Vietnam War - Was the US right to fight there?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-10-2017, 12:55 PM
RE: Vietnam War - Was the US right to fight there?
(09-10-2017 12:43 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 12:38 PM)Brian37 Wrote:  Oh fuck off dude, nukes are real, our enemies have them and your are a fucking moron if you think the'd simply roll over if we fired first.

Hate to burst your bubble, but there are enough nukes to fry the planet like a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken. And sorry, but Canada is not a separate planet.

I am not scared of communism, but I don't want to live under it either. I am really fucking tired of all or nothing economic ideologies. I would not want to live in China or Cuba or North Korea. But I also get tired of the left and right confusing "capitalism" as being a form of government.

"Capitalism" is not a form of government. China allows the private sector, you know, the country that uses slave wages to produce all the crap westerners buy at Walmart? Gadaffi was a billionaire whom owned stock in General Electric. The Saudi Royal Family owns oil companies and has stocks in banks and the weapons industry. Fidel Castro had an estimated personal wealth of $800,000,000 dollars.

The issue isn't communism vs capitalism, the issue is always GREED. There is not one government, friend or foe alike that does not invest in the global market.

The real problem for our species worldwide is that we have 62 uber billionaires whom have a combined wealth of 3 billion.

But if you think nukes could not fuck our species up, no polite way to say it, you are a moron.

Woah woah, Brian. Where did nukes factor into this? Dance's post never mentioned anything about them. You lost me there. Her post was about the domino effect of the SE asia all going communist should Vietnam go communist. The fact that Vietnam eventually did fell to the North and the dominoes didn't fall like it was portrayed is evidence she is right. Hell, the communist Vietnamese were the ones who stopped Pol Pot. The US didn't and they knew what was going on there.

Can you please connect the dots in your post to Dance's?

Ok, I will give you that. But I cue'd off the "domino effect" and yea I get a lip twitch when I smell a hint of gung ho crap coming from the right. Maybe I am a bit nervous right now considering who has their hands on our nukes and he doesn't like getting picked on. The orange asshat shall remain nameless.

But I still would not want to live in China or Cuba. I don't hate their entire populations as individual human beings, but to say they have the same freedoms to the extent we do I think would be stretch.

Sorry if I misunderstood. But war unfortunately is profitable and I think more humans worldwide need to understand that weapons as an industry are profitable and both friend and foe invest in the weapons industry as governments.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2017, 12:56 PM
RE: Vietnam War - Was the US right to fight there?
(09-10-2017 12:54 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 11:58 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  It wasn't about the spread of communism, it was about securing the rubber supply for the Michelin company. And even if it was truly over an ideological difference, why did they want to stop the spread of communism and why is it our place to dictate to a people what system of government they can or cannot have?

This seems a bit weird considering after the end of WWII, synthetic rubber had the output of twice the amount of natural rubber and was less expensive. Do you have a citation for this?
It's on Infowars.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2017, 12:59 PM
RE: Vietnam War - Was the US right to fight there?
(09-10-2017 12:56 PM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  It's on Infowars.

Then that means it's absolutely true!!!YesNoYesNo

It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes reeveseb's post
09-10-2017, 01:07 PM (This post was last modified: 09-10-2017 01:17 PM by Logica Humano.)
RE: Vietnam War - Was the US right to fight there?
(09-10-2017 12:45 PM)reeveseb Wrote:  Regardless of the conspiracy theories where some think that a small group of New World Order aristocrats are pulling all of the strings, I think we're still ultimately in charge.

It's not so much a new world order as it is just the way the world is right now. Aristocracies all around the world, especially in countries like the United States and yes, even the alleged "communist" China, are the ones that dictate foreign and domestic policy. In the United States alone, corporate lobbyists literally write legislation to put forth in government. Consider the Gilded Age in our own country's history, a period of great wealth inequality and corporate control over the government. It has not changed as much as you think, for the United States is still an oligarchical corporate state.

While some people want to point to a specific family like the Rockefellers or to some boogeyman organization like the Illuminati, there is an element of truth in their crazy conspiracy theories. About ten people currently control over half the country's wealth, so put that into perspective when you consider why wars are fought. Hell, President Eisenhower had enough moral fiber to admit that this was the case, even when under the criticism of his own cabinent. Not only do corporations own the government, they fund and declare wars.

Quote:This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence—economic, political, even spiritual—is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.

He knew the truth of the matter; corporations were the ones with the most power and that, if the American people truly wanted the country to be a bastion of freedom and democracy, we would need to be ever-vigilant. But the Gulf War happened. And the Iraq War happened. The War in Afghanistan happened. Countless countries where we have toppled entire governments with our intelligence agencies still lie in the wake of corporate greed. The war drum for North Korea and China is already banging. In my honest opinion, we have failed.

