement like, "a war in which millions of Vietnamese were slaughtered by US forces."

I have no problem with either memorials or statues. I think each local community ought to decide if either stays or goes without any outside interference one way or the other. What I object to is what recently happened, people from Louisiana and Pennsylvania coming into Charlottesville to tell the people of Charlottesville what they ought or ought not do. Let the residence of Charlottesville decide on their own. The statue was in their town, it's completely up to them, no one else. Now those outsiders who thought they knew best for the people of Charlottesville are now gone home, back to where ever they came from leaving a mess in Charlottesville. Better they just stay away to begin with.
Click to expand...

I think the men who actually fought in the Civil War got over it more than people who weren't even alive then.
 

Attachments

  • http-%2F%2Fa.amz.mshcdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F04%2FCivil-final.jpg
    http-%2F%2Fa.amz.mshcdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F04%2FCivil-final.jpg
    95.3 KB · Views: 22
Tigerace117 said:
They were utterly terrified of the USAF's bombing runs. The North Vietnamese were not interested in once more been pummeled from the sky by the immense bombs we were dropping. Had we punished their violation of the treaty with even a few raids, they would have backed down. The VC's back had been broken. Large columns of mechanized and armored forces like the NVA finally brought into play in their climatic invasion of the south can not melt into the jungle like guerilla infantry units can. The NVA's troops fought because communist countries don't take well to people telling them "well, I'd really rather sit this one out." When your options are fervent patriotism or slave labor camps, most people are going to choose fervent patriotism. The North Vietnamese were never the same after Tet, and they themselves admitted it. We talked ourselves into defeat there and elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Ummm no they weren't terrified, they shot down quite a few of our bombers, many valuable aircrews lost (some from the downed B-52's had valuable SAC secrets)

After Tet the VC were broken, but the NVA sure weren't. They redoubled their efforts to invade the south. ARVN was pathetic, even before we stopped ground ops they couldn't fight without MASSIVE US support. No 'few squadrons' of bombers were going to stop the '75 invasion. The '72 invasion was stopped by MASSIVE US air and naval gunfire support- but still the ARVNs lost the upper 1/3 of their country and never recaptured it. Their army had no desire to die for their tyrant, but you claim the Northern troops did just that for their 'tyrant'.

You also forget Ho Chi Minh was revered by many SOUTHERN Vietnamese citizens as the victor against the French. Thieu was not, nor any of his predecessors.

Again you see forced 'patriotism' as a war winner...FYI Soviet Russia didn't stop the Nazi juggernaut until they switched to 'defense of Mother Russia' instead of brutal methods. Not saying the brutal stopped completely, am saying nationalism trumps forced conscription (which is what we had, well unless you had connections like many of our leaders today)

The South was a farce nation, a face saving ploy for the French (we never honored the treaty that ended the French involvement so when speaking of broken treaties do go back to the start and not cherry pick the one you want to be all hurt over.)

Only MASSIVE US involvement would 'save' the South and we simply got tired of sending young men to die for a petty tyrant... :peace
 
apdst said:
I think the men who actually fought in the Civil War got over it more than people who weren't even alive then.
Click to expand...

Come to think of it, you're probably right. There are those today who have more problems getting over it 150 years after its over than those who fought in it. There is a certain bond of those who fought in a war, respect for each other even if they fought against each other than will ever be seen between a civilian who never served and the war fighter.

Having served in Laos and Vietnam, I remember once Saigon, Phnom Penh and Vientiane fell to the North Vietnamese, Khmer Rouge and the Pathet Lao communists, I really wasn't mad at them. I was mad as hell at America and congress for letting it happen. Not quite the same, but I do think you're right. I know when the North Vietnamese invaded Cambodia to put a stop to the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot's killing fields, I really appropriated that. Then I became more angry when Jimmy Carter began helping the Khmer Rouge fight the North Vietnamese. We switch sides. All during the war we were on Lon Nol's side fighting Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot and the KR then kill between 2-3 million of their countrymen out of a country that then had a population of 7 million. Then the North Vietnamese invade, stop the killing fields and what do we do, take sides with Pol Pot and his KR.

We should have been thanking the North Vietnamese and aiding them.
 
notquiteright said:
Ummm no they weren't terrified, they shot down quite a few of our bombers, many valuable aircrews lost (some from the downed B-52's had valuable SAC secrets)

After Tet the VC were broken, but the NVA sure weren't. They redoubled their efforts to invade the south. ARVN was pathetic, even before we stopped ground ops they couldn't fight without MASSIVE US support. No 'few squadrons' of bombers were going to stop the '75 invasion. The '72 invasion was stopped by MASSIVE US air and naval gunfire support- but still the ARVNs lost the upper 1/3 of their country and never recaptured it. Their army had no desire to die for their tyrant, but you claim the Northern troops did just that for their 'tyrant'.

You also forget Ho Chi Minh was revered by many SOUTHERN Vietnamese citizens as the victor against the French. Thieu was not, nor any of his predecessors.

