Log in

View Full Version : History of the Vietnam war for people with attention deficit disorder


August
10-14-11, 11:36 AM
History of Vietnam War for People with Attention Deficit Disorder


History of Vietnam War for People with Attention Deficit Disorder


1954 - South Vietnam becomes independent state, granted by Geneva Convention, which they did not attend. Diem appointed Prime Minister by Emperor Bao Dai. Ho Chi Minh grabs North Viet Nam for himself, a gift from the Japanese who owned it briefly in WW II.

Communist forces in South Vietnam begin terrorist attacks on civilians in South Vietnam, escalating to skirmishes and platoon/company-size battles. South Vietnamese forces keep Communists from any significant military victories.

1956 - South Vietnam doesn't vote to turn itself into a communist-ruled slave state irritating Europeans and the American left.

1957 - The UN Security Council votes 8 to 1 (the Soviet Union vetoing) and the General Assembly votes 49 to 9 to admit South Vietnam. It becomes a member of every UN agency from which it could not be barred by Soviet veto. Becomes first UN "Almost" Nation.

1959 - Communists in Hanoi pledge to conquer South Vietnam and begin sending troops to invade Laos and Cambodia to secure highway right-of-way (Ho Chi Minh Trail) having been given "free pass" by Kennedy administration settlement with Communists in Laos.

1962 - JFK backs up "bear any burden" speech and approves small U.S. advisory force in Vietnam.

1963 - Weasels in U.S. government, uncertain and with weak leadership, acquiesce to coup against South Vietnamese leader, Diem, who is assassinated after JFK administration forgot to arrange transportation out of the country following coup.

1965 - U.S. Marines arrive in Danang. Followed by U.S. troop build-up to over 500,000 with 20% actual combat troops. Kill ratio (U.S. to Communist) remains above 10 to 1 for duration of war. ARVN fight valiantly, independently and alongside U.S. forces, losing over a million dead and wounded (over course of war) in defense of their homeland.

1968 - TET Offensive. Communists lose 50,000 to 75,000 soldiers in ten days. No South Vietnamese join offensive on side of Communists. No South Vietnam cities are held by Communist invaders with exception of Hue where Communists held long enough to slaughter 3,000 to 4,000 civilians before being defeated by U.S. and ARVN forces.

US media declares resounding US defeat, primarily based on reports that Viet Cong sappers had completely destroyed flowerbeds in US embassy grounds during their final few hours before being shot. Media claims U.S. government didn't tell them the war was still going on and begins five year pout.

Siege of Khe Sanh lifted, fewer than 300 Americans dead, between 5,000 and 15,000 Communists dead. Media decides it was almost Dien Bien Phu, except that US won, killed thousands of enemy, was never in danger of being overrun, had overwhelming air power available as well as tens of thousands of troops in reserve.

North Viet Nam claims they never meant to overrun Khe Sanh anyway. Just a brilliant ploy to lose a few thousand men so as to divert attention from chance to lose 50,000 men in TET offensive.

1968-1975 - Hoards of leftist journalists, academics, peace-activists, politicians, movie stars, folk singers, radical war-protesters, and various charlatans, fools and frauds descend on North Vietnam, reporting breathlessly that U.S. bombing is causing damage and that the North Vietnamese people don't like it. After photo-ops and notes for books complete, all return to lives of relative luxury and safety in U.S.

Richard Nixon elected president of U.S., proving populace and media not 100% in synch.

1969---America begins to withdraw troops. Europe and NATO throw fit that Nixon won't reveal his withdrawal plan completely. Administration suggests they subscribe to New York Times if they want U.S. military secrets.

1972 - North Vietnam joins in the debate over effectiveness of American air power and launches Communist Easter Offensive on South Vietnamese towns. Loses 100,000 soldiers before scrambling back into North Vietnam and Cambodia/Laotian sanctuaries.

Communists walk out of Paris Peace talks. Nixon bombs be-Jesus out of Hanoi. Communists scurry back into Paris Peace talks.

1973 - Paris Peace Accord signed in January. All U.S. combat troops out. Democratically elected SVN government is non-Communist. Internationally sanctioned cease fire in place. U.S. POWs released. Viet Cong army no longer exists. North Vietnamese army decimated. North Vietnam economy in ruins. US starts chats with new best friends China and Russia. American War in Vietnam Over!

