Iranian president calls Bush "warmonger"

coastie

Hallelujah Adonai Yeshua!
Apr 6, 2002
5,395
48
43
Central Valley of CA
Visit site
✟8,286.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The list of corruption of the south is tremendous, and much of it was done by the advice of the US.

The US advised against the corrupt election. This is why the US was more Popular in South Vietnam than their own government. Yes, many South Vietnamese fought against the US during Tet, but they were not South Vietnamese loyalists, they were people strategically placed and recruited by the North Vietnamese.

Despite a UN order to hold elections on unification, the US and South Veitnam refused to do so. At this point, Diem blatantly told the US to leave his nation (ie. South Vietnam). The US refused to pull out its advisors.

The US wanted the nation to be capable of protecting itself. Had the US pulled out then, the South wouldn't have stood a chance of an imminent overwhelming of North Vietnamese troops. 5 minutes after the US did finally pull out North Vietnamese tanks rolled into the city and took over.

The US helped put into place a brutal dictator named Ngo Dinh Diem, who proceeded to use American funds to destroy political opponents, Buddhists, and suspected communists.

So the US funded a person who could eliminate communism. Unfortunate that it had to be done this way, and it is also unfortunate that it didn't work. The US didn't do with the motive of ruiing the lives of the people, the ultimate goal was to eliminate communism. It was a blunder and a mistake but the motives were not to opress.

It was the US forcibly preventing the independence and unification of a 3rd world nation.

Apparently that wasn't evident to our troops.

The US dropped roughly twice as many bombs (in raw tonnage) on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, than had been dropped by all sides in WW2. The American policy of attrition, where the goal of any platoon was to simply kill more of the enemy than they kill of you.

Yep, that pretty much sums up war there strathyboy.

The American policy of jugular diplomacy: Kissinger presented a treaty to the North Vietnamese, and when the North Vietnamese refused to sign immediately, Nixon launched a 1 month bombing campaign.

Interesting how that can be twisted around to make the US look like a bunch of warmongering jerks, eh?

While the treaty sat on his desk for almost a month, the dictator used the cease fire to send more troops, guns, and artillery. This was an act of war and the US acted appropriately.

Operation Rolling Thunder, designed to bomb the North into submission by totally destroying it's infrastructure and desire to make war.

Or subdue the spread of communism, depends on how you look at it.

More than 1 million Vietnamese died during the war, roughly three quarters of which were civilians. If you want, I can find the exact statistics on how many hospitals, schools, etc. were destroyed.

Oh yeah, a lot of people died, but there is a very thin line between civilian and soldier during that war. There were many "hospitals, schools, etc." destroyed in both countries by both parties. They make great places for the North Vietnamese Soldiers to congregate, and when the US bombs then it sure makes the US look bad.

There was one that held quite a bit of soldiers' family that was destroyed. It looked bad, but it was a deliberate attempt to turn the south Vietnamese against the US.

And lastly, Americans turned any potential vietcong or north Vietnamese soldier or spy over to the South Vietnamese, who tended to torture and then kill these people. Americans continued to do this, despite the fact that they knew what would happen.

The goal was to make South Vietnam capable. If they violate the Geneva Convention statutes, then they would be held accountable as would the US.

In Vietnam, a majority of the South wanted communism. In addition, China sent over a million troops into Korea. There was no such outside aid for the Vietnamese.

I've never heard anything about the majority of the South wanting communism. Three years of history courses and countless documentaries and I have never heard that. Can someone verify this for me?

As for aid, you must be kidding. Russia and China sent them so much artillery and intelligence. That's a large contributor as to why the US failed.

Lastly, just a simple question: is it right to force people who want a communist system to live under a dictatorship?

Hardly a simple question, considering the majority of Communist nations are not only ruled by harsh dictatorships, but are also destitute. Communism gives a leader too much authority which leads to corruptness, which leads to destitution.
 
Upvote 0

Gunny

Remnant
Supporter
May 18, 2002
6,133
105
United States of America
✟35,162.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Originally posted by strathyboy

Lastly, just a simple question: is it right to force people who want a communist system to live under a dictatorship?

Many, Many, Many, S.Vietnamese people were grateful for what USA was attempting to do-that being freeing people from the tyranny of the N.Vietnamese brutal and cruel form of goverment if the individual did not comply.

Your information concerning the Korean War and Vietnam War is the same tired commentary that has been voiced by the media and political pundits for a very long time.

United States intentions and reasoning to be in Vietnam were not "Atrocious" to a majority of men that served in Nam.


GySgt James



271321bs.jpg
 
Upvote 0
Many, Many, Many, S.Vietnamese people were grateful for what USA was attempting to do


Who do you mean? The dictarot and his friends, or the people getting napalm showers?

that being freeing people from the tyranny of the N.Vietnamese brutal and cruel form of goverment if the individual did not comply.


As opposed to the tyranny and cruel form of governement from S Vietnam?

United States intentions and reasoning to be in Vietnam were not"Atrocious" to a majority of men that served in Nam.


What did you expect to be told? "Men, this war has no good reason, we're just in this to protect a dictator against his victims. Many of you, and many more innocent civilians will die to support colonial principles.", or "We're here to help these people, and fight for their, and our, freedom."

Shai-Hulud
 
Upvote 0

coastie

Hallelujah Adonai Yeshua!
Apr 6, 2002
5,395
48
43
Central Valley of CA
Visit site
✟8,286.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
What did you expect to be told? "Men, this war has no good reason, we're just in this to protect a dictator against his victims. Many of you, and many more innocent civilians will die to support colonial principles.", or "We're here to help these people, and fight for their, and our, freedom."

Why would the motive be to protect a dictator from his people? Why would the US support colonialism?

I'm sure you have a perfectly good reason, I'm just curious.
 
Upvote 0

Gunny

Remnant
Supporter
May 18, 2002
6,133
105
United States of America
✟35,162.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Originally posted by Shai-Hulud
Killer argument.

Now, if you have anything real to contribute, I'll listen. Otherwise tell me how you justify the death of 0.75 million civilians.

Shai-Hulud

 

Honestly, I don't have to justify anything to you son. I served my country, these United States in the USMC for three years in Harm's Way and frankly I don't give a hoot if you think I have something to contribute or not.

GySgt James
USMC 71-81
USMC Vietnam Vet 71-74.
 
Upvote 0
Honestly, I don't have to justify anything to you son.


Then justify it to their children and their families.

and frankly I don't give a hoot if you think I have something to contribute or not.


That's great. Because I have similar feelings about your military career.

Can we focus on the issue then?

Shai-Hulud
 
Upvote 0

Gunny

Remnant
Supporter
May 18, 2002
6,133
105
United States of America
✟35,162.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Best go back to class and talk to your PC (Politically Correct) professors, they have all your answers.

It's fine if you dishonor me beligium boy, but I lost many Brothers In Arms, Including family in Vietnam.

Individuals like yourself that don't know the hell of war but state their high and mighty opinions on MEN that served these United States out of duty and honor make me laugh.

Tell us son about war and the immorality of it. All war is hell and terrible things happen but you telling me what You think of my Military Service is Cow Chips in the brezze, lad.

GySgt James
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Do you actually present points or do you keep saying the same?

Individuals like yourself that don't know the hell of war but state their high and mighty opinions on MEN that served these United States out of duty and honor make me laugh.


Oh I'm sorry. I thought that people died. But now I see they just get together for tea.

Shai-Hulud
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by coastie


Why would the motive be to protect a dictator from his people? Why would the US support colonialism?

I'll respond to this now, and be back with more detailed information regarding Nam in a little while.
In France after WW2 there was a relatively popular and powerful communist movement. The US knew this, as did most allies, and given that the USSR controlled half of Germany and all the Warsaw Pact nations (Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, etc.), it was tremendously undesireable to allow a communist power to be voted in in France. It was believed that if the US didn't aid the French colonialism in IndoChina, the French Communists would gain power in France. So, it was a win-win against communism for the anti-communist nations, but unfortunately something like 40 million Vietnamese had to suffer while "bigger and better" nations used them as a pawn.

On another side note.... In the 1950's, Ho Chi Minh retired and disbanded the Communist Party, and promised not to run for president of a unified Vietnam. The US and South Vietnam still blatantly refused to allow elections on reunification, despite a direct order in the Geneva Accords. Again, this proves that the unification of Vietnam was much more important to Ho Chi Minh and the North Vietnamese than was a communist system. This is of utmost importance in the argument over whether the US was fighting against communism, or against independence.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by gunnysgt

Individuals like yourself that don't know the hell of war but state their high and mighty opinions on MEN that served these United States out of duty and honor make me laugh.

That sort of logic is simply ridiculous. How then can you debate politics in these forums, when you have never been a politician? How can you debate what happens after you die, when you've never been dead? How can you debate homosexuality when you're not a homosexual? How can you debate abortion when you haven't ever had one?

Everyone knows about things through reading books, or talking to people who have experienced things. Actually experiencing something is not a prerequisite to debating intelligently on it or forming an educated opinion.

I also notice that you ignore the women who served in Vietnam. Perhaps you might include them as well, since they saved the lives of thousands of American soldiers. :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

StogusMaximus

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2002
2,410
7
Visit site
✟4,841.00
Faith
Protestant
Originally posted by strathyboy
That sort of logic is simply ridiculous. How then can you debate politics in these forums, when you have never been a politician? How can you debate what happens after you die, when you've never been dead? How can you debate homosexuality when you're not a homosexual? How can you debate abortion when you haven't ever had one?

Everyone knows about things through reading books, or talking to people who have experienced things. Actually experiencing something is not a prerequisite to debating intelligently on it or forming an educated opinion.

I also notice that you ignore the women who served in Vietnam. Perhaps you might include them as well, since they saved the lives of thousands of American soldiers. :)

Great point, let's examine that line of thinking.

Who knows more about politics than a politician?  So in a debate about politics between a politician and somebody who just read a book about politics, I give more credit to the politician.

Who knows more about death than a dead person?  Now this is just silly, but......In a debate about death between a dead person and somebody who just read about death....who would win?  Well the person who read about death of course, since the dead person can not debate.

Who knows more about homsexuality than a homosexual?  In a debate about homosexuality between a homosexual and a somebody who just talked to somebody who was homosexual....the homosexual would win.

Who knows more about abortion than somebody who has had one?  I think the abortion doctor would know more in this debate, but you know where I am going.

Who knows more about war than somebody who been to war?  In a debate about the Hell of War, I will listen to Gunny, and with all due respect give him a oo-rah.

 
 
Upvote 0

Morat

Untitled One
Jun 6, 2002
2,725
4
48
Visit site
✟12,690.00
Faith
Atheist
  Yeah, I'd imagine that Gunny knows what being in a war, personally, is like. Being involved in combat.

  But that doesn't mean he knows whether the war was a good idea, whether it was worth it, whether it was necessary, or even whether it was fought well or whether decent tactics were employed by either side.

 
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by StogusMaximus
[B
Who knows more about war than somebody who been to war? In a debate about the Hell of War, I will listen to Gunny, and with all due respect give him a oo-rah.[/B]

I see your point, and I agree with it.
But the things is, we're not debating whether or not war is hell. We're debating whether or not Vietnam was a just war. To imply that no-one who has not been there can judge the rightness or wrongness of a war is ridiculous. That was my point.
If a prisoner of war is murdered, I don't have to be there to recognize that such an act is wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Gunny

Remnant
Supporter
May 18, 2002
6,133
105
United States of America
✟35,162.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Originally posted by strathyboy
If you recognize that your argument is ridiculous, perhaps you will do us all the courtesy of not wasting space on the forums with them.


Christian Forums was established as a free, non-profit and non-denominational online
Christian community to unite Christians of every denomination together as one body.

I am a Christian and Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior and this is a Christian website and forum.


GySgt James
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

coastie

Hallelujah Adonai Yeshua!
Apr 6, 2002
5,395
48
43
Central Valley of CA
Visit site
✟8,286.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
If a prisoner of war is murdered, I don't have to be there to recognize that such an act is wrong.

Words like murder are irrelevent to your argument. If it is murder then someone was there and can judge.

If a prisoner of war is killed, unless there was a nuetral witness, right or wrong cannot be determined.

Gunny is not saying that the men in Vietnam were perfect or saints, but they also were not evil. You cannot judge their actions without being there. War is chaos and bad things happen, but one cannot say that in the same position they would have done things differently without actually being in the war.

It is impossible to judge a man when he is in a completely alien world to your own unless you have spent some time in his shoes. Do not presume that a book is an all-encompassing and unbiased source of information.

Furthermore, a lot of great men died in that war, not because they supported colonialism or harsh dictatorships but to stop the spread of communism. Whether you agree with their reasoning or not is not what defines whether or not they were right or wrong, it's what they believed they were dying for that grants them the certain patriotic immortality.
 
Upvote 0