Again you see forced 'patriotism' as a war winner...FYI Soviet Russia didn't stop the Nazi juggernaut until they switched to 'defense of Mother Russia' instead of brutal methods. Not saying the brutal stopped completely, am saying nationalism trumps forced conscription (which is what we had, well unless you had connections like many of our leaders today)

The South was a farce nation, a face saving ploy for the French (we never honored the treaty that ended the French involvement so when speaking of broken treaties do go back to the start and not cherry pick the one you want to be all hurt over.)

Only MASSIVE US involvement would 'save' the South and we simply got tired of sending young men to die for a petty tyrant... :peace
Click to expand...

Uh.....yes, they absolutely were. No sane person isn't terrified when bombs start dropping, and nobody actually under bombardment goes "oh, this is no big deal, we occasionally shoot down some of their bombers".

And as a result NVA units suffered heavy casulties due to their having to pick up the slack from the VC. Which, of course, meant that their efforts to conquer the south became that much harder. You have plenty of meat to feed through the grinder, bug with ever increasing causulty rates it's meaningless when the meat doesn't live long enough to learn the tricks of the soldiering trade or teach others those tricks.

The North Vietnamese had no desire to see bombardments resume. It wouldn't have even taken many planes. The potential for more punishment would have been sufficient.

And Ho Chi Minh was dead by '69. The routine brutality of northern troops and their often shoddy treatment of southern Viet Cong units, who got the worst equipment and supplies, pissed away a lot of support.

And the groups which said "wait, we never signed up for this "mother Russia" business" found themselves sunning themselves in tropical Siberia.

No, we convinced ourselves that a draw was a defeat because it didn't meet our blitzkreig smackdown fantasies.
 
chuckiechan said:
Unless you can hang it on Trump, it's a non starter. Speaking of starting, it was started by Kennedy, and really got bloody with Johnson costing most of US lives, and we got out under Nixon. But the left will blame Nixon and Trump.
Click to expand...

Always with the phuckin' US lives. You lot were/are the bloody war criminals that invaded and slaughtered millions of innocents in your greedy, amoral grasping for others wealth.

Of course Nixon is to blame just as every other war criminal US president is to blame.
 
beefheart said:
You have made a false equivalency, the civil war was someone trying to overthrow the US government. The southern traitors lost, why should we be honoring their generals?
Click to expand...

The southerners were no different than the terrorists who rebelled against England. Actually, the US civil war is a dandy illustration of the hypocrisy of the USA, [as if anyone needed more]. The bull**** about freedom, but the people of the south weren't allowed to have theirs, nor were Blacks, Chinese, Native Americans, Japanese, ... . More of the stunning US hypocrisy.
 
cuban smokes said:
The US lost, they should lose their statues & memorials, they have had over 40 years to get over it

let's see how that works ............
Click to expand...

All these statues & memorials are essential to keeping the huge American wheels of propaganda fully lubricated.
 
camlok said:
All these statues & memorials are essential to keeping the huge American wheels of propaganda fully lubricated.
Click to expand...


agreed; many Americans are being very well lubricated, for the giant ****ing they are getting from their own government .......
 
Jesse Booth said:
"Merry Christmas, mother****ers!"
Click to expand...

Not to mention the guys doing the bombing.

How times have changed. Christmas day, no-man's-land, WW1...

xmasww1.jpg
 
cuban smokes said:
So much talk lately concerning getting rid of memorials & tributes, and particularly so when it comes to the ‘side’ which lost a war

I thought I would borrow a thread theme & also a quote from a member in another thread & apply the general concept to the failed Vietnam War, a war which the US clearly lost



Now, to re-phrase that quote in the context of the Vietnam War in which the US lost, a war in which millions of Vietnamese were slaughtered by US forces

The US lost, they should lose their statues & memorials, they have had over 40 years to get over it

let's see how that works ............
Click to expand...



A few problems with the premise, not the least of which is that a majority of righties in here believe the US won the Vietnam war.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Uh.....yes, they absolutely were. No sane person isn't terrified when bombs start dropping, and nobody actually under bombardment goes "oh, this is no big deal, we occasionally shoot down some of their bombers". And as a result NVA units suffered heavy casulties due to their having to pick up the slack from the VC. Which, of course, meant that their efforts to conquer the south became that much harder. You have plenty of meat to feed through the grinder, bug with ever increasing causulty rates it's meaningless when the meat doesn't live long enough to learn the tricks of the soldiering trade or teach others those tricks. The North Vietnamese had no desire to see bombardments resume. It wouldn't have even taken many planes. The potential for more punishment would have been sufficient. And Ho Chi Minh was dead by '69. The routine brutality of northern troops and their often shoddy treatment of southern Viet Cong units, who got the worst equipment and supplies, pissed away a lot of support. And the groups which said "wait, we never signed up for this "mother Russia" business" found themselves sunning themselves in tropical Siberia. No, we convinced ourselves that a draw was a defeat because it didn't meet our blitzkreig smackdown fantasies.
Click to expand...