U.S. Democrat Congress, not realizing U.S. had won, seizes opportunity to surrender. Votes Case-Church Amendment barring US naval forces from sailing on seas surrounding, US ground forces from operation on the land of, and US air forces from flying in the air over, South Vietnam, North Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. Nullifies Paris Peace agreement (which pledges support to enforce the treaty) before North Vietnam has a chance to do it for itself.

1973-1974 - North Vietnam rebuilds army. Receives massive aid from Communist godfathers. Begins military probe of South Vietnam, testing waters with attacks in Phouc Binh province.

US Congress debates break-in of Democratic office in Watergate complex in Washington DC and its implications for humanity, God, and future elections.

North Vietnam leaders begin planning full scale attack on South Vietnam. Discuss their fear and hatred of Nixon. (Ditto U.S. Congress) The Vietnam propaganda machine prevails after 1973, convincing the world that North Vietnam is entitled to overrun South Vietnam. Legality and morality is not challenged by attorneys or U.S. Congress.

1974 - Richard Nixon resigns as President. Giving Congress scores sole victory of their Vietnam War policy.

1975 - North Vietnam captures Phouc Long, provincial capital of Phouc Binh, north of Saigon on Cambodian border. Democrat Congress musters courage to sit quietly and study fingernails. Foul mouth anti-war activists, Rubin and Rudd, debate opportunity to work Phouc Binh and Phouc Long into their anti-American tirades.

1975 - later North Vietnam mounts full scale invasion of South Vietnam with 17+ divisions, spearheaded by 700 Russian tanks. US Democrat Congress expresses grave concern.

Without air power, replacement parts, ammunition, and funds (cut off by US Congress in numerous bills, amendments, rants and resolutions) the South Vietnamese army defeated and North Vietnam and its leftist allies conquer South Vietnam.

Hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese citizens are suddenly struck by a desire to see Disneyland and depart, primarily in boats, through heart-breaking horror of piracy, rape, murder, and starvation to come to America. (Where they become one of the most successful immigrant groups in US history).

Although now supplied with a flotilla of boats, none of the anti-American leftists and radicals, escape immoral America back to now free Vietnam.

1975-Until Sun Burns Out Draft dodgers, leftist journalists, peaceniks, academics, fools and charlatans (See 1968-1975 above) begin self-justification of cowardly acts and empirically wrong opinions, with attacks on American Veterans, and the South Vietnamese Government and its army under guise of morality and evil motives of America's involvement in Vietnam.

1975-present - Communist Vietnam plans and manages its way to one of the poorest and most repressive nations on the face of the earth.

(*) At the time, America had several treaty agreements to provide support and protection for its allies and favored nations. 50,000 troops in Korea. 300,000 troops in Europe. The US Navy protecting Taiwan. All had various guarantees that the US would intervene if Communist forces crossed international borders. These precedents were ignored by the US Congress in regard to the Vietnamese peace arrangements.

(**) Contrary to the chatter of Communist propaganda aptly spread by their allies in the US, the South Vietnamese army did NOT just roll up in front of the invading North Vietnamese. In one of the last major battles of the war, (March 1975) the NVA 6th and 7th Divisions attacked Xuan Loc, forty miles northeast of Saigon. They were joined, after being repulsed by the South Vietnamese defenders (the Army Republic of South Vietnam 18th Division), by the NVA 341st Division, who unleashed a four thousand round artillery bombardment on the town. Spearheaded by Russian tanks the three Communist divisions assaulted the ARVN positions and were again repulsed. Finally with a force of 40,000 Communist troops assaulting them, the 5,000 ARVN soldiers were overwhelmed.

(***) In final irony, Vietnam begins to adopt capitalistic model in late 20th Century, just as U.S. decides it hasn't worked very well for us and moves (in 2008) toward old Viet Nam model of socialism and lying to people. Two hundred thirty plus years of American success was just good luck new administration declares.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________________________________________________

Author:

Phillip Jennings served in Vietnam with the United States Marine Corps, flying helicopters, and in Laos as a pilot for Air America. He is the author of the critically acclaimed comic novels "Nam-A-Rama" and "Goodbye Mexico", and won the Pirate's Alley Faulkner Society first prize for fiction with his short story, "Train Wreck in a Small Town." A successful entrepreneur, he is currently CEO of Molecular Resonance Corporation, which is developing technology to detect and disarm Improvised Explosive Devices. He lives with his family near Seattle, Washington

Oberon
10-14-11, 11:45 AM
I got as far as 1969 and then lost attention.

