Originally Posted by Doppleganger

When I say that I'm still not sure why it was fought, it's because I'm not entirely sure which aspects of what 'facts' to believe. Certainly the CIA appear to have been heavily involved well in advance of any actual US combat troops in the country. How involved depends on who you believe.

I have to agree with your conclusion. IF the Bush Whitehouse/Administration wasn't so "closed" and viewed with suspicion by so many Americans then this dichotomy with the "truth" wouldn't be so troubling.

Past history tells us we need to be "suspicious" of any so-called "truth" that is aired by anyone working for the Bush administration.

Unless and until we have independent corroboration of the reasons why war was necessary, then all we can do is "conjecture" as to the truthfullness of the justification defense as outlined by Bush and his minions.

Umm, Chief, we're talking about Vietnam in this thread.

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

Already done and already being done. There's plenty of opinion going in both directions over the situation in Iraq, but haven't you noticed that more and more people are giving in to the media opinion that is being forcefed to them? Starting out, the voices against the war in Iraq were faint and few. Now the are the majority. All the while, the media throughout the world has pushed the opinion on everyone the everything about US involvement over in Iraq is wrong and bad, etc. A lot of people who once believed in what we are doing with or without WMD's have become disillusioned unbelievers. Why? Well, 2000+ casualties is a pretty stupid reason. That is an insanely low count of casualties considering the scale of the overall military engagement and duration that we've gone through so far. You don't go and do this sort of thing without expecting a lot more losses than that.

I couldn't agree more on most of what you said. However, I respectfully disagree that the voices against are NOT the majority, just the ones that are getting all of the publicity because it makes ratings for the media.

We recently had a funeral here for LCpl Andrew Patten, and well over 600 people showed up, and you could not find a negative comment among anybody that was there. I know, I was there also. It's just that our media is determined (for whatever reason) to sow seeds of discontent. If they would start publishing something positive for a change things might be different.

Ron

Personally I do not think that the US won the war, however, I will not for one minute believe that the US military lost. A war is won when the enemy is no longer capable of fighting due to the fact that they are out of food, weapons, ammunition, fuel, and soldiers. If you have no influence on the battlefield, you have lost the battle. If you have no influence on the country, you have lost the war. Now, according to this definition, neither side lost. The NVA held all the territory and was able to control the entire country. As well, the US military, given the green light, could have done the same thing. Obviously, that green light never came, so the US left. The one side that DID lose the war was the ARVN, the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, as they were driven from every position they held and ceased to exist as an effective fighting force, or as any kind of fighting force, for that matter.
So where does the US fit into this? Well, imo, the war was a total defeat for US foreign policy. The one comfort that the US can take for this mess is that it was, strictly speaking, never a war. The US government sent the military over to try to enforce their foreign policy in what thy euphemistically called a police action, but they did not have the intestinal fortitude to make it a real war. The rules of engagement were absolutely ludicrous, forcing the military to fight battles while handcuffed. In the end, US foreign policy could not be applied to Vietnam, so imo, the US did indeed lose the war. Ironically though, it looks like the US will finally, for only the second time in its history, win the peace.

Dean.

Thank you Dean and everybody for all of your smart comments and contributions on such a touchy subject. I see the thread is slowly but constantly continuing.

Thanks. one thing that surprises me, though, is that I expected to be jumped on for my "finally winning the peace" comment. So far, nobody has touched it, which leads me to wonder if everyone is simply scratching thier heads wondering what the hell I'm talking about. Oh, well, it wouldn't be the first time.

Cheers, Dean.

Originally Posted by Dean

Thanks. one thing that surprises me, though, is that I expected to be jumped on for my "finally winning the peace" comment. So far, nobody has touched it, which leads me to wonder if everyone is simply scratching thier heads wondering what the hell I'm talking about. Oh, well, it wouldn't be the first time.

Cheers, Dean.

I guessed you were pointing your finger at Viet Nam bowing to King Dollar and VN communist chairmen shaking hands with Clinton back in 1998-99 and making business with the US. I think the VN President or Prime Minister visited the White House last spring. But then I might be wrong.

I also took your statement that way Dean. It makes perfect sense as long as people realise that Vietnam is playing the US for its own benefit in an effort to increase its overall economy and also the US is being played against China by Vietnam as they have a longer list of grievances with the Big Red Chicken than Uncle Sam. The hatred between these two bastions of Asian communism is something to behold when you get one of them wound up on bai jiu and then begin spewing forth.

Dean
When you posted: ".............................. Ironically though, it looks like the US will finally, for only the second time in its history, win the peace".

<><><>transitional posts<><><>
<><><>Other's opinions..<><><>

And then -

bulldogg's

"..... It makes perfect sense as long as people realise that Vietnam is playing the US for its own benefit in an effort to increase its overall economy.......the US is being played against China by Vietnam .......longer list of grievances with the Big Red Chicken than Uncle Sam. The hatred between these two bastions of Asian communism is something to behold when you get one of them wound up on bai jiu and then begin spewing forth".

You won't get much disagreement out of us "old" farts.

Vietnam is NOW playing one side against the other side in a bid to come out on top of the wheeling dealing between two "Super Powers". As you pointed out, we MAY FINALLY win a peace in that god-forsaken country (beautiful as it is and horror filled as it was).

When you commit to a war there are only three results.

Win, Lose, or Draw.

It wasn't a win like in WW2, it wasn't a draw like in Korea. It was a loss.