Oh how I have waded through the excuses and revisionist fantasies that try and spin our debacle in South Vietnam.

You confuse normal healthy fear for cowardness. To your mind no grunt would ever assault a defended position as no sane person isn't terrified... :roll:

Our bomber casualties were severe not just some of our bombers...

Our military was being stripped of equipment, personnel and training in all other theaters of operation trying to beat those 'forced' communists...

Your 'learn the tricks' is more apparent on our side than the NVA (who did learn the tricks as you exaggerate their casualties like our military brass did). Our army sent troops in for one year (13 months for marines) so no sooner did a 'cruit learn how to survive (if he did survive) he was a short timer and no longer looking to kill a commie for mommy.

Ho Chi Minh's death didn't deter his image to many South Vietnamese as a national hero, same as FDR dying didn't dull our determination to finish WWII.

So how many Russians were in the groups sunning themselves in Siberia??? Seems millions didn't take that option and died fighting the Nazis for Mother Russia. But then again how many Americans opted for deferments, fleeing to Canada, or faking health issues to avoid being forced to fight in Vietnam or go to 'vacation' homes (federal prisons- see two can play your silly game)

Fact is we forced our young people who couldn't buy their way out to fight and die to prop up a worthless, corrupt petty dictator all because we confused nationalism for communism.... :doh

We trampled over the treaty ending French involvement, Woodrow Wilson refused to listen to Ho Chi Minh's request for self determination back in 1919 (we were more concerned with propping up European Empires than proclaiming all men are created equal.) We fought the war FOR South Vietnam and turned many parts into a lunar landscape but to no avail.

It was no draw, it was an endless meat grinder American parents got tired of throwing their sons into... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
Oh how I have waded through the excuses and revisionist fantasies that try and spin our debacle in South Vietnam.

You confuse normal healthy fear for cowardness. To your mind no grunt would ever assault a defended position as no sane person isn't terrified... :roll:

Our bomber casualties were severe not just some of our bombers...

Our military was being stripped of equipment, personnel and training in all other theaters of operation trying to beat those 'forced' communists...

Your 'learn the tricks' is more apparent on our side than the NVA (who did learn the tricks as you exaggerate their casualties like our military brass did). Our army sent troops in for one year (13 months for marines) so no sooner did a 'cruit learn how to survive (if he did survive) he was a short timer and no longer looking to kill a commie for mommy.

Ho Chi Minh's death didn't deter his image to many South Vietnamese as a national hero, same as FDR dying didn't dull our determination to finish WWII.

So how many Russians were in the groups sunning themselves in Siberia??? Seems millions didn't take that option and died fighting the Nazis for Mother Russia. But then again how many Americans opted for deferments, fleeing to Canada, or faking health issues to avoid being forced to fight in Vietnam or go to 'vacation' homes (federal prisons- see two can play your silly game)

Fact is we forced our young people who couldn't buy their way out to fight and die to prop up a worthless, corrupt petty dictator all because we confused nationalism for communism.... :doh

We trampled over the treaty ending French involvement, Woodrow Wilson refused to listen to Ho Chi Minh's request for self determination back in 1919 (we were more concerned with propping up European Empires than proclaiming all men are created equal.) We fought the war FOR South Vietnam and turned many parts into a lunar landscape but to no avail.

It was no draw, it was an endless meat grinder American parents got tired of throwing their sons into... :peace
Click to expand...

Congralutions on trying to handwave away the effects of air strikes on massed columns of men and vehicles with "revisionism".

No grunt would go stand above ground directly underneath an area being repeatedly bombed, no. Because people do this thing called "take cover" because they aren't shrapnel proof or concussion proof. The North Vietnamese were not Ubermensch like you seem to think; they did not just sort of shrug off bombing runs.

Yeah, I'm sure that when you are in a tank or APC and everything in exploding around you, "don't worry! The enemy's bomber causulties are high!" is a real comfort......oh wait. No, it's not. Because it only takes one hit, or even a near miss, to seriously **** up a column's day.

Leaving a few squadrons in South Vietnam would not have lost us WW3, or even another brush war in a different place for that matter.

NVA casulties were immense. Many of the Viet Cong recruits barely had a chance to learn their weapons before they were tossed into the fire as well. Had they actually been so nonchalant about airpower it is likely their casulties would have been even more heavy then they already were, which was, of course, pretty massive.

FDR died not too long before the Second World War in the Pacific ended. It was several years after Ho Chi Minh's death before American troop prescence really started hitting minimal levels. It would be like if FDR died in early 1942.

Federal prisons are not as bad as Siberian gulags. Way to torpedo your argument in your desperate hyberbole though.

We didn't "confuse nationalism for communism" in any way. Without North Vietnam the Khmer Rouge, for example, could never have come to power.

And yes, it was a draw. It was those with an agenda who turned it into a defeat, just like they turned the victory at Tet into a defeat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom