- This topic has 5 voices and 27 replies.
-
Posts
-
[digressive thoughts mode]What about the contention that we backed the wrong horse from the beginning? In her book, Paris 1919, MacMillen postulates that since Ho Chi Minh was primarily a nationalist, the west should have paid more attention to his requests back then; self-determination for SE Asia… similar to what the former A-H Empire was getting. We could go into all kinds of racialist diatribes but more likely just France and others trying to keep pre-war colonies… status-quo. Any comments?[/digressive thoughts mode]
I might agree if it were not for the fact that old Uncle Ho was a dedicated communist before he was a nationalist. He was exposed to Marxism when he was in France during WWI. He was what I would call an opportunistic nationalist, he was only nationalist if he thought that would help his cause. He was always a committed communist though.De-colonozation is probably worth several threads on its own. It is a complex and difficult subject and there are many reasons decolonization happened when it did. Probably the most important is that Europe was simply worn uot after the two world wars and no longer had the will or strength to stop it, otherwise they probably would have.
You and I both know that the body count was totally bogus. We learn early in life that the the yardstick bywhich we are measured, rewarded and promoted will usually dictate our actions and color our reports.The body count was easy to understand and easy to fake.SHEEP? Yes--we are--but why? What is it in our culture that makes us so "herdable" and so easily deceived? Are we as a people unusually stupid, ignorant, retarded and misinformed? I think not. Ithink that we choose the easy path because it requires less pain, less resolve and less work. Let theChinese and Koreans do the heavy lifting overseas and the Mexicans can pull weeds and hang drywallin the Arizona heat. I must practice my Baa- ing now--adieu.
Don't you think that the consequences of the Tet Offensive (January 31, 1968) should be related with the My Lai massacre (March 16, 1968) ?Tet Offensive : an overall attack by the VietcongMy Lai : a massacre of civilians1968- February: Gallup poll showed 35% approved of Johnson's handling of the war; 50% disapproved; the rest, no opinion. [NYT, 2/14/68]- March, Gallup poll reported that 49% of respondents felt involvement in the war was an error.- August: Gallup poll shows 53% said it was a mistake to send troops to Vietnam.The public opinion before these events wasn't good: According to public opinion polls, the percentage of Americans who believed that the U.S. had made a mistake by sending troops to Vietnam had risen from 25 percent in 1965 to 45 percent by December 1967. "Dougan, Clark; Weiss, Stephen, et al. (1983). Nineteen Sixty-Eight. Boston: Boston Publishing Company"
You and I both know that the body count was totally bogus. We learn early in life that the the yardstick by which we are measured, rewarded and promoted will usually dictate our actions and color our reports. The body count was easy to understand and easy to fake.
I did not say it was a useful tool, just elaborated the rationale for its use at the time.
I think that we choose the easy path because it requires less pain, less resolve and less work.
That is what I have been tying to say as well. So you are either turning into a conservative or I am a liberal. Which is it?Aeth, I don't think Tet and My Lai are related. I think the cause of My Lai is directly related to the number of casualties suffered by that unit in the days and weeks immediately preceding the massacre. Losses that had nothing to do with the wider Tet Offensive by the way. The timing is coincidence. 1968 overall was the deadliest year for American forces in Vietnam. The Americal Division, whose troops perpetrated the massacre, was in one of the hottest zones of the country and saw lots of contact both before and after Tet. Sometimes coincidence is just that. Don't forget that My Lai did not become known about until almost a year after the fact when Haeberle started selling his personal photos of the incident to the press. My Lai had absolutely nothing to do with public perceptions of the war in 1968 because the public did not even know that it had happened.
Aeth, I don't think Tet and My Lai are related. I think the cause of My Lai is directly related to the number of casualties suffered by that unit in the days and weeks immediately preceding the massacre. Losses that had nothing to do with the wider Tet Offensive by the way. The timing is coincidence. 1968 overall was the deadliest year for American forces in Vietnam. The Americal Division, whose troops perpetrated the massacre, was in one of the hottest zones of the country and saw lots of contact both before and after Tet. Sometimes coincidence is just that. Don't forget that My Lai did not become known about until almost a year after the fact when Haeberle started selling his personal photos of the incident to the press. My Lai had absolutely nothing to do with public perceptions of the war in 1968 because the public did not even know that it had happened.
What about people's opinion ?It's the people's opinion that ultimately led to the Paris Peace Accords of 1973 and the withdrawal of US army and the loss of this war Or am I wrong ?
What about people's opinion ?It's the people's opinion that ultimately led to the Paris Peace Accords of 1973 and the withdrawal of US army and the loss of this war Or am I wrong ?
Yes, it was. I also said that earlier in the thread here. I have mostly been commenting on where we went wrong militarily. And giving willyD a hard time ;D
What about people's opinion ?It's the people's opinion that ultimately led to the Paris Peace Accords of 1973 and the withdrawal of US army and the loss of this war Or am I wrong ?
Yes, it was. I also said that earlier in the thread here. I have mostly been commenting on where we went wrong militarily. And giving willyD a hard time ;D
Right 😉
That is what I have been tying to say as well. So you are either turning into a conservative or I am a liberal. Which is it?Aeth, I don't think Tet and My Lai are related. I think the cause of My Lai is directly related to the number of casualties suffered by that unit in the days and weeks immediately preceding the massacre. Losses that had nothing to do with the wider Tet Offensive by the way. The timing is coincidence. 1968 overall was the deadliest year for American forces in Vietnam. The Americal Division, whose troops perpetrated the massacre, was in one of the hottest zones of the country and saw lots of contact both before and after Tet. Sometimes coincidence is just that. Don't forget that My Lai did not become known about until almost a year after the fact when Haeberle started selling his personal photos of the incident to the press. My Lai had absolutely nothing to do with public perceptions of the war in 1968 because the public did not even know that it had happened.
That is what I am trying to say. Ambiguity begats confusion. The terms Liberal and Conservative are useful in some discussions, but in others they are completely useless. They have been warped, bent and shattered to the extent that an extended rational discussion using the is nigh on to impossible. They are merely imperfect words we cling to because we lack others to describe our confused and disparate beliefs. Fear not. Regardless of what our beliefs are, we will never exchange labels. The proprieties must be observed and I do want to continue to be invited to holiday dinners.
Wally:As I recall we had a chance to deal with Uncle Ho in 1919 and again in 1945. In both cases we chose the French--in the first case they were white and in the second less communist (sic) than uncle Ho. I agreethat we may well have backed the wrong horse as history has demonstrated that we have a good record of dealing with pseudo-communist or totalitarian leaders on many continents
Wally:As I recall we had a chance to deal with Uncle Ho in 1919 and again in 1945. In both cases we chose the French--in the first case they were white and in the second less communist (sic) than uncle Ho. I agreethat we may well have backed the wrong horse as history has demonstrated that we have a good record of dealing with pseudo-communist or totalitarian leaders on many continents
While scout is correct that Ho was already a Marxist; I'll wage that had we helped the cause of self-dtermination by setting up some small independent countries is Asia (and not shorting Japan for their part in WWI) history may have been slightly different.Ignoring the Asian groups was surely (at least partly) racialist but mostly staus-quo oriented. After all they ignored the Germans too.
Wally: Ignoring the Germans was a political/economic/vengeful act. They come from the same stock we do, share the same religions and worship the same cultural gods. Asiatics, in 1919, were stillconsidered inferior--little brown and yellow brothers--heathens and a "yellow" horde. It was not until Hitler made them honorary Aryrans that the scales became tipped a bit. If I recall uncle Ho was a dishwasher in a cafe in Paris. Who would pay him any mind? I'll bet he did not even own a morning suit and top hat.
