By 1967, many people in the US thought that the war was inconceivably stupid. And they were called traitors by some. One of the shameful revelations in this film is that 2 presidents, Johnson and Nixon, realized that the war could not be won. But neither had the moral courage to admit it publicly and stop it.
OT; Anyone watching the Ken Burn's Vietnam series on PBS?
- Thread starter ERICCARTMAN
- Start date
Please, nowhere did I make a derogatory statement toward the poster (as you are now doing toward me). I merely stated "Please reread" because he clearly stated "don't dump all of us as weasels". I used the term "so many", not all. For all I know, the poster may be a highly decorated disabled veteran I never said or implied that " HE" personally demanded to be thanked for his service. I see too many veterans who never spilled their blood and came home whole who feel that this country owes them endless adoration. "Thanks for your service" has become a banal throw away phrase.
The statement about (we) being spit on and being targets of feces is unclear. Were all of these "so called privileged guys/gals" treated in this fashion. Were only some members of this class treated in this fashion? Or was he personally a recipient of this abuse?
My ad hominem: It appears that you have failed to accept the exact words as written and for an unknown purpose morphed them into some semblance of a narrative they you wanted to see written in order to post a negative reply.
I saw the episode about burning huts. What I expected was more justification - these weren't usually random events. Generally there was some background with VC operating from that village, and it wasn't covered.
This was more upsetting to me than I expected. This series seemed to focus on an agenda. The My Lai massacre was extensively covered, and it was an atrocity. They just glossed over VC atrocities, and there were many. GI's did a lot of good things in Vietnam, but you didn't see much covered.
They showed one Army nurse, and she just happened to be a war-protester at Pleiku. There were a lot of Army nurses doing outstanding work, and not all were protesters. I don't recall seeing any Donut Dollies, who also played a role, and nothing about Bob Hope giving up Christmas to entertain the troops. To the unfamiliar, these could have offered insight that there were people who may not have supported the war, but did support the troops.
But what really irked me was the extent of coverage for John Kerry, and I only realized last night several of the first hand spokesman were also in Kerry's organization. The number of returning vets who joined Vietnam Veterans Against the war was rather small, yet they found the few who did. My finale was seeing Jane Fonda. The person who rendered an opinion on Jane Fonda was the Marine who was fantasizing over her. Ask most veterans for their opinion on Jane Fonda, and I can assure you they were not fantasizing over her, but had an extreme hatred for her actions.
I had seen the commercials for this, and as doc junkie, I thought anything from Burns is something I want to see. But coachingyouth sports and overtime have had different plans for me. Think I remembered to set up DVR? Yeaaaaaaaah NO. But I think these may be on the PBS website. I checked and it had some different episodes up. Like broadcast or unedited, etc. I fully plan on binge watching this weekend.
Please show me where I accused you of making derogatory statements and where I allegedly made a derogatory statement about you. I never did. I commented on your statement:
"It is trivial and unnecessary.to demand "Thank you for your service.""
That is where my comment came from because TTown never stated or even hinted towards that. I have no issues with you, not sure why you are being so sensitive because I questioned how you interpreted what TTown stated.
I'm almost 59. A tweener too young to serve in Nam but old enough to remember so many older boys from my hometown saying their goodbyes before going off to boot camp... and seeing them maybe a year later as hardened, haunted men in uniform.
Viet vets were scorned. They took the brunt for the unpopularity of the war in a godforsaken corner of the earth that most Americans had never heard of. And I think many an armchair citizen wondered, "what the hell is wrong with these guys that they can't beat a bunch of skinny little people in bamboo hats? G**dammit, in our day we landed on Normandy and marched straight to Berlin and beat the hell out of the Germans. The GERMANS. Those damn Viet Cong aren't even a real army..."
This series really brings back the memories.
Viet vets were scorned. They took the brunt for the unpopularity of the war in a godforsaken corner of the earth that most Americans had never heard of. And I think many an armchair citizen wondered, "what the hell is wrong with these guys that they can't beat a bunch of skinny little people in bamboo hats? G**dammit, in our day we landed on Normandy and marched straight to Berlin and beat the hell out of the Germans. The GERMANS. Those damn Viet Cong aren't even a real army..."
This series really brings back the memories.
I watched and i think it was well done. But my eyes were certainly wide open that there was an agenda. It's a scholarly thing to begin with, so there will be a liberal bent. PBS production, naturally will be liberal as well. So it was kind of natural. Liberals will never put Kerry or Fonda in a bad light. Just like conservatives revere all that Reagan did. And in this particular case it's kind of hard to dispute the liberal judgements given how terrible a situation Vietnam became. Just shouldn't be a surprise though.
Don't plan on getting any sleep - its like 10 episodes and most are closer to 2 hours.
" It's a scholarly thing to begin with, so there will be a liberal bent. PBS production, naturally will be liberal as well. So it was kind of natural."
These folks spent 10 years on this project, interviewing people on all sides, trying to present as complete of a picture of the war as they could. Does that make them liberal, or conservative, or anything?
