What finally brought an end to the Vietnam war? Media showing pictures?

[DesEtoiles]

People tired of seeing body bags every night on the news?

The media certainly is not showing that now, are they.

[cavanaghjam]

1. That was certainly one factor

but there were many. Protesters in the streets, those who preferred Canada or prison to service, the Pentagon Papers, Vietnam Vets against the war, etc.

[dogman]

2. It was more than that.

A large number of returning Vets who learned the truth. People were personally exposed to death 50 times what they are now. Family members and neighbors were dying and many more injured. This war is recycling the troops so there is less exposure. Then there was a draft and more returned to civilian life. I've always credited the mothers of this country with coming to there senses first and bringing it to an end sooner.

[knowbody0]

3. the media as we know it will never film the revolution.

nor will they show the carnage and destruction in iraq.

when election fraud is proven, the tide will turn.
it's hard work not trusting your government, and 50% of america cannot wrap their mind around that, but when that happens all hell will break lose.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

20. yep!

:-)

[i_got_2_get_away]

50. Qusetion is...

Who's gonna make the first move? And when? Before Bush's term ends?

[ramapo]

4. The middle class didn't want their sons killed

Vietnam had a much higher body count hence a bigger impact. It took many years despite the protests for the US to withdraw. Nixon ran almost as a "peace" candidate in '68 and then manipulated the war, actually ramped things up a few notches, so he could run on the war in '72. "Peace with honor" was a big theme back then. It took the combination of many events to really turn the tide against the war.

The release of the Pentagon Papers was very important because it exposed much of the fraud behind the war. Young people were much more involved then because they were impacted more by events then they are today.

Finally the middle class just didn't want their kids coming home in body bags.

Today's war is out of sight, out of mind. It is almost antiseptic. The media is basically out to lunch. The people are very complacent. There have been books written on the ineptness of the Bushies and the lies concocted for this war. But many people do not read books. Many people do not really care, they do their part by slapping a magnetic ribbon on the back of their SUV. Out of sight, out of mind. What more could Bush want?

[LynnTheDem]

25. IRAQ has a higher body count than the first FIVE YEARS of Vietnam

MORE soldiers have been killed the past 20 months in Iraq than in the first 5 years of the Vietnam invasion.

We'll find out how long the US Stenomedia can keep quiet about the deaths.

[Booster]

39. Lynn, do you have a link that shows this statistic? I repeated it

to my nephew, who is in Kuwait, and he said "nah" and of course he too the figure of 58,000 and divided it by 10 yrs and of course there went my argument since I didn't have the article to show the figures. If you have it, I will send it to him - he hates this war too and he's one of the good guys, but I really want to show him that article. Thanks.

[LynnTheDem]

48. my error; it's more in Iraq now than first SIX YEARS in 'Nam (links)

The first recorded US death in Vietnam was Capt. Harry Griffith Cramer in October 1957; Lyndon Johnson called the death in December 1961 of SP4 James Davis the "first casualty".

1960/61 is used as the "start" of the Vietnam war in the posted links.

When US president John F. Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, in the THIRD YEAR of the Vietnam war, American military deaths in Vietnam had just passed 50.

The first milestone was 397 US dead in Iraq, November 13, 2003:

US Dead In Iraq Exceed First Three Years Of Vietnam

The U.S. death toll in Iraq has surpassed the number of American soldiers killed during the first three years of the Vietnam War, the brutal Cold War conflict that cast a shadow over U.S. affairs for more than a generation.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/memorial/20031113-1423-iraq-usa-vietnam.html

Next milestone, 506 US deaths in Iraq, December 2003. That's the highest level of US troop deaths in a year since 1972 Vietnam, when 640 troops were killed.

The Deadliest Year For US Soldiers Since Vietnam 1972

http://www.notinourname.net/gi-special/2/1.pdf

A two-week record:

U.S. Deaths from Enemy Fire at Highest Level Since Vietnam

"This has been some pretty intense fighting," said David Segal, director of the University of Maryland's Center for Research on Military Organization. "We're looking at what happened during the major battles of Vietnam."

The last time U.S. troops experienced a two-week loss such as this one in Iraq was October 1971, two years before U.S. ground involvement ended in Vietnam.

The Vietnam War started with a slower death rate. The United States had been involved in Vietnam for six years before total fatalities surpassed 500 in 1965, the year President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered a massive buildup of forces.

By the end of 1966, U.S. combat deaths in Vietnam had reached 3,910.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0417-02.htm

Took 6 years in Nam to lose 500 US soldiers. We've already lost over 1200 US troops in 20 months. Let's compare totals when Iraqnam hits Year #6. Coz at the current rate, Iraqnam will make Vietnam look like a safe & fun time.

IRAQ WAR FAR GRAVER THAN VIETNAM

Most senior US military officers now believe the war on Iraq has turned into a disaster on an unprecedented scale

General Odom said: "This is far graver than Vietnam. There wasn't as much at stake strategically, though in both cases we mindlessly went ahead with the war that was not constructive for US aims. But now we're in a region far more volatile, and we're in much worse shape with our allies."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0%2C3604%2C1305360%2C00.html

Graphs (using 1961 as the start of the Vietnam war, although the first recorded US death was in 1957):

The first year



The first 4 years




God/Goddess keep your nephew safe from harm and bring him home safe & soundish!!!

[Make7]

54. Apples / Oranges

There were less than 5,000 American troops in Vietnam in 1961. It is not a fair to compare raw US deaths when the troop levels were so drastically different.

Allied troop levels in Vietnam 1960-1973

In 1971 there were 156,800 US troops in Vietnam (this is more than what is in Iraq, but it is comparable), and there were 2,867 deaths. Even subtracting 15-25% to even out troop levels, that is more than US fatalities in Iraq per year.

Vietnam War Deaths by Month, 1966-1971

Make7

[LynnTheDem]

55. No, it's DEATHS to DEATHS.

MORE troops should mean LESS DEATHS. MORE STRENGTH should mean less deaths. MORE PROTECTION should mean less deaths.

And there are MORE GREVIOUSLY WOUNDED in Iraq that are still "alive" than during Vietnam; these wounded soldiers would have died during Vietnam but instead are still "alive" because of improved medical treatment.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/090303A.shtml

Nearly two-thirds of injured U.S. soldiers sent from Iraq to Walter Reed Army Medical Center have been diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries - a percentage thought to be higher than any other past U.S. conflict, military officials told United Press International.

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040721-030507-2465r.htm

Add in vastly improved weaponry and body armor of today. So let's subtract from Vietnam deaths to "even out" the medical, firepower & body armor differences.

FACT: MORE US troops have been killed in 20 months in Iraq than were killed in the FIRST SIX YEARS of Vietnam.

Spin it any way you want, but that's a FACT.

[Make7]

56. Re: Spin it any way you want, but that's a FACT.

I didn't say that wasn't a fact - I said it was not a fair comparison.

-Make7

[LynnTheDem]

57. Fair is a weather report

Invading, occupying, & killing 100,000 civilians also isn't fair.

Is Iraq worse than Vietnam? At this point, hell yes. The death rate is far higher in Iraq than it was for years in Vietnam. Will the final death toll match or beat Vietnam? Perhaps. We'll find out eventually. Comparing 14 years of 'Nam to 20 months of Iraq isn't "fair", so let's sit around and count bodies for another decade.

[Make7]

58. Apples / Oranges Part II

Quote: "Comparing 14 years of 'Nam to 20 months of Iraq isn't 'fair'" - LynnTheDem

But comparing the first six years of Vietnam to 20 months of Iraq is?

-Make7

[LynnTheDem]

60. No dear...I was paraphrasing YOU with sarcasm.

YOU are the one saying it isn't "FAIR" to compare Iraq to Vietnam.

My FULL quote:

Comparing 14 years of 'Nam to 20 months of Iraq isn't "fair", so let's sit around and count bodies for another decade.

[Make7]

62. par·a·phrase

par·a·phrase n. 1. A restatement of a text or passage in another form or other words, often to clarify meaning. dictionary.com

I don't remember comparing 14 years of Vietnam to 20 months of Iraq. Maybe that's why I didn't get it.

I certainly do agree with myself that it is an unfair comparison, though.

-Make7

[LynnTheDem]

63. Well you just keep on defending bush's invasion.

Especially if you find it impossible to understand a very simple FACT, such as MORE TROOPS have died in 20 months in Iraq than died in the FIRST SIX YEARS of Vietnam.

Or maybe you'd rather compare our troops' deaths to the highway accident deaths in California?

buh bye. :)

[T Town Jake]

66. The poster wasn't "defending bush's [Sic] invasion"....

...he/she was just pointing out facts that proved what you were trying to claim to be demonstrably false. Proving you wrong - an easy endeavor, I can see - is not the same thing as "defending bush's invasion." You should learn to tell the difference.

[LynnTheDem]

79. FACT: MORE US troops have died in 20 mths in Iraq

than died in the first 6 years of Vietnam.

And that is a FACT.

So please, feel free to call that FACT "wrong".

BTW, your "Sic" is incorrect.

[Make7]

71. Apples to Apples?

First, I never stated my position on the Iraq War. How exactly am I "defending bush's invasion"?
__________

Second, see post #56. I said, "I didn't say that wasn't a fact". Explain to me how I "find it impossible to understand" something I agreed was a fact.
__________

Third, I would not "rather compare our troops' deaths to the highway accident deaths in California." Thank you for the suggestion - if you feel it would be useful, go right ahead. Here's a comparison - US troop deaths to US troop deaths, 21 months to 21 months:

Iraq War - US KIA figures for first 21 months:

3/2003 - 65
4/2003 - 73
5/2003 - 37
6/2003 - 30
7/2003 - 47
8/2003 - 35
9/2003 - 30
10/2003 - 43
11/2003 - 82
12/2003 - 40
1/2004 - 47
2/2004 - 20
3/2004 - 52
4/2004 - 135
5/2004 - 80
6/2004 - 42
7/2004 - 54
8/2004 - 66
9/2004 - 80
10/2004 - 63
11//2004 - 126
TOTAL - 1247

Source: Iraq Coalition Casualties

Korean War - US KIA figures for first 21 months:

7/1950 - 3796
8/1950 - 2624
9/1950 - 4924
10/1950 - 508
11/1950 - 1892
12/1950 - 628
1/1951 - 904
2/1951 - 2534
3/1951 - 1328
4/1951 - 1358
5/1951 - 1636
6/1951 - 1016
7/1951 - 468
8/1951 - 808
9/1951 - 2028
10/1951 - 2670
11/1951 - 788
12/1951 - 268
1/1952 - 218
2/1952 - 144
3/1952 - 200
TOTAL - 30740

Source: Battle Casualties and Medical Statistics (see Table B-1, Table B-2, and Table B-3)
__________

KOREA had a higher body count in the first month than the first TWENTY-ONE MONTHS of Iraq. (reference to title of post #25)

-Make7

[Sterling]

73. I think the point you are missing is....

It's going to be a lot worse than Nam by the time we are done there. That much is pbvious and the fact that the Iraqnam quagmire has started off at a higher level of intensity is cold comfort to the reality that there is no way out of this mess that will not be a total disaster far greater than Nam was.

Is Iraq the new Nam? No, it's worse.

[Make7]

78. But it's not as bad as World War Two.

Quote: "It's going to be a lot worse than Nam by the time we are done there." - Sterling

Am I missing the point because I can't see into the future?

It's going to be a lot worse for who? The Vietnamese? The Iraqis? The Americans?

Why compare raw statistics of conflicts that are so obviously different? Is it even possible to accurately compare statistics of different conflicts? And what can possibly be achieved?

I posted in response to the comparison of deaths in Iraq to deaths in Vietnam. I said that because of the vastly different troop levels, it was not fair to compare combat fatalities without taking that into account. It all depends on how you want to look at it.

-Make7

[LynnTheDem]

80. Just like rightwingnuts, he's trying to MARGINALIZE our troops' deaths.

What's to spin? It's a simple FACT: More US troops have died in 20 months in Iraq than died in the first 6 years of Vietnam.

I really do despise assholes who try to marginalize our troops' deaths.

[ArkDem]

72. Hmmmmmmm.....

by this logic I guess we should have had no kia during World War II.

[Mike L]

64. Iraq would be as bad as Vietnam if

Iraq had the jungles and tunnels that provided cover for the VC and NVA in Vietnam. The insurgents can't dig tunnels in the sand. Also, the body armor and medical technology is better now, which keeps the KIA numbers lower than in Vietnam.

[Sterling]

74. No the Iraqis has cities full of people who hate us.

It's worse than Nam. In Nam we had the cities under control for the most part except for Tet.

Urban combat is even worse for our kind of fire power than fighting in the jungle.

[Booster]

70. Thanks, Lynn. Sent it on to him - very interesting article.

[i_got_2_get_away]

51. I pray...

to God...he gets the f**ked out of there in one peace. God willing.

[Lizzie Borden]

5. It was partly the pictures,

partly the protests (the aim of which was to stop the government from functioning) and Kent State where the national guard shot at college students and killed some. Parents really weren't sending their kids to college to die. I think that wakened up a lot of people.

[FloridaPat]

6. Same thing that almost brought the Civil War to and end - protests.

More and more protests every month. On a lot of college campuses. In Washginton - 100,000 at one point as I remember. And the Vietman War Vets joining the protest.

As for the CIvil War, there is a neat tourist bureau in Georgia at Chickamauga Memorial. It has a slide show that says the Civil War would not have lasted much longer because the protest marches in the North were getting so bad the battle would have been over and a tie. The North got it's big offensive in and the war ended.

I am quite sure that a dropping dollar, widespread unemployment, and a draft would wake the other half of the country up. But don't forget. The bushies could have another 9-11 anytime to keep people scared.

[s-cubed]

7. all of the above

Also, there were newspapers and journalists then.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

8. The peace/anti-war movement

had a lot to do with it, though they weren't singularly responsible. Also, the peace movement went on for years before they really gained steam. They didn't just organize and a month later, affected change.

Anyway, that exhaused my knowledge of THAT subject. Oh also, the peace movement started attracting more and more powerful/influential people to their point of view.

[zann725]

34. ...like someone named John Kerry.

n/t

[3trievers]

9. The draft

The let me hold your coat crowd tend to have a whole different outlook about war when their ass is on the line.They have been replaced by keyboard commandos.

[KnowerOfLogic]

10. After 10+ years America got bored and tired of the war.

Reality can only be denied for so long.

[I_Love_Oregon]

11. Primary, the draft. But Nixon and Watergate too

Ultimately, the draft (or a fear of it) drove the passions of the anti-war movement. The possibility of getting drafted motivated many who might of otherwise not joined the peace movement to do so.

That got us out in '73.

However.. and here's the most relevant part to today's situation in Iraq, we agreed to help the S. Vietnamese as a condition of our withdrawl. But we let them down BIGTIME. Here a couple of quotes:


Nixon:

"You have my assurance that we will respond with full force should the settlement be violated by North Vietnam."

Nguyen Van Thieu, April 1975:

"If the Americans do not want to support us anymore, let them go, get out! Let them forget their humanitarian promises!"


... and ultimately, over a million S. Vietnamese were slaughtered, along with several million more in Cambodia. That's fact.

The primary reason we bailed them is that Nixon was forced out of office, and Ford was not strong enough to convince the congress to keep our pledge (although he tried). A resolution was even passed by congress in 75 or 76 that our government could not so much as send medical supplies to our friends in Saigon.

This is the dirty little secret that's been buried from most of us.

[Make7]

13. Source, please.

Quote:

"... and ultimately, over a million S. Vietnamese were slaughtered, along with several million more in Cambodia. That's fact." - I_Love_Oregon

Thanks,
Make7

[I_Love_Oregon]

15. umm, conventional wisdom

Ever heard of Pol Pot? Do you recall the exodus out of Vietnam? Are you familiar with the Hmong population in this country, and why they're here. I can give great sources, but one quote will not do it.

Are you unfamiliar with the history of Vietnam between between 1973 and 1979?

[Make7]

I asked for a source.

Not just a single quote. List as many sources as you want.

-Make7

[I_Love_Oregon]

21. Here you go

My quotes:
http://www.vietnam-war.info/quotes/quotes2.php

Contrarian viewpoint about War:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684842548/103-1877362-7813450?v=glance


Pol Pot:

http://www.time.com/time/daily/polpot/1.html


and on and on and on...

[Make7]

23. Contrarian wisdom

In my first response, I was asking for a source that "over a million S. Vietnamese were slaughtered". And I also thought (perhaps incorrectly) that you were implying (North) Vietnam was somehow responsible for the genocide in Cambodia.

Saying your knowledge is from conventional wisdom and then linking to a "Contrarian viewpoint about War", seems to me to be an inherent contradiction.

--------------------

What I found concerning "over a million S. Vietnamese were slaughtered":

"March 1, 1975 - A powerful NVA offensive is unleashed in the Central Highlands of South Vietnam. The resulting South Vietnamese retreat is chaotic and costly, nearly 60,000 troops dead or missing." - http://www.vietnam-war.info/timeline/timeline5.php

"In early 1975 the North invaded the South and quickly consolidated the country under its control. Saigon was captured on April 30, 1975. North Vietnam united both North and South Vietnam on July 2, 1976 to form the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Saigon was re-named Ho Chi Minh City in honor of the former president of North Vietnam. Hundreds of supporters of the South Vietnamese government were rounded up and executed, many more were imprisioned. Communist rule continues to this day." - http://www.vietnam-war.info/history/history5.php

--------------------

And some interesting info about Cambodia:

"February 1969 - In spite of government restrictions, President Nixon authorizes Operation Menu, the bombing of North Vietnamese and Vietcong bases within Cambodia. Over the following four years, U.S. forces will drop more than a half million tons of bombs on Cambodia." - http://www.vietnam-war.info/timeline/timeline4.php

"In addition, the Khmer Rouge would probably not have come into power and committed their slaughters without the destabilization of the war, particularly of the American bombing campaigns to 'clear out the sanctuaries' in Cambodia." - http://www.vietnam-war.info/casualties

"The Khmer Rouge was ousted from power by a Vietnamese invasion in 1979. But it had already caused the deaths of between 1.5 million and 2 million people, according to Western estimates." - http://www.time.com/time/daily/polpot/10.html

-Make7

[I_Love_Oregon]

38. Restated point

My point in the original message centered around the pullout of S. Vietnam by U.S. forces in the Spring of '75.

I don't think anyone doubts what occured in SE Asia after we left. Literally MILLIONS of people WERE killed and/or displaced by the Communists. There is no getting around that fact.

It's my contention that we ditched them, and broke an agreement made during the Paris Peace Accords. As a condition for agreement by the South, the U.S. agreed to continue assistance in the form of military and civilian aid. Once the Communists forces invaded the South, we bailed. Thirty years of history have covered this history and rendered it invisible to many people, and most young people who were not around themselves. Here's a salient passage:

snip

The spring of 1975 saw a series of NLF victories. After important areas such as Danang and Hue were lost in March, panic swept through the AVRN. Senior officers, fearing what would happen after the establishment of an NLF government, abandoned their men and went into hiding.

Nguyen Van Thieu announced in desperation that he had a signed letter from Richard Nixon promising military help if it appeared that the NLF were winning in South Vietnam. However, Nixon was no longer in a position to fulfil his promise as he had been forced to resign over Watergate. The new president, Gerald Ford, a strong supporter of US involvement in Vietnam, tried to raise support for the South Vietnamese government but the Senate was adamant that as far as it was concerned, the war was over.

On April 23, 1975, President Gerald Ford told the American people: "Today Americans can regain the sense of pride that existed before Vietnam. But it cannot be achieved by refighting a war that is finished." Two days later. President Thieu, accusing the United States of betrayal, resigned and left the country. He was quickly followed by other South Vietnamese leaders and the remaining American advisers.

snip

Nice, neutral source: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWvietnam.htm

K

[Yupster]

41. Interesting to look at the war in 1974

The US had left.

The communists launched their spring offensive. This was the test for Vietnamization. Would the South Vietnamese Army hold without us.

The North Vietnamese overran territory in the north of South Vietnam. Some South Vietnamese troops buckled. It looked dicey. Reinforcements were brought up from Saigon, and the South Vietnamese counterattacked with US airpower and retook the lost land.

The South Vietnamese Army (ARVN) had held. There was a great sigh of relief in Washington.

Next year was all different. Before the North Vietnamese started their spring offensive, the South Vietnamese decided to give up the Central Highlands without a fight. The evacuation turned into a rout. With no US airpower, and fuel and ammunition limited, the army fell apart and the country was quickly overrun.

Why was 1974 so different than 1975?

Was the ARVN destined to collapse one year or the other? or did congress pull the rug out from them, teaching them to fight the US way and then taking away their means to do it.

Historians will debate it, but we'll never get a true answer.

While we all watched though, misery was just starting for millions who died at the communist hands in the three countries that fell in 1975. Personally I know an extended Cambodian family that walked through the jungles into Thailand and lost half their number to Khmer Rouge mortars and rifles as they fled. Still better than starving. They own a doughnut shop now.

[I_Love_Oregon]

45. great post

Yes. All correct. And Congress would not so much as send medical suplies to our allies there. Total cut-off. Total washing of the hands. It was despicable, and perhaps the single worst thing we ever did with our foreign policy.

I know that is not a popular sentiment around here. But consider this.. if the politics are standing in your way, keep in mind it was a Republican president that let this happen. Although, as I've said, he did what he could, and the Democrats played a big part, it was Ford that this happened under.

[Make7]

53. Restated request.

I doubt that "over a million S. Vietnamese were slaughtered" by the communists after the United States left Vietnam. I'm just asking for a source for that figure.

I do not doubt that over a million Cambodians were killed, I don't believe it was by the Vietnamese though.

Thanks,
Make7

[I_Love_Oregon]

77. As accurate as I can find:

Vietnam, post-war Communist regime (1975 et seq.): 430 000
Jacqueline Desbarats and Karl Jackson ("Vietnam 1975-1982: The Cruel Peace", in The Washington Quarterly, Fall 1985) estimated that there had been around 65,000 executions. This number is repeated in the Sept. 1985 Dept. of State Bulletin article on Vietnam.
Orange County Register (29 April 2001): 1 million sent to camps and 165,000 died.
Northwest Asian Weekly (5 July 1996): 150,000-175,000 camp prisoners unaccounted for.
Estimates for the number of Boat People who died:
Elizabeth Becker (When the War Was Over, 1986) cites the UN High Commissioner on Refugees: 250,000 boat people died at sea; 929,600 reached asylum
The 20 July 1986 San Diego Union-Tribune cites the UN Refugee Commission: 200,000 to 250,000 boat people had died at sea since 1975.
The 3 Aug. 1979 Washington Post cites the Australian immigration minister's estimate that 200,000 refugees had died at sea since 1975.
Also: "Some estimates have said that around half of those who set out do not survive."
The 1991 Information Please Almanac cites unspecified "US Officials" that 100,000 boat people died fleeing Vietnam.
Encarta estimates that 0.5M fled, and 10-15% died, for a death toll of 50-75,000.
Nayan Chanda, Brother Enemy (1986): ¼M Chinese refugees in two years, 30,000 to 40,000 of whom died at sea. (These numbers also repeated by Marilyn Young, The Vietnam Wars: 1945-1990 (1991))


http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm

[Make7]

81. Thanks for responding.

But I still don't see how that adds up to over one million South Vietnamese being killed.

In fact from your source: "ANALYSIS: I'd say the most likely total would be 430,000. That's 65,000 executions + 165,000 camp deaths + 200,000 boat people."

It seems like there are always vastly different estimates depending on sources, so it becomes a question of which sources one thinks is accurate. That can be influenced by someones perspective of the events in question. That's why I don't believe that figure of over one million. From what I have seen, read, and heard, that doesn't seem accurate to me. I could be completely mistaken, but I would need to be convinced that I am.

Thanks,
Make7

[I_Love_Oregon]

82. splittn' hairs

I think at this point, when clearly a lot of people's lives were turned upside down and/or lost, squabbling over numbers is a waste of time. My central point is that once we bailed on our agreement with the South, bad things happened, in the most simple terms.

[Make7]

84. obtain their freedom

I don't think half a million lives (lives - not numbers) is splitting hairs.

There were very bad things going on for a very long time before 1975 in Vietnam - and there is plenty of blame to go around on all sides.

Do you really think the United States government had any intention of honoring their commitment? The history of their involvement in Vietnam up to that point would lead one to believe that they don't always live up to their word. From the very beginning....

Quote: "The United States had previously been involved with Vietnam during WWII in that the Viet Minh, an organization headed by Ho Chi Minh, had aided American flyers against the Japanese. In return for the Viet Minh's help, the U.S. sent equipment and men over to train the Viet Minh. In retrospect, this is a bit surprising since Ho Chi Minh was a known Communist and Americans have always considered Communists to be enemies. Ho Chi Minh thought that all the aid for the U.S. meant that we would help Vietnam gain its independence. In fact, President Roosevelt said that he favored a new world order that would have the former colonies of European powers obtain their freedom. Ultimately this was not the case and in 1946, while Truman was the President of the United States, the French came back into Indochina. Ho Chi Minh understandably felt let down, and he and the Viet Minh started a guerilla war for their independence."

Quote: "By 1954, the U.S. was giving France over $1 billion a month to help in their fight in Vietnam."

Source: Raw Wounds - A history of the War in Vietnam

-Make7

[Djinn]

44. I might have got this wrong

but are you blaming the North Vietnamse for Pol Pot?

[I_Love_Oregon]

46. I guess it's just a coincedence

That Pol Pot came to power at the exact time we bailed.

[Djinn]

87. remind me again who

got RID of Pol Pot? Remind me again who SUPPORTED Pol Pot? remind me who it was that blocked the removal of the Khmer Rouge rep to the UN?
Remind me who orchestrated the coup against Prince Sihanouk - giving Pol Pot the opportunity to rule the country.

To blame Vietnam for POl POt is to fly in the face of reality - can I have some of the drugs you're clearly taking?

[sandnsea]

24. No no no

That's what the pro-Vietnam War people would have you believe. The choice was let S Vietnam fall or go back in. If we had gone back in, we'd still be there and a whole lot more than 160,000 would have died.

Certainly millions died in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. As many from the actions of our involvement in the war as from their own fighting.

http://www.freedomsnest.com/rummel_vietnam.html

[I_Love_Oregon]

47. can think for myself

I don't care what "they" want me to think. I don't care who's on what side. My point has nothing to do with whether Vietnam was good, bad, or ugly. My point has to do with letting down an ally, and millions of people getting killed because of it. That is something no "Liberal" should ever support, no matter what that might have mean't for our soldiers. We told them we'd support them, and we bailed! That's how it went down! The consequences of this action are being felt today in several ways.

[Djinn]

88. unfortunately the vast majority of Vietnam

didn't WANT US support.

[Yupster]

40. I think you can blame Watergate

for Congress reneging on our commitments to South Vietnam.

[Make7]

12. The Vietnamese people. eom.

[Donna Zen]

14. 3 things

For a country to go or stay at war there must be three elements favoring the war:

1) public approval

2) media approval

3) political will

All of the points listed above fall into one of these catagories. As the war dragged on, all of the pieces disintegrated. With body bags--58,000 dead, Kent State--killing middle class white kids, journalists speaking out, the Pentagon papers, returning troops, protests, and finally '68 when McCarthy won in NH and shocked the political establishment into action, the support was gone.

The profanity of war continues but the control of information has changed. Who knows how they will cover up the truth; who knows how they will avoid a draft; but "they" have learned from their last failed venture, and look for things to be different. Twists and turns. Even rovian lies cannot control everything--we need a miracle.

[IowaGuy]

16. The country was worn out ...

protests over civil rights, Viet Nam War, riots in the streets, cities burning, assasinations, corrupt politicians (Agnew, Nixon), oil embargoes, the draft, our own National Guard shooting our own kids (Kent State), price and wage freezes, the constant litany of bad news on the tube (pictures from 'Nam being among them), 58,000 dead American boys and no coherent reason as to why we were there beyond "stopping the Red menace - th domino theory". The Executive branch and the Pentagon lying to us every single day, the nonsense of watching our leaders argue over the shape and size of the table at the Paris Peace talks....The 60's and early 70's really sucked in a lot of ways. The conservatives would like to rewrite history and convince America the problem was the "immoral smoke-dopin' hippies"...look at the list above and ask yourself, what real blame did they have for any of this?

There are certain similarities to today, yet there are differences, also. The internet is by-passing a lot of the traditional media, muting the effect of the news medias consolidation and corporate inspired wimpiness...it could be worse.

[Zomby Woof]

17. everything BUT the anti-war protestors

They made it go on longer... they just pushed Nixon to defy them more and more by stepping up the bombings of Cambodia. They slowed the acceptance of middle America's growing opposition. If mainstream America hadn't grown weary of the war as it was, the protestors/anti-war hippie masturbators only inhibited their increasing doubts.

The protestors were smug self-satisfied hippie baby boomer dipshits for the most part, and they have blood on their hands for lengthening that shitty war. Does this piss you off, hippies? Good.

[DesEtoiles]

27. So sitting around on your ass is your plan?

Got any better ideas? I'm all ears.

[Jim__]

29. If only we had put our trust in Nixon.

I've always regretted prolonging that war just because I didn't trust Nixon/Kissinger to bring it to an honorable end. I'm glad you've pointed out the error of our ways.

Now, if only everyone would get behind dubya, surely we'd see even more success in Iraq.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. Anyone for a little revisionist history?

Nixon invaded Cambodia because of the hippies? The American "middle" were opposed to the war? The "hippies" were smug dipshits?

You must be reading the comic book version of history.

[IowaGuy]

37. Rather odd analysis...

See post #16...blaming the protesters? Wow...they "made" Nixon prolong it....thats some pretty powerful shit for a stoned out hippie to do...have you really thought this out?

[Yupster]

42. The protests got much smaller

once the draft was ended.

I don't think you can count that as a significant reason.

[quaker bill]

59. You are reliable

Reliably wrong.

But then I gather you weren't there.

[T Town Jake]

65. That pretty much sums it up - I agree... (n/t)

[Sterling]

75. This really is one of the worst posts I have read here.

Not a hippy myself but you sound like a bitter fool. Very Dennis Miller of you.

[missouri dem 2]

18. By the end of the war only 50% of draftees were showing up

for induction.

[T Town Jake]

67. Ummmm... FYI: "the war" ended in 1975 - the draft ended in '73. (n/t)

[AngryAmish]

19. It was pretty much over when the North took Saigon

Lotsa people died. But I guess they don't count...

[hatrack]

22. Five NVA divisions moving south rapidly in the spring of 1975

I think we somewhat overrate our own role in determining the end of a 30-year war.

[Yupster]

43. But five NVA divisions

moved south in 1974 too, and they didn't overrun the country, so what was different between 1974 and 1975?

[hatrack]

68. You may be thinking of the 1972 Easter Offensive

The difference was US airpower, which absolutely hammered the NVA three years before Saigon's fall.

By 1975, with the US out of the picture, there was no real airpower available, aside from sporadic and lethally inaccurate bombing from the South's shiny state-of-the-art and generally useless air force.

[Yupster]

90. No -- I was thinking of 1974

It was the first year the US was out on the ground. It was wondered what would happen when the North Vietnamese attack would come.

It came. The ARVN buckled, retreated, counterattacked and retook the lost land, and lots of people in Washington breathed a sigh of relief because Vietnamization worked.

Then next year the same thing happened and the ARVN fell apart.

So what was different from 1974 to 1975? Biggest difference was that the US trained the ARVN to fight a US style big firepower very expensive war, and then congress cut the funding off.

Maybe they would have folded anyway, but they didn't in 1974.

[leftofthedial]

26. helicopters

and electric guitars

pretty much

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. Americans Grew Tired Of It Regardless Of Ideology

[spanone]

30. FIFTY EIGHT THOUSAND DEAD AMERICAN SOLDIERS

We're only at about 1300. Got a long way to go.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. iraq's not nam but a fiasco nonetheless

[ribrepin]

52. By 69 or 70

Just about every neighborhood except the wealthy had lost at least one good kid.

[Sterling]

76. Considering it is only getting worse

And there is no end in sight you seem very optimistic.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. The Vietnamese realized that victory is not determined scorekeeping.

They waged war on all fronts in their struggle for liberation. They used not just troops and guns, but the media, psychology, nationalism, diplomacy and tenacity.

The Americans, at best, paid lip service to the above, and relied on brute force.

Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam. (Seen on a bumper sticker).

[karlrschneider]

33. That was a big part of it...that so many were draftees was another factor.

...

[Neshanic]

36. Protestors were part of CIA to prolong war.

Yes, that is correct, and a tired Cronkite was beaten in a backroom in a CBS lunchroom by the cast of the Lost in Space to say that he thought the war was a mess.

Unfreakingbelievable.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[T Town Jake]

69. And what, exactly, would that be? And how is it relevant to Vietnam? n/t

[quaker bill]

61. That and more

Basically people became "uncomfortable". The media covered the war and the protests daily. People were dying there, people were dying and getting beaten up here. Draftees were jumping the fence to get away from basic training across the street from where I lived and running through the streets being chased by the shore patrol pretty much every day.

The war began to be seen as a lost cause and the country as increasingly ungovernable. This exposed the lies.

[nomatrix]

83. Nixon didn't want to "lose the war"

Nixon's own words from his tape recording.
http://www.blink.org.uk/print.asp?key=581

In the first half of 1972, Nixon not only paid his historic visit to China but also faced re-election later that year. He is heard worrying out loud on tape about the political consequences of losing the war in Vietnam and fears that the Russians would pull out of a planned arms-control summit.

"The point is," he tells Mr Kissinger, "we have to realise that if we lose Vietnam and the summit, there's no way that the election can be saved." He went on to win a second term in November that year.

In his own words

On bombing Vietnam

To Henry Kissinger

"The only place you and I disagree ... is with regard to the bombing. You're so goddamned concerned about the civilians and I don't give a damn. I don't care."

To Henry Kissinger

"I'd rather use the nuclear bomb ... Does that bother you? I just want you to think big."
-end snip-

You heard it, Nixon was ready to take Vietnam "police action" to dropping a nuclear bomb to save face.

I just have a brief comment on the hippie protesters. Obviously you weren't there. Yes there were hippies, Vietnam vets, priests, non hippie adults, musicians....
Strange you would pick a Zappa song for your name here and then use RW text as fact, but it's a free country, and you are welcome be be the fool.
Next time you might want to check your history because this generation was high on sex, drugs and rock and roll.

[rfkrfk]

85. Congress pulled the plug on the cash... n/t

no text

[hollowdweller]

86. Enough people died in Vietnam that almost everyone personally knew one

of them. That, and the fact that with the draft everyone had a stake in it cause they might be called up.

[Yupster]

91. But we left in 73

and the draft ended in 73.

So they couldn't be the reasons for the war ending because the war ended in 75.

[bush_is_wacko]

89. That is why our Prez

won't allow flag drapped coffins to be shown. Actually thoug, the media is starting to do this a little more here in Colorado. Anyone else notice that trend?

[eridani]

92. No. The PTB finally tumbled to the fact that it was too expensive--

--for what they were getting out of it.