PDA

View Full Version : Vietnam war


DevilishAttitude
Mar 17th, 2006, 04:01 PM
OK, I've just started this at school and I'm been a bit shocked so far.

We've had 2 lessons and I'm pretty horrified currently. According to the textbook, American soldiers killed people when it wasn't going there way, put chemicals into jungles and napalm which sounds terrible and usually affected civilans.

I was most shocked that a lieutanat Calley I think, was sentence to life for 109 murders and released only 3 days after due to Nixon's say so :fiery:

The Viet Cong killed soldiers with booby traps and ambushes so it doesn't sound terrible but I can't see them being wonderful either.

I suppose I'll learn more, but why did USA try to help a country that didn't want help. The people didn't anyway :confused:

Discuss.

rebel_ffighter
Mar 17th, 2006, 04:08 PM
I suppose I'll learn more, but why did USA try to help a country that didn't want help. The people didn't anyway :confused:

dont they always do that?they are our saviors :lol:

azdaja
Mar 17th, 2006, 04:18 PM
I suppose I'll learn more, but why did USA try to help a country that didn't want help. The people didn't anyway :confused:

who says they wanted to help?

i'd say during the cold war many countries around the world tried to follow an independent path by ballancing between the soviet union and the us. the soviet sphere of influence was rather small, but even there there was at least one country that was able to preserve a meaningful independence and that was yugoslavia. this nearly triggered an invasion by the soviet troops.

in the rest of the world the us was trying to keep countries of the third world in check, at least in regions that had some strategic significance. vietnam was considered a key nation in south east asia and allowing it to gain a meaningful independence would inspire other countries to do the same. that was the most important reason for the war as far as i can tell. communism itself was just an excuse and ideological justification. the us intervened in many other countries of the world in different ways, but for the same reason.

JuchuKai
Mar 17th, 2006, 04:20 PM
You might like to read this one book about Kim Phuc. It's an interesting story.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0140280219/sr=8-1/qid=1142615586/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-9486739-1305638?%5Fencoding=UTF8

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly
All you have to do is say "the girl in the picture" and any American who was politically aware during the Vietnam War will conjure up the image of a little Vietnamese girl running down the road, her naked body scorched by napalm, her face contorted in pain. That photograph, taken of a girl named Kim Phuc on June 8, 1972, by Nick Ut of the Associated Press, remains a haunting image of the American war in Vietnam. Canadian writer Chong (The Concubine's Children) now tells Phuc's story in this instructive authorized biography. Tracing Phuc's life both before and after she was nearly killed (at age nine) by a South Vietnamese air force napalm strike gone wrong, Chong unblinkingly presents graphic depictions of the horrors that the war visited on innocent civilians. She finds, however, amidst these tragedies, a redemptive story in Phuc's life, which, thankfully, has a happy ending. Through the heroic efforts of Nick Ut, British correspondent Christopher Wain and others, the girl was taken to an excellent hospital in Saigon. Through 17 operations (in 24 months), an international team of doctors saved her life. Later, after communist authorities mercilessly used her for propaganda purposes, she fled Vietnam. Today, she and her husband are Christians, living in Ontario with their two sons. Although Phuc's entire back remains deeply scarred (keeping her in near constant pain), she works as an unpaid goodwill ambassador for UNESCO and runs her own foundation for child victims of war. Chong's biography, though overly detailed at times, is a well-rendered and affecting life story. 8 pages of b&w photos. (Aug.)


http://www.avizora.com/publicaciones/guerras/images/nina_kim_phuc_guerra_vietnam.jpg

Martian KC
Mar 17th, 2006, 04:53 PM
Wait, how old are you devilish?

rrfnpump
Mar 17th, 2006, 05:06 PM
I suppose I'll learn more, but why did USA try to help a country that didn't want help. The people didn't anyway :confused:


it was a p r o x y war

DevilishAttitude
Mar 17th, 2006, 05:07 PM
Wait, how old are you devilish?

I'm 16 :)

:wavey:

I'm curious at people's opinions round here. And I'm sure I'll know soon. That 1st post is all I know. Nothing else.

Supermonica
Mar 17th, 2006, 05:16 PM
OK, I've just started this at school and I'm been a bit shocked so far.

We've had 2 lessons and I'm pretty horrified currently. According to the textbook, American soldiers killed people when it wasn't going there way, put chemicals into jungles and napalm which sounds terrible and usually affected civilans.

I was most shocked that a lieutanat Calley I think, was sentence to life for 109 murders and released only 3 days after due to Nixon's say so :fiery:

The Viet Cong killed soldiers with booby traps and ambushes so it doesn't sound terrible but I can't see them being wonderful either.