August
10-14-11, 11:46 AM
I got as far as 1969 and then lost attention.

I'm having some formatting issues.

Skybird
10-14-11, 11:51 AM
I'm having some formatting issues.
Not just you, it is a problem with the forum software. I repeatedly had the same problem when quoting something, and saw it with other people as well.

It is not the source text. I sometimes have the situation that a quote gets shown correctly, than I edit it to correct some typos - and all quoted stuff suddenly has gone crazy.

Osmium Steele
10-14-11, 12:01 PM
WOW! Alot of cursing in that post. So many asterisks....

Jimbuna
10-14-11, 12:40 PM
WOW! Alot of cursing in that post. So many asterisks....

LOL :DL

Keep at it August and add a few links if possible....I've always had an interest in the Vietnam conflict :yep:

Oberon
10-14-11, 01:52 PM
I'm having some formatting issues.

I was kidding mate, it's a good bit of info and well written, but yeah the forum has been having a few formatting problems of late. Just look at what happened to the Japanese and Chinese subforums :dead:

TarJak
10-14-11, 03:43 PM
For completeness the timeline should go back to the origins, which was the 1945 struggle to gain independence which was largely ignored by the Western Powers and which led to Ho Chi Min pleading with them to provide guarantees that the French would not get their old colony back based on their support against the Japanese during WWII.

Their ignorance of the wish of the Vietnamese to determine their own future after WWII directly led to Ho Chi Min asking the Soviet Union for support and assistance, which in about 1949 they finally agreed to and effectively funded and armed the Viet Minh.

I blame Harry Truman myself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Background_to_1949

Oooohhh sorry, this one is a bit long for ADD sufferers.

Dowly
10-14-11, 03:48 PM
VietnamPix (http://www.vietnampix.com/) is quite nice site. :yep:

JU_88
10-14-11, 03:54 PM
This is the version I am familar with (more or less) http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/timeline_vietnam_war.htm

Call me old fashioned but i like Military history to be presented as the basic facts that not been washed over with opinion and bias.

Anyway he missed out some major events.

1964 Gulf of Tonkin
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/gulf_tonkin_1964.htm

1969: 'Vietnamisation'
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/vietnamisation.htm

kiwi_2005
10-14-11, 04:10 PM
VietnamPix (http://www.vietnampix.com/) is quite nice site. :yep:

That's a great site :up: I only wish it had a go-back arrow when viewing the pictures.

August
10-14-11, 05:13 PM
I went in and manually edited out the messed up parts so it's a lot more legible now. It seems to be a problem with using quotation marks, parenthesis and apostrophes.

Unfortunately I lost the reference marks to the three footnotes so you'll have to guess where they go (kinda obvious).

:salute:

Jimbuna
10-14-11, 05:14 PM
No problem...presents itself a lot better now http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/thumbsup.gif

Sailor Steve
10-14-11, 05:22 PM
That's an amazing piece of biased revisionism. It sounds like the version Nixon told himself. Tarjak's link is more like what I remember.

But my version, which is truly for the attention-challenged: We came, we saw, we went home again. Nobody knows why, but they'll all tell you anyway.

August
10-14-11, 05:54 PM
That's an amazing piece of biased revisionism. It sounds like the version Nixon told himself. Tarjak's link is more like what I remember.

Revisionism? That's kind of strong Steve. Biased certainly but it's not like the facts were changed outright.

For example:

1968 - TET Offensive. Communists lose 50,000 to 75,000 soldiers in ten days. No South Vietnamese join offensive on side of Communists. No South Vietnam cities are held by Communist invaders with exception of Hue where Communists held long enough to slaughter 3,000 to 4,000 civilians before being defeated by U.S. and ARVN forces.

What about this is inaccurate?

Sailor Steve
10-14-11, 06:06 PM
About that particular battle? Nothing. In fact we won most of the major battles (maybe all).

