For Debate's sake
It takes too much time to add links to replies, and I figured I might have to do some work today, so I will start a response built with my opinions and articles I could find supporting it. Of course their will be another side, but just because you read that side first doesn't make it fact. Anyways, this way I can save it and come back to it later.
It is impossible for us--as in me and you--to know with certainty that what we say is fact, but having many family members who were there telling me how it was, I tend to believe them over some asshat trying to make a buck selling a book. Therefore, my ideals stem from first hand accounts I can trust, and develop from there on.
To get started, I believe the government played a major role in the eventual outcome of the Vietnam War. Due to its extreme opposition in America the politicians saw a way to rise faster than ever before. Simply oppose the war and all it's about. By doing so, funding was limited. Typical war tactics were prevented. The war was treated as winnable yet not worth it; therefore, the supplies, weaponry and infantry needed to win with out question weren't provided.
Funding for this war, and any war for that matter, comes from our elected officials. If we need a troop surge, then we go to our government and request it. If we need more choppers, jets, and bombs, we go to our government. If they are against that war, then they will not provide our troops with what is necessary leading to increased American casualties. As is clear, their actions were strictly political and it was sick! They were A cause of American deaths and only for their own gain.
Communism was spreading like the plague. The attempt to prevent the spread of communism (terrorism of that time) into South East Asia was necessary. If Russia had continued to try to force their ideals on more countries, then we could be living in a completely different world now. The argument could be made capitalism was doing the same thing, but come one... capitalism is good!
Unfortunately the message was not being told. The people telling the stories were unqualified to make assertions and judgments on what was going on, and they never made retractions when they reported completely incorrect stories. At home, the war was being seen as horrible. Innocent lives were lost. Vietnamese women and children were being blown up. Casualties were building up quickly for a war we should have won with ease. All these are bad things, but they are expected in war.
Look at how the anti-war crowd handled themselves. They called our soldiers baby killers and spat on them upon returning home (my Uncle had this very thing happen to him). That should show you how worthless they were as human beings, yet their spoken words are treated as gospel.
Our media was propaganda for our enemies. Instead of reporting this war like a war that needed to be won, they reported it in a way that would get them published. A way that shows impact. They reported it as a war that was being fought beyond its necessary means and with a "blank check," as if our presidents were going after Vietnam: a country that has done no wrong. They never talked with the South Vietnamese, the country we were attempting to protect in this war (who we eventually took a dump on when the hippies got what they wanted). Their stories were formed through "hastily gathered or incomplete facts," but it was all the American people had to go by.
The fact that our government publicly criticized our troop involvement, yet kept them over there was very dangerous. It shows that both sides knew and believed that the war had to be won, but one side wanted to get elected to better positions, so they spoke differently from how they voted. Otherwise known as cowardice.
Public acknowledgment of a "lost war" or "wrong war" will help morale of the enemy. During a war you will question yourself, presence, and purpose of being wherever you may be. To gain support from your enemies and have them telling you that you are doing the right thing is huge. It will make you fight with new meaning. It will increase your fighting numbers because others will believe that this war is important to win (either that, or they simply are afraid of being considered an enemy of the eventual victors). To say otherwise goes against what the Vietnamese have gone on record as saying.
My memory is slipping, but a Vietnamese General (and he was pretty much the general) wrote a book in which he said every time they heard the American planes flying above followed by earth rattling explosions they wanted to give up. The American people's angst towards the war and their troops is what lifted them to keep fighting. [After a quick wikipedia search, the name that stood out to me was Vo Nguyen Giap. I linked the book's amazon page to book above.]
After the Vietnamese realized that the key to winning the war was by provoking Americans into believing the war was their fault and their fault only, they revved up the propaganda machine. They allowed Americans entrance to their country so they could show them what they wanted to show them. The Rosey O'Donnell of the time, Jane Fonda, spearheaded and abetted the VC lies by returning with fabricated stories of POW camps and more. "We won the war over there, but we lost the war here." This has become a typical response when talking to Vietnam vets about what happened in this time.
I know in your opinion the media is infallible, but in attempt to gain viewers, they reported the war errantly. This reporting led to public opinion falling, which led to government changing their wartime policy, which led to a poorly fought war, that appeared lost (although the spread of communism to not extend past Vietnam was the objective).
Also, you read some book by McNamara and because he was up there, whatever he says is 100% truth, but unfortunately even he made some errors during that time. Nixon screwed up with his Vietnamization policies, and Lyndon Johnson may have run one of the dirtiest offices of all time. All that being said, taking everything the higher ups say during that time as complete fact is ignorant. You need to have a credible source that you, yourself, can trust first. These people writing books, and articles (including the ones I'm quoting from) are all in it for the all mighty dollar or to clear their name by any means possible. What I'm getting at is you have to have personal convictions on this topic backing up what you read. You can't just say, "well, Robert McNamara told me this and he was chief of staff (or whatever he was at the time)."
I work across the hall from a retired military strategist (who had a lot of good insight on the current situation as he was one of the lead strategists during the Gulf War) who told me McNamara was the last person you want to read when talking about the Vietnam war. He also added that the time table Nixon announced at the behest of the American public, turned the war into a much tougher battle. The day before Nixon made the announcement, the VC were running scared from us. His unit captured 54 tons of rice to give to the South Vietnamese. The VC almost seemed like they were done fighting because they were getting slaughtered. Following Nixon's announcement of an exact date of withdrawal, they were fighting for their livelihood. Why? Because they needed to keep their supplies and food knowing that the war would end soon. Saying what some bozo thousands of miles away says doesn't effect the battlefield is about as inaccurate as you can get. I've spoken with multiple Vietnam vets today. Then again, perhaps they are all lying. They do have so much relying on it.
The links I posted below have some supporting information from what I said above, some are links to their amazon page for purchase, but the final one is a great breakdown of misconceptions held during that time. It talks about how the media portrayed the war to purposely reflect it as horrible, and in doing so, our military as murderous and wanting to destroy everything they came across. I could include everything this article says above, but I figure I'll just let you read it.
But yeah, you say but yeah a lot.... But yeah.
posted by Rob Turman @ 7:34 AM
23 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Low class. "raise you a dead uncle." Pretty fuckin low.
I guess the only books that count are ones written by people who never saw the battlefield. The books I linked to, and I could add more, were written by Army commanders. Then again, they don't count because you didn't read them.
"you say that typical war tactics were prevented by lack of funding, yet America had full funding to pursue traditional tactics for 4 years, beginning with the Gulf of Tonkin incident."
I'm not sure on the funding being 100%, because you are the only person that I've heard say it. Even so, the beginning of the war isn't the issue. The beginning of the Iraq war had no issues and full support. All wars typically start off like that. I don't know why "how the war started off" negates how the war soon became and finished.
"And they did pursue traditional tactics the entirety of those four years in what is known as the strategy of attrition, that is to say we can use our big ass bombs to blow the shit out of the vietnamese for four years, and surely over that time we will make a dent in their army, start to make serious progress. then after four years of this attrition strategy we got our ass kicked on Tet, after the government had been telling the people the entire the time that the Vietnamese were nearly toast."
We were kicking their ass dude. Ask a vet. Or do they not count?
"the problem with your point that "lack of funding" prevented "typical war tactics" is two fold, 1) there was an abundance of funding for a number of years and 2) and during those years typical war tactics were used almost exclusively, and still after four years we got our asses handed to us on Tet."
The point that was made in the articles were that the "army tactics" gave us the wrong guns, and we couldn't get those guns in Vietnam. In attempt to slow civilian casualties we had to hold off on using those big guns. This meant we were getting shot at, but had too high caliber guns to fire back. This is coming from Vietnam era generals, so go ahead and discredit it like you do. If it doesn't come out of the mouth of someone that doesn't know shit, you don't buy it.
You are a communist sympathizer, aren't you? This is why you immediately discredit war testimony given by combatants for those thousands of miles away, or those that didn't know what was going on.
You are talking about what we know now and comparing that with what we knew then. Different. Communism is pathetic and has only failed wherever it has gone, but that doesn't mean it truly wasn't our enemy back then.
"And before you cite the article that says the Tet Offensive was only a loss because of the way the media reported it, you have to put things in perspective. These are the kind of things that officials were saying prior to Tet:"
You just said it. "Officials." Not the media. The damn media was reporting everything as blood shed, and the VC as courageous young boys fighting for their lives.
"early successes" doesn't mean they kicked our ass. It means they did better than we would have expected them to. So, ineffective startegy... not so much. We were killing them by the truck load. That is pretty much what you want to do in a war.
You truly don't believe that the way the media portrayed it gave fight to the enemy? You are basically calling the Vietnamese liars as they admitted to it. You say we give no credit to the Vietnamese, but you give no credit to our own Armed Forces by acting like they were a bunch of idiots that didn't know the first thing about battle. How can I possibly get it in your head that the media fucked things up which lead to the whole war being fucked? It's the truth no matter how much media cock you like to chug.
"not to mention the fact that the Vietnamese were on the defense in their own country which puts them at an immediate advantage, not to mention the fact that the US army had large numbers of draftees who likely didn't want to be fighting in Vietnam and so on."
Not to mention how much better trained our troops were. Not to mention our troops were fighting for their lives over there. Not to mention I highly doubt our people died because they were drafted. Not to mention...
BTW, you quoted Bruce Palmer. Perhaps you should read his book that I linked. 25 Year War. If you trust him enough to quote him, then he could change your opinions of the media and government back home playing absolutely no role.
"i have considered at length the problems with the attrition strategy and the Vietnamese effectiveness at dealing with it"
Oh, well then, case closed.
"so to claim that the Mass Media was the only or even primary reason we lost Vietnam, to me, seems like a not fully considered point of view."
Well, I did say it was up there for reasons, and it lead to a chain effect of fuck ups on the American congress and senate back home.
Perhaps I'm myopic, but I see the death totals. I speak with Vets, and I read Vets' books. They tell me we were kicking their ass all over the place. So, what happened? Well, the media didn't know what they were doing and they created false images of what was going on over there. This lead to the people believing that the war was something other than a war, something like a blood bath by our hands. Which lead to the government being forced to take stupid actions. Again, perhaps my logic is flawed.
"In your initial post your hardly even referenced strategy, other than that we needed lots of helicopters, jets, bombs, etc... but when we had all of that, in abundance, as well as massive amounts of troops, the Vietnamese were able to bide their time and launch a surprise attack that none of our officials saw coming."
I did not speak strategy because I know little about strategy. Civilians can't grasp a true understanding of war strategy. I've tried and it is too much. This is why they have schools for war strategy. You or I acting like we understand something was bad strategy is a joke.
You say "bide their time" like they weren't getting destroyed everywhere. They still had an army, if that is what you mean by "bide their time," but they were weren't putting up any kind of defense.
And I'd like to read a little more about the Tet offensive before I start speaking about it (I'm guessing McNamara filled you in), so speaking in general... that was one battle. Does that one battle negate all the others before it? The South had won a battle over a month after the war ended (Palmito), so that one battle should change the outcome, because one battle is all it takes.
"secondly, your points that the "anti-war crowd" is being treated like Gospel is pretty much bullshit. I have little patience personally for the most prominent anti-Vietnam war protesters of the day (Jane Fonda, et al... although I do like that song "WAR" so forgive me, Rob), and many people villify them."
The military is the only people who vilifies these asshats. Everyone else loves them. I think Fonda was on Conan this week. Bob Dylan is considered great, and not a villain. And a lot of those hippies are teachers now. And if you don't like them so much, why are you agreeing with them? Do you think they nailed it back in the day?
"Paul is just as big of an asshole as Jane Fonda for arguing points that more resemble hers than mine."
I'm saying you are a big asshole because you are. I'm also saying you are wrong because you are siding by people who didn't know the whole story. People who made half assed judgment calls on what was going on and reported it like it was the truth. People like Jane Fonda took those judgments to another level, and if you don't think a good portion of our country doesn't see her as great(the portion of our country who didn't go to Vietnam and were all coked out during the war) then you are kidding yourself. Go talk to those people who protest on 15th and O and you will be amazed at their theories.
"In reality the views of many skeptics of the way the Vietnam War was handled have virtually nothing in common with the views of Miss Fonda, et al. To simply lump all skeptics of the way the Vietnam War was handled into the same crowd as the soldier spitting on types is pretty unfair, and again, not very considerate of the totality of my arguments."
There were a lot of skeptics. Fonda would be considered an extreme skeptic so it would be unfair to lump you in with her. Which is why I didn't.
"the exact criticism could be made of the Government officials with them making such statements as "The Viet Cong has been defeated" and so on."
You are probably right. All of our troops who went over there probably got brainwashed into thinking they were killing a ton of VC and taking all their food. Why didn't I think of that?
I guess you think that their editors and producers would have been happy with, "And our troops are doing great. Back to you, Ted." They were sent out to find something to get viewers. That is how news works.
You are just so sold on an infallible media that you won't even consider they had motives for their reporting. Keep living it.
"If you could directly cite the source which proves this large scale, borderline conspiratorial, anti-Vietnam editorial tone taken on by the Mass Media, i would appreciate it... and how this large scale change in editorial tone single handedly changed American public opinion against the Vietnam war, I would appreciate it."
Well, I've only said it like three times. Poor judgment on the war lead to incorrect reports which lead to bad opinions on the war back home which lead to riots which led to government making stupid calls leading to a new war.
And the last link I provided you with, I guess it can be thrown out the window since you disagree with it. Way to be objective.
"Vietnam is the Kennedy Administration's mess yet Rob tirelessley defends it. He hates Kennedy, calls him like a "disgrace" or something, but argues in absolute favor of something that is quite possibly his biggest failure (although it is tough to choose just one, no?)"
