Why does Hollywood now eulogise the Vietnam fiasco?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Felch X
Nobody said they were nice guys. I only said that they were effective.

American heroes are supposed to be badasses. We're a nation of gun-toting maniacs who spit farther, **** longer, and fight harder than any Aussie you'll ever find. We all ride Harley Davidsons and drink warm piss "beer," and when we aren't working in our munitions factories making bombs to kills foreigners, we're beating each other up with two by fours.

Didn't you know that AH?

don't tell AH that

he might not come here then

Jon Miller

[uh Clem]

AH: You had to post that in TWO threads?..... ...noted...

The Tet Offensive you are refering to was a colossal military disaster for Giap's forces. It's one saving grace was that it played well for the American public back home.

As mentioned, that was the turning point. The results showed up almost immediately in the New Hampshire primary, when Eugene McCarthy's ignored and under-financed campaign nearly tied LBJ's vote total. After that, the question all candidates had to answer was, "How're we going to get out of this?"

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Felch X
We abandoned an ally who was being attacked by a foreign power.

It was an illegal government that should have been abolished after the 1956 elections voted to unite the South with the North. It was a dictatorship, and despite saying that opinion turned against the Communists, not even the government of South Vietnam believed in itself. It was a government of the 5% French-speaking, Catholic minority, and it was maintained soley through terror.

However dishonorable that was, I highly doubt that anybody could describe this as a defeat of the United States, especially since we weren't even there (aside from the embassy).

It was a defeat because the US was forced to leave the war and watch it's puppet collapse. It was a defeat because we could not control the situation. Everyone in the world saw it as a defeat. Americans saw it as a defeat. It's only recently that revisionism has spun it insto something else. At least in the Seventies we knew we were in the wrong.

[Alexander's Horse]

And lets not forget those immortal words from a US officer in the field that probably sums up the craziness of the whole war:

"We had to destroy the village to save it."

I wonder how many villages in Afghanistan are being destroyed to be saved today

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
And lets not forget those immortal words from a US officer in the field that probably sums up the craziness of the whole war:

"We had to destroy the village to save it."

I wonder how many villages in Afghanistan are being destroyed to be saved today

I thought I remembered the quote as running something like (looking back on the burning ruins of a village):

"We sure liberated the hell out of that place"

That could be an earlier war, though...

[TCO]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
And lets not forget those immortal words from a US officer in the field that probably sums up the craziness of the whole war:

"We had to destroy the village to save it."

I wonder how many villages in Afghanistan are being destroyed to be saved today

Why don't you get some quotes from the SV who suffered under the NV regime in concentration camps after the war and who risked death to flee the country?

[Alexander's Horse]

Morley's initial fame came from one story in particular, which most TV viewers from the 60's will remember. It showed American GI's using Zippo lighters to set thatched roofs afire in a small village. The village was burned as part of the American policy of rooting out Viet Cong and punishing villagers who were "VC sympathizers". (The poor bastards couldn't win either way!) This was right in line with the famous quote from a MACV press briefer who stated, with a straight face, that ". . . we had to destroy the village to save it."

It was reported by an American journalist.

[TCO]

AH,

My question to you is where are you going with this? Is there really that much value added in criticising the good guys? Does it make you feel better?

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by GP
AH,

My question to you is where are you going with this? Is there really that much value added in criticising the good guys? Does it make you feel better?

Was it Aristotle who said "those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them"?

Hollywood is helping you forget.

[Felch]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It was an illegal government that should have been abolished after the 1956 elections voted to unite the South with the North. It was a dictatorship, and despite saying that opinion turned against the Communists, not even the government of South Vietnam believed in itself. It was a government of the 5% French-speaking, Catholic minority, and it was maintained soley through terror.

It was a defeat because the US was forced to leave the war and watch it's puppet collapse. It was a defeat because we could not control the situation. Everyone in the world saw it as a defeat. Americans saw it as a defeat. It's only recently that revisionism has spun it insto something else. At least in the Seventies we knew we were in the wrong.

Che, the government of North Vietnam wasn't any better. The difference was that the South wasn't invading the North in 1975. I thought you were a pacifist. . .

As far as legality of governments, I'm not exactly bothered by it. I'm aware that the US and South Vietnam balked on the 1956 elections, but I seriously don't care. The South Vietnamese were better off being in an American puppet state, aside of course, from the ravages of the war. I hold the North responsible for the war, and I think that the South of Vietnam could have turned out just like South Korea or Taiwan if it hadn't been for the hostile government in Hanoi and the failure of the US to properly defend it.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Was it Aristotle who said "those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them"?

Hollywood is helping you forget.

Arabs and Israelis are well aware of their history, but they repeat it just for ****s and giggles.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Felch X
The South Vietnamese were better off being in an American puppet state, aside of course, from the ravages of the war.

Now that's has to be the understatement of the year.

[Felch]

I aim to please.

[Alexander's Horse]

I wouldn't write off South Vietnam so readily as a viable state. The North and South are very different and throughout Vietnamese history they have been either united or divided into separate states. The mistake the Americans made was to step in and fight the war for them. This corrupted the whole South Vietnamese regime and ultimately doomed it.

In other parts of South East Asia, in fact throughout the region, governments successfully dealt with communist threats with US support but without US military intervention. There's a lesson for you

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara



It was a defeat because the US was forced to leave the war and watch it's puppet collapse. It was a defeat because we could not control the situation. Everyone in the world saw it as a defeat. Americans saw it as a defeat. It's only recently that revisionism has spun it insto something else. At least in the Seventies we knew we were in the wrong.

It was a defeat because the US Congress refuse to spend any more money supporting our troops or the S. Vietnamese Gov. The US Congress lost Vietnam not the US Military.
An 18 year old in 61 would now be 59.
An 18 year old in 73 would now be 47.
The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was in Aug 64.
First major troops assigment was in 65.
I missed going to Nam by about 90 days. I was discharge in March of 65 and my ship the USS Navarro APA-215 when to Nam in May or June with 1800 Marines. Some of my friend were extended to go to Nam.
Most junior Officer in Nam would now be retired.
A new military person in 73 would now have 29 year if he/she is still in. So most of them are now retired.