DogOnPorch Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 (edited) On the other hand, I think you're giving far too much credit to Jane Fonda and the morons who followed her. I'm giving too much credit to the anti-war movement during the Viet-Nam War? You're right. You weren't alive back then. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs4s7LrAuMo Edited November 17, 2011 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 MB: South Vietnam went communist because it was right on China's doorstep and the Western world didn't have the political will to do what it would take to stop it. The jungle helped too. Seems the West managed well with Japan, South Korea and Taiwan...also on Red China's doorstep. That wasn't the reason, obviously. Who knows what a modern South Viet-Nam would be like? Not making Nike runners for pennies an hour is my bet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 which is the point of phyrrihc victory...the cost of the war in financial, political and human costs exceed the desire to win... I hope you mean the nva got the pyhrric victory as they won the war while essentially losing their army. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 but then why should it? what business it of the western world to decide a nations choice of government?...which is the primary reason why there was so much opposition to the war... To be fair wyly, it wasn't really a matter of the US imposing democracy on Vietnam. It was a matter of China and North Vietnam invading democratic South Vietnam in order to impose communism on them. If I was an American, I would have been pretty pissed off that my government was sending me and/or my friends on some stupid idealogical crusade in a third-world crap hole, but other than that I think it was one of their morally reasonable endeavors. The idea was right (and the UN has regularly acted in similar conflicts) but the cost in American lives and just plain $$$ was way too high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 If I was South Vietnamese, I'd be pretty pissed off that my country was left high and dry by an ally that said it would stand side-by-side with me through the pain. But, what are millions of Boat People and millions dead in the Killing Fields and "re-education camps" worth compared to the wants and needs of the average draft aged citizen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 To be fair wyly, it wasn't really a matter of the US imposing democracy on Vietnam. It was a matter of China and North Vietnam invading democratic South Vietnam in order to impose communism on them. If I was an American, I would have been pretty pissed off that my government was sending me and/or my friends on some stupid idealogical crusade in a third-world crap hole, but other than that I think it was one of their morally reasonable endeavors. The idea was right (and the UN has regularly acted in similar conflicts) but the cost in American lives and just plain $$$ was way too high. to be fair china never invaded south vietnam and it was civil war so there was no invasion...western(french)imperialism/colonialism and the cancelation of the 1956 election was cause of the war... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 I hope you mean the nva got the pyhrric victory as they won the war while essentially losing their army. you don't understand what a pyrrihic victory is .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 (edited) to be fair china never invaded south vietnam and it was civil war so there was no invasion...western(french)imperialism/colonialism and the cancelation of the 1956 election was cause of the war... The war in Indochina started long before 1956. Infact, the war's roots go back to the Japanese occupation of French Indochina and the CID's efforts to make the Viet Minh an ally in the war effort. But why would you know that, eh? It's called the 10,000 Day War for a reason. As far as Red China's involvement in the Viet-Nam War: they provided weapons, advisors and logistical support as did the Soviets and other Communist countries of the day. AK-47s do not come from the AK-47 tree if you recall. Edited November 18, 2011 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 you don't understand what a pyrrihic victory is .... No...apparently you don't. The armies separated; and, it is said, Pyrrhus replied to one that gave him joy of his victory that one more such victory would utterly undo him. For he had lost a great part of the forces he brought with him, and almost all his particular friends and principal commanders; there were no others there to make recruits, and he found the confederates in Italy backward. On the other hand, as from a fountain continually flowing out of the city, the Roman camp was quickly and plentifully filled up with fresh men, not at all abating in courage for the loss they sustained, but even from their very anger gaining new force and resolution to go on with the war.---Plutarch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 During the 300 day period leading up to the supposed free unification referendum (never happened) over 1,000,000 people fled the North while only 50,000 civilians and about 100,000 PAVN cadres known as the Regroupies made the move from South to North. The Viet Minh closed the 17th before any more millions could spill across towards freedom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 War IS politics. Not one bullet flies and not one bomb drops without tax payers picking up the tab, and keeping taxpayers on-side is just as important to winning a war as any troop movements.If "politicians stay out of war", then all war efforts would have $0.00 dollars in funding. War is not Politics, but rather the Lack of or failure of...Other than approving of National interests and national objectives thier involvement is rather limited....Don't kid your self...if you think the tax payer has got any say in a total war situation IE like WWII was and when the Gen says bomb them ....they get bombed and you as a tax payer keeps paying and dying until someone says uncle.... Once the politicians start playing gen that is when things get all cocked up...just like Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq...to name a few... In Vietnam the Tax payer did have a major influence...hence why they lost, becuase it was not being run by the gens but wannabe Politicians Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 War is not Politics, but rather the Lack of or failure of...Other than approving of National interests and national objectives thier involvement is rather limited....Don't kid your self...if you think the tax payer has got any say in a total war situation IE like WWII was and when the Gen says bomb them ....they get bombed and you as a tax payer keeps paying and dying until someone says uncle.... Once the politicians start playing gen that is when things get all cocked up...just like Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq...to name a few... In Vietnam the Tax payer did have a major influence...hence why they lost, becuase it was not being run by the gens but wannabe Politicians nooo...even at simplest social levels among the warrior cultures the decision to go to war how to wage it and when to end it are political decisions... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 War is not Politics, but rather the Lack of or failure of...Other than approving of National interests and national objectives thier involvement is rather limited....Don't kid your self...if you think the tax payer has got any say in a total war situation IE like WWII was and when the Gen says bomb them ....they get bombed and you as a tax payer keeps paying and dying until someone says uncle.... Who is the Commander-in-Chief in the US? Who called the shots for Canada and Britain in WWII? Who made the ulitmate decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima? They call 'service' for a reason son. To serve. And to serve whom exactly? Here, let me help you out: Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces Though all executive power is legally reposed in the Crown, the role of commander-in-chief is primarily symbolic in practice; under the Westminster system's conventions of responsible government, the Cabinet — which advises the sovereign or her viceroy on the exercise of the executive powers — holds de facto decision making power over the deployment and disposition of Canadian forces. Hopefully that will clear things up for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 Who is the Commander-in-Chief in the US? Who called the shots for Canada and Britain in WWII? Who made the ulitmate decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima? They call 'service' for a reason son. To serve. And to serve whom exactly? Here, let me help you out: Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces Hopefully that will clear things up for you. the dropping of nuclear bombs on japan was a political decision...day to day running the military is in the hands of military commanders but major decisions/direction always need political approval Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 War is politics by other means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 Who is the Commander-in-Chief in the US? Who called the shots for Canada and Britain in WWII? Who made the ulitmate decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima? They call 'service' for a reason son. To serve. And to serve whom exactly? Here, let me help you out: Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces Hopefully that will clear things up for you. The King certainly didn't call the shots during either World War. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 to be fair china never invaded south vietnam and it was civil war so there was no invasion...western(french)imperialism/colonialism and the cancelation of the 1956 election was cause of the war... wyly I know that using words like 'imperialism' and 'corporations' etc give you a huge hard, but this statement just shows how naive you are and how little you know of Vietnam. North Vietnam didn't go communist on its own. It did so with MASSIVE Soviet and Chinese support. The invasion of South Vietnam was supplied with immeasurable Soviet and Chinese equipment. South Vietnam had no chance without American help and it's idiotic to think that Vietnam was merely just a civil war. The USSR and China were fighting the USA by proxy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 The King certainly didn't call the shots during either World War. Well then, tell us who did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 The over-priced, not-so-useful jet-plane is back... http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/11/18/pol-security-forum-halifax.html?cmp=rss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 (edited) wyly I know that using words like 'imperialism' and 'corporations' etc give you a huge hard, but this statement just shows how naive you are and how little you know of Vietnam. North Vietnam didn't go communist on its own. It did so with MASSIVE Soviet and Chinese support. The invasion of South Vietnam was supplied with immeasurable Soviet and Chinese equipment. South Vietnam had no chance without American help and it's idiotic to think that Vietnam was merely just a civil war. The USSR and China were fighting the USA by proxy. here's a history lesson for ya jr...french occupation of indochina was colonial and it was imperialistic(do a google if you don't know the definition of two concepts)...chinese and soviet union merely supplied the equipment to the vietnamese to drive out the french colonial forces that attempted to reoccupy indochina after the war with japanese...the war with the south was a civil war, a reunification of north and south ironically just like the US civil war...the north vietnamese communist movement was home grown, Ho Chi Minh founded the viet minh in 1941...he began his communist political career in france separate from any soviet influence by way of the french socialist party and was a founding member of the french communist party..before chinese communist party was founded...he even tried to approach the US government to help gain independence from the french after ww1...you know what gives me awesome wood moonbox???.. schooling people in history....consider yourself spanked and schooled... Edited November 18, 2011 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 Well then, tell us who did. Parliament. David Lloyd George...Chamberlain...Churchill...House of Lords...House of Commons. You might have heard of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 Parliament. David Lloyd George...Chamberlain...Churchill...House of Lords...House of Commons. You might have heard of them. You mean politicians right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Road Posted November 19, 2011 Report Share Posted November 19, 2011 this is a hell of a lot of money to be spending on 65 jet fighters. can we really justify spending this in the current climate economically? and they aren't even capable of communicating in the arctic zone because of technology issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted November 19, 2011 Report Share Posted November 19, 2011 this is a hell of a lot of money to be spending on 65 jet fighters. can we really justify spending this in the current climate economically? and they aren't even capable of communicating in the arctic zone because of technology issues. What would you propose as an alternate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 19, 2011 Report Share Posted November 19, 2011 You mean politicians right? No...Parliament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.