But the politics? Ho was the bad guy, Diem was the good guy? Weasels in the US government? Our whole purpose for being there was bad from the start. Diem was a slug, and Ky wasn't much better. We supported them for all the wrong reasons, and that article makes it look like we were there for good moral purposes, and only lost because of the evil people back home who undermined our noble operation.

You can't get much more revisionist than that.

Tchocky
10-14-11, 06:10 PM
1975-Until Sun Burns Out Draft dodgers, leftist journalists, peaceniks, academics, fools and charlatans (See 1968-1975 above) begin self-justification of cowardly acts and empirically wrong opinions, with attacks on American Veterans, and the South Vietnamese Government and its army under guise of morality and evil motives of America's involvement in Vietnam.


This isn't History. It's really not.

August
10-14-11, 06:17 PM
About that particular battle? Nothing. In fact we won most of the major battles (maybe all).

But the politics? Ho was the bad guy, Diem was the good guy? Weasels in the US government? Our whole purpose for being there was bad from the start. Diem was a slug, and Ky wasn't much better. We supported them for all the wrong reasons, and that article makes it look like we were there for good moral purposes, and only lost because of the evil people back home who undermined our noble operation.

You can't get much more revisionist than that.

Well you may call it revisionism Steve but there are a whole lot of people who feel that war was indeed lost at home.

August
10-14-11, 06:23 PM
This isn't History. It's really not.

Yet I know for a fact that my father had dog feces thrown at him upon his return from his tour in Vietnam so there was at least one attack on a US Veteran.

Oberon
10-14-11, 06:33 PM
It could certainly express itself in a more neutral fashion. After all, when you read something like:

Until Sun Burns Out Draft dodgers, leftist journalists, peaceniks, academics, fools and charlatans (See 1968-1975 above) begin self-justification of cowardly acts and empirically wrong opinions, with attacks on American Veterans, and the South Vietnamese Government and its army under guise of morality and evil motives of America's involvement in Vietnam.

Then you tend to think that this might, just might, had been written by someone leaning a little to the right...which makes it more of an opinion piece than it does a factual piece. Sure, it's stating the facts, but through its own slant rather than through a neutral fashion. We've had this discussion before though....

August
10-14-11, 06:45 PM
It could certainly express itself in a more neutral fashion. After all, when you read something like:


Then you tend to think that this might, just might, had been written by someone leaning a little to the right...which makes it more of an opinion piece than it does a factual piece. Sure, it's stating the facts, but through its own slant rather than through a neutral fashion. We've had this discussion before though....


Everything always has a slant or bias and I'm certainly not claiming that this one does not. But revisionist? I don't think so.

CCIP
10-14-11, 07:16 PM
Well, where "a lot of people felt..." is concerned - I think that's exactly where it gets revisionist though. Just take a look at the language - "communist-ruled slave state"; " bombs be-Jesus out of Hanoi"; "Discuss their fear and hatred of Nixon"; "suddenly struck by a desire to see Disneyland and depart" - and these are just some of the softer ones.

I know you want to keep it brief and to the point, but there is a LOT of value judgments going on that shouldn't be in any summation of history. Particularly as regards to Vietnam where - and I don't care if the war was won or lost at home - in Vietnam itself the initiating situation was dubious to begin with. The motivations of both sides in the conflict are hardly a matter of communism vs. democracy. There was a lot of pragmatic play and 'our SOB' doctrine going on. The US forces 'bombing the be-Jesus' out of Hanoi were hardly a godsend to the Vietnamese people. There were massive - recorded - human rights violations by the South Vietnamese regime, as well as some by the US forces involved in propping them up.

The war never 'lost' its moral edge at home or abroad - IMO it never had it. It was a cold calculating act of preserving spheres of influence and playing favourites in a messy situation. Before the first shot was fired by any US serviceman, this war was morally unjustified. The blood and sacrifice of those lost in it does nothing to whitewash it.

History isn't about feelings, moralizations or someone's father being thrown dog feces at by a hippie. There are facts, of which you have quite a few, but there are also value judgments. You have to keep those in check when writing history, especially episodes of it that are this controversial, and that's that.

