History of the Vietnam war for people with attention deficit disorder

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by August

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]

"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.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Subnuts

"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.

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.

[TarJak]

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by TarJak

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.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by August

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.

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by TarJak

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by CCIP

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]

Originally Posted by August

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.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Dowly

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

+1

[August]

Originally Posted by Dowly

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

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.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by August

[...]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.