[BartSimpson]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

You had to invade Grenada (of all places) and hand out 10,000 medals for derring-do to get your mojo back.

Grenada is where I lost my left kneecap. If you happen to come across it I'd like to have it back, thanks. You can have my PH in exchange.

[Jabberwalker]

Did someone hit you driving a Mini-Moke?

[Freakinoldguy]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

Of course it was a defeat ... a humiliating one. So, an American army would have beaten them if it hadn't been for the American people? How does that work?

In true oriental fashion, even the communist ones, it was a negotiated peace which gave both sides the ability to save face. As for it being a defeat, had the Americans stayed the course and intensified their involvement in the war the outcome would have probably been much different from what we're discussing.

$1:

In 1995 the Wall Street Journal published an interview with Bui Tin, a former colonel who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army, that included the following exchange:
Q: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?

A: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said, "We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out."

Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?

A: It was essential to our strategy. Support for the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?

A: Keenly

Q: Why?

A: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.


Q: What else?

A: We had the impression that American commanders had their hands tied by political factors. Your generals could never deploy a maximum force for greatest military effect.
(The article notes that this interview was conducted after Bui Tin became "disillusioned with the fruits of Vietnamese communism" and left Vietnam to live in Paris, so it's possible that his comments may have been influenced by his changed outlook.)

Vo Nguyen Giap passed away in Hanoi, at a reported age of 102, in October 2013.

Last updated: 4 October 2013

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/quotes/giap.asp#c ... HfY2Xq7.99

So given that interview and the fact that Giap had lost so many men after the 68 Tet offensive that he seriously considered a negotiated peace I'd say the humiliating military defeat you're talking about never happened. The defeat was caused by the loss of will by the American people and it's government to see the Democrats policy of containing communism in the Far East through to the end.

[Jabberwalker]

Hmmm. I still don't buy it.

As far as seeing that containment strategy to the end ... I used to believe in exactly that but when I look at the region 40 years later, I'm hard pressed to finds any communists anywhere. The only place in Indochina that turned into a communist nightmare was poor old Cambodia .. in the wrong place at the wrong time were the Khmer. Vietnam is an emerging industrial power. Don't see any communists anywhere in Southeast Asia ... or even in China, for that matter.

History is more likely to view the Vietnam war as an anti-colonial rebellion. I doubt that was what the Americans saw when the French and Japanese handed them the keys but that is really what transpired. It's not what I was taught but, as I say, looking back I don't see any other conclusion.

[BartSimpson]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

Did someone hit you driving a Mini-Moke?

No, someone shot me. Most likely some doofus in a US Army uniform who was upset because the Marines were killing all the Russians and not leaving any for him.

[Jabberwalker]

Marines were killing all the Russians

Nobody has ever mentioned the presence of Russians there, before. Cubans, yes but armed Russian soldiers? Really?

[andyt]

They were wearing blackface to blend in. Training for Ukraine. Putin is even more prescient than we know.

[Goober911]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

Hmmm. I still don't buy it.

As far as seeing that containment strategy to the end ... I used to believe in exactly that but when I look at the region 40 years later, I'm hard pressed to finds any communists anywhere. The only place in Indochina that turned into a communist nightmare was poor old Cambodia .. in the wrong place at the wrong time were the Khmer. Vietnam is an emerging industrial power. Don't see any communists anywhere in Southeast Asia ... or even in China, for that matter.

History is more likely to view the Vietnam war as an anti-colonial rebellion. I doubt that was what the Americans saw when the French and Japanese handed them the keys but that is really what transpired. It's not what I was taught but, as I say, looking back I don't see any other conclusion.

When the French left they warned the US. But at that time it was construed as another battleground between Communism and..............
The US should have studied Dien Bien Phu, and they would have seen the tenacity of what they were fighting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu

Bombing the Ho Chi Minh Trail, all they VC needed was 30 tons per day. Guess what, they managed that and more.
S Vietnam was corrupt beyond belief.

And to the Chinese, he knew the US would tire of the War. And the last time the Chinese came they stayed for 1000 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh

[Freakinoldguy]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

Hmmm. I still don't buy it.

As far as seeing that containment strategy to the end ... I used to believe in exactly that but when I look at the region 40 years later, I'm hard pressed to finds any communists anywhere. The only place in Indochina that turned into a communist nightmare was poor old Cambodia .. in the wrong place at the wrong time were the Khmer. Vietnam is an emerging industrial power. Don't see any communists anywhere in Southeast Asia ... or even in China, for that matter.

History is more likely to view the Vietnam war as an anti-colonial rebellion. I doubt that was what the Americans saw when the French and Japanese handed them the keys but that is really what transpired. It's not what I was taught but, as I say, looking back I don't see any other conclusion.

Then what do you consider the Vietnamese and Chinese forms of Government because they sure as hell aren't democracies? As for the war from 54 to 75 being an anti colonial rebellion, most historians would say that ship sailed by 1954 and that the war was a war of ideologies like Korea and the Philippines were before it.

