ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Did the United States Really Lose the Vietnam War?

Updated on June 19, 2013
Source

Pursuant to post World War II Containment, the origins of which perhaps were best expressed in the 1947 Truman Doctrine, and the resulting Cold War that followed, the United States became involved in Vietnam during the mid 1950s in effort to prevent the spread of communism, and Soviet influence. There's no question after North Vietnam was declared an independent communist nation following World War II, North Vietnamese Prime Minister, Ho Chi Minh lead the North Vietnam Army and the Viet Cong with every intention of overrunning, and spreading communism into South Vietnam, which had been partitioned by the 1954 Geneva Conference, with support from South Vietnamese politicians, as a non-communist nation. Up until 1965 the United States' involvement in Vietnam had consisted primarily of the deployment of military advisers assigned there to aid South Vietnam soldiers in defending their grounds against communist uprisings. After a United States Defense Secretary Report on October 2, 1963 indicating that the United States task in Vietnam could be completed by the end of 1965, United States President, John F. Kennedy, signed NSAM 263 on October 11, 1963, warranting a gradual withdrawal of United States military advisers there. However, a communist coup in South Vietnam on November 1, 1963, which resulted in the assassination of anti-communist South Vietnamese President, Ngo Dinh Dien, shadowed some of the American optimism for an imminent victory there, and prompted United States President Lyndon B. Johnson to sign NSAM 273 on November 26, 1963, which allowed for President Kennedy's intended withdrawal, but also provided assurances to the Vietnamese that the United States still had every intention of supporting the South Vietnamese government, as well as their people, in their quest to defend their state against communist invaders.

After a congressional resolution in 1964 allowing the United States Commander and Chief to deploy military personnel in foreign nations without declaring war, in response to reported attacks by North Vietnamese torpedo boats upon a United States destroyer in the Gulf of Tonkin, The first United States combat troops were deployed in Vietnam in 1965, to provide protection for United States' airbase in Da Nang. With the North Vietnam Army and the Viet Cong fighting fiercely, and reluctant to surrender, additional United States combat troops were deployed there consistently throughout the months that followed, with ground troop numbers reaching their peak by 1968. With American public support for the war declining in 1968, following a series of surprise and brutal attacks by communist forces on United States and South Vietnam soldiers early that year called the Tet Offensive, the United States began to gradually withdraw its troops from Vietnam. In 1975, with very few United States troops remaining there, the North Vietnamese Army invaded the South Vietnamese capitol of Saigon, drove out remaining United States troops, and reunited South Vietnam with North Vietnam as a communist nation. Well over a million Vietnamese soldiers, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese civilians, and over 58,000 United States military personnel lost their lives there between the late 1950s and the end of the United States' involvement there in 1975. If measured in today's economy, the United States also spent close to 700 billion dollars on defending South Vietnam from communism during this time-frame.

A lot of Americans believe it was a mistake for us to have ever gotten involved in Vietnam. Massive opposition to this military action, however, didn't begin until after our situation there began to appear far more difficult than originally expected. The truth is, we didn't really know what we were getting ourselves into in Vietnam. We had just come out of a war in Korea, also involving containment of communism, victoriously, and we didn't expect Vietnam to be a whole lot different. As it turned out, the North Vietnam Army and the Viet Cong were prepared to stand up against any invasion in pursuit of their cause. They knew they'd suffer far more casualties than us, but much like the United States against Great Britain in the eighteenth century American Revolution, they were fighting for a cause they believed in very strongly, and many of them were prepared to die for their country to prove it. They also had numerous years of experience fighting for this cause prior to our involvement there, (particularly against the French, who had occupied their nation under colonial rule from 1885 until World War II, and again after World War II, from 1945 until 1954 when, after eight years of battle against the North Vietnamese, they were forced to surrender and end their colonial regime there), they had jungles and bunkers, (already dug by the time we first arrived), to hide in and to exploit for guerrilla warfare, and they had plenty of support from their communist allies, including the Soviet Union, (much of which the United States wasn't even aware of until after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989).

That being said, to have not gotten involved in Vietnam to at least put forth our best efforts within reason would've been the equivalent of betraying our commitment to fight the spread of communism. With the exception of South Vietnam, and the bordering small nations of Cambodia and Laos, all of which had expectantly converted to communism by 1978, communism didn't spread following our withdrawal from Vietnam, which most likely can be highly attributable to the efforts we did put forth there. What nation would possibly want to risk suffering from as many casualties as Vietnam did as a result of the United States' involvement there? Despite the fall of Saigon, we made an impression there regarding our devotion to prevent communism that stood for future decades, and could very easily be the reason peace and democracy remain dominant worldwide ideologies to this day.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • ib radmasters profile image

      ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

      Yes, the United States did lose the Vietnam War

      The goal wasn't to stop communism

      n in other countries, it was specific to support South Vietnam. Clearly that never happened.

      We did much better in Korea, but that was a standoff failure, and I believe it encouraged North Vietnam to take their shot at us.

      In both cases, it was China and Russia that supported these two countries. This had a stifling effect on our military actions.

      Setting the stage for these failures was the give away to Russia at the end of WWII. This enabled the cold war, and once Russia stole the plans for the A bomb, it put the world on notice of a possible nuclear war.

      The difference between WWII and Korea and Vietnam is that no one took it as a physical threat to the US. It then just became an unnecessary and costly police action.

      Like Desert Storm, there was a major loss of support for our troops and the drain on the budget. The left wing is the non combative wing of the US. At least since the Korean War.

      The point is that the United States cannot win wars dragging the political left. If and when we go to war, we should be there to win.

      911 brought everyone together in the US, just like the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941. But, then we went into Iraq and that was a lot more like the Vietnam War losing the support of the left.

      This apathy is political and it will prevent the US from winning any wars. The military victories are only winning battles, and not the war.

      The fact that North Korea is once again a threat tells us how badly we did in the Korean War. Also our failure to free the hostages in Iran during the Carter Administration is probalby the reason the Iran is still a big threat.

      LBJ was not a JFK and he botched the Vietnam situation.

      Finally, the US has a broken political system, congress has been gridlocked for most of the last one hundred years, and got worst with every decade after WWII. And the same support that the people gave during the Vietnam is alive and well today.

      I did like the details in your hub.

    • lukemike92 profile image
      Author

      lukemike92 4 years ago

      I appreciate your comment, but I think you're missing the point of my article. Firstly, you mentioned that our goal wasn't to stop communism, but to support South Vietnam, but preventing a communist invasion there was the purpose for our support. With regards to the goal of preventing a communist government in South Vietnam, we were unsuccessful. I've been clear that Saigon fell in '75, and South Vietnam became a communist nation. But with regards to the goal of preventing the domino effect from occurring, I believe we did succeed. Had we not gone there, other nations considering reforming their governments to reflect communist ideologies would not have perceived us as a potential obstacle. Once we were there, we had to fight to win, but within reason. They weren't like Japan, they didn't take a shot at us, (except likely at the Gulf of Tonkin, but that was within their boundaries after we'd already arrived there). We didn't stop Saigon from falling to communist forces, but we made an impression about our commitment to fighting communism that I believe accomplished a longer term goal of preventing other nations from following in the communist footsteps. We had the same goal in Korea, where I don't deny we made a few mistakes, but the result of our military action there was overrall perceived as a victory in that we drove communist invaders out of South Korea, and kept them out. It's mainly development of weapons of mass destruction, rather than communism, than make North Korea a perceived threat today. The American public also did initially support fighting communism from spreading in foreign nations that weren't perceived as physical threats to our nation. It wasn't until the late 60's that support for such military actions began to dwindle. I also disagree with you that American military actions have not received bipartison support. While the two parties clearly have distinctive beliefs, both the left and the right wings of our government have initiated military actions by this nation in similar ways. I respect your feelings about this nations' military actions, but there's a lot you've wrote here that I couldn't disagree with more.

    • ib radmasters profile image

      ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

      LM

      "I appreciate your comment, but I think you're missing the point of my article. Firstly, you mentioned that our goal wasn't to stop communism, but to support South Vietnam, but preventing a communist invasion there was the purpose for our support. With regards to the goal of preventing a communist government in South Vietnam, we were unsuccessful. I've been clear that Saigon fell in '75, and South Vietnam became a communist nation.

      ib-----------------------------------

      That was the reason for the war, and it failed. That is the point.

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

      But with regards to the goal of preventing the domino effect from occurring, I believe we did succeed. Had we not gone there, other nations considering reforming their governments to reflect communist ideologies would not have perceived us as a potential obstacle.

      ib-----------------------------------

      Showing thw world that we couldn't win over North Vietnam sent a clear signal to any country that the US has an Achilles Heal. Today it is the extremist Muslims, and before that it was Iraq in Desert Storm. The US did a UN job of it, that resulted in Saddam Hussein still in power and causing the US to go back there over a decade later.

      Vietnam was lost because LBJ was not a JFK and congress let the troops down, with 550,000 military in Vietnam at the peak, it was definitely a loss not to have saved South Vietnam.

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

      Once we were there, we had to fight to win, but within reason. They weren't like Japan, they didn't take a shot at us, (except likely at the Gulf of Tonkin, but that was within their boundaries after we'd already arrived there). We didn't stop Saigon from falling to communist forces, but we made an impression about our commitment to fighting communism that I believe accomplished a longer term goal of preventing other nations from following in the communist footsteps.

      ib-----------

      Today we have the same problem with the extremist Muslims, and it is even worse because they don't have their own country. Like a virus they infect the country that they go into.

      So we learned little to nothing from Vietnam, and we appear to be as clueless with Iraq, and Afghanistan where it is the extremists and not the country that we are fighting there.

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

      We had the same goal in Korea, where I don't deny we made a few mistakes, but the result of our military action there was overrall perceived as a victory in that we drove communist invaders out of South Korea, and kept them out. It's mainly development of weapons of mass destruction, rather than communism, than make North Korea a perceived threat today.

      ib-------------------------

      The point of focusing on communism is the problem, it is not the ideology that we need to worry about but the threats that it directly poses on us and the world. Communism just is their way of coming together.

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

      The American public also did initially support fighting communism from spreading in foreign nations that weren't perceived as physical threats to our nation. It wasn't until the late 60's that support for such military actions began to dwindle. I also disagree with you that American military actions have not received bipartison support. While the two parties clearly have distinctive beliefs, both the left and the right wings of our government have initiated military actions by this nation in similar ways. I respect your feelings about this nations' military actions, but there's a lot you've wrote here that I couldn't disagree with more."

      ib----------------------

      You can disagree all you want but you don't have the facts to support your opinions.

      Today, the US is filled with people that empathize with the terrorists and how they are being treated by the US. Since 911 the people have crumbled from unanimous support of going to Afghanistan, and even Iraq to the same mentality seen during the Vietnam War.

      The politics and the people have failed to support the hundreds of thousands of the military that put their lives on the line from them and the country. Yet, Afghanistan and Iraq since 911 have fostered the same lack of support from the people and the congress.

      Whether it is communism or terrorism the people don't support doing anything about it, if there is no physical presence of it in our country.

      The congress didn't support President George W Bush when he went into Iraq. They didn't appropriate the necessary funds to support the troops, and they did this in protest of his actions.

      I don't care whether the president or the congress was wrong because it was wrong to send troops that were ill equipped for the engagements that they met.

      I suspect from your opinions here that you might be supporting the apathetic people and congress.

      I gave my details starting from WWII to the present day, and gave my reasons why I made those statements. Instead of telling me how much you disagree with me, I would appreciate your focus on my specific statements and why you disagree with them.

      We touched over some them, but you didn't make any compelling arguments to support your position.

      Do you really believe that the US today is capable of winning any war, when the congress cannot even agree on the simplest of issues domestically?

      Winning a war is more than winning military battles, it is accomplishing the reason that we went to war in the first place.

      The people and the congress have not learned from history, and they have the same mentality that they did after the Korean War.

      That mentality costs the unnecessary loss of life of those in the military to whom they don't support either monetarily or morally.

      Congress is broken, and the people are sheep.

      Look at the country today and tell me how that is an incorrect statement.

      It might be helpful if you explain your definition of War, and how a war is won.

      Then apply it to Vietnam. where you contend it was to save S Vietnam from communism from N. Vietnam.

      I believe that my arguments are within the scope of the title of your hub.

      But this is your hub, your rules .

    • lukemike92 profile image
      Author

      lukemike92 4 years ago

      You're still clearly failing to see the point of my article. My thesis is that our military involvement in Vietnam did not go in vain. It's supported with the fact that the only countries that fell to communism following the fall of Saigon were South Vietnam and the bordering small nations of Laos and Cambodia. The later two nations of which we expected would go that route in the event South Vietnam was forced to surrender. With these expected exceptions, communism stopped spreading after 1978, and I think you're failing to give this country its due credit. We feared that if South Vietnam fell to communism, the domino effect would kick in. South Vietnam fell, but not until after a long and costly fight, a fight no nation would ever want to risk sufferring through. The domino effect did not kick in thereafter, and to the soldiers who fought and died in Vietnam, against an opponent with will, experience, geographical circumstances, and sheer numbers working to their advantage, I for one offer them their due credit. They fought to prevent a form of government, the ideologies of which place the liberties associated with democracy in question, from spreading and growing stronger. Considering the fate of communism thereafter, they succeeded. As for the polititians who commanded the military action there, there's no reason to suggest Kennedy could've commanded the military any better than LBJ, (or Nixon for that matter). After Kennedy agreed not to invade Cuba to reduce the relevant Soviet nuclear threat, he never had much opportunity to express his ability as Commander and Chief while president, but it's fair to say he was no less human than any other politician who served during, and made decisions regarding the military action in Vietnam. It wasn't the politicians who lost the our military action there. We were simply a victim of circumstance. If we had been forced to do it again under different circumstances, the end result very easily could have been equally different. We lost public support for Vietnam, as my Hub already indicates, once victory was perceived as less certain. Much like the terroristic wars referenced in your second comment, our involvement there was lasting longer, and turning out to be more costly than the public had originally anticipated. It was inevitable under the circumstances, but it does not contradict my thesis that our efforts there went in vain in any way. As for what I disagree with you on? With regards only to the topics you addressed that were actually on issue with my Hub, you indicated that we can't win wars, and Vietnam is proof of that, that Vietnam was unnecessary, and that Vietnam was lost at the hands of politians. I think it goes without saying that I disagree with you strongly on these points. With regards to the other topics you've addressed that were not relevant to my Hub, again, I respect your feelings about the history of American military actions in general, but this Hub was not intended to be an unleashing ground for those feelings. Democracy stands strong worldwide today, but this fact doesn't remain true as a result of apathy. We fought to keep democracy alive and strong. Our military efforts in Vietnam were not in vain.

    • ib radmasters profile image

      ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

      LukeMike

      "You're still clearly failing to see the point of my article. My thesis is that our military involvement in Vietnam did not go in vain.

      ib=====

      Then you need to change your title, because it clearly is about the War.

      ===============

      It's supported with the fact that the only countries that fell to communism following the fall of Saigon were South Vietnam and the bordering small nations of Laos and Cambodia. The later two nations of which we expected would go that route in the event South Vietnam was forced to surrender. With these expected exceptions, communism stopped spreading after 1978, and I think you're failing to give this country its due credit.

      ib=================

      Again, S Vietnam is what the US went to war to save, this was the spread of communism that they feared, and they failed.

      ==================

      We feared that if South Vietnam fell to communism, the domino effect would kick in. South Vietnam fell, but not until after a long and costly fight, a fight no nation would ever want to risk sufferring through.

      ib================

      This is just supposition, as North Korea is still looking for a fight, and they have no takers, even though they could go nuclear.

      =================

      The domino effect did not kick in thereafter, and to the soldiers who fought and died in Vietnam, against an opponent with will, experience, geographical circumstances, and sheer numbers working to their advantage, I for one offer them their due credit.

      ib===================

      The soldiers were not the problem. The congress and the people in the US were the problem.

      ====================

      They fought to prevent a form of government, the ideologies of which place the liberties associated with democracy in question, from spreading and growing stronger. Considering the fate of communism thereafter, they succeeded.

      ib================

      The limited victory in Korea, and the total failure in Vietnam emboldened other countries to challenge the US. Libya, and now many countries in the Middle East. Terrorism is not communism, it is more of a direct and physical threat. Even the military win in Desert Storm was a victory to Saddam Hussein, And the shock and awe won some military battles, but it didn't win the war, it was another Vietnam. The terrorist see the US as being soft, and its people not up to any more battles.

      =================

      As for the polititians who commanded the military action there, there's no reason to suggest Kennedy could've commanded the military any better than LBJ, (or Nixon for that matter). After Kennedy agreed not to invade Cuba to reduce the relevant Soviet nuclear threat, he never had much opportunity to express his ability as Commander and Chief while president, but it's fair to say he was no less human than any other politician who served during, and made decisions regarding the military action in Vietnam.

      ib===============

      If JFK didn't act the way he did in the Cuban Missile Crisis, there is no telling what would have happened.

      JFK supported withdrawing from Vietnam, and his tactic for S Vietnam was counter insurgency, not carpet bombing like LBJ. JFK survived WWII and he had a better understanding of the military and war than did LBJ.

      ==============

      It wasn't the politicians who lost the our military action there.

      ib================

      The politicians were the ones that pulled the reigns on the military, just like they did in Korea.

      ================

      We were simply a victim of circumstance. If we had been forced to do it again under different circumstances, the end result very easily could have been equally different. We lost public support for Vietnam, as my Hub already indicates, once victory was perceived as less certain.

      ib===========

      Public support was lost because of the failures that were happening in Vietnam. LBJ just kept throwing money and troops at the problem, but he didn't give his generals the green light to do their job. In both Korea and Vietnam congress was afraid of China and Russia getting involved if they actually took control of N Korea and N Vietnam. And both Russia and China came out of the US failure of winding up WWII. It makes no sense after Hitlers invasion of Eastern Europe to give those fallen countries to Russia. Talk about stopping communism, the US gave them the whole farm.

      ============

      Much like the terroristic wars referenced in your second comment, our involvement there was lasting longer, and turning out to be more costly than the public had originally anticipated. It was inevitable under the circumstances, but it does not contradict my thesis that our efforts there went in vain in any way.

      ib============

      So we have traded the threat of communism with that of terrorism.

      =============

      As for what I disagree with you on? With regards only to the topics you addressed that were actually on issue with my Hub, you indicated that we can't win wars, and Vietnam is proof of that, that Vietnam was unnecessary, and that Vietnam was lost at the hands of politians. I think it goes without saying that I disagree with you strongly on these points. With regards to the other topics you've addressed that were not relevant to my Hub, again, I respect your feelings about the history of American military actions in general, but this Hub was not intended to be an unleashing ground for those feelings.

      ib===========

      All my points are relevant to support the definition of a WAR that failed, and the reasons why it failed that were at play in Vietnam.

      =============

      Democracy stands strong worldwide today, but this fact doesn't remain true as a result of apathy. We fought to keep democracy alive and strong. Our military efforts in Vietnam were not in vain."

      ib===============

      Democracy keeps failing in countries around the world in the century alone, look at those countries in the Middle East that have tried for democracy, and failed.

      As I mentioned before, communism isn't the current threat, it is terrorism. Terrorism grew out of the failure of the US to win wars. Wars are not just military battles, the war covers the aftermath of the military withdrawal. It is that withdrawal that I deem the failure of the US to win the war. This includes Vietnam, but it really covers all the wars including WWII.

      What you call victory was really a deferment of future wars. Democracy is not even working in the US anymore. We have been going towards socialism since FDR ran the country. Now in this century we are going deeper into socialism.

      You keep reminding me that I am not on point for your hub, but the Vietnam War was lost by the US.

      If you can show a connection between our efforts in Vietnam, and the fall of the USSR, then I would agree that Vietnam was not in vain.

    • ib radmasters profile image

      ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

      LukeMike

      You might want to critique my hub

      Politics lose wars

      Thanks

    • profile image

      Sanxuary 4 years ago

      We never lost a battle in Vietnam but lost because we were unwilling to invade North Vietnam. This would have put us at war with China most likely but the Military objective could never be achieved with out us doing this. Still it succeeded in the long term by forcing a massive upgrade in the military in terms of technology and financially strangled both Russia and China. China would later sever its ties with Russia and both Countries would be unable to economically survive the future as America had the money to up grade and improve its economic and military future. All Military equipment except the very latest was developed during and because of the results of Vietnam.

    • lukemike92 profile image
      Author

      lukemike92 4 years ago

      Which undermines the notion that we didn't learn anything from the military action there. War's stimulate progress, which leads to faster technological advances.

      Getting back to Ib Radmaster's remarks, if you biased my article based on the title, perhaps you should've read the summary. Furthermore, I don't believe the title needs to be changed. It poses a question for readers to answer. If you don't believe 35 years without a nation converting to communism is a success, you've obviously answered that question for yourself. Rather than criticize those of us who do see this as a success, maybe you should check if there's a place left on the planet that hasn't established itself as a nation yet, as if the liberties our country has fought to provide you with aren't good enough, I doubt any country's will be.

      North Korea is looking for a fight? Are you their spokesman, because I haven't heard anyone from North Korea specify this yet. I said the domino effect never happened. North Korea is a nation that's advancing, and may become a threat again in the future, but that doesn't change the fact that no nation has converted to communism in 35 years.

      Where did I suggest the soldiers were a problem? I believe I made it clear the soldiers did the best they could under the circumstances. And the change in public support was inevitable. That just leaves the crooked politicians. It always has to blamed on some behind the scenes, shady, political motive. Hitler made some mistakes in his quest for world conquest, and since they cost him his life in the end, they were simply perceived as mistakes, but in our country it's always some shady, behind the scenes political motive that obstructs our military objectives. Yes, the politicians made mistakes in Vietnam. They were human. Whether or not perfection on our political end would've made a difference is a question for argument, but it doesn't change the fact our efforts there served a purpose.