Quote:Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

Eisenhower knew the worst part of it is that people like the Vietnamese are not the only ones who suffer because of this system, but that the United States has slowly lost its humanity as a result.

Occasional TTA returner then leaverer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2017, 01:18 PM
RE: Vietnam War - Was the US right to fight there?
(09-10-2017 12:55 PM)Brian37 Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 12:43 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Woah woah, Brian. Where did nukes factor into this? Dance's post never mentioned anything about them. You lost me there. Her post was about the domino effect of the SE asia all going communist should Vietnam go communist. The fact that Vietnam eventually did fell to the North and the dominoes didn't fall like it was portrayed is evidence she is right. Hell, the communist Vietnamese were the ones who stopped Pol Pot. The US didn't and they knew what was going on there.

Can you please connect the dots in your post to Dance's?

Ok, I will give you that. But I cue'd off the "domino effect" and yea I get a lip twitch when I smell a hint of gung ho crap coming from the right. Maybe I am a bit nervous right now considering who has their hands on our nukes and he doesn't like getting picked on. The orange asshat shall remain nameless.

But I still would not want to live in China or Cuba. I don't hate their entire populations as individual human beings, but to say they have the same freedoms to the extent we do I think would be stretch.

Sorry if I misunderstood. But war unfortunately is profitable and I think more humans worldwide need to understand that weapons as an industry are profitable and both friend and foe invest in the weapons industry as governments.

Maybe, instead of being triggered by individual words and phrases in a post, you might want to read what the post says, and consider who it's from -- dancefortwo is not a "dude", and she's definitely not "on the right" politically. She hates Trump more than you do, if that's possible. You've been on the forum long enough to know this. Stop attacking your own side.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
09-10-2017, 01:26 PM
RE: Vietnam War - Was the US right to fight there?
(09-10-2017 12:54 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  This seems a bit weird considering after the end of WWII, synthetic rubber had the output of twice the amount of natural rubber and was less expensive. Do you have a citation for this?

It is less so the production of rubber in the United States and more so recognizing that there was a revival in the rubber and tin industries for countries like Britain and France because of their war recovery efforts. U.S companies saw an opportunity to use the "communist containment" as a way to profit.

Occasional TTA returner then leaverer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
09-10-2017, 01:27 PM
RE: Vietnam War - Was the US right to fight there?
(09-10-2017 11:56 AM)reeveseb Wrote:  A former marine and proud American, I've always been under the assumption that the US was justified in our role in the Vietnam War. These thoughts were primarily based on a great sense of pride in the US along with the books I've read and documentaries that I've watched typically all written from the Southern and American perspectives. However, I'm currently watching a new documentary by Ken Burns who is going into much more detail about the conditions prior to US involvement and how both sides got to the point of so much bloodshed. I've just started, but I'm already rethinking my position. I really hate to admit this, but I'm even rethinking my preconceived notions about those damn tree-hugging hippies of the late 60's-early 70's, at least to some extent! Additionally, this all happened a decade and a half before I was born so I cannot rely on personal experience and have to rely on historical recounting in books and documentaries.

I like to think I'm pretty knowledgeable about our history, but I really feel like I'm already changing my mind about our role there. I know it was to stop the spread of communism during the Cold War, but was it worth it? For example, from what I now understand, Ho Chi Minh reached out on several occasions to the US only to have his letters remain unread by anyone in a position to do anything about them. He seems to have had some noble goals at the beginning and wished to unify his country without bloodshed or violence, even while the French were engaged in "pacification" as occupiers. It seems he initially wanted to unify Vietnam and wanted the French to leave them so they could govern themselves. Obviously that changed, but I can't help but think if we had taken another route back then, our men never would've been put into harm's way and the result would've been the same if not better than what we have now. I'm still learning so there might be more info that will change my mind again, but Vietnam seems to be one of those wars that really didn't have a legitimate purpose other than being a side-conflict of the overarching Cold War.

Damn tree-hugging Hippie here. Walked in many protests against the Vietnam war.

Just lots of pointless bloodshed. Soldiers were not to be blamed though, they were victims also.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Dom's post
09-10-2017, 01:41 PM
RE: Vietnam War - Was the US right to fight there?
(09-10-2017 12:49 PM)undergroundp Wrote:  1. Europe is not a country.

I realize this however Europe is made up of countries that are not the US, so the point still is valid. I was merely collectively saying Europe as a conglomeration of non-US countries.