I'm defending our troops who you so desperately believe were worthless idiots who didn't want to be there in the first place, and therefore lost the war. If you don't know how to read, I've been attacking both the Republican and Democratic offices during the war.
"Also, that is a pretty cute quote from some Unkown Vietnamese General, or as you would refer to him if he didn't conveniently agree with you, "some asshat trying to sell a book"."
Are you fucking kidding me? I said his name and gave you a link to the book AND his wikipedia site so you could read about him. READ!
It is pathetic that you quickly discredit anything I say but then attack me for doing that. At least I have a basis (weren't there/ had a reason to lie/ doesn't have the knowledge or understanding to say what he is saying...) to discredit these guys. You simply discredit anyone who you don't agree with and then claim that is what I do. Pretty pathetic, Paul.
""You can kill ten of our men for every one we kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and we will win.""
Explain how this quote has meaning in the context of this debate? Were we only killing them at a 10 to one ration? Was it less? Was it more? Searching for Minh and quotes doesn't mean it will have any validity.
I did not simply say, "make a buck." I do believe there was another part of that line. Go ahead and avoid entire sentences, though. You're damn good at it.
Could you provide me with a list of these books written by Vietnam Vets saying "we got our ass kicked and it was because we are all idiots. The media is doing a spiffy job out her reporting everything perfectly." I'd be interested in reading those considering they go against everything I've ever been told (family, friends, or print), perhaps I'm living my life a lie.
"The fact that you are even playing this "I'm credible and you are not" card is troubling to me. I realize it may seem as though I am doing the same thing right now, but not so much."
Oh, so saying "but not so much," means you aren't. Ok. I think you are an idiot, but I, not so much.
I did say I had spoken with multiple Vets. Tony Moreno, Stan Hansen, Charlie McClaughlin, My Dad, one of my Uncles (although he simply said you were an idiot and should be hung. He was joking. BTW, you met him at my graduation.), Ron Ieva... I did provide some links to stuff I said. You are just saying you get your thoughts from a wide variety of places. Then again, I guess since I don't read anything that doesn't fall in line with my theory, you feel what is the point, right?
The reason the generals thought we were on the verge of anything was because the numbers and battlefield (that you so animately give all credit to) showed we were winning. We couldn't win the war back in America, which was playing right into the Vietnamese' hands.
You don't see the connection between my jerkoff effort comparing Reid to what happened then? Besides, it isn't just Reid, it is a lot of jerkoffs.
"Soldier on the ground, who it seems to me would benefit from being told things like, "they are on the run" and so forth, when in fact they have no reason to know the particulars of the entirety of the war effort, the way, say, the president of the united states would."
When did all our soldiers lose their eyes? I didn't hear about this.
"And please spare me the attack of like, "Oh you don't respect the perspective of the Soldier!" because yeah Rob, I do. I have a great deal of respect for the soldiers in Vietnam and just because I don't presume them to know more about the situation with the totality of a War than the President doesn't mean I don't respect them."
Firstly, it has nothing to do with respecting the "perspective." It is the soldier their self. You are clearly saying they were lying to us, and I guess continue to now that they are safe and home. I'm guessing you think John Kerry is the only respectable soldier over there because he agrees with your sentiments.
Secondly, the president was up against a lot of pressure by the home front which lead to us withdrawing with our tail between our legs.
"Also, stop playing the whole, "Yeah well i've TALKED to vietnam vets" card because I have too, Rob, I have too."
And your vets said that they were a bunch of idiots? Hmmmmm. I don't believe they did, Paul.
This comment has been removed by the author.
If you don't think the media had any effect on the outcome of the Vietnam War, you are simply crazy. The continued attacks on our military during the time were ridiculous and distorted the true story in Vietnam. And do I need to remind anyone about the reason Johnson chose not to run for reelection: he stated that he'd lost Cronkite on the war, so he'd lost America and wouldn't be able to win. The media had a huge impact on the outcome of the war and the parallels to today's war in Iraq are scary. If we allow the media and their biased reporting and idiotic polls (supposedly of the American people) to influence how we handle the war, we will not only secure defeat in Iraq, but endanger the safety of our country.
Oh, and for the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's comments not carrying any weight, that is just ridiculous. No, he cannot single-handedly affect the war. But he and Nancy Pelosi can work to defund our troops or put a time line for withdrawal and seriously endanger our troops' safety and hurt their morale. Also, the terrorists know how to play them and the rest of the Democrats and their cohorts in the media to their advantage. All you have to do is look at the quotes from terrorist leaders and compare them to quotes from Democrats and the media and you'll see the same things being said. The Democrat Party and the media stand for defeat of this country in war no matter what the cost and they won't stop until they can secure defeat in the end.
Post a Comment
<< Home