      The only attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor was 911, which occurred 26 years after Vietnam ended. You're claiming that occurred because terrorists viewed us as soft on account of the outcome in Vietnam? Well I suppose we don't have to worry about that anymore, then, because the primary perpetrators of 911 are all dead, thanks to our perceivably "soft" nation.

      Did I say JFK made a mistake with the Cuba Missile crisis by agreeing not to invade Cuba? I said nothing other than there was no way of proving he could've commanded Vietnam any better than LBJ, or Nixon. LBJ served as an Officer during WWII as well. And there's also no way of demonstrating LBJ desired a troop withdraw from Vietnam any less than JFK did. A lot of reports in fact suggest JFK was aware of communist plans to assassinate Diem, and allowed it to occur in order to take control over the military situation in Vietnam. NSAM 263 says little about what would've happened in Vietnam had JFK survived for a second term in the white house.

      LBJ didn't give any Generals in Vietnam the green light to fight? Well, I guess all those battles I read about there were just fiction then. All the bombings, (America dropped more bombs in Vietnam than in both world wars combined), all the casualties, all the injuries, the ambushes, the fire missions, the air raids: apparently all just fiction.

      We didn't give any nations in Eastern Europe to Russia. Russia took them in the process of driving the Germans out, and invading Berlin. We didn't imperialize the West, but they imperialized the East, and those nations were under Soviet power before WWII ended. Our mission of containment was preventing communism from spreading, not provoking war with a super power, that could've went nuclear.

      I disagree that our country is switching to socialism. Our constitution has remained the same since this nation was founded. Our liberties and rights have not changed. The people still own this nation.

      We've traded communism for terrorism? Would've it been better to have closed our eyes and let the world convert to communism fifty years ago, so that democracy hating terrorists are not a threat today. Terrorism resulted from hatred of democracy, not our inability to win wars. The fact that it exists suggests we may have some fighting yet to do. That doesn't change the fact that our efforts in Vietnam served a purpose.

      To link Vietnam with the failure of communism in the Soviet Union involves speculation, but to credit Vietnam for the absence of any communist conversions in the past 35 years would require nothing more than an honest understanding of human nature. No nation wants to provoke war unless the cause is worthy enough. Our efforts in Vietnam demonstrated to other nations that communism wasn't worth it. Our efforts there served a purpose.

    • pramodgokhale profile image

      pramodgokhale 4 years ago from Pune( India)

      The containment of communism was a sincere effort by USA but military invasion or involvement further complicated the situation.

      Americans trapped in this war and USSR and China played a game without directly getting engaged since Korean war.

      1964 onwards this war flared up and lost of lives and destruction was the only outcome and no win against communists in the region.Laos and Cambodia were also destroyed.

      I agree democracy is great and we enjoy freedom of expression, i am an Indian, able to interact because of democracy in our country.

      Without participation of local mass , regimes or democratic institution can no be set up or changed.

      thank you for recollections

      pramod gokhale

    • ib radmasters profile image

      ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

      LM

      "Which undermines the notion that we didn't learn anything from the military action there. War's stimulate progress, which leads to faster technological advances.

      ib----------

      China is now where the US was in the 1950s, they have the money, they have the military, the weaponry, and they manufacture most of the products for the world.

      Russia not the USSR is still active and powerful

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

      Getting back to Ib Radmaster's remarks, if you biased my article based on the title, perhaps you should've read the summary. Furthermore, I don't believe the title needs to be changed. It poses a question for readers to answer. If you don't believe 35 years without a nation converting to communism is a success, you've obviously answered that question for yourself.

      ib-------------

      Once again, that was not the purpose of the Vietnam War, it was to stop communism in S Vietnam and that was a failure.

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

      Rather than criticize those of us who do see this as a success, maybe you should check if there's a place left on the planet that hasn't established itself as a nation yet, as if the liberties our country has fought to provide you with aren't good enough, I doubt any country's will be.

      ib-----------------

      The Unitied States is not the United States of the post WWII, the manufacturing giant, the home of freedoms, it has over the decades morphed into a country where the freedoms we used to have are now comprised by liberals and socialist.

      If you cannot see that, then you miss the whole point of my comments.

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

      North Korea is looking for a fight? Are you their spokesman, because I haven't heard anyone from North Korea specify this yet. I said the domino effect never happened. North Korea is a nation that's advancing, and may become a threat again in the future, but that doesn't change the fact that no nation has converted to communism in 35 years.

      ib-------------------

      As I pointed out several times, communism is not the current threat to the US and the world today, the current threat is the Middle East and terrorism. The extremist Muslims are spreading their ideaology around the world, and even Europe has been compromised by them.

      For communism we don't need any new countries when the population of China, which now includes what was non communist Formosa, is the big threat. They have survived because we didn't challenge them in Korea or Vietnam.

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

      Where did I suggest the soldiers were a problem? I believe I made it clear the soldiers did the best they could under the circumstances. And the change in public support was inevitable.

      ib-----------------

      The reason that I mentioned it is because your comment made it seem like I was blaming the soldiers, and that was not the case.

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

      That just leaves the crooked politicians. It always has to blamed on some behind the scenes, shady, political motive. Hitler made some mistakes in his quest for world conquest, and since they cost him his life in the end, they were simply perceived as mistakes, but in our country it's always some shady, behind the scenes political motive that obstructs our military objectives. Yes, the politicians made mistakes in Vietnam. They were human. Whether or not perfection on our political end would've made a difference is a question for argument, but it doesn't change the fact our efforts there served a purpose.

      ib--------

      Here is our main difference, you believe that the politicians were doing their best for the country, and I don't share that belief.

      In addition to the politicians, the people were also at fault. For whatever reason the US goes to war, the country, the politicians especially, and the people need to support it, otherwise we can never win the war. My contention, once again is that we have not won a war, including WWII.

      You ignored my comment on how during even the Vietnam was but especially the Iraq War congress didn't furnish the necessary support for the military.

      In Vietnam, the basic rifle issued to most of the military, failed in combat, and at one point they were using substandard but cheap parts in the rifles. This was unlike tha AK47 which could be used even when dirty.

      This was a decision by congress as a show of their lack of support of the Vietnam War. They congress during the Iraq War did similar cost cuts and failure to provide adequate and timely budgets to support the troops. Their motive was rebellion against president George W Bush, but it affected the troops directly.

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

      The only attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor was 911, which occurred 26 years after Vietnam ended. You're claiming that occurred because terrorists viewed us as soft on account of the outcome in Vietnam? Well I suppose we don't have to worry about that anymore, then, because the primary perpetrators of 911 are all dead, thanks to our perceivably "soft" nation.

      ib----------

      You keep posing your comments with a personal somewhat sinister tone on me, rather than my comments.

      You forget that the terrorists tried to take down the WTC with a bomb in the basement of the WTC a decade before 911. And you failed to mention all the attacks preceding 911 not on American Soil but on America abroad, its Navy, and its Embassies.

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

      Did I say JFK made a mistake with the Cuba Missile crisis by agreeing not to invade Cuba? I said nothing other than there was no way of proving he could've commanded Vietnam any better than LBJ, or Nixon. LBJ served as an Officer during WWII as well. And there's also no way of demonstrating LBJ desired a troop withdraw from Vietnam any less than JFK did.

      ib-----------------

      The fact is that based on how Kennedy got us out of a nuclear war, it does show he did the job, while what LBJ did in Vietnam is a fact of his failurel. LBJ is the one that escalated the US military observers to a full scale war and adding 535,000 military to the original JFK's 15,000.

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

    • ib radmasters profile image

      ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

      LM

      "A lot of reports in fact suggest JFK was aware of communist plans to assassinate Diem, and allowed it to occur in order to take control over the military situation in Vietnam. NSAM 263 says little about what would've happened in Vietnam had JFK survived for a second term in the white house.

      ib-----------------

      Adding a speculative report, to another speculation is not compelling. Before his death, JFK was preparing to recall the existing 15,000 troops in Vietnam. There was no talk about him escalating the number of troops.

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

      LBJ didn't give any Generals in Vietnam the green light to fight? Well, I guess all those battles I read about there were just fiction then. All the bombings, (America dropped more bombs in Vietnam than in both world wars combined), all the casualties, all the injuries, the ambushes, the fire missions, the air raids: apparently all just fiction.

      ib----------------

      Then you didn't read enough.

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

      We didn't give any nations in Eastern Europe to Russia. Russia took them in the process of driving the Germans out, and invading Berlin. We didn't imperialize the West, but they imperialized the East, and those nations were under Soviet power before WWII ended. Our mission of containment was preventing communism from spreading, not provoking war with a super power, that could've went nuclear.

      ib-----------

      So the goal of WWII was to remove Hitler and replace him with Stalin. Does that sound like the US won a World War? There was no threat of a nuclear war when the war ended. The US was the only country that even had the capability of a nuclear bomb. It wasn't until 1949 that Russia acquired the technology by the treason of the Rosenbergs stealing our plan.

      Not dealing with Russia at the end of the war, also deferred any military action causing the Cold War, during which time the USSR committed millions of atrocities on their captured states.

      All of which didn't have to happen if the US actually won the war and made the decsions on restoring the world to its pre war status, with the exceptions of Japan, and Germany. And let us not forget that Italy got away without any punishment or change from their alliance with Japan, and Germany.

      Russia was also part of the four, and just because they were invaded by their alliance partner shouldn't have made them clean, and certainly they shouldn't have allowed to benefit by taking Eastern Europe.

      You talk about communism, but say that it was OK for Russia to enslave Eastern Europe with communism. And they couldn't have done it without the help of the US politicians at the end of the war.

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

      I disagree that our country is switching to socialism. Our constitution has remained the same since this nation was founded. Our liberties and rights have not changed. The people still own this nation.

      ib--------

      What country to you live in, certainly not the USA?

      The constitution has changed by amendments, and the Supreme Court interpretations of what they thought the constitution means.

      As for the US, the political parties and their third party backers own the US, not the people.

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

      We've traded communism for terrorism? Would've it been better to have closed our eyes and let the world convert to communism fifty years ago, so that democracy hating terrorists are not a threat today. Terrorism resulted from hatred of democracy, not our inability to win wars. The fact that it exists suggests we may have some fighting yet to do. That doesn't change the fact that our efforts in Vietnam served a purpose.

      ib-----------------------

      Read my comment above on Russia getting Eastern Europe and justify it with your statement here.

      It is not a fact, just because you say it. Vietnam didn't change the threat of communism as China is on the verge of being the next Super Power. The USSR is gone, but Russia is still a world threat, if for nothing else they still have a large supply of nuclear weapons. They might even sell it to the terrorists at some point. My opinion of course.

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

      To link Vietnam with the failure of communism in the Soviet Union involves speculation, but to credit Vietnam for the absence of any communist conversions in the past 35 years would require nothing more than an honest understanding of human nature. No nation wants to provoke war unless the cause is worthy enough. Our efforts in Vietnam demonstrated to other nations that communism wasn't worth it. Our efforts there served a purpose.""

      ib----------------

      That is why Libya, Iraq, North Korea, Iran and many countries in the Middle East are doing just that, telling the world and the US stay out of our country.

      Today, Religion and not Communism is the big threat, but underlying both of them is the failure of the United States to win wars, and get the respect of these countries and their terrorists.

      Terrorism is not tied to any one country, as the extremist Muslims are spreading from country to country around the world, and they are also targeting the US. They can accomplish their goal of domination in the US by simply using our socialistic and eroding constitution.

      So once again, the United States is out of step with dealing with the threats on the US by terrorists. 911 should have been a wake up call that the US needs a new paradigm to protect the country, and its people.

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

      As far as your position that the US engagement in Vietnam was not in vain, my response is that it is meaningless today for all the reasons that I have already mentioned.

      It is not unpatriotic to realize the flaws and the degradation of my country the United States of America. It is patriotic to want to see these flaws and degradation be reversed. But the first step in any recovery is the recognize the problem.

    • lukemike92 profile image
      Author

      lukemike92 4 years ago

      (China is now where the US was in the 1950s, they have the money, they have the military, the weaponry, and they manufacture most of the products for the world.

      Russia not the USSR is still active and powerful)

      Is what a Hubber named Ib Radmasters said about the following comment:

      "Which undermines the notion that we didn't learn anything from the military action there. War's stimulate progress, which leads to faster technological advances.

      As if somewhere in the comment it was indicated that the Soviet Union still existed, and China's current wealth was somehow relevant to the notion that wars stimulate technological advancements.

      (Once again, that was not the purpose of the Vietnam War, it was to stop communism in S Vietnam and that was a failure).

      Is what the same Hubber wrote about the following comment:

      Getting back to Ib Radmaster's remarks, if you biased my article based on the title, perhaps you should've read the summary. Furthermore, I don't believe the title needs to be changed. It poses a question for readers to answer. If you don't believe 35 years without a nation converting to communism is a success, you've obviously answered that question for yourself.

      Apparently this Hubber has never read the following, written by prominent History Professor, Andrew Rotter:

      "Americans compared communism to a contagious disease. If it took hold in one nation, U.S. policymakers expected contiguous nations to fall to communism, too, as if nations were dominoes lined up on end," Modern American Poetry: "The Causes of the Vietnam War," Andrew Rotter, 1999.

      The above-referenced quote is one of numerous quotes from hundreds of sources confirming prevention of the domino effect was a purpose for the United States' involvement in Vietnam. It's also noteworthy that, with the exceptions of Vietnamese bordering small nations of Laos and Cambodia, no nation has fallen to communism since the US departed from Vietnam in 1975.

      (The Unitied States is not the United States of the post WWII, the manufacturing giant, the home of freedoms, it has over the decades morphed into a country where the freedoms we used to have are now comprised by liberals and socialist.

      If you cannot see that, then you miss the whole point of my comments.)

      Is what the same Hubber wrote in response to the following comment:

      Rather than criticize those of us who do see this as a success, maybe you should check if there's a place left on the planet that hasn't established itself as a nation yet, as if the liberties our country has fought to provide you with aren't good enough, I doubt any country's will be.

      Apparently he fell asleep when the characteristics of democracy were taught in school: freedom of religion, speech, expression, and to vote, equality amongst races and genders, keeping doors open to immigration, a two party system, and taking consideration towards diversity, are only a few of numerous characteristics associated with democracy that this nation recognizes and fully practices today. Democracy is what made this nation strong, and what continues to make it stand out as a world leader. The United States is the only nation with a constitution that hasn't changed since it was first established over two hundred years ago. This Nation even accepts people like this Hubber, who wine and complain about its little imperfections, making up nicknames for Democracy to express their deluded perceptions of the services this Nation provides to its citizens, rather than express appreciation for the rights and liberties this nation has fought since the day it was founded to keep alive and strong.

      (As I pointed out several times, communism is not the current threat to the US and the world today, the current threat is the Middle East and terrorism. The extremist Muslims are spreading their ideaology around the world, and even Europe has been compromised by them.

      For communism we don't need any new countries when the population of China, which now includes what was non communist Formosa, is the big threat. They have survived because we didn't challenge them in Korea or Vietnam.)

      Is what the same Hubber wrote in response to the following comment:

      North Korea is looking for a fight? Are you their spokesman, because I haven't heard anyone from North Korea specify this yet. I said the domino effect never happened. North Korea is a nation that's advancing, and may become a threat again in the future, but that doesn't change the fact that no nation has converted to communism in 35 years.

      As if my questioning of an earlier assertion by this Hubber that North Korea is looking for fight can somehow be translated into a suggestion that communism is the nation's primary modern threat. Neglecting the fact that terroristic threats had nothing to do with the Hub upon which he was commenting, I would certainly be interested in learning the source upon which he received his information that had the United States challenged a nation that converted to communism in 1949, which we knew little about, outnumbered us in population by 5-1, and without assurances of full UN support, in Vietnam or in Korea, that this nation would no longer be communist today. I would further like to know on what map he noticed the name of a nation as Formosa, as Taiwan is the only place that used to go by this name, and Taiwan is a Democratic nation.

      (The reason that I mentioned it is because your comment made it seem like I was blaming the soldiers, and that was not the case.)

      Is what the same Hubber wrote in response to the following comment:

      Where did I suggest the soldiers were a problem? I believe I made it clear the soldiers did the best they could under the circumstances. And the change in public support was inevitable....

      A comment that had been written in response to the previous comment by the same Hubber:

      The soldiers were not the problem. The congress and the people in the US were the problem.

      If he was concerned that something I had written indicated that he was blaming the soldiers for the outcome in Vietnam, he was quite ambiguous about expressing that concern in his original response. I'm assuming he must've been referring to the following the comment:

      With these expected exceptions, communism stopped spreading after 1978, and I think you're failing to give this country its due credit. We feared that if South Vietnam fell to communism, the domino effect would kick in. South Vietnam fell, but not until after a long and costly fight, a fight no nation would ever want to risk sufferring through. The domino effect did not kick in thereafter, and to the soldiers who fought and died in Vietnam, against an opponent with will, experience, geographical circumstances, and sheer numbers working to their advantage, I for one offer them their due credit...

      Which clearly indicates that it was a failure to offer them due credit, rather than blame, that I was accusing him of.

      (Here is our main difference, you believe that the politicians were doing their best for the country, and I don't share that belief.

      In addition to the politicians, the people were also at fault. For whatever reason the US goes to war, the country, the politicians especially, and the people need to support it, otherwise we can never win the war. My contention, once again is that we have not won a war, including WWII.)

      Is what the same Hubber wrote in response to the following comment:

      That just leaves the crooked politicians. It always has to blamed on some behind the scenes, shady, political motive. Hitler made some mistakes in his quest for world conquest, and since they cost him his life in the end, they were simply perceived as mistakes, but in our country it's always some shady, behind the scenes political motive that obstructs our military objectives. Yes, the politicians made mistakes in Vietnam. They were human. Whether or not perfection on our political end would've made a difference is a question for argument, but it doesn't change the fact our efforts there served a purpose....(see next comment for additional responses).

    • lukemike92 profile image
      Author

      lukemike92 4 years ago

      I’d like to know where it says in this comment that I believed the politicians “were doing their best.” My assertion that the politicians made mistakes would seem to indicate the opposite. It’s also been clear in my relevant Hub, as well as in at least one subsequent comment to this Hub, that public support existed for military action in Vietnam when United States’ involvement there began, and it wasn’t until 1968, after the Tet Offensive, that public support began to dwindle, which was when troops began to gradually get withdrawn. It’s beyond me how he believes this fact somehow undermines my Hub’s thesis that the United States’ involvement in Vietnam was not in vain.

      (You ignored my comment on how during even the Vietnam was but especially the Iraq War congress didn't furnish the necessary support for the military.

      In Vietnam, the basic rifle issued to most of the military, failed in combat, and at one point they were using substandard but cheap parts in the rifles. This was unlike tha AK47 which could be used even when dirty.

      This was a decision by congress as a show of their lack of support of the Vietnam War. They congress during the Iraq War did similar cost cuts and failure to provide adequate and timely budgets to support the troops. Their motive was rebellion against president George W Bush, but it affected the troops directly.)

      Was what the same Hubber wrote in his most recent comment, yet other than to have said “Congress pulled the reigns,” in a more recent comment by this Hubber, this Hubber had never before specifically indicated that Congress didn’t furnish necessary support in Vietnam. Apparently, out of the 68 different guns that were used by American soldiers in Vietnam, he never read that the AK47 was heavier and less accurate than the more standard M16, which was why many American soldiers preferred the M16, but AK47’s were utilized by American soldiers during this war as well. Furthermore, if congress didn’t support this military action, I wonder why in the world this Hubber would think they passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964 authorizing the immediate deployment of troops there, and why 700 billion dollars (in today’s currency), was expended. Moreover, this Hubber himself suggested that wars cannot be won without public support, yet questions why funding on this war wasn’t always continuously authorized in the midst of this dwindling public support.

      (You keep posing your comments with a personal somewhat sinister tone on me, rather than my comments.

      You forget that the terrorists tried to take down the WTC with a bomb in the basement of the WTC a decade before 911. And you failed to mention all the attacks preceding 911 not on American Soil but on America abroad, its Navy, and its Embassies.)

      Is what the same Hubber wrote in response to the following comment:

      The only attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor was 911, which occurred 26 years after Vietnam ended. You're claiming that occurred because terrorists viewed us as soft on account of the outcome in Vietnam? Well I suppose we don't have to worry about that anymore, then, because the primary perpetrators of 911 are all dead, thanks to our perceivably "soft" nation.

      As if I’m supposed to address the manner in which he’s abused a Hub that was specifically about Vietnam and communism, by turning the comment section thereof into a dumping grounds for his emotions about the history of military actions in general in a different way. I would suggest that if he doesn’t like the way I’ve been addressing his comments, that he discontinue exploiting this Hub as a place to deliver his misleading and seemingly deluded history courses. This comment was to express disagreement with this Hubber’s former assertion that terrorists were confident to attack the United States on account of a perception that we were soft following our withdrawal from Vietnam. Terrorists had political and religious motives for these attacks, which they were prepared to die in order to carry out. Why would they fear death from a nation they perceived as soft? In light of their actual motives, they would’ve done the same no matter how strong they perceived our country. Strength obviously is something our country proved it didn’t lack thereafter by capturing the majority of the Al Qaeda members who were involved in 911. With regards to any other modern day or recent terroristic threats, acts, or full-blown attacks, while important issues, it’s beyond me why he feels these remarks should even be addressed in a Hub that was specifically about Vietnam and communism.

      Finally, (The fact is that based on how Kennedy got us out of a nuclear war, it does show he did the job, while what LBJ did in Vietnam is a fact of his failurel. LBJ is the one that escalated the US military observers to a full scale war and adding 535,000 military to the original JFK's 15,000.)

      Is what the same Hubber wrote in response to the following comment:

      Did I say JFK made a mistake with the Cuba Missile crisis by agreeing not to invade Cuba? I said nothing other than there was no way of proving he could've commanded Vietnam any better than LBJ, or Nixon. LBJ served as an Officer during WWII as well. And there's also no way of demonstrating LBJ desired a troop withdraw from Vietnam any less than JFK did.

      While I originally indicated that Kennedy agreed not to invade Cuba to reduce the relevant Soviet nuclear threat, he has somehow turned this into a source to prove that Kennedy would’ve been a better commander in Vietnam than LBJ. Kennedy’s agreement not to invade Cuba says about as much regarding how Kennedy’s war tactics in Vietnam would’ve stacked up to LBJ’s, as the fact that 35,000 military advisers were in Vietnam when he was assassinated says about how many Kennedy would’ve deployed there had he not been assassinated. I’m sure Kennedy would’ve been a fine commander in Vietnam, but this Hubber’s indication that he know’s Kennedy would’ve handled it better than LBJ is completely without merit.

    • lukemike92 profile image
      Author

      lukemike92 4 years ago

      (Adding a speculative report, to another speculation is not compelling. Before his death, JFK was preparing to recall the existing 15,000 troops in Vietnam. There was no talk about him escalating the number of troops.)

      Is what the same Hubber wrote in response to the following comment:

      "A lot of reports in fact suggest JFK was aware of communist plans to assassinate Diem, and allowed it to occur in order to take control over the military situation in Vietnam. NSAM 263 says little about what would've happened in Vietnam had JFK survived for a second term in the white house.

      Neglecting the fact that the comment says nothing about an intention by JFK before he died to escalate troops, JFK was preparing to withdraw 1,000 troops within a year pursuant to NSAM 263. This was signed before Diem was assassinated. There's nothing else to suggest JFK was planning a withdraw troops from Vietnam, and his plan to withdraw 1,000 troops was reissued by LBJ on November 26, 1963, before the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

      (Then you didn't read enough.)

      Is what the same Hubber wrote in response to the following comment:

      LBJ didn't give any Generals in Vietnam the green light to fight? Well, I guess all those battles I read about there were just fiction then. All the bombings, (America dropped more bombs in Vietnam than in both world wars combined), all the casualties, all the injuries, the ambushes, the fire missions, the air raids: apparently all just fiction.

      The comment was made in response to a previous comment by this Hubber that LBJ didn't give any Generals in Vietnam the green light to fight. Apparently missing a piece of literature suggesting that the above-referenced actions don't qualify as actions that occur in response to a green light to fight is what he meant by that.

      (So the goal of WWII was to remove Hitler and replace him with Stalin. Does that sound like the US won a World War? There was no threat of a nuclear war when the war ended. The US was the only country that even had the capability of a nuclear bomb. It wasn't until 1949 that Russia acquired the technology by the treason of the Rosenbergs stealing our plan.

      Not dealing with Russia at the end of the war, also deferred any military action causing the Cold War, during which time the USSR committed millions of atrocities on their captured states.

      All of which didn't have to happen if the US actually won the war and made the decsions on restoring the world to its pre war status, with the exceptions of Japan, and Germany. And let us not forget that Italy got away without any punishment or change from their alliance with Japan, and Germany.

      Russia was also part of the four, and just because they were invaded by their alliance partner shouldn't have made them clean, and certainly they shouldn't have allowed to benefit by taking Eastern Europe.

      You talk about communism, but say that it was OK for Russia to enslave Eastern Europe with communism. And they couldn't have done it without the help of the US politicians at the end of the war.)

      Is what the same Hubber wrote in response to the following comment:

      We didn't give any nations in Eastern Europe to Russia. Russia took them in the process of driving the Germans out, and invading Berlin. We didn't imperialize the West, but they imperialized the East, and those nations were under Soviet power before WWII ended. Our mission of containment was preventing communism from spreading, not provoking war with a super power, that could've went nuclear.

      For a Hubber who believes this country can't win wars, he apparently seems to have possessed a great deal of confidence this country's military at a time when this country was sky high in debt on account of its involvement in WWII, and with post-war reparations being top priority, going up against a nation that was larger than us. An attack on Russia would've been a disaster at that time. But I guess to say that to this Hubber, is somehow to get accused of thinking America's goal in WWII was give Eastern Europe to Russia. The depths to which he is willing to delude facts for his own purpose is astonishing.

      (What country to you live in, certainly not the USA?

      The constitution has changed by amendments, and the Supreme Court interpretations of what they thought the constitution means.

      As for the US, the political parties and their third party backers own the US, not the people.)

      Is what the same Hubber wrote in response to the following comment:

      I disagree that our country is switching to socialism. Our constitution has remained the same since this nation was founded. Our liberties and rights have not changed. The people still own this nation.

      Apparently translations and amendments "change" the wording in our constitution, according to this Hubber, as well as the liberties and rights the original constitution has provided. The Constitution has not changed. If anything, the freedom and equality within this nation pursuant to the original constitution has gotten stronger, and more democratic since the nation was founded by way of amendments and judicial rulings. The people of this nation, men, women, and of all races, cast their votes every election pursuant to this country's democracy for the leaders to ensure that this nation's strength continues. The people own this democratic nation, and I for one am appreciative to be a part of it.

      (Read my comment above on Russia getting Eastern Europe and justify it with your statement here.

      It is not a fact, just because you say it. Vietnam didn't change the threat of communism as China is on the verge of being the next Super Power. The USSR is gone, but Russia is still a world threat, if for nothing else they still have a large supply of nuclear weapons. They might even sell it to the terrorists at some point. My opinion of course.)

      Is what the same Hubber wrote in response to the following comment:

      We've traded communism for terrorism? Would've it been better to have closed our eyes and let the world convert to communism fifty years ago, so that democracy hating terrorists are not a threat today. Terrorism resulted from hatred of democracy, not our inability to win wars. The fact that it exists suggests we may have some fighting yet to do. That doesn't change the fact that our efforts in Vietnam served a purpose.

      Apparently this Hubber is unaware that China has been communist, as well as a super power, since 1949, well before the United States became involved in Vietnam, and as such, a communist threat throughout the years that have followed. What this has to do with any concerns we may have had fifty years ago of world dominated by communist is beyond me. It's also noteworthy that China is becoming more democratic and, as such, less of a threat today, a fact this Hubber is apparently unaware of.

      (That is why Libya, Iraq, North Korea, Iran and many countries in the Middle East are doing just that, telling the world and the US stay out of our country.

      Today, Religion and not Communism is the big threat, but underlying both of them is the failure of the United States to win wars, and get the respect of these countries and their terrorists.

      Terrorism is not tied to any one country, as the extremist Muslims are spreading from country to country around the world, and they are also targeting the US. They can accomplish their goal of domination in the US by simply using our socialistic and eroding constitution.

      So once again, the United States is out of step with dealing with the threats on the US by terrorists. 911 should have been a wake up call that the US needs a new paradigm to protect the country, and its people.)

      Is what the same Hubber wrote in response to the following comment:

      To link Vietnam with the failure of communism in the Soviet Union involves speculation, but to credit Vietnam for the absence of any communist conversions in the past 35 years would require nothing more than an honest understanding of human nature. No nation wants to provoke war unless the cause is worthy enough. Our efforts in Vietnam demonstrated to other nations that communism wasn't worth it. Our efforts there served a purpose.

