Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Should the U.S have left Vietnam?

tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 1:58:39 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
I really disagree with going into Vietnam, but I disagree with the half-assed work done by the Johnson administration.

Vietnam was a winnable war. Unlike engagements like in Afghanistan and Iraq, there was a stable side. The U.S should have stayed and finished the job.

Thoughts?
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 2:05:16 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
The US should have stayed and aided in the development of South Vietnam. South Korea has became the 2nd most developed country in Asia due to US-assisted modernization. South Vietnam would likely be similar to South Korea in terms of development if we hadn't abandoned Vietnam.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 2:17:22 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 1:58:39 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
I really disagree with going into Vietnam, but I disagree with the half-assed work done by the Johnson administration.

Vietnam was a winnable war. Unlike engagements like in Afghanistan and Iraq, there was a stable side. The U.S should have stayed and finished the job.

Thoughts?

The Chinese and Russians were supplying the Northern Vietnamese, while the Southern Vietnamese were losing popularity with their own government.

We should never have been involved. One more country of illiterate villagers eating rice in the jungle and living under a Communist regime wouldn't have been an existential threat to the United States and other Democratic foreign powers such as Britain, France, etc.

However, I would have advocated for complete annihilation via bombing, rather than putting in troops. The second I saw that the war would have been costly and deadly, I either would have pulled out of the war or completely carpet bombed the entirety of the Northern region of Vietnam.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Reformist
Posts: 679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 9:29:20 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 1:58:39 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
I really disagree with going into Vietnam, but I disagree with the half-assed work done by the Johnson administration.

Vietnam was a winnable war. Unlike engagements like in Afghanistan and Iraq, there was a stable side. The U.S should have stayed and finished the job.

Thoughts?

No we were never going to win vietnam. They were being funded by the chinese and if we kept pushing the button China could have declared war on us. Not only that but the guerilla warfare employed by the north vietnam soliders wouldve created a economic quagmire like Iraq was
DDO History Revival Officer
Fuher of the Reich

"I'm not Asian"-Vaarka

"I would rather have a fascist than a socialist in office"- Bball

To be a feminist or to be smart that is the question
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 11:37:48 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 1:58:39 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
I really disagree with going into Vietnam, but I disagree with the half-assed work done by the Johnson administration.

Vietnam was a winnable war. Unlike engagements like in Afghanistan and Iraq, there was a stable side. The U.S should have stayed and finished the job.

Thoughts?

No it was clearly going to require permanent military occupation. The US spent a long time in Vietnam and it was clear it wasent getting anywhere.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 7:33:35 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
First, I don't think we should have entered.

Second, I think it should have been done swiftly and strong. We should either be in or out. If we aren't willing to just wreck the enemy forces and support the good ones 100% then how bad are the bad guys really? If we didn't half butt I might have supported it. It doesn't make sense to stay if our hearts weren't in it though. The war was unpopular and against the will of the American people. There wasn't even that strong of support within the Vietnamese people who just wanted peace so what were we fighting for? Democracy? Who cares, if the world votes for communism then according to democratic values the world should have communism. There wasn't a reason to stay. There was a reason to bring our troops home.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
rennen61701
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 1:58:18 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 7:33:35 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
First, I don't think we should have entered.
Amen to that. It was not worth even one life certainly not 58,000 american lives and two million vietnamese. ON that wall in d.c. and one little one in champaign illinois there is the name of Stephen Broquist a lieutenant I knew and was my brothers best fraternity friend. My brother came back Stephen did not. Was his life for nothing, no. But as Smedley Butler said the us should not be fighting except for defense and never further than the outlines of its own borders. War is a racket he said in 1935 and I agree
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 7:56:18 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 2/9/2016 1:58:39 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
I really disagree with going into Vietnam, but I disagree with the half-assed work done by the Johnson administration.

Vietnam was a winnable war. Unlike engagements like in Afghanistan and Iraq, there was a stable side. The U.S should have stayed and finished the job.

Thoughts?

It should not have entered vietnam but once it did and invested heavily both in terms of money and lives pulling out was a terrible decision.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 9:25:20 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 7:56:18 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 2/9/2016 1:58:39 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
I really disagree with going into Vietnam, but I disagree with the half-assed work done by the Johnson administration.

Vietnam was a winnable war. Unlike engagements like in Afghanistan and Iraq, there was a stable side. The U.S should have stayed and finished the job.

Thoughts?

It should not have entered vietnam but once it did and invested heavily both in terms of money and lives pulling out was a terrible decision.

That brings up an interesting subject. Is it better to leave without finishing the cause of all those lost lives, or better to lose more lives for a cause we no longer think is worth losing lives over?

On one hand, all of those poor soldiers kind of died in vain if we don't wrap things up.
On the other, if we shouldn't have entered in the first place, maybe staying isn't worth the bloodshed, since entering wasn't worth the bloodshed. You've got to ask yourself if your doing the just thing or trying to justify your previous actions.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 10:13:30 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 9:25:20 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/17/2016 7:56:18 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 2/9/2016 1:58:39 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
I really disagree with going into Vietnam, but I disagree with the half-assed work done by the Johnson administration.

Vietnam was a winnable war. Unlike engagements like in Afghanistan and Iraq, there was a stable side. The U.S should have stayed and finished the job.

Thoughts?

It should not have entered vietnam but once it did and invested heavily both in terms of money and lives pulling out was a terrible decision.

That brings up an interesting subject. Is it better to leave without finishing the cause of all those lost lives, or better to lose more lives for a cause we no longer think is worth losing lives over?

On one hand, all of those poor soldiers kind of died in vain if we don't wrap things up.
On the other, if we shouldn't have entered in the first place, maybe staying isn't worth the bloodshed, since entering wasn't worth the bloodshed. You've got to ask yourself if your doing the just thing or trying to justify your previous actions.

Good point but once you undertake such a mission you have to commit fully right or wrong. Ultimately the people of south Vietnam were betrayed by the usa. Once it committed to their defence it had to honour its word.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 4:33:53 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 2/9/2016 1:58:39 AM, tajshar2k wrote:
I really disagree with going into Vietnam, but I disagree with the half-assed work done by the Johnson administration.

Vietnam was a winnable war. Unlike engagements like in Afghanistan and Iraq, there was a stable side. The U.S should have stayed and finished the job.

Thoughts?

He spent more time enslaving blacks through poverty programs than actually winning that war. On the other hand, that war was hardly winnable because of guerrilla fighting and the constant supplying from the Reds.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.