Flashback 1967: Leaving Vietnam puts on same trail as WW2

Thorgrim · 09-04-2006, 06:14 PM

Mr. Harsch: "Mr. Secretary, the Secretary-General of the U.N. also in that same news conference said, 'I do not subscribe to the view that South Viet-Nam is strategically vital to Western interests and Western security.' What are our vital strategic interests in the area? Do you regard Viet-Nam as vital?"

Secretary Rusk: "Well, there are important geographical features, natural resources, large numbers of people in Southeast Asia.

"I think the heart of the matter is, again, the phenomenon of aggression. And if the momentum of aggression should begin to roll in that part of the world, stimulated or supported or engaged in by those who are committed to the spread of the world revolution by violence, then that seems to put us back on the trail that led us into World War II.[/b]
Secretary Rusk interview on 'Today' Program, January 12, 1967, With Hugh Downs from New York and Joseph C. Harsch in Washington; Department of State Bulletin, January 30, 1967, p. 168.

"those who forget the past..."

So we have a world-wide movement of violent revolution...which left unchecked will be just like WW2...the country involved has strategic resources, location, a UN that disagreed...

In this interview, he disagreed only with the semantics of the Domino theory, but him and other agreed with the basic premise...

What's the domino theory they used in Vietnam?

Well it was that if we didn't fight the communist-terrorists over there, they would declare victory, destablize the region, spread over their neighbors, and eventually send communist0terrorists over here. If we didn't fight them in the street of Hu we'd be fighting them in Atlanta

Also, if we don't watch ourselves, we are going on the same path as Nazi appeasers

So take out "communist" and put in "islamist" and its the same exact thing and we are making the exact same mistakes again

KatKanPlay · 09-04-2006, 06:31 PM

A big difference.
Communism was on the march and literally taking over with Russia a huge consideration in the area. So IMO it made sense to stop the march and the takeover.
So on the outside, it worked.

I see no comparison when it comes to justification for the Iraq war.

If Vietnam was a big booboo on the face of American history. Does that make Iraq a triple by pass surgery?

6SpeedTA95 · 09-04-2006, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

A big difference.
Communism was on the march and literally taking over with Russia a huge consideration in the area. So IMO it made sense to stop the march and the takeover.
So on the outside, it worked.

I see no comparison when it comes to justification for the Iraq war.

If Vietnam was a big booboo on the face of American history. Does that make Iraq a triple by pass surgery?

MutherF'ing

well said....

Thorgrim · 09-04-2006, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

A big difference.
Communism was on the march and literally taking over with Russia a huge consideration in the area. So IMO it made sense to stop the march and the takeover.
So on the outside, it worked.

I see no comparison when it comes to justification for the Iraq war.

If Vietnam was a big booboo on the face of American history. Does that make Iraq a triple by pass surgery?

What worked? How did the war in Vietnam work?

KatKanPlay · 09-04-2006, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

What worked? How did the war in Vietnam work?

It didnt!

All I was saying is the justification used for Vietnam (get there so they dont get us here) was at best logical.

The same justification is now being used for Irag and it isnt even logical at least.

So not only did we not learn from history, it doesnt appear to me we even considered or consult history.

Thorgrim · 09-04-2006, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

It didnt!

All I was saying is the justification used for Vietnam (get there so they dont get us here) was at best logical.

The same justification is now being used for Irag and it isnt even logical at least.

So not only did we not learn from history, it doesnt appear to me we even considered or consult history.

So the difference is that Iraq wans't logical at all and a huge failure, and 6Speed is saying "fucking werd"?

I just find that hard to believe

6SpeedTA95 · 09-04-2006, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

So the difference is that Iraq wans't logical at all and a huge failure, and 6Speed is saying "fucking werd"?

I just find that hard to believe

She said the reasons for justifying Vietnam, if you can't understand the time frame and setting that vietnam was in compared with Iraq then you need to open a history book or two.

The western world including the US and much of Europe were under constant thread of soviet oppression/take over. The soviets were a communist nation and the US had vowed to stop the spread of communism which we tried and for the most part were successful at doing. Was vietnam justified? Given the time of the war I'd say yes.

Was Iraq? Well the jury is still out. Looking back I'd say we made a mistake but hindsight is always 20/20. When you take into account the information we had at the time I dont see how we could have justified NOT going to Iraq.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 09-04-2006, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Was Iraq? Well the jury is still out. Looking back I'd say we made a mistake but hindsight is always 20/20. When you take into account the information we had at the time I dont see how we could have justified NOT going to Iraq.

The justification for Vietnam and the justification for Iraq aren't comperable at all. Vietnam was to stop the spread of communism which really was taking over large parts of the world. Iraq was not to stop the spread of militant Islam. If anything, Saddam himself was stopping the threat of militant Islam and maintaining the most secular country in the middle east.

If stopping the threat of militant Islam was our goal, then toppling Saddam was completely counter productive. I think the Bush admin was assuming that if Saddam were removed, and democracy took over, it not only would stop the threat of militant islam, but would also begin a wave of democracy for the entire middle east. That's a helluvan assumuption and a huge gamble. How can you say such a risky move based on shaky assumptions could not have been justified at the time?

Thorgrim · 09-04-2006, 09:23 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

She said the reasons for justifying Vietnam, if you can't understand the time frame and setting that vietnam was in compared with Iraq then you need to open a history book or two.

The western world including the US and much of Europe were under constant thread of soviet oppression/take over. The soviets were a communist nation and the US had vowed to stop the spread of communism which we tried and for the most part were successful at doing. Was vietnam justified? Given the time of the war I'd say yes.

Was Iraq? Well the jury is still out. Looking back I'd say we made a mistake but hindsight is always 20/20. When you take into account the information we had at the time I dont see how we could have justified NOT going to Iraq.

I understand the time set fine

Ike had flown over Korea and realized how stupid the whole thing was and gave up on the Korean War

You then had the Vietnamese, who the Chinese thought were dogs, and the Russians thought were even more worthless than the Chinese, if that was even possible...you had these three people full of mutual loathing, and a country who rallied around Minh-Communism, not Stalinism and yet we were dumb enough to throw ourselves into a war against them...we couldn't tell the difference between a containable element and an uncontainable element

THE EXACT SAME PROBLEM WE HAVE TODAY

6SpeedTA95 · 09-04-2006, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

The justification for Vietnam and the justification for Iraq aren't comperable at all. Vietnam was to stop the spread of communism which really was taking over large parts of the world. Iraq was not to stop the spread of militant Islam. If anything, Saddam himself was stopping the threat of militant Islam and maintaining the most secular country in the middle east.

If stopping the threat of militant Islam was our goal, then toppling Saddam was completely counter productive. I think the Bush admin was assuming that if Saddam were removed, and democracy took over, it not only would stop the threat of militant islam, but would also begin a wave of democracy for the entire middle east. That's a helluvan assumuption and a huge gamble. How can you say such a risky move based on shaky assumptions could not have been justified at the time?

I know thats my entire point.

KatKanPlay · 09-04-2006, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

The justification for Vietnam and the justification for Iraq aren't comperable at all. Vietnam was to stop the spread of communism which really was taking over large parts of the world. Iraq was not to stop the spread of militant Islam. If anything, Saddam himself was stopping the threat of militant Islam and maintaining the most secular country in the middle east.

If stopping the threat of militant Islam was our goal, then toppling Saddam was completely counter productive. I think the Bush admin was assuming that if Saddam were removed, and democracy took over, it not only would stop the threat of militant islam, but would also begin a wave of democracy for the entire middle east. That's a helluvan assumuption and a huge gamble. How can you say such a risky move based on shaky assumptions could not have been justified at the time?

I took the justification down to the most basic level. And Bush is still using it.

We get them over there before they get us over here. That is now Bush's justification for the Iraq war.

kinggovernor · 09-04-2006, 11:23 PM

great another vietnam iraq thread

KatKanPlay · 09-04-2006, 11:48 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

great another vietnam iraq thread

You werent here so we had to talk about something.

archangel003 · 09-05-2006, 02:28 AM

If the Russians hated the Vietnamese so much, why were there so many Soviet personnel on the ground and in the air in and around North Vietnam?

Thorgrim · 09-05-2006, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by archangel003

If the Russians hated the Vietnamese so much, why were there so many Soviet personnel on the ground and in the air in and around North Vietnam?

Because the US and anti-communist forces were there...

What's next, are you going to question why US personnel were in Afghanistan?

It's because we loved the Taliban!

Stylerod · 09-05-2006, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I understand the time set fine

Ike had flown over Korea and realized how stupid the whole thing was and gave up on the Korean War

He didn't give up. He signed a cease fire after driving the N. Koreans and Chinese out. S. Korea would be a shithole like N. Korea is if it wasn't for him. I'm sure the millions of free S. Koreans don't think it was "stupid" that we stopped the communists and it's pretty sad that you do. But then you're sitting in a free country playing armchair quarterback 50 years after the fact

kinggovernor · 09-05-2006, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

He didn't give up. He signed a cease fire after driving the N. Koreans and Chinese out. S. Korea would be a shithole like N. Korea is if it wasn't for him. I'm sure the millions of free S. Koreans don't think it was "stupid" that we stopped the communists and it's pretty sad that you do. But then you're sitting in a free country playing armchair quarterback 50 years after the fact

where does he come up with this shit?

Thorgrim · 09-05-2006, 12:11 PM

[quote=Stylerod;28413]

He didn't give up. He signed a cease fire

haha ok, ceasefire now means "fight on"

after driving the N. Koreans and Chinese out

By 1953 when he took office they were at their positions...it had been a stalemate for quite some time...he didn't "drive" anyone out of anywhere

S. Korea would be a shithole like N. Korea is if it wasn't for him. I'm sure the millions of free S. Koreans don't think it was "stupid" that we stopped the communists and it's pretty sad that you do. But then ou're sitting in a free country playing armchair quarterback 50 years after the fact

what the hell are you talking about?

Going "Ok, lets stop fighting..." is some sort of great victory that saved S Korea...it was a realization that any future operations to 'win the peace' would be a waste of lives, and to keep fighting was a waste of lives, so he gave in and just signed a ceasefire at roughly where the armies were, there was no peace treaty or anything

Stylerod · 09-05-2006, 12:32 PM

[quote=Thorgrim;28516]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

haha ok, ceasefire now means "fight on"

By 1953 when he took office they were at their positions...it had been a stalemate for quite some time...he didn't "drive" anyone out of anywhere

what the hell are you talking about?

Going "Ok, lets stop fighting..." is some sort of great victory that saved S Korea...it was a realization that any future operations to 'win the peace' would be a waste of lives, and to keep fighting was a waste of lives, so he gave in and just signed a ceasefire at roughly where the armies were, there was no peace treaty or anything

Ok...

He was following the UN's and S. Korea's wishes for the cease fire. He could also have just brought our military home and let the N. Koreans have their way after we left. He didn't and S. Korea has been living in freedom because of it. Amazing you can be cynical about it. Well, no it isn't.