History acquiesces to the people who were there and since the winners write it the Colonel's view as a member of the Peoples Army carries alot more weight about the events that transpired than you saying you "just don't buy it" as an argument.

But then again, on the odd chance you're right about there being no more communism in Asia I guess Kennedy's strategy actually worked, in the long run.

Having a vibrant industrial base with a burgeoning economy without granting your people any of what we consider basic freedoms or rights isn't what I'd consider a non communist society, it just means you're using a different tact to placate the masses so you can keep power and continue to spread your message.

[Canadian_Mind]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Then what do you consider the Vietnamese and Chinese forms of Government because they sure as hell aren't democracies? As for the war from 54 to 75 being an anti colonial rebellion, most historians would say that ship sailed by 1954 and that the war was a war of ideologies like Korea and the Philippines were before it.

History acquiesces to the people who were there and since the winners write it the Colonel's view as a member of the Peoples Army carries alot more weight about the events that transpired than you saying you "just don't buy it" as an argument.

But then again, on the odd chance you're right about there being no more communism in Asia I guess Kennedy's strategy actually worked, in the long run.

Having a vibrant industrial base with a burgeoning economy without granting your people any of what we consider basic freedoms or rights isn't what I'd consider a non communist society, it just means you're using a different tact to placate the masses so you can keep power and continue to spread your message.

Communism isn't a form of government. Democracy is. Communism is an social-economic model. You can't have Democracy vs. Communism. That whole concept is flawed in that you can't pit a social-economic model vs a governing system. In theory you could have a Democratic government operating a communist model (no one has successfully) as much as you can have an Oligarchy running a capitalist model (USA, Russia, China).

The reason why a democratic government running a communist model would never last is because individual opinion in a democracy is too inherently greedy. No one truly wants good for all. They only want good for all when it benifits them personally as an individual.

[Jabberwalker]

I would consider the Chinese (anyway) form of government to be a fascist one in the classical sense. It is one party, totalitarian with the one party run by over a hundred of the richest beings on the planet. If you are an insider, you can live quite a grand life. hundreds of millions of the poorest peasants on the planet also live there and they have nothing ... especially rights.

The Chinese are jingoistic, chauvinistic, consider themselves to be a higher form of life and they want their ancient empire back, intact.

There is nothing Communist at all about China. The last hint of that died with the Gang of Four.

[Freakinoldguy]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Then what do you consider the Vietnamese and Chinese forms of Government because they sure as hell aren't democracies? As for the war from 54 to 75 being an anti colonial rebellion, most historians would say that ship sailed by 1954 and that the war was a war of ideologies like Korea and the Philippines were before it.

History acquiesces to the people who were there and since the winners write it the Colonel's view as a member of the Peoples Army carries alot more weight about the events that transpired than you saying you "just don't buy it" as an argument.

But then again, on the odd chance you're right about there being no more communism in Asia I guess Kennedy's strategy actually worked, in the long run.

Having a vibrant industrial base with a burgeoning economy without granting your people any of what we consider basic freedoms or rights isn't what I'd consider a non communist society, it just means you're using a different tact to placate the masses so you can keep power and continue to spread your message.

Communism isn't a form of government. Democracy is. Communism is an social-economic model. You can't have Democracy vs. Communism. That whole concept is flawed in that you can't pit a social-economic model vs a governing system. In theory you could have a Democratic government operating a communist model (no one has successfully) as much as you can have an Oligarchy running a capitalist model (USA, Russia, China).

The reason why a democratic government running a communist model would never last is because individual opinion in a democracy is too inherently greedy. No one truly wants good for all. They only want good for all when it benifits them personally as an individual.

What would you call a government that's made up entirely of communists? I'd call it communist same as we call a government made up entirely of Liberals a Liberal Government. So, saying that there is no such a thing as a Communist Government is the same as saying there are no Conservative or Liberal governments just democratic governments which while technically correct doesn't mean it's not part of the common lexicon used to describe those entities.

So it's all semantics and doesn't detract from the fact that the Vietnamese Government is run entirely by Communists hence the term communist government despite the fact it may technically be a socialist government.

[Vamp018]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

Marines were killing all the Russians

Nobody has ever mentioned the presence of Russians there, before. Cubans, yes but armed Russian soldiers? Really?

Russian military was present babysitting the Cubans. They are still present in Cuba along with the Chinese.

[Canadian_Mind]

What are you trying to describe? The system of government or those actually in charge? Because those are still two very different things. China and Vietnam may very well have communist-labeled parties or organizations in charge within the framework of their government structure. But both operate under a capitalist system. We were trying to contain the spread of the communist system and ideology during the cold war. clearly we won in that regard, as despite whatever labels the world's non-western governments wear, no country is truely communist anymore.

[Jabberwalker]

You have to wonder, too, if people like Ho Chi Minh and Castro were populist anti-colonialists and fairly apolitical at the beginning of their revolutions and became "Communist" because the Soviets were the ones that were willing to sponsor them. I know that Castro approached the Americans before the Russians but the Americans were never going to betray Batista.