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, 01:55 PM
RE: Vietnam War - Was the US right to fight there?
(09-10-2017 12:21 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 12:09 PM)reeveseb Wrote:  That's what I'm getting at. Not withstanding the whole Michelin thing, you had an entire country of people who should have been able to make up their own minds and vote for whichever system of government they wanted. If it's communism, then so be it. Hell, it's communist now. Over 50,000 service members died all because everyone kept pushing the narrative that Vietnam would be the first of many dominoes to fall?

Yeah, the "Domino Effect" was a big propaganda tactic to keep Americans scared of communism like it was a 20th century Black Plague or something. Two of my oldest brothers figured this out pretty quick, got on their motorcycles, went to Canada and never came back.

My dad would talk about that, especially after the fall of Saigon.

I knew a few people who did that one tried to return after the amnesty thing, but really was treated like shit when he returned so he went back to Canada. I found that odd. Why treat them like shit?

Meanwhile my father couldn’t wrap his head around it (he served in that war) it took him many years to ask why we were there. But that war was so unpopular people spit on his uniform when he walked through airports.

That makes what happened to both examples so odd to me. We hated the war so much that veterans who returned were treated like shit. None of them would talk about that war either. Because if they did, they’d be called a baby burner.

Yet the smart ones who dodged and went to Canada....why treat them like shit too?


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
09-10-2017, 01:59 PM
RE: Vietnam War - Was the US right to fight there?
(09-10-2017 01:50 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  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?

May I ask what you do that takes you to China annually? While you're there, do you experience things like censorship on the internet, intrusive governmental agencies, having to be more careful than you would elsewhere, etc.?

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
09-10-2017, 02:03 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.

Yes you totally misunderstood.

The excuse why we were there was the domino effect that if Veitnam fell to communism the region would follow. Dances went to say that her brothers got on motorcycles and went to Canada.

Which part sounds like she was advocating for the war?

Seriously you need to relax.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
09-10-2017, 02:04 PM
RE: Vietnam War - Was the US right to fight there?
(09-10-2017 01:41 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  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 United States was attacked by Japan. After we declared war in retaliation, Germany declared war on us.

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, 02:16 PM
RE: Vietnam War - Was the US right to fight there?
(09-10-2017 01:52 PM)reeveseb Wrote:  
(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 was a great time, sex, drugs and rock and roll baby! Banana_zorro

I had friends fighting there. They went through hell and back. My first husband fought there (before I met him).

Soldiers are not to be blamed for wars. All the people who watch it on TV and do nothing are much more to blame.

[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
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
09-10-2017, 02:18 PM
RE: Vietnam War - Was the US right to fight there?
(09-10-2017 02:04 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 01:41 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  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 United States was attacked by Japan. After we declared war in retaliation, Germany declared war on us.

Correct but irrelevant. They could declare war on us all they wanted but if we had no ships or troops headed to Africa, Russia, or Europe, there was nothing to attack. They declared war due to their alliance with Japan and they knew we were sending supplies to European countries and Russia. If we hadn't sent anyone into harm's way, they probably would have left us alone until Europe and Russia were completely under sufficient control. THEN they would have attacked us. If we never sent England anything, they would have eventually been out of the war. We sent Russia lots of assistance we well, both under the Lend/Lease Act. None of this changes the point. If the US had adopted strict isolationism and only fought the Japanese, the German war machine would have continued to run. They wouldn't have been bombed, the soldiers would have been sent East, and it would look very different there today.

"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
09-10-2017, 02:18 PM
RE: Vietnam War - Was the US right to fight there?
(09-10-2017 01:41 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  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.

Well, I obviously meant they were threatened before they were forced to fight.

As for the British fighting with us, can't say it was very helpful, considering they were responsible for the deaths of many Greeks before and after WWII. If your interests define who you save and who you kill (and your interests change every couple of decades), thanks, but no thanks.

(09-10-2017 01:41 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  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.

No need to defend US interventions in WWII, because, as many other countries, the US was attacked (unlike what happened with Vietnam), so they had to react, obviously. It doesn't matter that only the Japanese attacked on American soil. They were Germany's allies, so the US technically would have fought against Hitler even if they hadn't fought on European soil.

(09-10-2017 01:41 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  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.

But that's exactly what I was saying. The US intervened because they were attacked, that is not one of the cases I'm talking about. It was called a world war. Not a "European" war. I'm talking about wars the US started or intervened in without being threatened (them or their allies), driven only by profit.

Yes, it always depends. That's why I said "X country that isn't the US War" (thus excluding any wars during which the US was attacked or actively threatened) and not any war.

"Behind every great pirate, there is a great butt."
-Guybrush Threepwood-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2017, 02:19 PM
RE: Vietnam War - Was the US right to fight there?
(09-10-2017 01:55 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  We hated the war so much that veterans who returned were treated like shit. None of them would talk about that war either. Because if they did, they’d be called a baby burner.

You should have seen post-war Germany.

It's the mess that greets the loser.

[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
[+] 2 users Like Dom's post
09-10-2017, 02:26 PM
RE: Vietnam War - Was the US right to fight there?
(09-10-2017 02:19 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 01:55 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  We hated the war so much that veterans who returned were treated like shit. None of them would talk about that war either. Because if they did, they’d be called a baby burner.

You should have seen post-war Germany.

It's the mess that greets the loser.
I avoided all that shit, didn't get back to the world until 1986. More fun that way.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2017, 02:28 PM
RE: Vietnam War - Was the US right to fight there?
(09-10-2017 02:18 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Correct but irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant just because it inconveniences the point you were attempting to make. The difference is stark: the United States was fighting a war against the aggressors. It did not invite itself into a conflict that it had absolutely nothing to do with.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: