Over in the interim MSN War on Terror site, we got into a bit of a discussion about whether there have ever been 2 democratic nations who have fought against one another in a war, and whether democracies tend to be the aggressors. Anyone who'd like to take a stab at these complex questions is free to do so!
To be more specific, however, we got to talking about Vietnam. Would you say that the US was the aggressor in that war? ************************************************************ 06-03-02, 10:39 PM DoctorBob I hate to say that i think it was the U.S. however the mid 60,s was at the peak of the cold war ! I think that our government really thought the U.S.S.R would be the agressor anytime, anyplace in the world ! frown
06-04-02, 05:19 AM moe257 Sarai I found a link that may answer some of your questions from the last forum. I only had a few minutes to scan it this morning but I'm looking forward to some discussion on it. I'm not sure if I'm getting a link on here (have to work on that)
06-04-02, 02:43 PM The US lacked overall strategy for victory. It ended up as a tactical exercise in futility and, though it is popular opinion to think of us as the aggressors, consider how often we were in a defensive stance and how often we tied the hands of our military, denying them the ability to attack the enemy strongholds in the north. The NVA were a well trained, well equipped and daring opponent and I don't see it as offensive to call them aggressors. They had an objective in mind and were very focused on achieving it. If you get an opportunity, watch the series, the 10,000 day war - you will hear from the leaders of the north how effective their aggressions were, both on the field and at the negotiating table. We committed ourselves based on a lie of our President and perhaps even our presence there was a mild aggression, but the north performed amazingly well in that role.
06-04-02, 04:40 PM Strider0
quote:Originally posted by moe257: Sarai I found a link that may answer some of your questions from the last forum...
Excellent article, Moe! Aggression is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose, but I personally can't construe that the US was the overall aggressor in the conflict -- after all, the conflict had begun well before 1965 when the first US troops were deployed in Vietnam.
Personally, my interpretation from the article is that Ho Chi Minh along with the Viet Minh and the Viet Cong were the overall aggressors. I imagine one might also make a case that Diem's anti-Buddhism campaign was also a form of aggression.
I like how Prothero characterized the US role in a different post...that the US escalated the conflict on a lie. I would agree with that.
[This message was edited by Strider0 on 06-04-02 at 04:54 PM.]
06-04-02, 05:48 PM Sarai Yes, thanks for a great article, Moe!
After reading it, I have to say that it looks like there could never be a clear-cut answer to that question. It's a little like asking if Israel or Palestine is the aggressor in their situation. There's just too much history and too many other factors involved to make a simple answer possible. It would make an interesting graduate thesis or something like that, I suppose!
06-04-02, 07:10 PM Strider0
quote:Originally posted by Sarai: Yes, thanks for a great article, Moe!
After reading it, I have to say that it looks like there could never be a clear-cut answer to that question. It's a little like asking if Israel or Palestine is the aggressor in their situation. There's just too much history and too many other factors involved to make a simple answer possible. It would make an interesting graduate thesis or something like that, I suppose!
Oh you great big chicken, Sarai...no fair! What do YOU think? Everyone has an opinion...what's yours? ;-)
06-04-02, 08:38 PM Sarai It's a difficult question to answer, Strider, because I'm not sure what I think. However, since you asked, you're going to have to read my half-baked response (meaning I reserve the right to change my mind 5 minutes from now! cool )!
After reading about the history of Vietnam, I've mainly become aware of how little I know about it. It seems clear that Vietnam had been used by outsiders for their own agendas for a long time - first the French, then the Japanese, then the Chinese, then the Americans.
The Vietnam war wasn't really our war, so it's hard to say if we were the aggressors. Yes, we attacked a nation that had not attacked us, which we can define as aggression. On the other hand, we were trying to help another nation (South Vietnam) with the belief that what they were figting for was right. I'm not sure if you can define helping someone fight a war that has no bearing on your well-being as aggression or not.
I guess the question then would be whether the people we were helping were the aggressors. Whether North Vietnam or South Vietnam was the aggressor isn't clear, mainly because so much of what happened in each region was the result of the French, not the Vietnamese people themselves. On the one hand, Ho Chi Minh was dishonest and the people didn't seem to have a clear understanding of what he planned for Vietnam. North was really building up its military, but thanks to our help, so was South Vientam. To make things more complicated, our ally Diem refused to recognize the Geneva agreement and wouldn't hold elections, even though that was explicity a part of the agreeement. To me, not upholding an agreement of such import during a time of heavy tension is an act of agression, to some degree - but North Vietnam was in no condition to hold elections either. However, it is my understanding that the majority of the Vietnamese - the South included - did not support Diem. However, in a non-democratic nation, is it aggression not to follow the will of the people?
I don't know who struck first, and I don't know if it matters. Both Diem and Minh were playing dirty, and we joined in. We were agressive, but we thought aggression was necessary to stop Minh's aggression, and I suppose Minh thought aggression was necessary to stop Diem's aggression, and I suppose Diem thought he wasn't being aggressive but simply not complying with a treaty he never signed anyway, plus, he was simply carrying on French aggression.
The French were aggressors, no doubt. But didn't they think they had to be aggressive to stop anti-Catholic aggression?
So there you go, Strider, a non-answer. Basically, an elongated version of my first answer: everyone was the aggressor and no one was the aggressor. A perfect example of the history train just running us all over!! frown
One side note - the one group who didn't seem to think they had to be aggressive to stop someone else's aggression were those monks who chose non-violent resistance. According to this article, the most famous monk who set himself on fire in protest of the anti-Buddhist actions of Diem "signalled the beginning of the end for President Ngo Dinh Diem's regime." Powerful, this successful little act of resistance amid all this fighting that wasn't going anywhere, huh?
[This message was edited by Sarai on 06-04-02 at 08:47 PM.]
06-04-02, 08:47 PM Strider0
quote:Originally posted by Sarai: It's a difficult question to answer, Strider...
Sarai, you've never disappointed me yet! This is a TERRIFIC "non-answer!" You haven't lost you're form!! As we say in the Navy, Bravo Zulu! :-)
06-04-02, 09:52 PM JoMS It all started with the "domino theory". The western democracies were afraid that the whole of the far east would "topple over" to communism one country after another, so they decided to draw a line in the sand. The French were in first (it was their colony originally) then us Brits and the Australians. (Is Australia a western democracy?) Then we all had the good sense to pull out and leave it to you guys. Yes, America was the agressor, but the government, and (at least at the start) the American people, felt that if they didn't hold the line, democracy was doomed - not just in the far east, but the rest of the world as well.
06-05-02, 03:54 AM moe257 Sarai stated it accurately. It is almost impossible to take a “stand” on who was right in this war, and yet so many did. I found some interesting points in this article. Many of us that grow up during that era felt as if we were fighting a civil war right her because of it. It appears that our initial involvement was righteous, but was dragged out with no plans for victory. The politics were dirty from the beginning and it cost a lot of civil and military deaths. But the climate here drew a line between the upper and lower classes. The upper middle class college groups were protesting while the so called blue collar’s had to send their children to a war they didn’t understand.the so called "educated" group may have understood more. But were joined by many who just wanted to protest anything.They didn't care if they were burning a flag, draft card or bra. It was just a chance to protest anything. It got real dirty. Many of the young people who fought this war could not afford college and either enlisted or was drafted, while college students were exempt. There are still many scars left from how the Americans handled their feeling toward this war. Many feelings still linger and many vets still fell they have to defend themselves. When we first went to Afghanistan, I was afraid the same thing would start again within this country.
[This message was edited by moe257 on 06-05-02 at 04:50 AM.]
06-05-02, 08:28 AM DaveMac Wow, so many really good answers, not just the anti-war/Hawk rhetoric of days past. The research is amazing, the thinking supurb!!! Thank You All!
All the reasons WHY we were there aside, let me give my view:
The North was trying to turn the entire country into a communist nation, with the help of China and Russia.
We, and certain other nations were trying to keep/make Nam a democracy.
Each side had ample political justifications: ours happened to be SEATO and 'The Domino Theory'.
Maybe it was just economics: that war sure was good for our industries, huh?
Anyway, cause doesn't really matter. Not to me, not then, not now.
I live in the greatest country in the world, and it asked me to help keep it that way. It's the least I can do.
I think that those of us who did not involve themselves in the politics/morality of the situation came home in far better emotional condition. We did what we were asked to do, right wrong or indifferent. Period.
NO, I'M NOT STANDING/HIDING BEHIND THE "JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS" DEFENSE. I'M PROUD TO HAVE SERVED. WAS THEN, STILL AM.
I know I'm going to get slapped hard for that sentiment, but that's life.
I'll be glad to discuss/debate any aspect of the war that I am familiar with, if done in a mature and respectful manner.
And to all of you out there who "humped the boonies": THANK YOU"!
smile
06-05-02, 10:54 AM Sarai I was born after the Vietnam war had ended. When I learn about the events of that time, I don't see it as an issue of right against wrong. Honestly, I think all sides had legitimate and good reasons for behaving as they did. Although we Americans tend to think of Vietnam as a sad war, I think it was also a time of great heroism.
Those who went to war deserve our respect for their bravery and willingness to sacrifice their lives for freedom. Thank you!
Those who protested the war also deserve our respect for their bravery and willingness to stand up for what they believed was right, and for what they believed was best for our country. That took a different kind of courage, but courage no less.
Despite the fact that we lost, despite the fact that we look back and see a lot of mistakes, despite all the strong emotions Vietnam still arises in people, I think it was a time of real heroism, all around, among all the American people - with the possible exception of our government.
06-05-02, 11:12 AM DaveMac Sarai:
Well said, and thank You smile
06-05-02, 03:15 PM moe257 Well Dave I guess we all owe you a "thank you" I don't think the veterans of that era have ever been given enough credit for the sacrafice made. I know guys who had to change out of their uniforms in airport bathrooms to avoid being attack by the peace loving doves. People who didn't grow up in those times find it hard to believe what the soldiers had to deal with on the home front
06-05-02, 05:14 PM Strider0 DaveMac, excellent posts! I salute you for your noble sacrifice and the thoughtful insight you've shared with us. Many thanks!
06-05-02, 05:53 PM DaveMac Thanks for your thanks, Moe & Strider and all.... I really do appreciate it.... I wouldn't have to take off my shoes to count the number of times I've heard that in the past 35 years. No, I'm not bitter about it, and I sincerely hope it doesn't sound that way. I also hope you can understand that there is no thanks necessary for serving my country. There was also no sacrifice. Have a great Day, and thanks again. Dave smile
06-05-02, 08:25 PM hippolips Before I retired I used to work for a company that was the leading manufacturer of Oilfield drilling instrumentation.In order to keep up with our competition I had to read a number of foreign Oil publications.One was the Australasian Oil and Gas Journal.One of their issues published a large map of Viet Nam and shown on the map was a group of Offshore Oil Leases running down the entire East Coast of Viet Nam.The leases were granted to all of the major Oil Companies worldwide...companies like Shell,Mobil,Exxon,BP[British Petroleum],etc.I still have a copy of this map in my possession. So it wasn't all about Communism in Viet Nam.. it was about the same reason we fought the Gulf War and the REAL reason we're in Afghanistan...it's all about OIL>>>OIL>>>OIL! mad
06-07-02, 06:06 AM Fritzzs Not the US for sure....The aggressor was North Korea, who was under a communist regime, and wanted to take South Korea under it rule..The US, under the UN, (and many other countries) came to the defense of the South...
06-07-02, 06:37 AM chanceygardner donrent - this was about Vietnam and not Korea...
06-07-02, 11:06 AM Fritzzs Who was the aggressor in the Vietnam War? That'll be the last time that I'll turn on the computer before coffee.. Geeeeeeze...How in the hill did I get Korea and VietNam mixed up.....Senior moment starting early I guess....
06-25-02, 01:30 AM babthrower During the second world war, after the French pulled out of Indo-China, Ho Chi Minh was our ally. He fought the Japanese. When the French tried to re-take Indo China after the war, he fought the French. When the French pulled out, Viet Nam was in a state of civil war, because Ho wanted a Communist state, and others wanted a Capitalist state. (Rather similar to Mao Tse Tung (Mao Zedong) and Chiang Kai-shek in China). Then the U.S. intervened because Ho was winning. The rest we know. I guess you could say that both France and the U.S. were aggressors, because they intervened in the contained war in another country. But the French thought they had the right to reclaim their colonial possessions, and the U.S. wanted to defeat Communism.
06-27-02, 04:02 AM mahal The US was certainly not the original aggressor in the Vietnam war. The whole conflict began when Hitler invaded France. Several Southeast Asian countries were former colonies of France, and when they lost power, the colonies smelled freedom from a foriegn power; Viet Nam happened to be the more agressive and ambitious of those countries. (I wish I knew more about how France treated their colonies before the war.)
So during the WW II, the colonies rebelled (I think we're talking about Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam). After the war, even before France could afford to do so, they returned to their colonies and tried to take them back. This is why France was at war in Vietnam for so long before we arrived on the scene (basically from 1946-1959 or so, I'm a little fuzzy on the dates).
Kennedy was the first to send over troops, 3000 of them, because he saw a small, vicious regime (the Viet Cong) being supplied by the Soviet Union and attempting to impose their form of government (communism) on their people contrary to the current form of government. He and Lyndon Johnson both underestimated the price of that involvement.
In that sense, I guess you could say that the US was an outside aggressor, but the Vietcong were the antagonists against their own people. In addition, North Vietnamese leaders were hypocritical in their criticism of US actions so far from home, since they were actively supplying the Pathet Lao (Red Laosians) and Kmer Rouge (Red Kmers--Cambodians) and even openly invading their territories to carry out their own interests.
(BABTHROWER: I don't think I've ever found myself in such articulate agreement with you.)
(HIPPOLIPS: That's a very interesting point of view. A signature move of communist states is the confiscation of private property and industry, regardless of foriegn interests. I've seen some of those offshore rigs transiting from Hong Kong around the penninsula a few years ago. I remember one of them was burning. Those methane fires burn pretty bright! At night, at 25 miles away they hurt to look at, and you can still see them from more than 120 miles south!)
[This message was edited by mahal on 06-27-02 at 04:18 AM.]
06-27-02, 10:19 AM chanceygardner Please take a look at the following site, and check out the History sections. This is about the least biased accounts I have seen and give a good background. The "aggressors" were certainly not the Vietnamese; they were fighting for their independence and not for a political falacy like 'The domino effect'.
