13
   

vets coming home

 
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Sep, 2010 07:44 am
as this thread has wandered here and there, I would add, as totally anecdotaly and without substantiation, A Sr. G officer told me that our mission was to interrupt harassment by NV of catholics escaping NV. My point is that for those of us (boots on the ground) in the early days (JFK) we had no idea why we were there. The communist/domino mission statement came much later.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Sep, 2010 08:01 am
@Setanta,
Since lots of folks on this thread are accepting Wikipedia as a viable source, I read the complete Wiki references provided by JTT and Set. It's clear to me that the Republic of Vietnam did not "sign" a treaty. It can be assumed from Set's link that they were "in dialogue" with those who did. I also looked for other references that indicated the RV "entered into a treaty", but came up empty.

Assuming that Ngo Dinh Diem was a willing partner in the discussions, I tried to find out more about him. Again, if Wiki is good for one it can be good for all, so here's what Wikipedia has to offer on him.

Quote:
Jean Baptiste Ngô Đình Diệm (Vietnamese: Jean Baptiste Ngô Đình Diệm, pronounced [ŋo ɗîɲ zjə̂ˀm], Saigon: [ɗîn jə̃ˀm] ( listen)), (January 3, 1901 – November 2, 1963) was the first President of South Vietnam (1955–1963). In the wake of the French withdrawal from Indochina as a result of the 1954 Geneva Accords, Diệm led the effort to create the Republic of Vietnam. Accruing considerable US support due to his staunch anti-Communism, he achieved victory in a 1955 plebiscite that was widely considered fraudulent. Proclaiming himself the Republic's first President, he demonstrated considerable political skill in the consolidation of his power, and his rule proved authoritarian, elitist, nepotistic, and corrupt. A Catholic, Diệm pursued policies that rankled and oppressed the Republic's Montagnard natives and its Buddhist majority. Amid religious protests that garnered worldwide attention, Diệm lost the backing of his US patrons and was assassinated by Nguyen Van Nhung, the aide of ARVN General Dương Văn Minh on November 2, 1963, during a coup d'état that deposed his government. Upon learning of Diệm's ouster and death, Democratic Republic of Vietnam President Ho Chi Minh is reported to have said, "I can scarcely believe the Americans would be so stupid."


Sounds like a reach peach. It's still a toss up to me.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Sep, 2010 08:21 am
@dyslexia,
This would support that, dys.

Quote:
In 1954, France and the Việt Minh agreed at the Geneva Conference that the State of Vietnam would rule the territory south of the 17th parallel, pending unification on the basis of supervised elections in 1956. At the time of the conference, it was expected that the South would continue to be a French dependency. However, South Vietnamese Premier Ngô Đình Diệm, who preferred American sponsorship to French, rejected the agreement. When Vietnam was divided, 800,000 to 1 million North Vietnamese, mainly (but not exclusively) Roman Catholics, sailed south as part of (Operation Passage to Freedom) due to a fear of religious persecution in the North. more wiki stuff
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Sep, 2010 08:30 am
@JPB,
From the same link...

Quote:
The history of the relationship with the United States is controversial. Some historians say the founding of South Vietnam was based on the United States's desire to create an "anti-communist" base in Southeast Asia.[citation needed] Opponents argue that it was based on popular support of the South Vietnamese people. However, the U.S. and the Diem government agreed that elections mandated by the Geneva Conference (1954) should not occur, claiming that the communists could not be trusted to conduct a fair election in the North. Moreover, most contemporary observers, including U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, estimated that if an election were held in the 1954–55 period (when South Vietnam was under Bảo Đại's rule), around 80% of the Vietnamese population would vote for Ho Chi Minh.[6] The dominant political rationale for supporting the South Vietnamese government was America's containment policy, which was designed to hold back the spread of communism during the Cold War.

The failure to unify the country in 1956, along with Diem's persecution of communists, led in 1959 to the foundation of the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (abbreviated NLF but also known as the Việt Cộng), which initiated an organised and widespread guerrilla insurgency against the South Vietnamese government. Although initially cautious, Hanoi backed the insurgency, which grew in support and intensity. The United States, under President Eisenhower, initially sent military advisers to train the South Vietnamese army. President John F. Kennedy increased the size of the advisory force fourfold and allowed the advisers to participate in combat operations, and later acquiesced in the removal of President Diem in a military coup. After promising not to do so during the 1964 election campaign, in 1965 President Lyndon B. Johnson decided to send in much larger numbers of combat troops, and conflict steadily escalated to become what is commonly known as the Vietnam War


There are usually at least two sides to every story. This one is certainly no exception.

0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Sep, 2010 09:18 am
South Vietnam was not a member of SEATO precisely because the 1954 Geneva Accords prevented third party countries from intervening in the Vietnam conflict that was essentially a civil war. The principal third party countries that violated the terms of the accords were China, the USA and the USSR.

The Accords called for elections as a part of solving the conflict, but the US had determined that their son of a bitch (as Jeane Kirkpatrick would have termed him), Ngo Dinh Diem, would have lost heavily to China's and the USSR's son of a bitch, Ho Chi Minh, who was an extremely popular war hero and patriot to the Vietnamese.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Sep, 2010 10:46 am
None of what has been presented so far supports a claim that the United States illegally occupied a sovereign nation, and that therefore the American troops involved were criminal.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Sep, 2010 11:05 am
@Setanta,
agreed. But it does appear that the Tonkin Gulf Resolution was predicated on a fabrication and that the "occupation" stemmed from that resolution. We, as a nation, certainly weren't lily-white and simply coming to the aid of a friend in need.
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Fri 24 Sep, 2010 11:35 am
@JPB,
Robert McNamara, before his death last year, all but admitted that he lied to Johnson about the naval engagement on which the resolution was predicated.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Sep, 2010 11:38 am
By the way, you can keep that "lily white" **** to yourself. I've never characterized our involvement that way, nor have i said that we were just coming to the aid of a friend. You sound like JTT, now.

Far from ever whitewashing American international behavior, when consevatives at this site have attempted to peddle that America the Good BS, i've been the one to provide long, long lists of our incursions, invasions and interventions in the the affairs of other nations.

Let's get this back to where it began. What i've said, and all that i've said is that the United States did not illegally occupy a sovereign nation, and that our troops were not criminal.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Sep, 2010 11:43 am
@Setanta,
I didn't say you did. I said, "We, as a nation"... That was my own statement, attributable to me, myself, and I as what I believe.

Setanta wrote:

Let's get this back to where it began. What i've said, and all that i've said is that the United States did not illegally occupy a sovereign nation, and that our troops were not criminal.


And, although I know more now than I did yesterday, I don't know that we did or didn't. I agree that our troops, as a group and simply because they were there, are not criminal.
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Sep, 2010 11:57 am
If you can find a copy of "Kent State" written by Mitchner it describes in great detail the climate at the time. Kent State was the University where an anti-war rally was held and tragically ended when a National Guard unit fired live ammo at the demonstrators. Some of the people killed or wounded were not at the rally, but were other places on campus because classes had not been suspended that day.

dyslexia
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Sep, 2010 11:58 am
@JPB,
Quote:
I agree that our troops, as a group and simply because they were there, are not criminal.
this is where it gets sticky for me, in hindsight, I'd say I participated in and observed what I would today consider criminal acts. But, that's very difficult for me to evaluate because I don't know what has been, in other wars, considered "normal" war actions.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Sep, 2010 12:17 pm
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:

I don't know what has been, in other wars, considered "normal" war actions.


kinda crazy, when you think about it.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Sep, 2010 12:47 pm
@glitterbag,
I remember Kent State well, glitterbag. I was 14 and in high school, but living in a university town where protest marches, sit-ins, and rallies were commonplace. My brother was home after two tours of duty in Vietnam, but some of his friends/classmates didn't make it, or ... weren't "right". I saw a lot of perspectives and, in whatever ways a 14-year-old can, tried to process it.

A close friend who is a Chinese national told me he decided to leave his country the day he watched his fellow students being killed in Tienanmen Square. A lot of people felt the same way about Kent State.

I've mostly avoided discussions and movies/books about Vietnam until very recently. I was a kid, but not quite a kid. The one previous time I participated in the conversation was during Ford's amnesty program for draft evaders. I got into a heated debate with someone who was against it. I thought it was a good idea...

I don't know that there are any definitive answers to the right and wrong of war. I do think that we tend to relive history more than we should.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Sep, 2010 02:15 pm
I was at Fort Knox, Kentucky the day of the Kent State shootings. A lot of guardsmen got the **** beat out of them by the GIs. The ones in our company were marched off to a separate barracks for their protection. The country was deeply divided at that time.
electronicmail
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Sep, 2010 02:19 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Robert McNamara, before his death last year, all but admitted that he lied to Johnson about the naval engagement on which the resolution was predicated.

Nope not all but admitted he just plain SAID SO. He went to Nam many times always walking fast because he writes in his book he felt ghosts were chasing him. He didn't say 60,000 ghosts but that's how many it was.

We're still counting he said and he also said he was sorry he made a mistake, no sh*&t? The Best and the Brightest is your book, never will I vote for a Democrat again, NEVER

Let's get our country back!
0 Replies
 
electronicmail
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Sep, 2010 02:20 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

By the way, you can keep that "lily white" **** to yourself.

Amen bro.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Fri 24 Sep, 2010 02:31 pm
@Setanta,
Absolute crap, but this is Setanta.

As a quick, but important aside, I still think that you are a lying, whining piece of crap, Setanta. Don't you see how childish you are. [rhetorical question] You attempt to discuss with none of the facts. But that has never bothered you before so why let it do so now.

Quote:
As HS pointed out, these things can be solved by fact-checking. This Wikipedia article lists the Republic of Vietnam as a "Dialog Partner" of SEATO.


Lame lame lame lame lame, you donkey! You doesn't even bother to quote from YOUR "fact checking" article. Read the whole article, you silly goof. After you made a complete ass of yourself in your first attempt, it must have taken ehBeth hours to get those feet out of your mouth, in they go again.

Quote:

Despite being intended to provide a collective, anti-communist shield to Southeast Asia, SEATO was unable to intervene in the conflicts in Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam because an intervention required a decision of unanimity, which was never reached; France and the Philippines objected. Intervention in the Vietnam conflict was sought again later, but France and Pakistan withheld support.


Again, the USA has no god damn business committing terrorist, illegal, immoral actions to try to force the people of any country to do what they don't want to do.

When are y'all going to get that thru your thick skulls? When are y'all going to convey that to your governments?

Quote:
That does not alter, however, the right of the government of the RV to accept U.S. military aid and troops. If one argues against the legitimacy of the government of the RV, the same arguments can be advanced against the DRV.


It most certainly does. The RV was a puppet government, just like all the puppet governments the US has set up over the last, roughly a century.

Quote:
Because of the 1954 Accords settling the First Indochina War, South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos were not SEATO members. The United States sought, but failed, to make the Vietnam War into a SEATO collective defense problem.


The US prosecuted this huge unjust invasion against Vietnam even when they couldn't get their mendaciously orchestrated "SEATO" to go along.

Quote:
This is why i described the entire affair as tragic, with no good guys on any side of the conflict.


You probably describe it this way, Setanta, to salve your guilty conscience. If you were half the historian that you think you are, you would have known that the US was, by that time, guilty of numerous invasions of sovereign nations.

The US was guilty of numerous atrocities against the people of those nations.

The US was never involved in any of those illegal invasions to help the citizenry, it was always involved to help itself to the wealth and resources of those countries.

Quote:
They invaded the sovereign nation for which JTT sheds his crocodile tears.


You keep repeating this unmitigated crap like it has any veracity. The people who went into the area that was "known" as South Vietnam were all VIETNAMESE. These were people who were struggling to get the vicious hoard, the US and its troops out of THEIR COUNTRY!

Repeating your silly nonsense will never relieve you of the brutality that you took part in. How active you were and to what degree you participated is for you to reflect upon.

Quote:
Now, one can argue that Ngo Dinh Diem was not an elected representative of the Vietnamese in the Republic of Vietnam, but Ho Chi Minh was no more a elected representative of the people of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam


The people of Vietnam had every right to elect who they wanted. Eisenhower figured it was 80% in favor of Ho Chi Minh. There were elections set to happen but they were nixed because the US wasn't going to get its way.

Is this scummy behavior or what?

The USA did the same thing that it has done numerous times and continues to do to this day, ie. engage in clear terrorist actions, [yes, Cycloptichorn, the US is a terrorist nation, BIG TIME] meant to defeat the choice of the people and install their own brutal dictator.

Ho Chi Minh petitioned Truman a number of times asking the US to support their drive for independence. It is the height of hypocrisy that the US didn't. Instead they supported France to gain France's support in Europe. Duplicity much!

The people who participated in the Vietnam debacle are war criminals. Obviously some are more so, some much more so than others.

People who sit in the get away car of a bank robbery, or people who provide support for criminals are, justifiably, guilty also.

If this was a just world, if every country was treated in the same manner, there would be a large number of American war criminals doing time.

It isn't a just world, we all know that, but that doesn't make it right and moral for the top gangster nation to have play its games with the innocents of the world. This makes a complete mockery of supposed US ideals.

Doesn't it make anyone angry the degree to which you've been misled, the degree to which your government and your troops have been involved in illegal actions against innocent people ?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Fri 24 Sep, 2010 03:12 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
I was at Fort Knox, Kentucky the day of the Kent State shootings. A lot of guardsmen got the **** beat out of them by the GIs. The ones in our company were marched off to a separate barracks for their protection. The country was deeply divided at that time.


Man, those ole GI Joes, righteous to the core, eh, Setanta?

Did you perchance ever hear of any beatings of those who partook in MyLai or members of the Tiger Force or any of the roughly 300 other documented cases of shooting/napalming/throwing grenades into an area where women and children were hiding?

You've told this story a number of times. Odd that you've never condemned the GIs for beating up people who were in no way associated with what went on at Kent State. Is this a typical representation of your sense of "morality".
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Sep, 2010 04:20 pm
@glitterbag,
This article mentions the Mitchner book as one of a list of books that were published "quickly and superficial or inaccurate" and claims to be a "Search for Historical Accuracy" on Kent State.

http://dept.kent.edu/sociology/lewis/lewihen.htm
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Forgiveness - A Personal Essay, by Kim Phuc - Discussion by edgarblythe
David Harris: The courage of convictions - Discussion by edgarblythe
John McCain - Discussion by edgarblythe
An Interview About The 1988 Johnson Reef Clash - Discussion by southeastasiansea
Vietnam, Japan boost strategic partnership - Discussion by southeastasiansea
VN leader in Japan on state visit - Discussion by southeastasiansea
Australian sold down the river - Question by Germanicus
 
  1. Forums
  2. » vets coming home
  3. » Page 4
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 11:05:05