Oberon
10-14-11, 07:22 PM
Everything always has a slant or bias and I'm certainly not claiming that this one does not. But revisionist? I don't think so.

It's always hard to say with Vietnam. Some sources claim victory was at hand but let down by the US government and the media. Others claim that victory was never possible. Things are very rarely black and white, if the US had pushed for an all out offensive into the North, what cost would there have been in terms of the economy and manpower? Would it have been more or less than the current strategy in the South? Alternate history fans can debate that one into the small hours, and probably frequently do.
Ultimately though, Vietnam should have been taken as a lesson and it should have been learnt. However I wonder if it was.

CCIP
10-14-11, 07:29 PM
And as far as revisionism goes - it's not always some sort of horror - there can be benefits from re-examining things past. But in that sense, I'm somehow not sure that view is particularly revisionist to begin with - if anything, it's a very reactionary view that harks back to what conservative media of the time of the war might've been promoting.

I'd be curious, for example, to see an American revisionist view of the Soviet war in Afghanistan now that their own experience has resulted in an almost-exact repeat. Which isn't to say that it should be something singing communist praises, but perhaps had REAL lessons been learned from it, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in today.

August
10-14-11, 07:32 PM
Ultimately though, Vietnam should have been taken as a lesson and it should have been learnt. However I wonder if it was.

We thought so. Desert Storm for example was fought with the lessons of Vietnam very much in everyones mind.

August
10-14-11, 07:36 PM
And as far as revisionism goes - it's not always some sort of horror - there can be benefits from re-examining things past. But in that sense, I'm somehow not sure that view is particularly revisionist to begin with - if anything, it's a very reactionary view that harks back to what conservative media of the time of the war might've been promoting.

I'd be curious, for example, to see an American revisionist view of the Soviet war in Afghanistan now that their own experience has resulted in an almost-exact repeat. Which isn't to say that it should be something singing communist praises, but perhaps had REAL lessons been learned from it, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in today.

I wouldn't compare our experiences in Afghanistan with that of the communists. The motivation for the war was totally different as was the tactics employed. For instance the US has not used poison gas against civilians nor ordered the execution of hostages in retaliation for resistance activity. Apples and oranges.

Oberon
10-14-11, 07:43 PM
We thought so. Desert Storm for example was fought with the lessons of Vietnam very much in everyones mind.

Good point, and I guess some similarities between the two conflicts in terms of strategic events can be made. Certainly the US took absolutely no chances in preparation for Desert Storm, and then when it turned out to be quite the curb stomp it caught everyone by surprise, well in the brass anyway.
However, when it came around to Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom, I wonder if a little of that lesson was lost. Desert Storm stopped on the Iraqi border...well...most of it did, but Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom are perhaps what would have happened if the US had invaded and occupied North Vietnam during the Vietnam war. Militarily they would have won, no questions asked...but there would have been more soldiers killed in the aftermath than during the actual advance and secure.
Conducting a victorious war and successful occupation and rebuilding program (and I know using the term occupation is loaded but I can't quite think of the right term here, so consider it a placeholder) is hard, extremely hard, within the rules of engagement that western society has placed upon itself. We are constantly fighting with one hand behind our back, which is something our enemies never do...I often wonder how the Second World War would have turned out if the Western Allies had fought under the same restrictions we place on ourselves today. Bomber Command would have been grounded for most of the war, that's for certain, even after Coventry had been leveled. Still, I guess that the warm knowledge that we are socially superior makes up for the flag draped coffins... :damn:

CCIP
10-14-11, 07:44 PM
I wouldn't compare our experiences in Afghanistan with that of the communists. The motivation for the war was totally different as was the tactics employed. For instance the US has not used poison gas against civilians nor ordered the execution of hostages in retaliation for resistance activity. Apples and oranges.

Then what do you call Agent Orange? Likewise the execution of hostages seems to be as much of a rogue activity as, say, the My Lai massacre.

I'm not arguing that the two are parallels and I'm sorry I've even raised the comparison. I think the view of Afghanistan and the Soviets as some sort of "anti-Vietnam" is really flawed and wrong. However by the same token, pointing a finger and saying that "they did worse things than us!" is no moral justification for anything. Taken in isolation, there are a lot of things that were wrong about US involvement in Vietnam in the first place.

Subnuts
10-14-11, 07:47 PM
"Politically Incorrect" history, "People's" history, "Patriot's" history...

Whatever happened to plain old history? The kind where the author covered all sides without bias and let the reader decide?

Never mind, I'm just a cranky old fart. :nope:

CCIP
10-14-11, 07:54 PM
"Politically Incorrect" history, "People's" history, "Patriot's" history...

Whatever happened to plain old history? The kind where the author covered all sides without bias and let the reader decide?

Never mind, I'm just a cranky old fart. :nope:

Easy - someone is offended at someone else's politicized version, and feels insecure in the facts' ability to speak for themselves. Introduce a contest of value judgments, with both sides upping the ante. Thanks, partisan politics and ideological divisiveness.

There are of course two sides to blame in any debate, just as in any war. It is fair to say that there's also been a popular smearing and dismissal of Vietnam. However I feel that responding in kind (with some facts thrown in) is totally the wrong solution.

August
10-14-11, 08:04 PM
Then what do you call Agent Orange? Likewise the execution of hostages seems to be as much of a rogue activity as, say, the My Lai massacre.

We used Agent Orange in Afghanistan? Talk about revisionism.

And let's not compare using something not designed to kill anything but foliage with chemical agents the Soviets used that were specifically designed to kill human beings. Now surely you won't claim that was a "rouge activity" will you?

Dowly
10-14-11, 08:16 PM
And let's not compare using something not designed to kill anything but foliage with chemical agents the Soviets used that were specifically designed to kill human beings.

Does it really matter what it was designed to do? I mean, Zyklon B wasn't
designed to kill people either. :hmmm:

CCIP
10-14-11, 08:18 PM
Does it really matter what it was designed to do? I mean, Zyklon B wasn't
designed to kill people either. :hmmm:

+1 :yep:

August
10-14-11, 08:27 PM
Does it really matter what it was designed to do? I mean, Zyklon B wasn't
designed to kill people either. :hmmm:

Yeah I'd say it does.

Look fellas. My father died from cancer and other medical problems the government has determined was caused by exposure to Agent Orange during his tour of duty in Vietnam so I have far more reason than any of you to abhor the stuff but the fact of the matter is it wasn't employed to kill people and if we knew then what we know now about the stuff we wouldn't have used it.

You can't say that about the Germans use of Zyklon B or the Soviets use of Yellow Rain in Afghanistan.

TarJak
10-14-11, 09:23 PM
The bit that annoys me a lot about the OP is the complete lack of any mention of the contribution of countries like South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Soviet Union, Taiwan and China, to the conflict.

Whether it's revisionist is debatable, but its certainly biased and lacking in some salient facts.

Not least that the US could have avoided the whole affair in 1945 if it hadn't supported its allies desire to regain their former colonies, instead of supporting indigenous independence and self determination.

Sailor Steve
10-14-11, 10:43 PM
Well you may call it revisionism Steve but there are a whole lot of people who feel that war was indeed lost at home.
Of course it was lost at home. We could have won it hands-down. Then what? Occupy a country that doesn't want us? For how long? Remember Wellington's comments when the British Parliament asked him to take over the War of 1812?

What we did was help out a dictator against a freely elected government (or another dictator, depending on whose version you believe), and whichever you choose it's pointless, because we did it not to help anyone in Vietnam but to fight against "The Godless Communists". We had no business being there in the first place, and the war was lost at home when people began to realize that truth. It wasn't the hippies or the protestors or the draft-dodgers who were the problem - it was the lying, self-serving politicians who, God help us all, probably really believed the lies they told and thought they were doing the right thing.

Kongo Otto
10-14-11, 11:01 PM
Ok and what has this all to do with attention deficit disorder?
Me who has a sister with this really severe disease finds it utter disgusting that this disease is used for nothing else than stupid political discussions!!!
:timeout:

August
10-14-11, 11:07 PM
The bit that annoys me a lot about the OP is the complete lack of any mention of the contribution of countries like South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Soviet Union, Taiwan and China, to the conflict.

That's not exactly true. Except for Australia and NZ every one of those countries is mentioned at least once.

Whether it's revisionist is debatable, but its certainly biased and lacking in some salient facts.