(09-10-2017 12:49 PM)undergroundp Wrote:  2. Let's take Greece, my country, as an example. We were directly threatened by both Germany and Italy, we didn't arbitrarily get involved in matters that did not concern us. We mainly fought on Greek soil, defending it.

Quite right. The Greeks fought valiantly and passionately to defend their soil however I personally wouldn't call Italian and German occupation "threatened". The axis invaded, the Germans pushed all the way through the country and Greece was divided up into three sectors (German, Italian, and Bulgarian). The British were fighting with the Greek army as well (should they have been there?). The people of Crete weren't threatened, they were brutalized. Almost a half million Greeks perished under occupation. "Threatened" is not what you say and then leave 400,000+ dead and a Jewish population near zero.

(09-10-2017 12:49 PM)undergroundp Wrote:  3. I wrote "X country that isn't the US", meaning wars that didn't include the US (but the US decided to intervene nevertheless).

Correct, you did. Now play the chess game. If the US only fought Japan because they bombed us (no countries in Europe attacked us) and openly said that there was to be no intervention in any European or African country (since you correctly pointed out that Europe isn't a country) do you really think that Hitler wouldn't have shipped the armies in France to the East? Do you think that the Italian Army would have left Greece if the Allies hadn't invaded Africa and Italy and severely damaged the German army there and smashed the Italian army? The answer is simple: NO. If the Germans or Italians had no fear of an invasion from the West or South, they would have had literally millions more men to fight the Russians and occupy places like Greece.

The reason the Axis left Greece ultimately is due to the advancement of the Red Army which may not have happened (or at least as quickly) had the Axis been able to move these soldiers to the West because of there being no second or third front. That is the reason you're not speaking German or Italian. Other countries intervened in a conflict that was not directed at them (Canada and the US). Sometimes, it's the right thing to do. The hard part is knowing when it's right.

Now I am not trying to downplay the Greeks and the bravery they displayed in resisting the brutal occupying forces and nor am I saying that the US saved the world (we didn't and we screwed it up worse to an extent). It was a conglomeration of very brave men and women in many countries who stood up to tyranny each in their own way. I was merely saying that your statement:
Quote:"X country that isn't the US" War - Was the US right to fight there?

My answer will always be "no".

..if adopted by the US back in the 40's, would have had catastrophic implications to you and all of us. This attitude was literally the isolationist argument back in the late 30's and early 40's when places like Greece were invaded. Which is why I said that the answer is "it depends."

I think that our intervention in the 40's was appropriate. In Vietman, it wasn't. It always depends on the situation.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
09-10-2017, 01:50 PM
RE: Vietnam War - Was the US right to fight there?
(09-10-2017 12:55 PM)Brian37 Wrote:  Ok, I will give you that. But I cue'd off the "domino effect" and yea I get a lip twitch when I smell a hint of gung ho crap coming from the right. Maybe I am a bit nervous right now considering who has their hands on our nukes and he doesn't like getting picked on. The orange asshat shall remain nameless.

Nervousness demands more prudence, not less. I don't like the orange one either but you literally called her a moron because of a strawman. You called her stupid for a point she never made. The least you can do is apologize.

(09-10-2017 12:55 PM)Brian37 Wrote:  But I still would not want to live in China or Cuba. I don't hate their entire populations as individual human beings, but to say they have the same freedoms to the extent we do I think would be stretch.

I have no idea about Cuba but I spend a few months a year in China. It's not that bad a place and I go into the interior, no real tourists where I go. Is it because of the communist stigma or what?

(09-10-2017 12:55 PM)Brian37 Wrote:  Sorry if I misunderstood. But war unfortunately is profitable and I think more humans worldwide need to understand that weapons as an industry are profitable and both friend and foe invest in the weapons industry as governments.

I agree that there are plenty of war profiteers out there. That is why it is imperative that the eye of your rage be focused on those who perpetuate it and not on dots that you connect. Be careful, you don't want to be like Alex Jones.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Organic Chemist's post
09-10-2017, 01:52 PM
RE: Vietnam War - Was the US right to fight there?
(09-10-2017 01:27 PM)Dom Wrote:  Damn tree-hugging Hippie here. Walked in many protests against the Vietnam war.

Just lots of pointless bloodshed. Soldiers were not to be blamed though, they were victims also.

Agreed. As an aside, you say you didn't blame the soldiers, but so many of your fellow protesters did in fact do just that. They labeled them "baby killers" and treated them with complete and utter disdain. What, if anything, did you think about the soldier coming home from Vietnam?

I'm not being combative, just curious. Sometimes I wish I had grown up in the 60's and 70's. It was a very tumultuous time.

It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: