It's funny how whenever you mention the Vietnam War to an American, they stress that it wasn't a WAR, it was just a 'conflict'. As if they are indirectly implying that the mighty U.S.A didn't lose a war... just a conflict.

It's funny how whenever you mention the Vietnam War to an American, they stress that it wasn't a WAR, it was just a 'conflict'. As if they are indirectly implying that the mighty U.S.A didn't lose a war... just a conflict.
It wasnt a conflict nor a war , the Vietnam tragedy was an attack deliberately manufactured by the US establishment for the finacial benefit of the US military-industrial complex . The arms demand by the US military tripled the hardware orders to this military-industrial complex . The operation lasted some 10 years , at no time were the American military threatened with defeat by the Vietnamese . This "war" was deliberately initiated by the Gulf of Tonkin incident which has been proven to of never happened . The rest was history , 5 million dead Vietnamese and some 55,000 dead americans but the US military-industrial complex made a whopping several hundred billion $$$$$ profit .

Actually, I will admit, it was a war spawned out of total paranoia about the Soviet Block and their communist ideology. One by one, countries were being absorbed and became blackhole states. It freaked us out terribly and we has the god of all overreactions.

The end of the Vietnam war was basically us deciding that the whole thing wasn't worthwhile. Sure, we could have won... but it would have ment carpetbombing the landmass from one side to the other and back again. The Soviets were perfectly able and willing to pump any amount of support in and fight the war mainly by proxy.

Anyway, what can I say? This is Nixon we are talking about.

I don't know any American who doesn't consider Vietnam a war.

Maybe some people would just consider it a conflict since America lost.

I've heard it called a "police action" by some higher-ups who don't want to use such an unpopular word as 'war', but I've always felt that "police action" was more suited to what happened in Kuwait than in Viet Nam.

Oxygen:

but I've always felt that "police action" was more suited to what happened in Kuwait than in Viet Nam.

Mere semantics.

Annexation is also such a lovely word.

All of us who opposed it called it a war and we still do.

It would be hard to say that it was not an actual civil war among the Vietnamese people. A popular bumper sticker at the time asked, "How many Vietnamese fought in our Civil War?" It's not uncommon for nations who don't have treaties with each other to nonetheless meddle in each other's wars, civil wars included, hoping to bring about an outcome that serves their opportunistic purposes.

We just thought that even if no moral arguments could convince the war supporters, it was nonetheless pure hubris to believe that we understand the universe well enough to be confident that the outcome of meddling in a war would be as favorable as we imagine. The universe is too complicated.

We had just gotten done meddling in Europe's last war and all we accomplished was to replace Hitler with Stalin as the world's bogeyman at considerable loss of life. And we had also meddled in Asia's last war and all we accomplished was to replace Hirohito with Mao as the world's number two bogeyman.

Meddling in Asia's new war seemed like a really dumb idea. You just can't predict how winning a war will affect a country or its leaders.

At this point it's hard to sort out the impact of the Vietnam War on contemporary world politics. Or even the impact of WWII. But it does seem that the mess in the Mideast is largely fallout from WWII. We turned the Soviet Union into a great nation, which we then promptly had to turn around and wage a Cold War with for 45 years. During that time both the Soviets and the Americans used the less powerful countries on their borders as pawns in a giant chess game. The Arab-Israeli conflict, the India-Pakistan conflict, the Taliban-Northern Alliance conflict, the rise and fall of the Shah, all of these things were choreographed as part of the Cold War.

Virtually everything that's happening in the Mideast was set in motion by the Cold War, and the Cold War was a direct result of WWII.

Anyway, what can I say? This is Nixon we are talking about.

Are you saying that the republicans changed their ways, and now everything has changed?

Are you saying that the republicans changed their ways, and now everything has changed?

The Republican party changed a lot after Reagan. Neo-cons really aren't that conservative; they spend like democrats, pass whacky laws about where I'm allowed to put my penis. At least they don't tax rich people who can afford being taxed to fund all the Republican projects that benefit rich people.

The Republican party changed a lot after Reagan. Neo-cons really aren't that conservative; they spend like democrats, pass whacky laws about where I'm allowed to put my penis.
Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination.
Or, at least an abomination as long as it continues to provide fuel for our fire.