    • lukemike92 profile image
      Author

      lukemike92 4 years ago

      While I'm not sure what part of the comment he replied to indicated that countries should be telling the world and the US to stay out of their countries, if misleading information regarding this country's constitution and government is what he believes terrorists can utilize to take over the world, and suggestions that the United States military hasn't done it's job thoroughly since 911 are the message he's trying to convey, I doubt any disagreement can be made that he's performed little homework regarding the topics he's trying to discuss. As a strong democratic nation that's defended it's grounds thoroughly since 911, this Nation nonetheless has to remain cautious of terrorist attacks, I would agree. But there's a fine line between caution and paranoia. My comment was to indicate that United States' involvement in Vietnam made a statement against communism that still stands strong today. I see nothing in his response to suggest otherwise.

      (As far as your position that the US engagement in Vietnam was not in vain, my response is that it is meaningless today for all the reasons that I have already mentioned.

      It is not unpatriotic to realize the flaws and the degradation of my country the United States of America. It is patriotic to want to see these flaws and degradation be reversed. But the first step in any recovery is the recognize the problem.)

      Was how the same Hubber finished his most recent comment on this Hub. I believe flaws should not be ignored as well. Nations obviously become stronger recognizing and fixing known problems. Calling this nation socialistic, weak, and unable to win wars sounds more like abuse and an ungrateful attitude, however, than a genuine concern for a nation's potential problems. I believe the success of democracy since the United States departed from Vietnam in 1975 speaks volumes about this nation's current capabilities, as a world leader, a foreign influence, and as a home to millions of citizens. With a military and an economy recognized by many reliable sources to be the strongest in the world, while this nation will see its fair share of problems in the future, as will all nations, it's difficult to imagine who wouldn't be proud to be a citizen of this great country.

    • ib radmasters profile image

      ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

      LM

      I have no idea what you are trying to say, I can't understand your last two comments, and as they are not addressed to me, I guess it goes out to the Ether..

      I have repeated my viewpoint several times in these comments with explanations of why I have these views.

    • lukemike92 profile image
      Author

      lukemike92 4 years ago

      You obviously had no idea what I was trying to say in my Hub either. I'm not certain you want to understand it. You said repeatedly in prior comments that we only went to Vietnam to save South Vietnam. If you can't now see that that wasn't the case, and that preventing a domino effect that didn't occur after we departed was also a primary objective, it may be difficult for you to ever see it.

    • ib radmasters profile image

      ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

      LM

      frm you hub

      "and prompted United States President Lyndon B. Johnson to sign NSAM 273 on November 26, 1963, which

      ******* allowed for President Kennedy's intended withdrawal,

      ***************but also provided assurances to the Vietnamese that the United States still had every intention of

      ************** supporting the South Vietnamese government,

      **************as well as their people, in their quest to defend

      ***************

      their state against communist invaders."

    • lukemike92 profile image
      Author

      lukemike92 4 years ago

      From my most recent comment: "You said repeatedly in prior comments that we 'only' went to Vietnam to save South Vietnam. If you can't now see that that wasn't the case, (that that was the 'only' reason we went there), and that preventing a domino effect that didn't occur after we departed was 'also' a primary objective, you may never see it." Do you have some other reason for copying and pasting that remark from my Hub that doesn't involve me having to wast time correcting an obvious misinterpretation?

    • ib radmasters profile image

      ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

      LM

      That copy shows that you wrote that LBJ got us into the war in Vietnam to support the South Vietnamese.

      Now I sense your hostility which indicates something.

      But the quote talks about S Vietnam, and not anything to do with stopping the communists after Vietnam.

    • lukemike92 profile image
      Author

      lukemike92 4 years ago

      Number one: it doesn't indicate that LBJ "got us into" Vietnam. Number two, your quote was pointless, as supporting South Vietnam was clearly one of several reasons we got involved in Vietnam, (preventing the domino effect was clearly another). Number three, it means something, huh? Well what does it mean? Why don't you try enlightening me for the first time since you started commenting on this Hub?

    • ib radmasters profile image

      ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

      LM

      That quote, which is from your hub, indicates that S. Vietnam was the only reason that LBJ escalated the JFK observers to a full scale war.

      He went from the 16,000 military observers and trainers sent by JFK, to over 550,000 military troops, and he still lost the war to a third rate country N. Vietnam.

      Now if you can't stay on the content, rather than personal attacks on me then you don't really have any relevant arguments.

      BTW, I wrote my own hub on this subject

    • lukemike92 profile image
      Author

      lukemike92 4 years ago

      "and prompted United States President Lyndon B. Johnson to sign NSAM 273 on November 26, 1963, which allowed for President Kennedy's intended withdrawal, but also provided assurances to the Vietnamese that the United States still had every intention of supporting the South Vietnamese government, as well as their people, in their quest to defend their state against communist invaders."

      Where does that say protecting South Vietnam was the "only" reason the United States got involved there? Since Lyndon Johnson's efforts in Vietnam, including escalating troop numbers following the Gulf of Tonkin incident, no nation has converted to communism since 1978. What personal attacks? If there were personal attacks, how does that mean I don't have any relevant arguments?

    • ib radmasters profile image

      ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

      LM

      Where does it say that there was any other reason.

      The people of the US didn't support the war, they avoided the draft, left the country, and this included 2 time US president Bill Clinton.

      This lack of supporting wars didn't go away after we lost the Vietnam War, it has been in every war or police engagement we have had since. It continues today.

      How many people agree with your version of winning the Vietnam War?

    • lukemike92 profile image
      Author

      lukemike92 4 years ago

      "Johnson increasingly focused on the American military effort in Vietnam. He firmly believed in the Domino Theory and that his containment policy required America to make a serious effort to stop all Communist expansion." That came straight from Lyndon Johnson's Wikipedia page. It's amongst dozens of other sources that confirm it was a fundamental reason for continuing the United States' involvement in Vietnam. NSAM 273 was signed right after Diem was assassinated. Providing assurances to the South Vietnamese would have been a primary objective at such a time.

      Support for War in Vietnam, by Age

      Under 30 30-49 Over 49

      May 1965 61 59 43

      August 1965 76 64 51

      November 1965 75 68 57

      March 1966 71 63 48

      May 1966 62 54 39

      September 1966 53 56 39

      November 1966 66 55 41

      May 1967 60 53 42

      July 1967 62 52 37

      October 1967 50 50 35

      Early February 1968 51 44 36

      March 1968 50 46 35

      April 1968 54 44 31

      August 1968 45 39 27

      Early October 1968 52 41 26

      February 1969 47 43 31

      September 1969 36 37 25

      January 1970 41 37 25

      March 1970 48 41 26

      April 1970 43 40 25

      January 1971 41 38 20

      May 1971 34 30 23

      From the article "Support for the Vietnam War." If you'd do you're own research every now and then, instead making your own misleading facts, maybe I wouldn't have come on here to constantly correct your statements. The above statistics confirm everything I've said in my Hub, and subsequent comments regarding public support for the United States' involvement in Vietnam.

      How many people agree with the information in my Hub? Everyone who actually takes the time to research knows no countries fell to communism after 1978. Did I write an article that said we won the Vietnam war? I said our efforts served a purpose: a very important purpose, that only people who refuse to see it, and would rather just make up facts to support their deluded beliefs can't accept.

      I'm not wasting any more time on you. Stay out of this Hub or I'll report you.

    • lukemike92 profile image
      Author

      lukemike92 4 years ago

      I haven't said anything that isn't true. Your description of my comments only serves to strengthen my statement that you'd rather make up your own facts to support your deluded beliefs than conduct research. I don't care what you report. You should feel fortunate that's it's a free enough country, thanks to our fights to preserve Democracy, to report anything.

    Click to Rate This Article