Napoleon

[Coracle]

The United States "could have stayed in Vietnam indefinitely"??

Yea, surrre. I suppose that is true IF you ingnore such things as the tremendous cost of that stupid war; the fact that the U.S. greatly weakened its military in Europe and elsewhere; international political opposition; and growing and vehement opposition to the war at home which by 1968 forced a commitement to bring that idiotic needless adventure to a close.

Oh yes, Kennedy and Johnson the Liar repeatedly spoke of the phony Domino Theory and all of Southeast Asia turning "Red" if South Vietnam "fell", and that includes the Philippines and eastern Pacific. The REALITY is the after that ersatz puppet regime in Saigon collapsed the ONLY country that turned communist was Laos.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by FrankBullit
Facts are a funny thing, they get in the way of ignorance.

Interesting how in Vietnam they celebrate their "victory" over the Americans. Poor savages. They don't even know that they didn't win the war. Should we tell them? On the other hand, I'll let you do it.



Meanwhile, the French retreated from Vietnam. But, of course, they didn't lose the war either as they still hold Paris.

[Jon Shafer]

At least France did better than 15 years before the Vietnam overthrow.

[Alanus]

Originally posted by Trip
At least France did better than 15 years before the Vietnam overthrow.

Absolutely !

[Alanus]

Originally posted by FrankBullit
Facts are a funny thing, they get in the way of ignorance.

Its called History, read some of it.

I still remember how the US embassy in Saïgon has been evacuated. Call it the way you want, colonial wars are not glorious, whatever colonial party you defend.

Except in Civ

[FrankBullit]

Laos was the only country to become communist? I seem to remember a real milk-toast Liberal professor type named Pol Pot that lived in Cambodia. And speaking of the Phillipines, communist guerilla's still roam the jungles along with miltant Muslims attacking those that differ in opinion from them. In fact, the only thing that America is guilty of losing is their long-held niave assumption that everyone else in the world would somehow want to live in a democracy! What a farcial assumption that did turn out to be. Vietnam is welcome to their totalitarianism, their poverty, their monsoons and their belief that they actually did win something. Goodbye and good luck to 'em!

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by FrankBullit
In fact, the only thing that America is guilty of losing is their long-held niave assumption that everyone else in the world would somehow want to live in a democracy! What a farcial assumption that did turn out to be. Vietnam is welcome to their totalitarianism, their poverty, their monsoons and their belief that they actually did win something. Goodbye and good luck to 'em!

A local tyrant is generally preferable to a foreign one. Do I sense a touch of bitterness?

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by FrankBullit
In fact, the only thing that America is guilty of losing is their long-held niave assumption that everyone else in the world would somehow want to live in a democracy! What a farcial assumption that did turn out to be. Vietnam is welcome to their totalitarianism, their poverty, their monsoons and their belief that they actually did win something. Goodbye and good luck to 'em!

The best form of government in the world is the "good Czar". This is someone who strives to make government work for all the citizens, has the ultimate power and the wisdom to know how, when and when to not, use it. The worst form of government is the "Bad Czar" he has all the same atributes as the "Good Czar", save that he is out for his own power, and doesn't care about the citizens. It is impossible to tell which Czar you have until he has been in power for a while. So, no, not everyone wants to live in a Democracy...

Having said that, Democracy is a good compromise, as it spreads power among enough people that not too much harm is likley to come about at once...

None of this address what happened in Vietnam, however. The people took a look at their choices. They were _not_ given a choice between "Dictatorship" and "Democracy". they were given a choice between "Dictator chosen by us", and "Dictator chosen by someone else". They chose to have a dictator of their own...

[FrankBullit]

This is the one lesson successfully learned by the U.S. through Vietnam: When people do not have a tradition of democracy to stand on, they cannot help but fall for dictatorship. Mexico and most of Latin America have been proving this out for years. The only bitterness I do have about Vietnam is that some of the finest people in America served in the military during Vietnam and have been maligned and lied about ever since. Contrary to the Hollywood cliche, the vast majority of Vietnam Vets did NOT become drug-addled homeless people, but have been among the most successful of their generation. The people of Vietnam were the ones totally unworthy of these folks' sacrafices and efforts. The irony today is that Vietnam would love nothing more than to have us back spending our money and investing into their swamp.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by FrankBullit
This is the one lesson successfully learned by the U.S. through Vietnam: When people do not have a tradition of democracy to stand on, they cannot help but fall for dictatorship. Mexico and most of Latin America have been proving this out for years. The only bitterness I do have about Vietnam is that some of the finest people in America served in the military during Vietnam and have been maligned and lied about ever since. Contrary to the Hollywood cliche, the vast majority of Vietnam Vets did NOT become drug-addled homeless people, but have been among the most successful of their generation. The people of Vietnam were the ones totally unworthy of these folks' sacrafices and efforts. The irony today is that Vietnam would love nothing more than to have us back spending our money and investing into their swamp.

South Vietnam not only had no tradition of democracy it had no tradition at all being a phony manufactured state created in 1954.

The lack of democractic traditions is another reason why this massive flood of Third World immigrants into the U.S. should be of concern.

As for the U.S. soldiers in Vietnam, be sure to differentiate between the professionals and volunteers in the early part of the war, and the conscripted malcontents in the last years of the U.S. involvement. A lot of them were a disgrace, but I can hardly blame them considering the political and military situation.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by FrankBullit
This is the one lesson successfully learned by the U.S. through Vietnam: When people do not have a tradition of democracy to stand on, they cannot help but fall for dictatorship. Mexico and most of Latin America have been proving this out for years. The only bitterness I do have about Vietnam is that some of the finest people in America served in the military during Vietnam and have been maligned and lied about ever since. Contrary to the Hollywood cliche, the vast majority of Vietnam Vets did NOT become drug-addled homeless people, but have been among the most successful of their generation. The people of Vietnam were the ones totally unworthy of these folks' sacrafices and efforts. The irony today is that Vietnam would love nothing more than to have us back spending our money and investing into their swamp.

That's all very true. Now look at the story from a Vietnamese soldiers point of view. He lost millions of his countrymen. First, the Vietnamese fought the French* who were ruthless colonialists. Then they fought the Japanese who would enslave them. Then they fought the French*, who had tacit American support. Then the Americans installed puppet and corrupt governments in South Vietnam, finally committing troops to keep the Vietnamese from turning communist. But most Vietnamese apparently believed that that was a decision for them to make. Frankly, the U.S. was on the wrong side of history.

Ho Chi Minh was a scholar of American history. He was fully cognizant of the Declaration of Independence. He knew that the Americans -- a backwater, low-tech country -- beat the greatest power on earth to gain their independence Specifically, he knew how the Americans would hide in the wilderness, while the British were afraid to leave their barracks, and the comfort of the town. If the British did give chase, they would rarely find the Americans, and then be subject to a potentially catastrophic ambush. Ho was also aware how Washington won a very important battle by attacking on Christmas (think Tet offensive).

Of course, the U.S. soldiers paid a terrible price for the mistakes of their elders. But don't blame just the White House. Both Johnson and Nixon were reelected by landslides.



* "Napoleon" is the title of this thread. Napoleon was one such a French colonialist.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Coracle
South Vietnam not only had no tradition of democracy it had no tradition at all being a phony manufactured state created in 1954.
. . .
and the conscripted malcontents in the last years of the U.S. involvement. A lot of them were a disgrace, but I can hardly blame them considering the political and military situation.

Your first point is very apt.

but that last comment is not fair to the many thousands who went to war when their country called. Most gave their best. Many gave more than that.

[Zachriel]

Ho Chi Minh as an ally against the Japanese in WWII:

BRITANNICA
At the same time, commandos formed by Vo Nguyen Giap, under Ho's direction, began to move toward Hanoi, the Vietnamese capital, in the spring of 1945. After Japan's surrender to the Allies, they entered Hanoi on August 19. Finally, on September 2, before an enormous crowd gathered in Ba Dinh Square, Ho Chi Minh declared Vietnam independent, using words ironically reminiscent of the U.S. Declaration of Independence: “All men are born equal: the Creator has given us inviolable rights, life, liberty, and happiness. . . !”

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Ho Chi Minh was a scholar of American history. He was fully cognizant of the Declaration of Independence. He knew that the Americans -- a backwater, low-tech country -- beat the greatest power on earth to gain their independence Specifically, he knew how the Americans would hide in the wilderness, while the British were afraid to leave their barracks, and the comfort of the town. If the British did give chase, they would rarely find the Americans, and then be subject to a potentially catastrophic ambush. Ho was also aware how Washington won a very important battle by attacking on Christmas (think Tet offensive).

I think you overstate the simmilarity of the American Colonies and Vietnam. First, the Colonial millita was a minor nuisence at best. It was armies on the field that gave the Colonies their edge. The Colonial armies were successfull on the field (set piece battles), and the Vietnameese armies were decimated everytime they gathered into a field force.

The most important difference, though, was that While the Vietnameese had international (Soviet and Chineese) backing, _neither_ force sent troops to attack America. The colonies, on the other wrist, had significant numbers of troops from France, and a smaller number from Spain. After the battle of Lexington, France and Spain threatened to invade england. That was what gave the win to the Colonies. By contrast, the Soviet Union did _not_ threaten to invade America if we didn't pull out of Vietnam...

Interesting parrallel with Tet/Christmas, though there was never a 1000 year history of christmas truces. Oh, one more parallell, the treaties ending both wars were called "the treaty of Paris"...

Having said that, I think you are correct with a bigger point: The US was on the wrong side of that conflict. Can you immagine if the US had agreed to back Ho against France (who would have pulled out if the US had staked Marshal plan aid to it) in exchange for a millitary base in Vietnam? And of course the differences between the US and the Soviet Union are not so small that the Vietnameese could have failed to notice them given a peacefull chance to examin both of them up close. Hell, just the difference in our technological level. This would have also set a precident: The US will be friends with anyone who is friendly to us, no matter the government. We could have avoided a lot of unpleasantness around the world had we decided that comunism isn't nearly as bad as oppression, and that the two are not inextricably intertwined. Hell, Vietnam today has a comunist government, and the people seem genuinly happy and unoppressed...

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Andrew Cory
I think you overstate the simmilarity of the American Colonies and Vietnam.

It was Ho's observation that there was a moral and strategic similarity between the two periods of history.

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by Zachriel


It was Ho's observation that there was a moral and strategic similarity between the two periods of history.

I'll agree that the moral climate was remarkably simmilar.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Andrew Cory
The most important difference, though, was that While the Vietnameese had international (Soviet and Chineese) backing, _neither_ force sent troops to attack America. The colonies, on the other wrist, had significant numbers of troops from France, and a smaller number from Spain. After the battle of Lexington, France and Spain threatened to invade england. That was what gave the win to the Colonies. By contrast, the Soviet Union did _not_ threaten to invade America if we didn't pull out of Vietnam...

Chinese and Soviet troops participated in Vietnam, providing training, tactics and advanced weaponry. This is essentially what the French did for the Americans.

The superpowers, the French and the English, were certainly flexing their muscle and eyeing one another suspiciously. Both were building up their military forces, meanwhile fighting proxy wars trying to gain an advantage -- just like the Americans and Soviets in a later era. Of course, this period culminated with the rise of NAPOLEON.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Andrew Cory
Oh, one more parallell, the treaties ending both wars were called "the treaty of Paris"...

Forgot about that one!

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Chinese and Soviet troops participated in Vietnam, providing training, tactics and advanced weaponry. This is essentially what the French did for the Americans.

The French and the Spanish both provided troops. I read somwhere that upwards of 1/4 of the colonial troops were French and spanish. It might have been lower, but how long do you think it would have taken the nukes to fly if Soviet troops had been present on the field, in large numbers...

Originally posted by Zachriel
The superpowers, the French and the English, were certainly flexing their muscle and eyeing one another suspiciously. Both were building up their military forces, meanwhile fighting proxy wars trying to gain an advantage -- just like the Americans and Soviets in a later era. Of course, this period culminated with the rise of NAPOLEON.

Nice sneaking him back in here. I wonder how tangentel we can make the thread? Do you like curly fries? *grin*

[FrankBullit]

Originally posted by Andrew Cory

I think you overstate the simmilarity of the American Colonies and Vietnam. First, the Colonial millita was a minor nuisence at best. It was armies on the field that gave the Colonies their edge. The Colonial armies were successfull on the field (set piece battles), and the Vietnameese armies were decimated everytime they gathered into a field force.

The most important difference, though, was that While the Vietnameese had international (Soviet and Chineese) backing, _neither_ force sent troops to attack America. The colonies, on the other wrist, had significant numbers of troops from France, and a smaller number from Spain. After the battle of Lexington, France and Spain threatened to invade england. That was what gave the win to the Colonies. By contrast, the Soviet Union did _not_ threaten to invade America if we didn't pull out of Vietnam...

Interesting parrallel with Tet/Christmas, though there was never a 1000 year history of christmas truces. Oh, one more parallell, the treaties ending both wars were called "the treaty of Paris"...

Having said that, I think you are correct with a bigger point: The US was on the wrong side of that conflict. Can you immagine if the US had agreed to back Ho against France (who would have pulled out if the US had staked Marshal plan aid to it) in exchange for a millitary base in Vietnam? And of course the differences between the US and the Soviet Union are not so small that the Vietnameese could have failed to notice them given a peacefull chance to examin both of them up close. Hell, just the difference in our technological level. This would have also set a precident: The US will be friends with anyone who is friendly to us, no matter the government. We could have avoided a lot of unpleasantness around the world had we decided that comunism isn't nearly as bad as oppression, and that the two are not inextricably intertwined. Hell, Vietnam today has a comunist government, and the people seem genuinly happy and unoppressed...

Your argument really falls apart in the last paragraph. Setting a 'precident' that the U.S. would be friendly to anyone who is 'friendly' to us? Does that mean that Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin could have been Pals of this country?

And that is a big assumption to make: That Vietnamese today seem 'genuinely happy and unoppressed'??? How could you possibly know that, without any shred of a free press or freedom of speech on their parts? Maybe your psychic?