At least they don't tax rich people who can afford being taxed to fund all the Republican projects that benefit rich people.

Amen, brother. Amen.

It's funny how whenever you mention the Vietnam War to an American, they stress that it wasn't a WAR, it was just a 'conflict'. As if they are indirectly implying that the mighty U.S.A didn't lose a war... just a conflict.

I live in this so-called place. And I have never said any such thing.

Despite that, I do feel that once in awhile, I am, yes, funny. Funny strange.

I've heard it called a "police action" by some higher-ups who don't want to use such an unpopular word as 'war', but I've always felt that "police action" was more suited to what happened in Kuwait than in Viet Nam.

Police? You mean ROBOCOP?
Serve the public trust, protect the innocent, uphold the law.

Did any of those apply? That is the question we need to be asking ourselves.

It's funny how whenever you mention the Vietnam War to an American, they stress that it wasn't a WAR, it was just a 'conflict'.

If you say that again, I'll fuck you in the ass until you admit the USA is the best goddamn thing ever to happen to planet Earth. God bless America! Best place on earth.

So then, What's the definition of a "war" and how old are these supposed Americans who call it a "Conflict"? I was always taught it was a War... ???

I think that humans tend to manufacture ideas more then really think things out. The idea of war being something that's real is fantasy. The only reason the term exists is because humans made it up! I'd say if people stopped creating stupid ideas like this we'd all be better off.

In retrospect the only thing I think was going on was violence, violence is meaningless when you stop thinking you're such a bad ass. Everyone thinks they have some all powerful knowledge that must be given out to others, who the hell cares about political nonsense it is just fantasy.

I don't know any American who doesn't consider Vietnam a war.

Maybe some people would just consider it a conflict since America lost.
I had a friend (from the southeast), who had this view. Since it wasn't a declared war, he could say we never lost a war. How convenient.

It's funny how whenever you mention the Vietnam War to an American, they stress that it wasn't a WAR, it was just a 'conflict'.

Not true. LIES LIES LIES. Still you feed us lies from the tablecloth....lala la la la la lalala la.

Hello. My name is America, and I am an addict.

We had just gotten done meddling in Europe's last war and all we accomplished was to replace Hitler with Stalin as the world's bogeyman at considerable loss of life
I think that that is a stupid thing to say. Both were already in power, the war rremoved the worst one.

Communist:

Both were already in power, the war rremoved the worst one.

That's rather subjective. There are many individuals who would argue that Stalin was the greater of the evils. Including me.

originally poted by Brain Foley: The rest was history , 5 million dead Vietnamese and some 55,000 dead americans but the US military-industrial complex made a whopping several hundred billion $$$$$ profit .
Thats the worst 'but,' I think I've ever read, "55'000 dead but...."
I thought the US government was almost bankrupted by the vietnam war? at least thats what they taught me in class.

Communist:

That's rather subjective. There are many individuals who would argue that Stalin was the greater of the evils. Including me.
By all means, the margin is extremely narrow betweeen Hitler and Stalin. But surely, 'tis better to have a single dictator in power than two?

(Also, just because my username includes the word "Communist", don't think I'm favouring Stalin. I am not.)

By all means, the margin is extremely narrow between Hitler and Stalin. But surely, 'tis better to have a single dictator in power than two?...Not "surely."

Both were trying to do the other in, despite their "non aggression pack." Stalin, with the help of the allies, did in Hitler. Too bad for Eastern Europe that the effort did not kill him. Where was the CIA, when we needed them!!!!!!!?? They could have done something useful, for once, at Yalta. :mad:

The KGB, while also inept, was always less so than the CIA. Perhaps they did "take care of" Roosevelt. - He was giving Stalin much more resistance than Churchill, but perhaps Churchill was begining to grow senile - soon he was just a quiet "back bencher" in Parliament until he died.

PS - Closer to the thread - The CIAis not "funny stuff." In the long run, their activity has hurt USA more than just about any agency of US I can think of. They are exactly the opposite of what is the best part of America. - Its seldom followed ideals.

