Is there a lesson here?

This one isn't -- but it's pragmatically just as big a mistake, as is finally clear to a majority of Americans. It's been clear to a majority of the world from the git-go.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Preserving freedom is a laudable goal, and that is certainly our stated objective in Iraq; however, I'm not sure the Vietnam war had much to do with preserving freedom for the Vietnamese.

I mean no disrespect for our soldiers who served Vietnam, including my Father, who spent some time there with the USAF. They did their job, many of them did more than their job, almost all were honorable men. I do respect that.

What I'm questioning is the judgment of the US political leadership in getting us into Vietnam in the first place. They presumably thought they were doing the right thing at the time, but from what I can tell they were excessively influenced by the general level of anti-Soviet paranoia so prevalent in the US during the early years of the conflict. I'm too young to speak from deep personal experience of the political climate of the early war years, but my impression is that much of our political thinking about foreign countries was very much along the line of: if you aren't for us, you must be pro-communist. The world isn't that simple. I'm not saying we should have supported North Vietnam; I'm just not sure we should have stuck our noses in their in the first place.

Was the domino theory right? I doubt it. Either way, though, we'll never be sure.

thought in those terms. They were, however, determined to resist communist expansion through wars of aggression. Whatever the political merits, there were clearly many including both South Vietnamese and various tribal groups who did not want to live under communist rule. Thus, at least part of the military effort was to extend self determination to these people.

Basically, JFK was sucked in little by little until he was committed. First advisors, then helicopters for transport, then troops for protection, etc. However, the goal included helping the South Vietnamese defend themselves. Militarily, we won, but the military was undercut by the chorus of criticism that we see today, as well as the political refusal to commit the force needed to achieve overwhelming victory. The result was the fiasco that ensued and much bitterness within our military.

The Democrats are striving mightily to rebuild that situation today. They are undermining, at every opportunity, the things that are being accomplished, and IMO are working against our national interest. They are attempting to prove that the US cannot fight and win a war. It looks like maybe the public doesn't have what it takes to sustain any extended war effort. This is particularly true when the politicians are screaming that we can't win.

I think people like JFK and RFK would be appalled.

until AFTER it became public news that the politicians were the ones pulling the strings on how it was fought.

And your belief that this war "is a mistake and finally clear to a majority of Americans" is incorrect since there are only a handful (such as Sheehan) of civilians actually protesting it here in the USA and lots of politicans maneuvering for the next election based on what you think.

And every single one of you few are wrong.........

TONI

<<you few are wrong>>

Politicians want to be with the majority or they won't be "paid" politicians.

If there are only a "few" and they are "wrong".

Are the politician maneuvering to get the wrong (minority) vote?

swing in the direction of the MONEY that is being dumped in their direction.....they very rarely swing in the direction of what the PEOPLE who elected them want. And when the money is coming from organizations like moveon.org and the moore-ons, it's big bucks.

Like war...when you vote for a representative, it is a crap shoot.

So the politicians are the ones pulling the strings again....and they're wrong again.

TONI

whats imoral is your foaming at the mouth as you have what proof

let's not forget how many millions would have died had the communists had a free reign (Pol Pot any one???)

Even though the communists would undoubtedly have killed a lot of people, I don't think you would have seen more of Pol Pot. I'm not sure the communists want to be associated with Pol Pot either. The communists would have had their purges, re-education camps and so forth. But Pol Pot? I doubt it.

look at the history of the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, commonist rule = unabated murders

I didn't claim that Soviets or Chinese or ... played nice or that they didn't kill people. I did claim that the Soviets and others weren't in the same league as Pol Pot. Pol Pot may have called himself a Maoist but that doesn't mean other communist governments made similar choices or that they approved of his choices.

According to the Wikipedia article on Pol Pot:
Pol Pot's regime killed between 1.5 - 2.3 million people between 1975-1979. By some accounts, nearly 1 out of every 8 Cambodians were murdered.

Stalin certainly didn't do anything that dramatic in terms of the proportion of the population. Even Mao's China didn't kill people on that large a scale, at least proportionately.

I'm not sure anybody has good numbers for North Korea, but I suspect that an accurate tally of deaths due to their government would be large. However, my guess is that much of those deaths would be from causes other than political execution. The North Koreans have botched their economic management even more than China and the Soviets, and from what I've heard there's a lot of malnutrition and other non-political but avoidable deaths there.

Since statistics have come into play in this thread, here's a link to list of some basic statistics about the war in Vietnam link: http://capmarine.com/cap/statistics.htm

% of draftees and the socioeconomic background. We've heard for 40 years that only illiterate ethnics from the ghettos got drafted/served/died

I was in the military during that period (1970 - 73), and I think that had that number of troops bolted, somebody would have given those of us who remained a stiff briefing.

Unsubstantiated "facts", dubious assumptions and a total blindness to reality; there you have the state of the contemporary left.

whatever I want it to be.

Eleanor is a regular on the McLaughlin Group.

It's typical for many posters who do little or no research to sit back and take pot shots at posts by more conscientious posters who do research. I have attempted to support the information in my posts with references. I have seen no indication that people check those references. Instead, by and large,they just take issue with what was posted without trying to support what they say. Since the information I have posted came from a large number of sources, it would have taken me much more time if I had attempted to keep taps on those varius sources. If you contest the validity of what I have posted, do your own research to support that. Unless, of course, you want to be like some many posters and just make up statements without doing research to support them. I came by my information by googling Vietnam war polls, and using other terms which I don't recall. You are free to do the same.

with another statistical site listed/linked by another member further down the thread.

TONI

ignor threads that dispute your "claim"