It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Where there any positive outcomes in Vietnam?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy
Politicians wanted the war because they made a ton of money off of it. A lot of major corporations made money off of it and lined the pockets of politicians to keep it going. Why do you think it lasted so long? They had no plan to win it....just a plan to make it last so the moeny would keep rolling in. One of the reasons JFK was shot, he was going to take our troops out of there. He said "It's not our war." And it wasn't....



You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The US didn't start the war you nit-wit, the NV did. The reason the US couldn't "win" the war was because politically it was not viable for us to invade the north, since the USSR backed her, and had threatened nuclear esscilation.



Really? Then why are we doing the exact same thing in Iraq now?


Again, you hae absolutely no clue what you are talking about. We have invaded the whole nation, in 'Nam, there was absolutely ZERO offensive action on the ground. We tried to hold a boarder in Vietnam, in Iraq we occupy the nation we fight.

Beyond that, the style of fighting was completely different in Vietnam - you know, the whole Jungle and undeveloped vs desert and urban thing? Not to mention the vast discrepency in casualty rates.

FYI it is LITERALLY more dangerous to the life of a 20 year old to live in the US then to serve in Iraq statistically.



This was the "cover" story. This was a lie. This is what was told to the American people to scare them into thinking we needed to go there. It was a lie. It was only fought to make the mega-rich richer and again, to line the pockets of many politicians with the blood of our young men.



Again, you know nothing of what you speak. US doctrine for the cold war through today has always been a poliy of geographic containment. If you look at the cold war, the US and NATO boxed the USSR and China in, and basically tried to prevent any spread of communism. The US is doing the same thing right now with China. Take a look at all of the nations to Chinas West, and then go look up which ones have recently added US military bases (something that just 10 years ago would have been impossable).



Yes. Richard Nixon being the biggest. Johnson wanted out of the war too and because of the pressure put on him not to get out of Vietnam, he didn't run for a second term (else he probably would have been killed also...like Kennedy). FYI....Nixon was involved in the JFK assassination. That's mainly what Watergate was about. A lot of information on the famous Nixon tapes was about the assassination, but they called it "that bay of pigs situation" instead on the tapes.



What a crock!

Exactly who was resident when the Vietnam war started? Here's a clue - IT WASN'T NIXON!

Nixon built up our forces their to respond to the increased attacks from the north...You know, that same north that started the war in the first place.



What a load of dung this is. The media caused us to lose the war. Do you realize how stupid that sounds?



Whats a load of dung is the pure crapola I have read from you.

It's so funny... You are EXACTLY the type of person who would have helped lose the war for the US.



What? Where do you get your information? We did nothing. North Vietnam remained communist and still is to this day. So what the frig are you talking about?


This little thing called the Cold war, and the USSR... You might have heard of them. You know, Reagan totally dominating the USSR...USSR collapses...US wins cold war... Or did you miss that program?



Not worth the lives of 60,000 of our young men, and most of those 1,000,000 didn't want to be there any more than we did. They were victims also. Victims of their own stupid government.


The only reason it wasn't worth the lives of our soldiers in because we let them die in vain. We did not follow through how we should have. Thankfully with Bush, this same mistake will not be made twice.




posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   
If you want to track who gained, track Lady Bird Johnson.

Politically, our involvement in Vietnam may have prevented an invasion of South Korea and Laos. That isn't everyday knowledge and I cannot provide you with unclassified corroboration, none-the-less, it's true.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Mad man you bring up some very good points, I have to say I agree with your views


We did loose many soldiers in Vietnam but they should have been supported much more than they were.

It is sad to hear stories about how veterans were and sometimes are still treated. All I hope is that when the war against terrorism is over our soldiers do not get this same treatment. From reading more articles online and in books, it definately seems we did prevent the spread of communism. We made a statement to Vietnam's neighbors. Had we left earlier, or not taken any action at all the "domino effect" might have come into play.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Just out of curiosity, What do you do for a living and what did you study in school Mad Man?



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 11:54 PM
link   
We were at a parade for returning troops after GW1, and one of our chaperones told us to cheer when the Vietnam Vets came by. We started yelling and screaming as they did, and they made it a special point to come over and shake our hands, most of them with tears in their eyes. One of them even gave up a shell casing he had been holding since the war to one of us, to say thank you just for us cheering for them.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
You know, Reagan totally dominating the USSR...USSR collapses...US wins cold war... Or did you miss that program?


Sorry, That made me laugh. Reagan the Cold War hero!

Seems to me that America has gone from being run by a guy who starred alongside a chimp, to, well, just a chimp.




posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Do some research here. Those who claim that nothing good came from Vietnam are crazy. US involvement in wars against communist expansion all led to the downfall of he Soviet Union and the evolution of Chinese communism into a quasi-free-market, not to mention the strategic and tactical advances made.

Vietnam: Lessons Learned



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 08:20 AM
link   
As usual the most accurate account is somewhere in-between the statements above.

Regan being the cause of the fall of the USSR, sigh... if you believe this then you really need to rethink what was going on in the USSR in the last 30 years and pay particular attention to their economy. They were already going to fall and Reagan had nothing to do with that.

Regan has become this iconic figure of the Republican party, an almost mythological avatar of Republican success. I think it is because he was a very popular man, he was, I admit, very charismatic in his first years but now with hindsight you can see the evolution of his Alzheimer’s and dementia setting in.

Anyone else remember his little "Calling all bombs" stunt?

VN, Yes, it was to attempt to stop communism, but due to policy it turned into a war machine to fill pockets and run Opium.

What is creepy is listen to George Bush Jr. Speeches on "staying the course" and then listen to speeches during the VN conflict... they are damn near identical.

As for the fighting being much the same in Iraq as it was in VN. Obviously the terrain is totally different but the thing that is the same is that you are fighting a group of people who are already all around you. Our soldiers can not be sure which of the native people are the allies and which are the enemy. Like VN there is no clear objective, the point of it all seems to be to change the ways of a culture, change their political structure, change their minds as it were... that is an objective that cannot succeed. Much like "Defeating the Terrorists" There will always be terrorists you cannot defeat an ideal.

Good things out of VN.

Focus on the technologies, the advances in body armour, the fact that it forced us to take an honest view of our military and instigated change, technological advances in communications such as the portable phones which though around from long ago, they did make some big advances in portability and range.

good luck.

Mr Bunny



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   


The only reason it wasn't worth the lives of our soldiers in because we let them die in vain. We did not follow through how we should have. Thankfully with Bush, this same mistake will not be made twice.



LMAO!! The idiot Bush IS making the same mistakes. He has no plan to win the war and has under-estimated the enemy. The same things that went on in Vietnam. This war isn't about winning...it''s about MAKING MONEY! Get a clue!

Oh, and everything you had to say about my comments was pure garbage. YOU my friend are clueless and seem to get your information from the Encyclopedia Britannica or something. Why not learn the truth and deny ignorance!!

Oh and a complete defeat and embarassment in Vietnam led to us wiining the cold war? LMAO again! The two are completely unrelated. We gained nothing in Vietnam except 60,000 dead young men FOR NOTHING!!

And I didn't say Nixon started the war in Vietnam, but he was the one who wanted it. Kennedy started it, but knew pretty quick that it was wrong and we didn't belong there and was going to pull us out. Don't forget, Nixon was supposed to win the 1960 election!

Do a little research before you try to blast my comments. I know what I'm talking bout....you again, are clueless!



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   
There was at least one benefit: the US learned it is not invincible.

And the fundamental disconnect that the right refuses to see is this: the US thought it was waging a war against communism, but the Vietnamese who fought against us thought they were fighting a war of independence against a colonial power. The North Vietnamese were, in the end, simply more motivated to win.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy
LMAO!! The idiot Bush IS making the same mistakes. He has no plan to win the war and has under-estimated the enemy. The same things that went on in Vietnam. This war isn't about winning...it''s about MAKING MONEY! Get a clue!


I think YOU need to get a clue, boy.

There is absolutely nothing in comon between iraq and Vietnam. Niether war was about making money. In fact, the plan was a brilliant one from a strategic point of view, and the hand over of the nation to the people of Iraq will be a slow and gradual one. Patience is a virtue, and your ilk of people that demand instant gratication are unreasonable.


Oh, and everything you had to say about my comments was pure garbage.


You mean the north didn't attack the south? The US did invade the north?
Ok buddy...



YOU my friend are clueless and seem to get your information from the Encyclopedia Britannica or something.


I think this says it all...



Why not learn the truth and deny ignorance!!


I do know the truth, and in engaging you in debate I am attempting (most likely in vain judging by your belief of what is "garbage") to deny ignorace.


Oh and a complete defeat and embarassment in Vietnam led to us wiining the cold war? LMAO again! The two are completely unrelated.


So you believe that the drain of Vietnam on the USSR economy contributed nothing to their subsequent collapse?


We gained nothing in Vietnam except 60,000 dead young men FOR NOTHING!!


Well, there were a lot of improvements in our military that came from it. Beyond that, those men would not have died "for nothing" if the US had had the fortitude to keep fighting the war.


And I didn't say Nixon started the war in Vietnam, but he was the one who wanted it. Kennedy started it, but knew pretty quick that it was wrong and we didn't belong there and was going to pull us out. Don't forget, Nixon was supposed to win the 1960 election!




So Nixon started the Vietnam war, even though it wasn't the US that started it in the first place, and Nixon was not president?



Do a little research before you try to blast my comments. I know what I'm talking bout....you again, are clueless!





posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrBunny
Regan being the cause of the fall of the USSR, sigh... if you believe this then you really need to rethink what was going on in the USSR in the last 30 years and pay particular attention to their economy. They were already going to fall and Reagan had nothing to do with that.


I don't believe I ever said he was the sole reason for the Soviet collapse, I said he dominated the USSR, which he did. He completely dominated them in the arms race, and dominated them politically as well.

I believe it would be accurate to say that the Soviets were already missing a leg, and RR was the one to push them over.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   


I don't believe I ever said he was the sole reason for the Soviet collapse, I said he dominated the USSR, which he did. He completely dominated them in the arms race, and dominated them politically as well.

I believe it would be accurate to say that the Soviets were already missing a leg, and RR was the one to push them over.


See, I am afraid I have to disagree.

Regan put in massive spending into areas of the military that did very little good. The whole Star wars program was a proverbial money pit.

He refused to act on the tragedy of Berute (sp?) deeply wounding not only the moral of our active Marines but made the nation appear weak.

He illegally funneled massive funds and weapons into terrorist hands... ohh I'm sorry.. no.. that was the secretary who did that.. because we all know it couldn’t possibly have been Olie North and Crew. Gods what an insult to the justice system that trial was.

He illegally fires all the air traffic controllers because they were on strike and then gets a national Airport named after him.. that one still blows me away.

No.. Regan is not the man people want to remember him as.

But the topic is the benefits of VN...

Agreed NVN attacked and at first it was our intent to attempt to stop the spread of communism.. though if that were truly important to us then why was there no stink about Tibet's invasion, occupation and elimination. Take a look at a current world map.. Tibet is gone.. it is now part of China.

Why do we not hear about what is going on with the Maoists in Nepal?

It's because we as a nation really do not care what happens on the other side of the ocean as long as it does not tap into our cash or energy flow.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Star Wars was a money pit and did nothing good? That's certainly not true at all! You need to remember that Reagan truly believed it would work, it didn't, but more importantly the Soviets believed it worked or would work! Star Wars has a lot more to do with the Soviets backing down than I believe you all give it credit for.

As for the one person who didn't believe the media contributed to us losing the conflict in Vietnam, you're wrong. It had a lot of impact, though of course it did not "make" us lose. When there is no declaration of war people do not unite behind the cause, and you have the media riling people up against the war, it devastes the morale of the troops because they have a huge percent of the country that is telling them what they are doing is not noble and right, and the bond between the people and their military is the primary source of their moral strength. Once the soldiers lose their support from home they lose their motivation and therefore effectiveness. Declarations of war also make it war of the people and not the government, something that would indeed have been handy in Iraq.

Also, you can't say Vietnam is just like Iraq - the major similarity I see is we're too focused on the symptom of the war now (the insurgency) rather than its cause... Just like in 'nam we should have focused our manpower on sealing the borders instead of dispersing them in "search and destroy" missions. That's really where we failed there.

Furthermore Vietnam was, most agree, a huge tactical victory but a strategic defeat. I mean, shortly after the Christmas bombings of Haiphong and Hanoi in '72 we actually ended the war, our problem happened after we signed the treaty, started bringing troops back home and then Nixon resigned and the North knew Ford had no support and couldn't do jack so they finished the job.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Sorry

"Furthermore, by 1987, under the tutelage of the newly freed dissident Andrei Sakharov, a designer of the Soviet hydrogen bomb, Mr. Gorbachev dismissed whatever theoretical threat Star Wars presented to the Soviet system. As Mr. Reagan persisted at a Washington summit in trying to win Soviet approval for Star Wars tests, Mr. Gorbachev told him, ''I think you're wasting money. I don't think it will work. But if that's what you want to do, go ahead.''

www.commondreams.org...

Regan and the fall of the USSR.


ASs for VN and Iraq. There are many similarities in attitude and pigheadded blind determination shown by US leaders. Not to mention in a fairy tail like hope that the Locals will be able to take over and effectivly protect their own lands.

We will reamain there, the attacks will continue and the country will disolve into cival war.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   
I've seen a similar quote by Gorby before, but just because he said it doesn't mean he believed it. Also, I've never seen that common dreams website before but it's slogan ""Breaking News and Views for the Progressive Community"" Doesn't exactly lend itself to nonpartisan integrity.

Also, why has Europe been afraid for decades that the US would build a missle defense system that we could simply hide behind and not care about protecting the rest of the world? Also, I wonder, why Putin is so afraid of Bush's developing of the current missile defense plan (people whine we are breaking our committment under the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty... except, we signed that treaty with a country that no longer exists (USSR), so moot point.)

Iraq already has a solid middle class, the rift between poor and rich isn't as bad as it is in other Middle-Eastern countries, a civil war is possible, but I think many of these people have too much to lose, especially once they are able to feel confident in their own democratic institutions. Let us hope.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   
I hate to break it to you but vietnam was never declared a war it was a police action. The media really did help lose that "war" (my opinion). The military industrial complex was the true winner of the conflict because after the demoralizing rout that we suffered they basically had a clean slate to to sell more weapons, bigger and better weapons, God knows that we needed a bigger better stronger military to keep the red threat from our door(their opinion). I lost two uncles in that war and they both enlisted they were not drafted, I personally think that the draft is a good idea look at the Isrealis EVERYONE serves their two years. And I also agree that the music was the best thing to come out of there.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   
^^ If that was directed at me, I know there was never a declaration of war in Vietnam, I'm saying we SHOULD HAVE declared a war. I agree that everyone should serve in the military, whether you are in a combat or any other type of support role - at the very least it should be a requirement for one to be able to vote or own real property.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   
i know a positive outcome of vietnam ! quit thinking about something positive for the usa. think about the positive outcome for the 100s of thousands of vietamese people who found their way to america after the fall of saigon. these victims of the war were able to start a new life in america and have been given a chance at the american dream. wouldnt this have been the idea of victory? today vietnam is an impoverished country and u can easly say these millions of people in the usa have a much much better life. maybe better then a usa victory could have given them. i work with two old vietnames guys who both fought in their country and they both fled vietnam because they would have been killed after saigon for fighting the war. one makes 70000 / year and the other makes 30000 / year est. they are both very happy men, have american kids in college or the usa military. they both love their wives and live very decent lives. phong spent 5 years as a vietcon pow. i havent talked much about prison with him but the way he says "its not a good subject " i can tell he went through hell. but he is one of the happiest people i know . he is very proud of fighting the war, very proud of his family ,very proud of making a life as an vietnamese american. if these men stayed in vietnam after any sort of usa victory i doubt their lives would b anything comparable to their lives today. for millions of vietnames living in the usa , id take their point of view and say their plight to america was a positive outcome of the vietnam war.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   


So you believe that the drain of Vietnam on the USSR economy contributed nothing to their subsequent collapse?


had nothing to do with it. And your comment about we would have won if we kept fighting? What are you, insane? We would have just had thousands more dead boys in body bags.....you obviously are clueless. This is the dumbest thing I've heard on the subject of the Vietnam war!

And Jaguar...you say it wasn't a war it was a police action? LMFAO! It was a war pal. Calling it a police action by our government is a way to make everyone THINK it's not a war. If it wasn't a war, then why did 60,000 of our boys come back in body bags?? Police action....rotflmfao!!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join