Thank God they are usually inept, but even this causes problems. If they knew how to do what they are supposed* to be doing, it would have, at least, been much harder for GWB to get the US into the Iraq mess he has.
------------------------------
*Their proper job is reflected in their name. Most of the many military dictators they have set up all over the world for short term gains end up making the populations hate the US and later get put into jail** etc., if not killed, sometimes by the CIA itself. Pakistan had a democratically elected government, until US needed (and made IMHO) "regime change" there to get one that would help, in short term, "win the war on terror." It will be years before we know, but I would take 2:1 odds against me and still bet this was the CIA's latest disaster in the making. There is no doubt some CIA report somewhere telling GWB that the people of Pakistan will soon forget that the US agreed to help India advance its nuclear programs against the non-proliferations treaty. I would LOL except it is all so sad.
--------------------------
** Their Nicaraguan guy is now in a Florida jail, but usually if they get to live, it is like the Shaw of Iran's exile in "house arrest" in Egypt. They do seem to have a soft heart for the widows they leave behind. Emilda Markos got to take more than 100 pairs of shoes when she was flown out. Diem's widow (Vietnam) did much better - a plane load of gold, that sutained (still now?) her large household staff in Paris and keeps her in the latest fashons, etc. "Papa Doc" also went to Paris, with a lot of CIA gold, I think, or at least it was transported there in a CIA plane for him. etc. etc. & etc. - I am sure we still do not know the half of it.

I thought the US government was almost bankrupted by the vietnam war? at least thats what they taught me in class.

I see this thinking frequently– "But X costs money to the US government, leaders would never do something like that to make money!"

The US government doesn't make bombs. It doesn't make tanks. It doesn't make guns or rockets or subs. Nor does it build its own roads, or its own bridges, police stations, stadiums or schools. That would be fascism.

Instead, the US government contracts out companies. Someone else makes all the weapons, the US just buys the guns from them. The US coffers may have been drained, but the money went to private companies who were in the war business. We call this the military-indsutrial complex, and you can invest in it. Those who invested in it during 'Nam made a lot of money. Bombs ain't cheap.

Clockwood,
Nixon got us out of Vietnam. Wait, was that your complaint?
Yeah, a prolonged war would have been sweet. Images like this always turn me on:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/77/My_Lai_massacre.jpg

Damn I'm tittilated.

Clockwood,
Nixon got us out of Vietnam. Wait, was that your complaint?
Yeah, a prolonged war would have been sweet. Images like this always turn me on:



LOL- I was about to post the same thing until I got to your post.

Nevermind it was the democrats that got us into the war and republicans got us out. Truth dont matter.

Originally Posted by mountainhare
It's funny how whenever you mention the Vietnam War to an American, they stress that it wasn't a WAR, it was just a 'conflict'. As if they are indirectly implying that the mighty U.S.A didn't lose a war... just a conflict. ”

It was obviously a war, just not a declared war, which is irrelevant to the ultimate outcome. I know of no American that would argue that the US didn't lose the war. The argument is over the lack of a declaration for war as described by the Constitution, and whether executives have the constituitonal authority to declare 'police actions'.


It wasnt a conflict nor a war , the Vietnam tragedy was an attack deliberately manufactured by the US establishment for the finacial benefit of the US military-industrial complex . The arms demand by the US military tripled the hardware orders to this military-industrial complex . The operation lasted some 10 years , at no time were the American military threatened with defeat by the Vietnamese . This "war" was deliberately initiated by the Gulf of Tonkin incident which has been proven to of never happened .

Actually, the Gulf of Tonkin incident did happen, just not the 2nd incident. The first incident, the torpedo boat assault on the Maddox on the night of 2 Aug., did happen. Of that there is no question. The North Vietnamese even acknowledge it did. It's the second assault on the night of 2 Aug. that we know didn't happen. But it's silly to say that it was a trumped up incident to start a war ordered by the Johnson admin on behalf of the military/industrial complex. If that was the case, the real incident on 2 Aug. would have been sufficient. Although the subsequent resolution gave Johnson a 'blank check', Johnson didn't finally commit the US to war until the following Feb., following 3 more NV attacks, and we know from the released classified documents the admin agonized for months over committing ground troops. In hindsight, we know they made the wrong decision, but there is no evidence it was a trumped up war. The more likely reasons were an oversensitive fear of the spread of communism, and concern of losing political ground to Republicans if South Vietnam was lost to the communists (Truman caught political hell for supposedly losing China to the communists).