[Rictor]

Well, I'm not taking the position that I am because I am in favour of communism and opposed to capitalism. On a purely theoretical level, I am a capitalist plain and simple. In real life however, it all depends who is calling the shots. They can both create equally brutal conditions, and have in the past.

I'm not about to become an apologist for the North Vietnamese, but AFAIK they definitely did less of the killing and more of the dying (roughly around 1 million dead at their hands, as opposed to roughly 3 million by the US (though not restricted to Vietnam)). Not to mention the lasting effects of stuff like Agent Orange and unexploded landmines, which should be tallied into the score. Even so, it was partly a civil war, like you said, and partly a fight for independence from French rule. At no point did the United States have a legitimate right to interfere, and certainly not while claiming to occupy the moral high ground.

ok, but those act, despicable as they are, are not grounds for treason. It is ground for me to declare she is a few cards short of a full deck.

Her participation in other acts in collusion with the NVA however, as a said before, might be considered legally treason.

Imagine the following scenario for a moment:

the North Vietnamese were not the enemies of the United States, but rather their allies against the South Vietnamese communists.  Would your statement still stand? That is, is it based on the actions of the North Vietnamese, or on the fact that they were the enemy. If it is the latter, then the fact that they were declared as enemies by the United States, regardless of their general merits/demerits means **** all. No one is obliged to support the position that their government has taken, just because it is your government.

If Congress got together and arbitrarily declared that your neighbor John Johnson is an Evil Man, would you feel it necessary to start hating him, and all those who support him?

[redmenace]

I would like to point out that Vietnam was a french colony. We became involved after communism started to spreading in the North.

As per trajedies. NVA and the US did atroucious things. The NVA placed their share of traps ie pungie sticks, gave dolls with bombs to children, killed entire villages for helping the US. The US carpet bombed, used things such as agent orange, committed atrocities in villages. In all, things are not and simple as they appear; there was plenty that went on from Air America to agent orange to make one scratch ones head.

[delta_7890]

While it wasn't necessarily a good idea, going to war in Vietnam was the most logical course of action.

We'd already been supplying weapons, vehicles, and advisors to South Vietnam while the French were still at war alongside SV.  In fact, we were contributing MORE in terms of hardware than the French were themselves.  We already had so much in place, all we needed to do to continue the war ourselves was send troops in.

The big thing though was Communism.  We did not want Vietnam to turn Communist.  China, Vietnam's next door neighbor, had already announced its status as a Communist nation some time ago, and we feared a domino affect.  What was next?  India, Indonesia, the Phillipines, Japan?  We viewed Communism, and more importantly, the nations and leaders that supported it, as a threat.

So, we did what we could to stop it.  And when conventional tactics weren't working, we resorted to doing some pretty nasty stuff.  It's tough, but hey, that's war.

[vyper]

" India"

Not likely, too much imperial capitalism engrained in their culture.

"Indonesia"

Just wanting to avoid being anyone's *****, US or Russia.

"Phillipines, Japan?"

Buh, and buh.

[q]going to war in Vietnam was the most logical course of action.[/q]

Actually no, selling guns and providing high altitude air support to the South was the logical course of action.

Unless you were in the US arms industry at the time.

[delta_7890]

Originally posted by vyper

[q]going to war in Vietnam was the most logical course of action.[/q]

Actually no, selling guns and providing high altitude air support to the South was the logical course of action.

Unless you were in the US arms industry at the time.

The South Vietnamese were not the best of combatants.  The "military" they had established was plagued with deserters, and many soldiers who simply didn't want to or were afraid to fight both the Viet Cong or the North Vietnamese.  On their own, the South Vietnamese would never have had the ability to beat back the North.

While our entry in the war did not help at all (more deaths, attrocities, etc), there was a much greater chance of victory than just sitting around and watching.

America has shown that when something proves a threat to its people or interests, it will retaliate with brutal force.  Whether there is a justifiable or logical reason for entry doesn't matter all.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by redmenace
I would like to point out that Vietnam was a french colony. We became involved after communism started to spreading in the North.

IIRC Indochina (as it was then) won against the French; it was divided into 2 countries, North and South Vietnam (Communist and open-market respectively).  There was a small-ish insurgency in the South by North supporting guerillas (I don't know offhand if they had initial support from the North).

Apparently, it was believed that the South was / might be willing to vote for a Communist government.  The US propped up the existing leader, sending several hundred 'military advisors' (both officially and covertly) who engaged in terrorism on both sides of the border to give the impression of a larger conflict between the sides and to escalate the civil war/insurgency.  I think around or after this time it provoked the North Vietnamese to support the Viet-Cong (if they were not already doing so).

Having met Kruschev, Kennedy was convinced a conflict with Russia would be inevitable; a proxy-war in Asia was a more viable prospect than a conventional one in, for example, Europe.  So the US actively provoked a war with a Communist nation for this purpose.

That, is my understanding of the situation.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by delta_7890


The South Vietnamese were not the best of combatants.  The "military" they had established was plagued with deserters, and many soldiers who simply didn't want to or were afraid to fight both the Viet Cong or the North Vietnamese.  On their own, the South Vietnamese would never have had the ability to beat back the North.

While our entry in the war did not help at all (more deaths, attrocities, etc), there was a much greater chance of victory than just sitting around and watching.

America has shown that when something proves a threat to its people or interests, it will retaliate with brutal force.  Whether there is a justifiable or logical reason for entry doesn't matter all.

And Vietnam was a threat to America...how? Was Ho Chi Minh threating to invade America? Letting a sovereign nation establish a form of government contrary to US wishes, that's really horrible, isn't it? Can't allow some uppity Vietnamese to start taking their destiny into their own hands.

Face it, you haven't got a leg to stand on.

[Flipside]

The entire idea of the Vietnam War was based on the 'Domino Theory' which was a pile of bollocks.

As far as spitting on Jane Fonda is concerned, I don't care what she did, if you have a problem with her, deal with it like a human being, don't fill your mouth with Mucus and eject it at her. It's disgusting, disease-spreading and the something an immature child would do, not a fully grown adult. I didn't agree with the Vets being spat on, and I don't agree with the Vets spitting on people, it just goes to show how low people are prepared to stoop just to feel 'vindicated'.

[delta_7890]

Originally posted by Rictor


And Vietnam was a threat to America...how? Was Ho Chi Minh threating to invade America? Letting a sovereign nation establish a form of government contrary to US wishes, that's really horrible, isn't it? Can't allow some uppity Vietnamese to start taking their destiny into their own hands.

Face it, you haven't got a leg to stand on.

As said by Flipside, it's the concept of the Domino Theory.  It wasn't that Vietnam was a threat on its own, but that if Vietnam did fall, then other neighboring nations could fall to Communism as well, and that the Communist sphere of influence as it were would expand enough that, hey, perhaps one of the nations in question would try to launch an attack against America.

I'm not supporting the war.  I don't think it was the right thing to do, but it did happen, and I'm only trying to explain WHY it did happen and what the nation's leaders at the time were thinking.

And I don't exactly appreciate your hostile tone, Rictor.

[Nuclear1]

Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
According to an interview she gave to 60 Minutes, she feels very sorry she ever went to Hanoi. And i believe her sincerity. She was young, and her political ideals misguided her. Young people tend to do first and think later. The simple fact is Vietnam was a wrong war, and she thought her actions would bring it to a quicker end. But alas she was too naive to see that she was being used as a pawn, played for a fool.

So then if I went and had a little cup o' tea with Osama, then I could get away with "naivety" and "misguidedness"?

I mean, come on, these people that she was supporting were our enemies, and, what's more, she decided to insult her countrymen as well.

She's not sorry. She's a Communist, and she should go right back home to Hanoi.

[Flipside]

Er..... That's more than a bit steep and one hell of a bit of stereotyping to be honest.

Just because her views flew in the face of the accepted in the US at the time does not mean she is a communist, the whole idea of Freedom of Speech is to be able to voice your disagreement, it was that very ability that probably saved the lives of thousands of Americans by pressuring the Government to end the Vietnam war.

It's like saying that anyone who opposes the Iraq war is a Terrorist, it might be a nice comforting thought, but I don't think theres anyone on this board not smart enough to see how thin the tissue of self-delusion is in saying that.

I don't know the details, if she were encouraging the North Koreans to kill Americans, then it would be a different story, but as far as I'm aware she didn't do that.

[Ford Prefect]

It wouldn't matter even if she were a communist. Being a communist is not a felony, a misdemeanor, or an offense. Nor is being a fascist, a racist, a scientologist, a hedonist, a vegetarian, or anything. And, believe it or not, insulting your countrymen isn't a crime either.

[redmenace]

Being a communist, a facist or believing in any ism isn't a crime. And yes insulting your countrymen isn't either. But participating in propaganda is. And as I have already pointed out, has been successfully prosecuted ie. Tokyo Rose.

[vyper]

Participating in any propaganda should be a crime. And I can assure you, you'd be one of the first to be shot red.

[redmenace]

You're not the first to want to kill me and I am sure you won't be a last.

Why do you insist on making purposefully insulting comments?

[Rictor]

Originally posted by delta_7890


As said by Flipside, it's the concept of the Domino Theory.  It wasn't that Vietnam was a threat on its own, but that if Vietnam did fall, then other neighboring nations could fall to Communism as well, and that the Communist sphere of influence as it were would expand enough that, hey, perhaps one of the nations in question would try to launch an attack against America.

I'm not supporting the war.  I don't think it was the right thing to do, but it did happen, and I'm only trying to explain WHY it did happen and what the nation's leaders at the time were thinking.

And I don't exactly appreciate your hostile tone, Rictor.

Hostile tone? But I haven't even brought up your mother...yet.

The domino theory was and is an excuse to have a free hand when kicking the **** out of nations which pose no threat. The whole concept of a "sphere of influence" (both Soviet and American) flies in the face of national sovereignty and every international law on the books.

I mean, come on, these people that she was supporting were our enemies, and, what's more, she decided to insult her countrymen as well.

It's more accurate to say that you were their enemies. Remember, they never wanted to fight the US, it was America who invaded. What's more, no one is obliged to support their country and hate their country's enemies. This is decided on an individual basis.

[Swamp_Thing]

How easely do people change opinions when they find themselfs on the other side of the fence. If a vietnamese actress had come to America and pose for pictures, how many of you Jane-haters would think it was treason? Let´s face it, you judge their actions by the colour of your own political inclinations, not by ideals of justice or the Law. I call that double standards.
If such a vietnamese actress actually existed, you would be now discussing why she didn´t get more medals. Yet under the same laws, you convicted Jane for the same actions. Why? Doesn´t the law stipulate that all men are equal? And that similar crimes deserve equal punishment? Why then would you convict one, and celebrate the other?

As far as i know, freedom of speech was still  an unalienable right back then. People could say or defend whatever they wanted. She only defended her ideals. She didn´t sell american military secrets, did she? She didn´t join the enemy forces, did she?
Getting a picture taken with the so called enemy is not treason. If it were, Donald Rummsfeld would be answering for his picture with Saddam. Yet i don´t see any of you calling for his head on a platter, as you do with Jane. I wonder why...

[redmenace]

In her own country the said vietnamese and did exactly as Jane Fonda had done, she would be considered to have committed treason in her own country. And if the said Vietnamese actress was dumb enough to return to Vietnam, I would see no problem with her her being tried according to their laws. Again, I point to Tokyo Rose. She excercised her "freedom of speech" in such a manner that was to lower moral of the US forces taking Island by Island in the pacific. Now Jane Fonda produced radio messages for the VMA. Did she really think these were innocent messages.

Again for the final time, her actions were not limited to simply taking a photo. That is one of the most visable and most circulated things about her, though.

As per donald rumsfeild, when was the photo taken. Was this before or after we discovered howmuch of a ruthless monster he was? Was this business? Was this before the 1991 gulf war? Were we at war with Saddam at the time? Was this a pleasure visit? Did Donald Rumsfeild support saddam and think he was great?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

So basically your analogy is false.

[Ford Prefect]

Tokyo Rose is a bad example, considering the amount of uncertainty surrounding that case.

[redmenace]

If her case has uncertainties then so do many of the nuremburg trials as well. I take you are refering to get explanation of her being under duress. She was found guilty by a just but was found innocent of 7 of the 8 charges.