Of course it's biased and certainly doesn't mention every battle and incident that occurred over the 20 years it lasted.

August
10-14-11, 11:09 PM
Ok and what has this all to do with attention deficit disorder?
Me who has a sister with this really severe disease finds it utter disgusting that this disease is used for nothing else than stupid political discussions!!!
:timeout:


Calm down pal. If you have a beef with the name of the article then take it up with the author.

August
10-14-11, 11:10 PM
...it was the lying, self-serving politicians who, God help us all, probably really believed the lies they told and thought they were doing the right thing.

You're probably right but then again is it really "lying" when one believes what they are saying?

Kongo Otto
10-14-11, 11:14 PM
Calm down pal. If you have a beef with the name of the article then take it up with the author.
I dont have to taking it up with anyone, i just said what i had to say.
Nothing personal against you.
In my eyes the author has diqusalified himself with his Tagline from his article, not more and not less.

August
10-14-11, 11:16 PM
I dont have to taking it up with anyone, i just said what i had to say.
Nothing personal against you.
In my eyes the author has diqusalified himself with his Tagline from his article, not more and not less.

It's a free country. You are entitled to your opinion..

Kongo Otto
10-14-11, 11:24 PM
It's a free country. You are entitled to your opinion..

And you to yours,that's good so.
I disagree with a few parts including the tagline in this article but anyways when he wants it to say so then he should do it.
I just find it disturbing using severe diseases totally out of context.

TarJak
10-15-11, 02:32 AM
That's not exactly true. Except for Australia and NZ every one of those countries is mentioned at least once.
Mentioned they may be, but not in any way directed at their contribution to the conflict (outside the mention of Soviet influence).

Each of these countires had people on the ground in the conflict all making a contribution to the effort for one side or another. Reading this account one would assume only American and Vietnamese forces were involved, which they certainly were not.

Tribesman
10-15-11, 03:11 AM
You're probably right but then again is it really "lying" when one believes what they are saying?
When politicians involved have since said they knew it was false at the time then yes it is lying.

Never mind, I'm just a cranky old fart.
No, the author of the opinion piece is a cranky old fart, the sort who still sits round doing a Waterfront dialogue on the whole sad episode.

Diopos
10-15-11, 03:42 AM
It is simple.

"Never fight a land war in Asia".

I think it was Douglas MacArthur who said that (or something similar).

The only thing that maybe added for clarification purposes is "wherever in Asia". Say Afganistan, for example.

.

Dowly
10-15-11, 07:01 AM
[...]if we knew then what we know now about the stuff we wouldn't have used it.

I must confess, my knowledge about Agent Orange is very limited, so I had to
resort to some research. But, it seems that while the effects weren't known
completely, there were suspicions and even a note to the US government from
the company that manufactured 2,4,5-T in 1952 that if overheated during the
manufacturing process it would produce TCDD i.e. the really bad stuff. Today
we know that TCDD was the stuff that caused most of the health issues and
deaths, so for whatever reason said note was ignored or someone balls'd up.

In 1969 it was told to the public that 2,4,5-T indeed had that really bad stuff in it,
yet the sprayings continued for two more years.

Now, I do agree with you that it can't be directly compared to the intentional
gassings by Soviets, but someone made the decision to use AO on not only
forests but farmlands which usually are pretty near to villages and such.
And by doing so, caused some pretty severe problems to the local population
in the form of famine, which even was the desired effect of the sprayings
(to deny VC from possibly food supply and force locals out of the area).

So, the bottomline is that eventho AO wasn't mean't to kill anyone, it did.
And trying to justify it by saying "we didn't know" isn't entirely correct. Even
if you forget TCDD for a moment, "there was already a large body of
scientific evidence linking 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D to serious negative
health effects and ecological damage."

Now if you'll excuse me, I go and get wasted. :()1:

August
10-15-11, 08:04 AM
Mentioned they may be, but not in any way directed at their contribution to the conflict (outside the mention of Soviet influence).

Each of these countires had people on the ground in the conflict all making a contribution to the effort for one side or another. Reading this account one would assume only American and Vietnamese forces were involved, which they certainly were not.

But to add every detail would have made it book length and I don't think that was what the author was shooting for.

