Vietnam, was it a huge mistake?

Discussion in 'Historical Events Coffee House' started by Evil_Bullet, Sep 15, 2011.

  1. Evil_Bullet New Member

    Member Since:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Message Count:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Some say the Vietnam "conflict" was a huge mistake for the U.S, Australia, and all the other countries who fought in the "conflict". What are your guys' thoughts on it?
  2. Vassilli1942 Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Message Count:
    2,042
    Likes Received:
    509
    Trophy Points:
    143
    Location:
    Long Island, NY USA
    It should for just been a civil war between the people of Vietnam. The US should of stayed out of it.
  3. Big Brother Active Member

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2011
    Message Count:
    355
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    New Jerseyland
    But who would have stop the communist plague from spreading all over Asia!!!!!!!!!

    [spoiler:24httbfj]Just kidding :D , but in all seriousness it was a bullshit war due to the anti communist sentiment of the time. We should have stayed out of it.[/spoiler:24httbfj]
  4. General Mosh Citystates Founder!

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,310
    Likes Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    193
    Location:
    Scattered to the 4 corners of Earth
    Due to our mindset at the time it was a war we just couldn't stay out of without losing face.
  5. Vassilli1942 Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Message Count:
    2,042
    Likes Received:
    509
    Trophy Points:
    143
    Location:
    Long Island, NY USA
    Yes becuase the United States had to stand up to the big bad Communist.
  6. Big J Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Apr 12, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,206
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Portland, Oregon
    Um yeah, we kind of had to. If we let N. Vietnam steamroll S. Vietnam without intervening, that would have been a major blow to us diplomatically. We had to show that we would aid our allies against Communist enemies.
  7. Vassilli1942 Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Message Count:
    2,042
    Likes Received:
    509
    Trophy Points:
    143
    Location:
    Long Island, NY USA
    Um yeah, we kind of had to. If we let N. Vietnam steamroll S. Vietnam without intervening, that would have been a major blow to us diplomatically. We had to show that we would aid our allies against Communist enemies.[/quote:317u16lh]
    OK I get what you mean but we should of figured out that long before we did that we weren't winning the war it shouldn't have lasted almost 9 years. 1964-1973.
  8. slydessertfox Total War Branch Head

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Message Count:
    11,853
    Likes Received:
    1,425
    Trophy Points:
    373
    Location:
    Mars
    OK I get what you mean but we should of figured out that long before we did that we weren't winning the war it shouldn't have lasted almost 9 years. 1964-1973.[/quote:vgd65wel]
    We technically never lost.
  9. Vassilli1942 Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Message Count:
    2,042
    Likes Received:
    509
    Trophy Points:
    143
    Location:
    Long Island, NY USA
    We technically never lost.[/quote:2w7hpl83]
    Technically no but in 1975 the North steamrolled the South and it was united under communism so I count it as a lose.
  10. slydessertfox Total War Branch Head

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Message Count:
    11,853
    Likes Received:
    1,425
    Trophy Points:
    373
    Location:
    Mars
    They steamrolled the South AFTER we made a peace treaty.
  11. pedro3131 Running the Show While the Big Guy's Gone

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    3,949
    Likes Received:
    633
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Tempe, Az
    OK I get what you mean but we should of figured out that long before we did that we weren't winning the war it shouldn't have lasted almost 9 years. 1964-1973.[/quote:262zl90n]

    Really you can only think about it in terms of when did we send a major commitment, which would shorten the window to 68-73. Judging by that figure it puts us right on par with every other major conflict of that century
  12. ddbb New Member

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Message Count:
    158
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Um yeah, we kind of had to. If we let N. Vietnam steamroll S. Vietnam without intervening, that would have been a major blow to us diplomatically. We had to show that we would aid our allies against Communist enemies.[/quote:3b14w3r3]

    Yeah becouse they don't want another 1956. :|
  13. Vassilli1942 Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Message Count:
    2,042
    Likes Received:
    509
    Trophy Points:
    143
    Location:
    Long Island, NY USA
    I get what you mean its just the reason for us to go to Vietnam was to stop the spread of communism and in the end they fell to the Communist. So all the War did was to stop the spread for a few years.
  14. The Shaw Rawnald Gregory Erickson the Second

    Member Since:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,426
    Likes Received:
    1,033
    Trophy Points:
    243
    Location:
    New York
    I absolutely love how how people say we were losing.
    Yes we lost, but at the time, we were winning!

    The Communists never made a gain on us until we started withdrawing.
    We lost because our forces were ordered not to invade North Vietnam, and to let the South do the invading, while we helped them defend.
    They didn't. So we withdrew.
    The idiocy on these forums makes me cringe.
  15. Kalalification Guest

    Member Since:
    Message Count:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We didn't lose. We signed a peace treaty that guaranteed our one victory condition (independent South Vietnam that wouldn't be attacked by the North). We withdrew and then the NVA rolls into to the South. Not our fault that the North Vietnamese's word is entirely worthless and they are treacherous scum who wait until their enemy is without defense to pounce.
  16. The Shaw Rawnald Gregory Erickson the Second

    Member Since:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,426
    Likes Received:
    1,033
    Trophy Points:
    243
    Location:
    New York
    Don't you just love how popular defeatism is in this country?
  17. Vassilli1942 Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Message Count:
    2,042
    Likes Received:
    509
    Trophy Points:
    143
    Location:
    Long Island, NY USA
    I get what you mean we weren't losing aganist the forces of North Vietnam. I think the bigger question is what did the US get out of this war and was it worth the 58,000 dead America's
  18. slydessertfox Total War Branch Head

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Message Count:
    11,853
    Likes Received:
    1,425
    Trophy Points:
    373
    Location:
    Mars
    The funny thing is, the Tet Offensive was a disaster for North Vietnam. Yet it turned the people against the war... :|
  19. Vassilli1942 Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Message Count:
    2,042
    Likes Received:
    509
    Trophy Points:
    143
    Location:
    Long Island, NY USA
    Completely true
  20. Imperial1917 City-States God of War

    Member Since:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,032
    Likes Received:
    621
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Was Vietnam a huge mistake?
    The short answer would be yes.

    The problem was the way in which the U.S. handled the affair.
    1. The 'democratic' government that the U.S. backed was A) not democratic, the votes were frauds; and b) not supported by the majority of the South Vietmanese population. While, like everywhere [China included], democracy had the oppertunity to establish and flourish, the way in which it was inserted was wrong and lacked a proper popular support.

    2. The military policies were logical in a grand strategy sense, but they made 'winning' [nobody really wins in war] nearly impossible. The divide line [somebody help me out, I forgot what it was called] prevented the U.S. from pushing into N. Vietnam. This gave the N. Vietmanese [the Vietcong] untouchablility when they retreated, with the exceptions of air raids. And the war was unwinnable. If the U.S. tried to move further north, the Chinese would ACTUALLY SEND troops and drive the war into a stalemate. The U.S., though with better technology, couldn't push the Chinese back, but neither could the Chinese do the same to the U.S., even with far greater numbers.

    3. The [arguably] biggest problem with the war was that it was unsupported back home. What ended the war was more of homeland unrest than losses overseas. The people simply stopped believeing in the war, so it failed. When you draft for a war, and you don't have rows of civilians lining up to get in BEFORE they are drafted [like in WW2], clearly there is some lack of enthusiasm. When you have civil unrest and peaceful protests/riots prosestin the war, its probably time to stop. Especially when some of them are sane, rational people and others are actual soldiers returning from the war.

Share This Page

Facebook: