Posted on 10/28/2002 4:47:19 PM PST by RMrattlesnake
This, of course, makes him a good person. Same goes for Stalin, I s'pose.
We lied to keep the fight going and kill even more of them and us.
If only. If only we'd kept that fight going, and then won it decisively, in the process giving our troops the proper support. Then both we and they would have been better off.
Instead we hamstrung our own troops, and finally pulled out and gave the murderers a blank check.
We wouldn't let them be, because in all liklihood their people would have voted communist on their own,
Bull. The people of South Vietnam had already voted, with their feet, when the country was partitioned/invented in the first place. Had they wanted to live under communist rule, they could have - by going to the country which was placed under the dictatorship of Ho Chih Minh by Westerners. But in point of fact, they overwhelmingly chose to go south by a factor of 10-to-1.
Your asinine assertion that the South Vietnamese "would have voted communist" can only be true if you take into account the following: terrorist raids from the North against the South, murders of those who disagreed with communism, and a general fear inflicted on the population by the communist. Sure, under those conditions, maybe Minh could've gotten a 99.6% vote out of the South. Kinda like how the Iraqis are solidly behind Saddam right now, eh?
something they had a right to do
It is nonsensical to speak of the "rights" of South Vietnamese people if you ignore the terror and mass murder which was inflicted on them at the same time. Scenario: communists wipe out 90% of the males of a village, burn things, kill anyone who contributes to prosperity, make it known that a vote against the communists makes one an "enemy of the people" and fodder for slaughter. Then the shaking, quaking, terrorized, traumatized remaining peasants go up to the ballot with one name written on it (Minh) and you smile proudly, with glee declaring "they are exercising their rights! They have a right to vote for the communists you see. Isn't it beautiful?"
Who are you, Jimmy Carter?
We didn't give it our best shot and got even more of our folks killed. [...] And the commies took over anyway.
Exactly. Which is why we should have given it our best shot, instead. I'm glad we agree.
They also wanted to be free of the communists. That's why they didn't stay in the north, you see.
Of course you can ignore that by pretending that when communists slaughter dissidents and commit terror upon a population, and then take a vote, then the result means something. If you want, you can pretend all that.
But why would you want to?
We took control of half of a little country because we believed in the dominos. I was there and heard the briefing. Some in DOD disagreed, but state won out.
We tried to take over a country that had showed it would not stop fighting outside powers because we thought USSR would get a foothold. We paid the price and destablized them and us. Idealistic, stupid and misguided.
The real blame for the disaster started with JFK, was carried forward by LBJ and then sealed by our own American version of the NLF - aided and abbetted by International Communism, of course. Naturally, the Liberal Democrat Congress drove the final ax in the coffin and made sure they gleefully pissed in all the rivers of American and Vietnamese blood and suffering.
The lesson we need to learn - but apparently still haven't - is, today the same crowd that was in control then was in control during the 90s, is in control of the Senate today, and yearns to complete their overthrow of freedom here so they can replicate the end result of Vietnam. Not there, but here. They are more politically powerful today now than they were powerful then.
The difference is, there won't be any helicopters to ride out on this time around.
Rightfully so. Any "countrywide vote", you see, would have been a vote of already-terrorized people. (And the already-murderered people would get no such "vote", as well.) As I've already explained, the legitimacy of such a "vote" is dubious to anyone besides Jimmy Carter.
We took control of half of a little country because we believed in the dominos.
A belief which was borne out by subsequent events. (cf. Laos, Cambodia, the killing fields...)
We tried to take over a country that had showed it would not stop fighting outside powers because we thought USSR would get a foothold.
Actually, we didn't "try to take over" any country. We sent troops to the South to defend it, and then hamstrung our military from bombing the north or entering bordering nations to stop supply lines and enemy camps. I wish we had tried to take over the country; as I said, it would have made for a better outcome for all involved (except, of course, Minh and other high-ranking commies in the north).
We paid the price and destablized them and us. Idealistic, stupid and misguided.
Yup. We should have just fought the war and allowed our military to do its job.
You must do a brain stretch to think that communism was a bigger issue in Viet Nam than nationalistic issue.
That is not what I'm saying. I'm just reminding you that those people already had the choice of whether to live under Minh's fanatics, and opted not to by a wide margin. You've ignored this comment completely for some reason, even though I've made it several times. Seriously, what do you have to say about it? Anything?
My opinion is rooted on briefings provided by US government sources. I know of no contemporary analysts who thought the Viets would vote for someone other than Ho to rule a united country.
You're conclusion that the Viets would be coerced does not give credence to the mind set that the there was a strong anti-colonial feeling throughout the country, except by some in Saigon. The analysis was that the Viets were not exactly happy to kick French butt and then see the US ride in on a white horse to save them.
We did take over the south Viet Nam government. We killed the guy that was in there and State ran it through puppets until the fall. Laos and Cambodia were small dominos compared to the theory and rhetoric at the time. In fact the long view is that the domino theory was not upheld because events around the world and in Asia prevent further Soviet expansion, especially in such a linear fashion.
How many times were you wrong on this thread? Next time talk to someone you know.
In English, please? You keep talking about this "vote". What "vote"? Would this be before or after the north's death squads entering villages and murdering in the night, terrorizing the countryside?
The only legitimate vote occurred several years prior, when the agreement was made to form three states and those who wanted no part of Minh's north voted with their feet and left. This other mythological "vote" you keep talking about (even if it had occurred) would have been illegitimate due to the simple fact that this was a terrorized people. Terrorized by the communists. A "vote" under such circumstances is meaningless. Even if it had occurred (which it didn't). Why do you keep bringing it up?
I know of no contemporary analysts who thought the Viets would vote for someone other than Ho to rule a united country.
What united country? There were three states (later two), and the South was composed of people who had already made it clear that they didn't want to live under Minh. What more is there to say?
You're conclusion that the Viets would be coerced does not give credence to the mind set that the there was a strong anti-colonial feeling throughout the country, except by some in Saigon.
I do not discount that anti-colonial feelings and nationalistic sentiment were strong and could easily and understandably induce an average Vietnamese person to think "I don't like Minh much, but better than more foreign devils". What you keep leaving out is that the sentiment "I don't want to be slaughtered by communists for voting the wrong way" was also present. So the notion of "taking a vote" is illegitimate either way, and I honestly don't know why you keep bringing it up.
For the last time, there WAS NO "vote", and if there had been, it would have been completely illegitimate due to the terrorism of the communists. A "vote" under terroristic conditions is not legitimate and shouldn't even be taken seriously by any thinking person. Therefore, the only indication we have of what those people "wanted" (other than, of course, just to be left alone to live lives and tend crops - without either commie fanatics or foreign devils using them as pinballs) is the fact that when the original partition was made, and they had the choice whether to live under Minh, THEY CHOSE NOT TO. Well, what do you have to say about that FACT? Anything?
We did take over the south Viet Nam government. We killed the guy that was in there
Not "we", but you are probably right that the assassination had tacit agreement from Kennedy. I disagree with this. I think it was the wrong way to go. I disagree with lots of dumb-ass stuff that pampered and corrupt idiots like Kennedy and Johnson did. (Like fighting a half-assed war, for example.)
Laos and Cambodia were small dominos compared to the theory and rhetoric at the time.
Just think how much bigger the dominos would've been had we not gone there at all.
In fact the long view is that the domino theory was not upheld
By "the long view", you mean "your view", right? Just so we're clear.
because events around the world and in Asia prevent further Soviet expansion, especially in such a linear fashion.
I agree with this. One of those events was the Vietnam War.
I know you are. But why do you care about this projection? That is what I am asking you.
Why do you think the outcome of a terrorism-death-squad-tainted vote would have been important (any more important than the recent vote in Iraq)? That is what I am asking you.
Why do you keep ignoring the fact that everyone in the South had already made it clear they didn't want to live under Minh (by leaving the north or at least not going there), while at the same time you hype up a hypothetical "vote" of terrorized people in an artifically-unified country (who said it had to be "unified:? it never was a unified country in the first place) as evidence that they all "wanted" to live under Minh? That is what I am asking you.
Do you understand the things I am asking you now?
The fact that we had to assasinate the leader in the south and run their government and the war shows the fallacy behind those who thought the south was a nation independent of the north.
Actually neither the south nor the north were "nations independent" of each other or of anyone else for that matter. They were both completely made-up nations, the inventions of foreign diplomats trying to figure out how to get the French outta there (in fact originally there were three made-up "nations"). There was never, historically, a unified country called "Vietnam" and no obvious reason why there ever had to be. (Note: Because Ho Chih Minh wanted to rule over everyone there, not just the North!, is not a good reason). There were loosely connected villages in a place probably referred to by Chinese as "the low countries" or some similar construction.
Now you are telling me that "the south wasn't independent of the north". Uh, so what? Not only wasn't it "independent", it needed our protection for survival. This is not in dispute at all. In fact, it's precisely my point: these people (who did not want to live under Minh) needed our protection for their survival, and in the end we let them down. This was not good or honorable, but for some reason you seem to think it's okay because in a thought experiment some CIA dudes realized that if they were to take a (completely tainted) vote, those terrorized people would probably have voted for Minh.
In my opinion you have also overstated the coercion involved in such a scenario
That's your opinion. Tell it to millions of slaughtered Vietnamese peasants. Their opinion might differ.
and misunderstand much of the Vietnamese population circa 1955-65.
Well I do know that the vast majority of them chose not to live under Minh when given the chance. Meanwhile, you (in all your expertise) either don't know this, or keep choosing to ignore it for some reason.
BTW Everyone in the south had not fled from the north.
There was a lot of work done by our government in the 50s trying to figure out what to do in Indochina and fight the communists. The problem was that we saw communism as the main issue and many Vietnamese saw getting rid of outside influence to be the main issue. This is not the first or last time we were wrong or that our efforts were misguided and ignorant of the determination of other people.
Based upon your position we got the very outcome we were fighting to prevent. I posit that this was due as much on the determination of the Vietnamese as it was on our strategy for carrying out the war.
I believe the key to looking at Viet Nam now is to know that you can simutaneously hold in esteem those who did their duty on the front line and realize that the leadership was wrong all along. Errors they subsequently lied about over and over to cover up one of the major disasters in foreign policy in our history. Psychologically it is difficult to know that many of us suffered losses in the war and then believe that it was a mistake. After 45 years of dealing with this issue I know that I have been on the right track since 1958.
I'm tired and know you may want to go on, so have at it and good luck.
I know. Why? By pointing out that a fearful population might have "voted" for Minh (just as a fearful population recently "voted" for Hussein), what do you think you are proving?
BTW Everyone in the south had not fled from the north.
I know. See, for example, the phrase "...by leaving the north or at least not going there" from my previous post. It's Post #76, and it's right about your #77, in case you want to actually read it sometime.
The problem was that we saw communism as the main issue and many Vietnamese saw getting rid of outside influence to be the main issue.
Yes, that was a problem to be overcome.
This is not the first or last time we were wrong
How were we "wrong"? To us it was perfectly correct to say that communism was the main issue.
or that our efforts were misguided and ignorant of the determination of other people.
The only one who is "ignorant of the determination of other people" here is you because you keep ignoring the fact that the folks in "South Vietnam" did not want to live under Minh.
Based upon your position we got the very outcome we were fighting to prevent.
I know. That's exactly my point, because my position is that we should have fought that war more completely and seriously, without tying one hand behind our back.
I posit that this was due as much on the determination of the Vietnamese as it was on our strategy for carrying out the war.
Posit away, posit all you like. The truth is that we could have easily defeated North Vietnam militarily and in fact effectively did so, but our political leadership at home prevented our military from doing its job and then pulled them out, along with (later, disastrously) all aid to the South. Are you denying this?
I believe the key to looking at Viet Nam now is to know that you can simutaneously hold in esteem those who did their duty on the front line and realize that the leadership was wrong all along.
Indeed, that is my position in a nutshell. Those who did their duty on the ground did so with honor. The cowardly (and in some cases treasonous) leadership hung them out to dry and made sacrificial lambs out of them. The leadership was wrong because they did not allow our military to do what was necessary to win that war (which they effectively did, anyway).
Psychologically it is difficult to know that many of us suffered losses in the war and then believe that it was a mistake. After 45 years of dealing with this issue I know that I have been on the right track since 1958.
I'm glad this knowledge of your correctness provides you with psychological comfort. Best,
What a world. How could anyone accuse Jeb Bush of wrongdoing in returning the Haiti Boat People back to their homeland! Sad to say...but what if Farrakhan got to them!
People will sell their souls for a hot meal if they don't have anything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.