While I agree, I really don't think Jane Fonda was painted in a positive light in last night's episode do you? And won, I didn't realize her comments were that ridiculously over the top, that she advocated for the execution of American POW's because they were war criminals? Really, she should have been shot for those comments. And I do agree the one Vet interviewed about her that became so anti War, he glossed over her comments and actions.
And most of the Vets interviewed became anti war folks. But one thing, and of course this has a liberal slant, but it painted JFK, Henry Cabot Lodge and Lyndon Johnson in a bad light because they started and escalated this whole thing, Johnson the whole time knew it was a lost cause. The taped conversations between Nixon and Kissinger were priceless. I don't care if you are Republican or Democrat, Progressive or Conservative, the crap he was pulling was just over the top, an evil despicable man.
Still regardless, I am a big boy, and can view these things regardless of prism and get pretty much the truth. It is just incredibly sad that this went on, and went on for so long. Just a tragedy and a travesty. I think the best line from last night and it has real truth and resonates today, paraphrasing "we went from trusting our government and their judgement to not trusting them and figuring out they are doing nothing but lying".
BOOM
Well these last two episodes since it focused on Nixon's escalation and extending the war and the anti war protests and the fact that at this point most people, soldiers and vets have figured out this was complete bullshit and a lost cause, it is going to be a liberal slant. But that doesn't make it any less of the truth.
Ahh, okay, I had just assumed they'd be one hour episodes. Just out of curiousity Jeff, had you seen the 1000 Day War video put out about 15-20 years ago? I thought that was well done as well.
It's a little long. I can only imagine how much longer the actual war was for those who were fighting it or even following it on the nightly news. Too many subtitles too. Watching this requires your undivided attention. And because of that it needs to have occasional commercials!
But why does the "truth" have to be slanted? They are presenting what happened. The fact that by this point in time, anti-war sentiment went well beyond the people who would be called "liberal," does not mean there is a liberal slant.
Yep, that be the one. Just like my bank account, I'm one 0 off where I want to be.
I had saw that years ago and thought it was pretty good. All news accounts.It lasted years later for some, those that were affected by Agent orange suffered for years while the govt protected DOW and did nothing for the service men and their families.
johnsonand Nixon are responsible for over 50,000deaths. jane fonda was a disgrace and should have been imprisioned.
Key point is still missed by some people. We were trying to help France after WWII. Viet Nam was a French colony. Burns talks about this in the first episode but goes through it a little too quickly. Ho Chi Min begged for our help with their push for independence, something that was going on throughout the colonial world at the time. However, we decided to step in for the French, our best friends for life. So Ho turned to Moscow for help. Cold warriors then made what was simply an independence and unification of Viet Nam issue into a cold war theater.
Thus, the whole thing was a total mistake/misunderstanding from the get go. Never underestimate the role of stupidity in the affairs of human beings. Other mistakes were made along the way but the fundamental mistake was at the very beginning. You never heard that stuff on the news in the 60s when it was happening. All you heard about was body counts, bombing raids, massacres, and protests. It just came down to an us vs them battle in the news, both militarily and also culturally in the country. But none of it should have ever have happened. This makes it even more sad for families that lost someone for no reason. And it had nothing to do with our soldiers being good or bad. Had everything to do with a foreign policy mistake.
We need to learn from history, maybe our most important subject in school.
Now, back to football.......
I said it was the truth. Just the last two episodes focused on Nixon's crap but I also said overall the Democrats looked bad. Stop being so sensitive. My god.
I am a 72 year old vet of the war. I remember it well. The war should of never occurred, but the times dictated our involvement. The domino theory was looked upon very seriously at the time. China had gone to the Communist side and the threat of losing all of Southeast Asia was ever present then. One thing that has not been mentioned and is very factuql, is that although the war was a mistake, we had it actually won after the Tet offensive by The North Vietnamese. We demolished their army to the point that General Giap their commander was ready to sue for peace, but saw the demonstrations and knew that would sway the war their way. He actually looked at the demonstrators as being a fifth column. The press and specifically Walter Cronkite reported as though Tet was a defeat, but it was quite the opposite. The war as I said was a waste of many good soldiers, marines, and airmen.
It's crazy how Cronkite basically declared the war hopeless, and everyone was like, welp I guess that's it. He must know what he's talking about, we gotta get out of there!!!
Last edited:
I don't think you will find too many people who agree with the statement that we had the war won after Tet. They certainly suffered great losses, but the N Vietnamese consistently proved that they were willing to suffer those losses in pursuit of their goal of unifying the country.
Tet showed the American people that the Johnson administration had been lying about the progress being made in the war. It may have been a military defeat for N Vietnam, but it was a symbolic victory. The American embassy in Saigon being attacked was not a comforting image.
The leaders of our country that make the decision to go to war need to ask themselves these two questions the next time the possibility of war arises.
1) Would you be willing to give your life in battle for this war?
2) Would you be willing to lose your child in battle for this war?
1) Would you be willing to give your life in battle for this war?
2) Would you be willing to lose your child in battle for this war?
Your statement to me: "You questioned his reading comprehension" which I did not. Questioning someone's reading comprehension is a derogatory statement , especially on this board.
Then "You failed to comprehend his statement", clearly implies that I have the reading comprehension problem.
The statement about "Thank you for your service" was a general statement, along with the two sentences preceding it. Again I never stated that TTown ever demanded or hinted that. It was directed to no one in particular.
I did not interpret what TTown said. I corrected his changing of my words "so many" to "all".
I then got on a soapbox and made general statements about honor and duty. I'm sorry if I was not able to make my meaning absolutely unequivocal.
I don't wish to disappoint you , but my feelings are not hurt by challenges and I shall end my side of this pleasant conversation as it is wasting the time of other posters. Time to get back to Rice. Enjoy the game.
In today's universities and the Democrat party....
The ones who survived rampant drug use and STDs
Neither Nixon, Johnson nor anyone on the planet could have stopped the war.
The war existed before US involvement and after we left.
Johnson, Nixon and Kennedy were the 3 sides to the same coin. Each made it worse for those who followed.
It doesn't take as much courage to end a war as it does to stand up in front of a room full of people, let alone a nation, and say "I've made a mistake and I'm going to correct it."
From school boards to Presidents, CEOs to average Joe's, there is an inherent aversion to admitting and then correcting mistakes.
And it has cost us dearly.
Johnson and Nixon could not have ended the War, but they could have corrected their mistakes and stopped our participation and the flow of our boys blood. That would have been enough.
Similar, but different: I'm guessing that Obama wanted to avoid the same situation that you describe (above) as his justification for removing our troops from Afghanistan as he did.
Now it can be argued whether or not his decision was a wise one. But as a student of history, Obama knew the dangers (in blood and money) of getting bogged-down in a war that we cannot win.
There was no "winning" a war in Korea or Vietnam just the same as their is no winning a war in the Middle East.
People are stuck in 1945.
We were the country that won WWI and WWII, but those were wars that 1) Had VERY clear moral rationales 2) Involved major industrialized countries.
Every war we have bumbled into since WWII has had murky, geopolitical rationales. I get the thinking about the dominoes and probably would have seen that as a viable argument at the time.
But, end of the day, when you need to debate if you should be in a war, you shouldn't be in it. Just based on the actual threat level that justifies the action, but also relative to, in this day and age, in a democracy, it isn't just conquering counties by regimes, it requires the support of the public.
This "we lost because people back home didn't mindlessly, endlessly support sending our 20 year old boys into a meatgrinder for a country that posed no threat or had no loyalty to us" mindset is oblivious to the fact that we are, in fact a democracy, that we collectively have a voice in these matters.
You also can't "win" wars in these piss ant, third world countries because they don't just put the flag up and go about the business of rebuilding their country to get back to a civilized way of life like Germany and Japan did.
They had nothing, live in jungles or deserts and just crawl into their woodwork and engage in guerilla warfare (Which, not for nothing is pretty much how we got our independence).
Additional to this point - end of the day, the people of Germany and Japan accepted that they were wrong, it was pretty clear what they did, and they did some epicly horrible things, so the conceded.
We went over there, they were mostly minding their own business and we blew the $hit out of their country. They didn't do anything wrong for us to be there in the first place.
Why we have to keep learning this lesson is beyond me ...
I know this will piss off the Conservatives, but that is what pissed me off most about the Iraq turn of this war. It violates some of the basic tenets that others have been criticized for, nation building (which Bush said he was adamantly against), mission scope, and not having an end game/result and finally putting in these phony "rules of engagement", which does nothing but get our guys killed.
If you are going to war, to me these 4 things should be met:
1) An attack on the US or properties or imminent danger of attack.
2) A real objective.
3) "F Feelings", you go to war, people are going to die do you damn well don't wait to shoot first"
4) Overwhelming might. Go in hard, fast, get it over with as fast as possible.
It's tough to fight a war as long as there's a concern (always on our part, not the enemy's part) about civilian casualties. Sure, we could've blown-up Hanoi, Haiphong harbor, and other cities, too, but at what cost to human life?
The same situation is gonna have to be faced in the Korean and Middle Eastern situations. Sure, we have the firepower to bomb them all into the Stone Age, but if we do, then what? We certainly don't want to be an occupying army in any of those places. And we can't afford the cost of the humanitarian aid that we'd have to provide. What's that old saying: "You broke it, so you fix it...."?
Hell, we're struggling badly to help the people in the Caribbean - and they're US citizens!
Good post.
Deeply disagree with wars in the Middle East and especially Afghanistan. History has shown it's impossible to succeed. I got that there was interest in revenge for 911 but it was the biggest folly in history, even more than Vietnam, to think we could "win" there long term. The first gulf war (also dumb, particularly in not eliminating Hussein once we did commit to engage in it) gave a terrible impression that success in that region was possible and easy and clean. But history shows it never ends there, it is never the same thing from year to year, and it is a guaranteed quagmire.