I suppose I'll learn more, but why did USA try to help a country that didn't want help. The people didn't anyway :confused:

Discuss.


War always produces war crimes. The Allies (esp. Russians) committed atrocious war crimes in WW2 against Germans and Japanese (who were far worse themselves, BTW). Their cause was just, though.

The Viet Nam war taught a lesson: IF a nation goes to war
1. There has to be a clear goal (defeating the enemy forces and conquer the country).
2. You must be willing to use maximum force.
3. You must have the home front behind you.

The South Vietnamese didn't want to become Communist (The Communists killed millions after their victory, esp. in Cambodia). But they didn't want an endless war either. But how the U.S. betrayed their South Vietnamese ally in 1975 by not sending weapons and providing air support after the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong broke the 1973 armistice is one of the most disgraceful acts in U.S. history. :fiery:

Supermonica
Mar 17th, 2006, 05:17 PM
dont they always do that?they are our saviors :lol:


Without American support Greece would have had the same fate in the late 40ies as Bulgaria .....

Supermonica
Mar 17th, 2006, 05:19 PM
who says they wanted to help?

i'd say during the cold war many countries around the world tried to follow an independent path by ballancing between the soviet union and the us. the soviet sphere of influence was rather small, but even there there was at least one country that was able to preserve a meaningful independence and that was yugoslavia. this nearly triggered an invasion by the soviet troops.

in the rest of the world the us was trying to keep countries of the third world in check, at least in regions that had some strategic significance. vietnam was considered a key nation in south east asia and allowing it to gain a meaningful independence would inspire other countries to do the same. that was the most important reason for the war as far as i can tell. communism itself was just an excuse and ideological justification. the us intervened in many other countries of the world in different ways, but for the same reason.


Well, after 1975 the South Vietnamese could relish their independence ....

azdaja
Mar 17th, 2006, 05:22 PM
it was a p r o x y war
while the us indeed used ******* in the vietnam war you can't describe it as a ***** war. the us army fought directly there.

lol, is the word p r o x y censored or what? :confused:

azdaja
Mar 17th, 2006, 05:26 PM
Well, after 1975 the South Vietnamese could relish their independence ....
the "south vietnamese" could do that indeed. the vietnamese fought the japanese, the french and the americans and finally won independence. no, the regime that took over may not have been nice ever since, but it's theirs.

Supermonica
Mar 17th, 2006, 06:04 PM
the "south vietnamese" could do that indeed. the vietnamese fought the japanese, the french and the americans and finally won independence. no, the regime that took over may not have been nice ever since, but it's theirs.


Well, the Saddam regime was the Iraqi's one.
Your point being?

azdaja
Mar 17th, 2006, 06:12 PM
Well, the Saddam regime was the Iraqi's one.
Your point being?
good example. both in vietnam and in iraq the invaders were/are obviously not welcome regardless of what the people there thought/think about their own rulers.

national self-determination matters, folks.

Supermonica
Mar 17th, 2006, 06:20 PM
good example. both in vietnam and in iraq the invaders were/are obviously not welcome regardless of what the people there thought/think about their own rulers.

national self-determination matters, folks.


Independent polls in Iraq show that people prefer today's situation to the Saddam regime.

Lord Nelson
Mar 17th, 2006, 06:25 PM
The American intervention in Vietnam was necessary to counter the Communist menace. If America should not have interfered there than it should not have done so either in Korea when Communist North invaded the South. The Americans would have had a better job in winning the war if LBJ (why do people keep associating Nixon and not this President too) had decided to attack North Vietnam instead of just defending South Vietnam. In Korea, Truman and his generals did a better job. Sure Vetnam is junglish but the North is more barren than the south so what is the excuse for that?

Oh and if North Vietnam had no wrong in attacking South Vietnam than the opposite should have been ok too, right adjaria?

Devilish, many Sotherners did not want the North too win. The boat people in millions tried to escape Vietnam after the war ended and millions of people were put in camps or killed. The wa caused a domino effect where Cambodia too fell too the Maoist communists and where million were killed due to those people.

azdaja
Mar 17th, 2006, 06:28 PM
Independent polls in Iraq show that people prefer today's situation to the Saddam regime.
do they? iraq really looks like a fun place these days.

i have seen numerous polls by credible organisations (it should be noted that taking polls in iraq these days is not easy because the situation is so great) and they all agree that the iraqis don't want foreign troops in their country. they also say that the people don't think the situation is now better, but i can't be bothered to look for the sources now. each way i have no reason to take your claim seriously.

there is little doubt that the foreign occupation of iraq is as popular as it was in south vietnam.