Should the US have become involved in the Vietnam conflict?

The History Channel ^ | 18 OCT 2002 | Producers

[onedoug]

It's that time again...tho re-fight the Vietnam War. This time via the online poll for the program The History Channel cablecast this evening on the subject.

I voted yes, despite the politics that led us there, because I refuse to believe that so many brave Americans lost their lives their needlesly.

I yet feel our involvemnt there was a great enterprise from which, as was the case with the fall of the Soviet Union, we will yet emerge victorious.

I'm curious what Freepers...expecially my fellow Vietnam veterancs, may think.

[onedoug]

As I said, I think this poll deserves a Freep.

[onedoug]

Sorry for the typos. I hit the "post" click-on prematurely.

[getgoing]

Done. We have a way to go to turn this one around.

[bybybill]

I have often wondered if Vietnam would be free today if Watergate didn`t happen.

[Texas_Jarhead]

short answer:

The communists slaughtered tens of millions and enslaved hundreds of million more. The U.S. did what was right and noble in opposing such an evil force.

[struwwelpeter]

I have often wondered if Vietnam would be free today if Watergate didn`t happen

Probably not, but we might still have a canal... and a good friend in Teheran.

[onedoug]

But I guess we will make them "democratic" like we did the Germans and Japanese?

For them to decide, once they have the choice. But it must be made available to them. No more half-assed cr..!

[RLK]

It was justified. The communists brutally killed and tortured tens of thousands of villagers to destabilize rhe countr. It as an easy war to win. The reason we lost is because we had playboys, idiots, and subversives in government undercutting the military effort. Playboy Kennedy had Diem killed for no good reason. McNamara was a leftist subcersive who is described as a admiror of socialist presidential candidate Norman Thomas in his own book. By 68 the situation was nearly unrecoverable.

[Pompah]

Should the U.S. have become involved in the Vietnam conflict.?
What a truly stupid headline.
Who the hell would ask a question like that after all these years. Jesus. ! Fifty thousand plus aluminum caskets later and a question like that comes up.
I can't belive it. HELLO ?

[truth_seeker]

In the early years of the Cold War, Radio Free Europe beamed the message that World Communism was evil, leading to the 1956 Hungarian revolt.

Then the US proceeded to give the freedom seeking Hungarians ZERO support. We were all talk, and no action.

I expect when it came to Vietnam, we saw an opportunity to take the other position, and DEFEND against the spread of communism.

That it turned out as it did is for another discussion.

The past is history; nothing can change it. But today another threat is faced, namely the spread of World Islam, which is a diabolical, authoritan political march, which seeks nothing less than domination, by the sword--now terrorism.

Hopefully we will stand against it RIGHT NOW. President Bush was CORRECT on Sept. 20, 2001 when he likened it to Nazism and Communism.

Islam was political from the first days. Mohammed was a ruler, a general, he taxed, made civil laws and led wars. He simply wrapped up his political conquest as a religion.

We should stand against it no LESS firmly, just because it is claimed to be a religion. It is a power movement, no less than Nazism and Communism. Arafat studied terror in Cuba with communists, as did other muslim terror group leaders.

It may be true that all muslims are not terrorists; but surely today (almost) all terrorists are muslims.

[CARepubGal]

Ping

[CW_Conservative]

Should the US have become involved in the Vietnam conflict?

The real question they should be asking and answering is, "Why did we have to become involved in the Vietnam conflict?"

Then they could start tracing the miserable effects of one foreign policy failure after another, starting with our role in the treaty that ended WWI.

The middle of the program could show how the Vietnam War was fought by politicians, with devastating results for 50,000 Americans.

The ending could depict how George Bush I and his grand UN Alliance fought a half-ass war that left a dictator in power and then fast foward to today, when his son has to clean up daddy's mess.

[river rat]

The critical distinction today...is that the Muslims that are not terrorists, are NOT taking action or demanding the expulsion of the "radicals" from positions of authority in Islam..

Islamic clerics all over the world are preaching hate, murder and celebrating those killed in the name of Islam....This, more than anything - paints all those "silent" peaceful Muslims as FRAUDS.

Let one Christian preacher, simply use the WORD evil to describe Islam -- and the Muslims go nuts and clerics issue a fatwah for his death! Yes, they are a religion of peace..... NOT!

If Muslims will NOT refute the militant and radical version of their "Holy Book" ----Then Islam is the enemy. How much clearer must this be for people to recognize the real issue?

Semper Fi

[eastforker]

I agree,if one is not part of the solution then he is part of the problem.IMHO there can be no neutrality on this subject,you are either with us or you are with the terrorist.How hard is that for some to understand.

[truth_seeker]

If a Christian pastor stood in his church, and using religious/political double-talk admonished his flock to harm, kill abortion doctors, that would be an incitement to commit an illegal act of violence.

If a muslim cleric stood in his mosque, and using religious/political double-talk, admonished his flock to harm, kill Americans, Jews, Hindus, infidels, that would be an incitement to commit an illegal act of violence.

IOW he who issues the order is just as guilty, as he who pulls the trigger, flies the plane, etc. That the "order giver" is a religious figure makes no difference.

Surely this is easy to understand. It was understood at the Nuremberg trials.

A muslim cleric should NOT free to incite, by standing behind some protected veil of "religion." The effect is the same outcome: an illegal act of violence.

So for now, any nation wishing to enter/remain in the realm of civilization MUST clamp down HARD.

Those who can't or won't are the ENEMIES of civilization, and are explicitly permitting evil.

So Indonesia, Philipines and other nations had best get going. If the citizenry wishes to live under Sharia Law, let them be isolated.

Should a muslim nation allow their "islamic warriors" to roam the globe, that nation is the ENEMY. There should be perfect clarity, and no exeptions (Pakistan?).

It will be long, messy, hard to understand. But it must follow easily understood clarity.

Incitement, financial support, sanctuary must all be included in the test of who is our friend, and who is our ENEMY. I expect in the long run, Saudi Arabia, perhaps Egypt, Pakistan and others could have great difficulty.

In some places, the citizenry may overthrow the present civil governments, in favor of terrorist leaders. That will make the distinction of ENEMY status much easier for our side.

[Coeur de Lion]

In retrospect many argue that we should not have gotten involved at all. Counter to conventional wisdom the domino theory was actually correct in reality. The involvement in Vietnam actually resulted in taking the wind out of the sails of other communist insurgencies in the region (i.e. Indonesia is a perfect example of this). Had we not gotten involved more nations besides South Vietnam, Laos, Burma and Cambodia would've fallen. Nixon's Vietnamization scheme could've worked. We now have no way of knowing that. Unfortunately, during the end-game the Democratic led congress betrayed the South Vietnamese by refusing to resupply them. Something the democrats seem to quite easily forget.

[river rat]

No doubt about it....I see no future cooperation between the House of Saud and the United States..

The bastards tried to play both sides against the middle - until they discovered THEY were the middle.. Now they are caught between the "radicals" and the U.S. -- both capable of destroying them in a blink.

Any current "friendship" is temporary at best. I see no possible salvation for the House of Saud, short of them directing the total destruction and refuting of the Wahhabi sect of Islam.....NOT going to happen...

Semper Fi