And history, unfortunately for you, DOES show that communism EQUALS oppression, and the two ARE inextricably intertwined. Sorry Pal, but Karl Marx's grand vision of Utopia never takes into account Human Nature, to it is ALWAYS doomed to fail FOR the above reasons.

And lastly, you could take the Napolean thread here in a broader context, to reflect on Empire and Culture in general. A college professor of mine was a point man for 82nd Airborne, talked about breaking through a clearing in Vietnam, some God-forsaken
end-of-the-earth patch of land inhabited by the enemy recently at the time, and kicking empty Coke cans out of the way.

[Jon Shafer]

Poor Napoleon. Shamed to curly fries.

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by FrankBullit
Your argument really falls apart in the last paragraph. Setting a 'precident' that the U.S. would be friendly to anyone who is 'friendly' to us? Does that mean that Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin could have been Pals of this country?

Well, Stalin _was_ a pall of this country while there was a bigger fish to gut. The thesis really needs a bit more work, unfortunatly I only gave the thumbnail sketch of it, which gives somthing of a skewed view. Indeed the Stalin example provides a bit of proof: When we have common interests, we should be able to do buissness.

Originally posted by FrankBullit
And that is a big assumption to make: That Vietnamese today seem 'genuinely happy and unoppressed'??? How could you possibly know that, without any shred of a free press or freedom of speech on their parts? Maybe your psychic?

Well, ever read PJ O'Rourk's book eat the rich? This is a man with zero (o) love for communism, so when he writes about the happiness of the vietnameese people, I tend to take notice. Also keep in mind that while there may well be interal censorship, information leaks _out_ fairly well...

Originally posted by FrankBullit
And history, unfortunately for you, DOES show that communism EQUALS oppression, and the two ARE inextricably intertwined. Sorry Pal, but Karl Marx's grand vision of Utopia never takes into account Human Nature, to it is ALWAYS doomed to fail FOR the above reasons.

*yawn* I am not advocating comunism. I think that as an economic system it fails to solve the most basic issues. As a social system, it tends toward pure democracy, and those basicaly suck, mainly because they allow for the worst forms of tyrany. Perhaps I erred in not being specific enough. a nation might be comunist in name, idiology, but not be one in form. Take China or Vietnam today for instance. Both of them profess comunism, but neither actualy practices it. What they have is a party dictatorship, but not nessicarily one that dictates what the average person must do.

Originally posted by FrankBullit
And lastly, you could take the Napolean thread here in a broader context, to reflect on Empire and Culture in general. A college professor of mine was a point man for 82nd Airborne, talked about breaking through a clearing in Vietnam, some God-forsaken end-of-the-earth patch of land inhabited by the enemy recently at the time, and kicking empty Coke cans out of the way.

Yep, and if Europe ever got its act together, (by like passing a constitution or somthing) they too might have a strong culture again...

[jdjdjd]

The US got involved in Vietnam, even though the French warned us against it. It wasn't so much that Vietnam was communist, I think we could have persuaded them otherwise had we taken a different approach. Ho was very smart, and idealogically was not bound to communism, but Vietnam independence.

What got the US into Vietnam was corporate profits. We had no interest in this piece of land, and we did not invade more important areas of the world where communism had been planted, so why Vietnam? The South Vietnamese had no interest in being defended by us. The govt propped up by us in South Vietnam was a joke, that govt then went and inflicted some of the cruelest acts against in own populace, pitting people in each village against each other.

So why Vietnam, so the military industrial complex could sell their helicopters, planes, etc. to the military and make a nice profit. Kennedy had signed an executive order just prior to his death to get out of Vietnam and to effectively disband the CIA, and he may have been killed for it....Johnson may have been to afraid to do anything but escalate the war.

wait....something moved in my closet.....

Finally, pure communism and pur democracy are not practiced anywhere, because they are perfect forms of government and we are not perfect. The US practices Representative Democracy, but in reality with less than 60% of the populace voting in most matters, the US is not even that. The US is more of an aristocracy, where the wealthy control the nation's agenda. It must be true otherwise why would actors and actresses have political clout ....they're loaded (there was a time when actors and actresses were considered the dregs of society, maybe those people had something there).

To get back to the point, the US created the Vietnam War, because they had a lull and needed something to fuel larger corporate profits.

Oh, and to the person who talked of the free press, given the state of today's media in the US, is free press so great, or should we add another Access Hollywood type show?

[Jon Shafer]

*Looks around the thread*

Uhm... Viva l'Empreur!

[Alanus]

Originally posted by Trip

Uhm... Viva l'Empreur!

Thanks for trying : Vive l'Empereur !. Que la force soit avec toi...( sorry, I'm mixing all empires)