Viet Nam Documentary

[ML]

Have been watching this series.  The first two were very  interesting and very informative in showing how we slowly got sucked into this.

Third part has me very depressed as it becomes evident that there can be no successful outcome for the USA and only mounting deaths for our military men and women.

And worst part is when I came to the following realization:

Our goal was always to stop the spread of communism.  It cost us thousands of lives and we never stopped it in Viet Nam.

But later . . . communism stopped itself in most areas of the world.

So we wasted the lives of our men and women trying in vain to achieve something which would  likely have happened with no action on our part.

Now this relates to SE Asia.

Would communism have failed in USSR had we not pursued Star Wars and other efforts ?

The situation in N. Korea is different.  They have the power to hurt the USA mainland; N. Viet Nam never did.

Which brings up another question:  How the fock did a piss ant country like N. Korea develop this capability.  Yes, I know the guy from India gave them a head start . . . but it's still virtually inconceivable they could actually achieve their current results.

[Boethius]

Would communism have failed in USSR had we not pursued Star Wars and other efforts ?

Yes.  However, it would have taken longer.

[JayH]

Which brings up another question:  How the fock did a piss ant country like N. Korea develop this capability.  Yes, I know the guy from India gave them a head start . . . but it's still virtually inconceivable they could actually achieve their current results.

Russians give North Korea technical help in building nuclear weapons

http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=22092.msg468614;topicseen#msg468614

[GQBlues]

...Would communism have failed in USSR had we not pursued Star Wars and other efforts ?..

My understanding was that there never were no such thing as 'star war' military arsenal. It was simply a hoax during Reagan's tenure.

...The situation in N. Korea is different.  They have the power to hurt the USA mainland; N. Viet Nam never did...

Touching on Vietnam, just saw an Angelina Jolie's directed movie titled: 'First they killed my father...' Touched on the lives of 3 siblings during the Khmer Rouge period. The killing fields.

Which brings up another question:  How the fock did a piss ant country like N. Korea develop this capability.  Yes, I know the guy from India gave them a head start . . . but it's still virtually inconceivable they could actually achieve their current results.

It actually was a Pakistani. Abdul Qadeer Khan. Proclaimed a 'hero' for making Pakistan a nuclear power. He sold the technology to NK, Iran, Iraq (the so called 'Axis of Evil'), South Africa, etc...amongst others. Aided by many of the post-USSR renegade scientists 'for sale'....He is still considered by the US to be a risk of nuclear proliferation.

[JayH]

.

Touching on Vietnam, just saw an Angelina Jolie's directed movie titled: 'First they killed my father...' Touched on the lives of 3 siblings during the Khmer Rouge period. The killing fields.

???  That is Cambodia --not Vietnam   fwiw

[GQBlues]

???  That is Cambodia --not Vietnam   fwiw

It was a war in Cambodia engaged with Vietnam. Hence..."touching on Vietnam".

[JayH]

It was a war in Cambodia engaged with Vietnam. Hence..."touching on Vietnam".

There is a significant difference in the regimes in power North Vietnam and subsequently all of Vietnam compared to what happened in Cambodia.

By the time Hollywood rewrites history around the world it is not so hard to understand why generations have a problem deciphering fact from fiction.

[GQBlues]

There is a significant difference in the regimes in power North Vietnam and subsequently all of Vietnam compared to what happened in Cambodia.

By the time Hollywood rewrites history around the world it is not so hard to understand why generations have a problem deciphering fact from fiction.

Not sure what this silly blatter is about but you could've just easily said you screwed up with your silly knee jerk reaction.

[JayH]

Not sure what this silly blatter is about but you could've just easily said you screwed up with your silly knee jerk reaction.

As usual with you muddled thinking you are incapable of  conceding you are wrong. You really are a full on dill.

[BillyB]

But later . . . communism stopped itself in most areas of the world.

So we wasted the lives of our men and women trying in vain to achieve something which would  likely have happened with no action on our part.

Nobody knows the future and what actions will waste lives. Say we didn't stop the spread of communism in Vietnam, the rest of Asia and in Europe, USSR may have taken many more of our allies. They'd then move onto Africa and other continents. They stopped because there was resistance. Without being able to take over or influence other nations to get their resources, they went bankrupt. Vietnam was a small part of resisting communist advances. Unfortunately it was poorly run by our politicians instead of our military leaders who would've ended it earlier.

[GQBlues]

As usual with you muddled thinking you are incapable of  conceding you are wrong. You really are a full on dill.

Take a pause and walk away from that mirror you're staring at. LMAO!

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Vietnamese_War

[SANDRO43]

It actually was a Pakistani. Abdul Qadeer Khan. Proclaimed a 'hero' for making Pakistan a nuclear power. He sold the technology to NK, Iran, Iraq (the so called 'Axis of Evil'), South Africa, etc...

IIRC, South Africa's (1979) and Israeli's (1966) nuclear technology came probably from France, long before Pakistan had any (1998) .

[GQBlues]

IIRC, South Africa's (1979) and Israeli's (1966) nuclear technology came probably from France, long before Pakistan had any (1998) .

Sandro-

You are absolutely correct. My bad. It isn't SA but rather Libya.

To add to the topic: I had meant to watch Ken Burns' Viet Nam war documentary, and thankfully ML's post reminded me. So last night, I streamed all 4 episodes on Youtube - much to wifey's dismay. Not only because I was literally out of commission for much of the evening, but it also added my ire of France, and the early years of European colonization. People are still dying and suffering today because of it.

I was always interested in getting more in depth information of the genesis of our involvement in that war, and Johnson's decisions to misled us and got us deeper into that war.

It was also somewhat illuminating how Ho Chi Minh perceived the United States back in the early days of his return to Vietnam.

My only regret in watching these films last night was my tube wasn't capable of translating the parts of all the North Vietnamese's recounts in English. That would've been so great digesting their perspective of the war.

[Anotherkiwi]

I was always interested in getting more in depth information of the genesis of our involvement in that war, and Johnson's decisions to misled us and got us deeper into that war.

Just curious, GQ.  You grew up a lot closer to that war than anyone here except BillyB, so what can you remember about the coverage it got in the Philippines?  I realise that you were maybe only 8 or 10 (?) when the war finished, and still a teenager when you moved to the USA, but it would be interesting to see a different perspective.

[GQBlues]

Just curious, GQ.  You grew up a lot closer to that war than anyone here except BillyB, so what can you remember about the coverage it got in the Philippines?  I realise that you were maybe only 8 or 10 (?) when the war finished, and still a teenager when you moved to the USA, but it would be interesting to see a different perspective.

Interesting question, I'll try...

The Philippines sent a small contingent of soldiers to fight alongside the US. Not much. it was more of a courtesy than anything. During that period, the Philippines was also deeply mired in our own socio-political struggle re: Marcos. IIRC, the early part of the 70s. So whatever news we got regarding the Vietnam war was literally 'secondary' and much too filtered.

The overwhelming concern regarding that war was the communists, notably Russia, which incidentally was also the excuse Marcos used to describe the insurgent militia in-country - the Hukbalahap, or just HUK. They basically used the same jungle guerilla/ambush technique the Viet Minh/Viet Cong were using in Vietnam against the French army and eventually the US.

You must understand, especially during that period, the US was regarded by many as the great liberator. Russia/China/Commies were the Demon race/s bent on spreading communism the world over. Good vs. Evil. The US at the time was pro-Marcos (solely due to the bases). Automatically making the opposition *communist-influenced*..So for what is worth, the country was ignorant of the actual political struggle transpiring in Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia, and in huge dosage, the Philippines.

From my own eyes, I believe I was much more pre-occupied with the Filipino / Asian basketball league and its players, Freddie Webb (PI)/Shin Dong Pa (sp - Korea), Oh (Japan), etc...that, and of course - horse racing/martial arts.

[Gator]

Have been watching this series.  The first two were very  interesting and very informative in showing how we slowly got sucked into this.

I am thoroughly enjoying PBS broadcasts of Ken Burn’s Vietnam documentary.  I was there in 1966 as a newly commissioned ROTC engineering officer in the Army’s 18th Engineering Brigade.  The brigade constructed airfields, roads, barracks, hospitals, artillery emplacements, port facilities, petroleum storage, etc. throughout South Vietnam.  In my one year there, I never fired my weapon except for target practice.  The rare accounts of hostile fire were never close.  My most dangerous incident was a lone encounter with a 15-ft(?)  King Cobra staring straight at me above the elephant grass. 

I did have the opportunity to travel to several areas of Vietnam.  Upon my arrival, I was mostly a gung ho soldier in a war adventure that seemed important.  A year later upon departing, I had more and more questions about the war, such as why we were fighting with one hand tied behind our back.  I also started feeling skepticism about whether the US was “right,” but from my limited and naïve perspective I was still supportive albeit not as foolishly blind as a year earlier. 

The Ken Burns film reveals even more about how our US government deceived its citizens in many ways, e. g. Gulf of Tonkin incident, enemy deaths, etc.  The Tet offensive was a huge loss for the North in terms of casualties suffered, yet it convinced the American people that the North would never give up.  Ironically, the North after Tet may have backed off if America had increased its military strength and mounted a broad offensive.

[Gator]

Our goal was always to stop the spread of communism.  It cost us thousands of lives and we never stopped it in Viet Nam.

The USA cold war policy was to challenge the spread of communism.  As part of this policy, the domino theory compelled US decision makers to protect South Vietnam.    Ironically, North Vietnam was not particularly close to either the Soviet Union or China.  In fact, the unified Vietnam fought a border war with China in 1979, and another with its communist neighbor the Khmer Rogue. 

During the Vietnam war, the USSR welcomed the opportunity to supply North Vietnam with military supplies to battle the US.  The USSR spent billions to support Vietnam, while America spent much more, and worse suffered 58,000 deaths and another 150,000 wounded.  Vietnam was a huge loss for America, and such wars clearly were not sustainable over the long term.  Our policies changed after Vietnam, and in fact we reversed roles when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, something that later contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union.   

But later . . . communism stopped itself in most areas of the world.

So we wasted the lives of our men and women trying in vain to achieve something which would  likely have happened with no action on our part.

The decision to support South Vietnam never had a reasonable chance of success.  South Vietnam had the worst form of government.  It was not a democracy but something similar to a banana republic dictatorship, e. g., rampant corruption,  power confined to a relative few, criminal elements, Catholic discrimination against the larger Buddhist population, etc.     

As a result,  the general population in the South was not motivated to fight a war.  In contrast the communist North was greatly motivated.  Thus, the USA propped up a government destined to fail, and fail they did.   


Vietnam struggled for years after unification.  A move away from classic communism to a market economy has improved the life of the citizens very much as I witnessed when I went back to Vietnam as a tourist about 10 years ago.  Vietnam is a dynamo today.  The same can not be said for Laos and Cambodia. 

[Gator]

The situation in N. Korea is different.  They have the power to hurt the USA mainland; N. Viet Nam never did.

Which brings up another question:  How the fock did a piss ant country like N. Korea develop this capability.  ....it's still virtually inconceivable they could actually achieve their current results.

They did it because our intelligence is weak, we are more reactive than proactive, and some earlier US Presidents literally said a few words, made a couple of feckless initiatives, and then ignored the issue.  Little piss ant North Korea directed much of its limited resources at developing nukes and missiles, and in so doing impoverished its people.