I have been walking around with this question for quite while now, wondering whether or not to post it. After seeing We were soldiers recently, I decide to do so. But let it be clear beyond doubt that it is not to disrespect the servicemen who served there or to question their motives. It is not meant to pass judgement but I can't figure this one out.

I just wonder what you are taught in Highschool with regards to Vietnam's wishes to souvereignty. Are you still taught that because of the Domino Theory and the communist threat that their wish for self rule should be contained? How can it be that Indonesian wish to decolonisation in '49 was seen as nationalism and stimulated by the Americans and Ho Chi Minh's wishes were seen as communism and not nationalism? Soekarno was more affiliated with the PKI (Indonesian Communist Party) then Ho to the Vietnamese version?

Well firstly, a communist uprising against the sovereign government (after the defeat of the French), was not a fight for de-colonisation and independence, but one of political ideal.

Secondly Soekarno was not affliated with the communists. He chose to remain neutral and not take sides in the cold war. He would not subject his country to one system or another he saw the correct path for that young nation was one taking the best from both systems. He was not supported by the US. In fact the Eisenhower administration actively worked to end his rule by supporting Suharto and planting the lies about communists in Indonesia leading to the disappearances of over 1,000,000 Indonesian citizens from a list supplied to Suharto by the CIA of "suspected communists".

Originally Posted by Ted

I just wonder what you are taught in Highschool with regards to Vietnam's wishes to souvereignty. Are you still taught that because of the Domino Theory and the communist threat that their wish for self rule should be contained? How can it be that Indonesian wish to decolonisation in '49 was seen as nationalism and stimulated by the Americans and Ho Chi Minh's wishes were seen as communism and not nationalism? Soekarno was more affiliated with the PKI (Indonesian Communist Party) then Ho to the Vietnamese version?

This is something that the younger members, i.e. those who are still in high school or recently graduated, would have to answer. I don't remember from my high school classes in the period of 1955 - 1959 any references to the domino theory or to Indonesia or to Ho Chi Minh.

Oh come now Tom surely your history books could have foreseen the future. We have some out there now that seem to know what future history books will say about Bush??

I know I did took U.S. history but they only taught me 1607 to 1963. I never learned about Vietnam war, so, I did read about war. I realize we lost to Vietnam war for first time. I have feeling we should dismiss General Westmoreland.

No need to dismiss the General, he's already passed on to Valhalla.

Originally Posted by Fox

I know I did took U.S. history but they only taught me 1607 to 1963. I never learned about Vietnam war, so, I did read about war. I realize we lost to Vietnam war for first time. I have feeling we should dismiss General Westmoreland.

Not to be in any way sarcastic, Fox, but your post shows a lack of understanding of the full and true history of the VietNam War which is typical of many misinformed Americans of your age. Please review my posts and the posts of others on this page: http://www.military-quotes.com/forum...asc&sta rt=15 and this page: http://www.military-quotes.com/forum...hlight=vietnam

Further Food For thought
Casualties tell the tale. Again, the US Army War College Library provides numbers. The former South Vietnam was made up of 44 provinces. The province that claimed the most Americans killed was Quang Tri, which bordered on both North Vietnam and Laos. Fifty four percent of the Americans killed in Vietnam were killed in the four northernmost provinces, which in addition to Quang Tri were Thua Thien, Quang Nam and Quan Tin. All of them shared borders with Laos. An additional six provinces accounted for another 25 % of the Americans killed in action (KIA). Those six all shared borders with either Laos or Cambodia or had contiguous borders with provinces that did. The remaining 34 provinces accounted for just 21% of US KIA. These numbers should dispel the notion that Vietnam was some kind of flaming inferno or a huge cauldron of burning dissent. The overwhelming majority of Americans killed, died in
border battles against regular NVA units. Looking back it is now clear that the American military role in “Vietnam” was, in essence, one of defending international borders. Contrary to popular belief, they turned in an outstanding performance and accomplished their mission. The US Military was not “Driven” from Vietnam. The US Congress voted them out. This same Congress then turned around and abandoned America's former ally, South Vietnam. Should America feel shame? Yes! Why? For kowtowing to the wishes of those craven hoards of dodgers and for bugging out and abandoning their former ally. The idea that “There were no front lines.” and “The enemy was everywhere.” makes good press and feeds the craven needs of those 16,000,000+ American draft dodgers. Add either a mommy or a poppa, and throw in another sympathizer in the form of a girl (or boy?) friend and your looking at well in excess of 50,000,000 Americans with a need to rationalize away their draft-dodging cowardice and to, in some way, vilify “Vietnam” the very source of their shame and guilt. During the entire period of the American involvement in “Vietnam” only 2,594,000 US Military actual served inside the country. Contrast that number with the 50-million plus draft dodging anti-war crowd and you have the answer to why the American view of its Vietnam experience is so skewed. Once the draft dodging gang's numbers reached critical mass, the media and politicians started playing to the numbers. Multi-million dollar salaries are not paid to people for reporting the news, in any form, be it written, audio or video. Multi-million dollar salaries (e.g., Cronkite) are paid to entertainers, stars and superstars. One does not get to be, much less continue to be, a superstar unless one gives one's audience what it wants. Once the dodging anti-war numbers started climbing through the stratosphere it was not in the media's interest to say something good about Vietnam to an audience that was guilt ridden with shame and a deep psychological need to rationalize away the true source of their guilt. A good example of this number pandering can be found in a 1969 Life magazine feature article in which Life's editors published the portraits of 250 men that were killed in Vietnam in one routine week. This was supposedly done to illustrate Life's concern for the sanctity of human life; American human life. In 1969 the weekly average death toll from highway accidents in the United States was 1,082. If indeed Life's concern was for the sanctity of American lives why not publish the 1,082 portraits of the folks who were killed in one routine week on the nation's highways? The most glaring example of the existence of the dodging guilt syndrome can be found in a statement made by the ranking head dodger himself. When asked for his reaction to McNamara's book In Retrospect, Clinton's response was “I feel indicated.” (of his cowardly act of dodging the draft). Clinton is a lawyer and understands the use of English words very well. For one to “feel” vindicated, as opposed to being vindicated, one must have first been feeling guilty.

Source: http://www.mrfa.org/vnstats.htm

More info from another perspective: http://mcel.pacificu.edu/as/students/koreavet/home.htm

Damned Quang Tri province. I became an old man there.