Sailor Steve
10-15-11, 12:32 PM
You're probably right but then again is it really "lying" when one believes what they are saying?
A good point. Perhaps "revisionist" was the wrong word to use. I just get my back up when I read something that is completely one-sided, and this certainly distorts a lot it, so I would say it was indeed revised.

I came back and wasn't spat on, or reviled. I had my own questions and ended up with the beliefs I still hold. As always, I'm not certain that I'm right, but when I read a "history" like this one I just feel like fightin'.

August
10-15-11, 12:42 PM
A good point. Perhaps "revisionist" was the wrong word to use. I just get my back up when I read something that is completely one-sided, and this certainly distorts a lot it, so I would say it was indeed revised.

I came back and wasn't spat on, or reviled. I had my own questions and ended up with the beliefs I still hold. As always, I'm not certain that I'm right, but when I read a "history" like this one I just feel like fightin'.

When did you come back Steve? Pop ended his tour in the summer of 67.

Sailor Steve
10-15-11, 12:55 PM
When did you come back Steve? Pop ended his tour in the summer of 67.
July 1970. I was actually only on station for about three months, being flown over and joining my ship in March of that year.

When I met Tarjak in Houston we got to talking, and it turns out that his dad served on HMAS Melbourne, which was lead ship of a task group we did some exersizes with. Small world.

August
10-15-11, 01:01 PM
July 1970. I was actually only on station for about three months, being flown over and joining my ship in March of that year.

When I met Tarjak in Houston we got to talking, and it turns out that his dad served on HMAS Melbourne, which was lead ship of a task group we did some exersizes with. Small world.

Sure is. Too bad you guys couldn't make it up here last year. I'd have enjoyed meeting you.

Sailor Steve
10-15-11, 01:09 PM
Sure is. Too bad you guys couldn't make it up here last year. I'd have enjoyed meeting you.
Yeah, I'm still hating the VA housing facility I was in for not telling me until the last minute that I couldn't go. I even spent $200 on bus tickets that I couldn't get back.

Tchocky
10-15-11, 01:15 PM
Yet I know for a fact that my father had dog feces thrown at him upon his return from his tour in Vietnam so there was at least one attack on a US Veteran.

I don't doubt it, August. But the kind of language this guy is using is not that associated with calm factual analysis and explication.

August
10-15-11, 01:26 PM
I don't doubt it, August. But the kind of language this guy is using is not that associated with calm factual analysis and explication.

Oh i'm so sorry!

I thought I was posting one mans wry perspective to my friends on an internet forum that I frequent, not publishing my historical thesis for peer review.

My bad! :oops:

Jimbuna
10-15-11, 01:58 PM
Yeah, I'm still hating the VA housing facility I was in for not telling me until the last minute that I couldn't go. I even spent $200 on bus tickets that I couldn't get back.

You never told me that...I could have organised a stretched limo for you if you'd only said :03:

Sailor Steve
10-15-11, 02:01 PM
You never told me that...I could have organised a stretched limo for you if you'd only said :03:
:rotfl2:

To Massachussetts? :sunny:

Jimbuna
10-15-11, 02:31 PM
:rotfl2:

To Massachussetts? :sunny:

Hold on I'll give Mr Wolfrang a call :DL

http://www.premierlimousine.com/images/limo01animated.gif

TarJak
10-15-11, 03:54 PM
But to add every detail would have made it book length and I don't think that was what the author was shooting for.But to omit any mention that other nations were involved is naive at best and biased at worst.

Sure is. Too bad you guys couldn't make it up here last year. I'd have enjoyed meeting you. would have loved to have made it over for that meet. I enjoyed 2008 immensely.

Hold on I'll give Mr Wolfrang a call :DL

http://www.premierlimousine.com/images/limo01animated.gifI doubt the limo industry would survive another hijacking like your last escapade.:O:

Jimbuna
10-15-11, 04:21 PM
Hopefully we'll get the opportunity to find out :sunny:

August
10-15-11, 04:27 PM
But to omit any mention that other nations were involved is naive at best and biased at worst.

Well google the author and give him heck about it. Maybe he'll republish a new version that satisfies you. :up:

TarJak
10-15-11, 04:28 PM
Well google the author and give him heck about it. Maybe he'll republish a new version that satisfies you. :up:

:haha: