Reoes anyone still think, with 20/20 hindsight of course, that Vietnam wasn't a huge mistake? eo

Sadly we lost some 500,000 men in Viet Nam.  During that period it was the commies against us, MAD and all the nuc shit.  In the end communism fell apart, the Soviet Union collapsed, and from the nuc perspective the world became a more stable and peaceful place.  Viet Nam may well have been a piece of the puzzle that brought big time communism to it's knees.  In that regard, and if history judges it so, Viet Nam was not a huge mistake.  It is still sad that we gave so many young lives to get there, and just as sad that so many from the north lost their lives also.

Reoes anyone still think, with 20/20 hindsight of course, that Vietnam wasn't a huge mistake? eo

Two issues: First, total US killed in Vietnam was around 58,000 not 500,000.   Second, how did Vietnam play a role in the fall of communism when the communists took over the entire country and have ruled it as a communist state ever since?  Your argument makes no sense.

in answer to your second question....I dunno, just speculation because Viet Nams main supporter is no more.  Like I said, history will figure this one out.  But worldwide methinks there are far less of em now than before and communist expansion has pretty much ground to a halt.  Is that not a good thing?

Given what was known when President Kennedy first sent advisers to take over for the French, I think that the entry into Viet Nam was justified.  Once more was known, staying there and loosing over 50,000 of our country men and women does not appear wise,given the corruption in the South Vietnamese government and the ineptitude of it's army.  Also, the behavior of the Johnson and Nixon administrations in properly conducting the war and being truthful with US citizens brought the wisdom of entering and staying further into question.
    I came of draft age during the last few years of that conflict and met my responsibility to the draft as had two of my older brothers.  When I think back, my feelings are ambivalent, I think that entry into the conflict was right, but often think about how the conflict could have been handled more effectively by our side.

-- Modified on 8/12/2004 5:30:28 PM

Siagon is a city with broad streeds and many statues.  The statues represent people who have led wars that liberated the counry from invadors over p period of hundreds of yers.  Both the US and the soviet union had to be shown that wars can be expensive and painful anwhere a substantial portion of the population doesn't want ou there.

-- Modified on 8/12/2004 7:10:04 PM

-- Modified on 8/13/2004 10:48:45 PM

Looking back what I see is both Johnson and Nixon Presidencies that were managed by Walter Cronkite.  His ability to make the American people believe that the Tet Offensive was our loss still amazes me.  We had them on their knees, with a little push Ho Chi Minh would have done the honorable thing and put a bullet in his ear.

The military's hands were tied, for example:  No bombing Hanoi or air bases in the north.  Taking ground only to give it back hours, days or weeks later, etc.

Given the brilliance of General Westmoreland, had he been given authority to prosecute the war, it would have been over quite quickly.

So in 20/20 Hindsight, I would think the over 2,000,000+ Vietnamese who were murdered by  Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Cong, and the genocide estimated at over 2,000,000+  committed by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia after our departure tells me that Vietnam was not a mistake, what was a mistake was electing two fucking losers as president back to fucking back!

Losing the Vietnam war is not that big an issue, BUT having the reputation of turning and running has plagued this country ever since!

was the big mistake. War is a terrible thing, but once it comes to that, you need to put all resouces into it, fully support the effort, and win as soon as possible.

As I was too young to get a first hand grasp of the Vietnam issues I cant say if just Vietnam was worth it. But their is no doubt that what we learned fighting the war there directly helped us in the Gulf and in conflicts around the globe. No army/country has the ability to make war like the US. From an equipment standpoint we are leap years ahead because of it.
We own the night, and it all stems from our experience in the Vietnam war. We learned the war had to be run from in the theater not washington. All of this saved thousands of lives since the end of the war. So factor that into your question and yes the war had to be fought. IMHO

It depends on what lessons you take from the war.  If the lessons are;

Do not commit to a war unless you are willing to do whatever it takes to win it.

Do not allow the enemy a safe haven to run operations against you.

Do not let the press dictate the story (after Tet in 1968, we now know that the Viet Cong had LOST that battle and could not mount a significant operation in the south for nearly 3 years, but it was a defeat in US public opinion when the journalists portrayed it as a defeat for the US Military).

Let the military professionals make military decisions (no LBJ picking individual targets out in military briefings at the whitehouse) and give them what they need to get the job done.

Probably not the lessons that the left would take from the war, but those are in fact the lessons that really should be drawn from it.