View Full Version : War shite (moved from Blank Canvas)
Discussion moved from here: https://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?66149-Women-Hifi-owners&p=1129030#post1129030
Virtually any tool including a SMARTphone can be used for good or bad, a good use example is when it is connected to a SMARTwatch that monitors heart rate, and can take an ECG and if anything bad is detected notifies the person or a doctor, the Apple products and a specific app are capable of doing so and is in use in the USA and I believe is under trial in the UK. There are many other examples of good use, a bad use, IMO, is when apps and operating systems have code imbedded in them which learn/monitor what you do on the internet/device and then bombard you with adverts and email from commercial organisations to show you stuff to entice you to buy. We are all familiar with pop-ups on computers, it has now moved on where what you see on web pages, and social media pages is based on what you look at on phones and computers. Another aspect of this is if you search for a particular product, say and air flight to find the best price and you repeat this over several days you will discover that the price with different parties will actually increase, why is this you may ask, it is because the more interest that an individual shows in an item then the more the seller will try and charge for it, true commercialism, so another bad use, market manipulation.
A bad tool I can think of is an Atom or Hydrogen Bomb, not much use really apart from killing several million people in one hit and leaving the area it hits radioactive for many years, but I am sure there are some out there that will argue it has its good uses.
yeah it kills several million people in one hit and leaves the area it hits radioactive for many years:eyebrows: depending on your viewpoint and what is happening it could just about be the best of a bad job I guess... Trouble with inventions is you cant really uninvent them.
I don't think the idea that wealthy people have influence over politics is a surprise to anyone. Nor is it a new thing.
It's one thing to say that the internet enables people to advertise their tat more selectively. (although see my previous post where I linked to an article about the relative ineffectiveness of internet advertising compared to advertising in the press or television).
It's more of a leap to suggest that it could be used to control behaviour in a wider sense. On balance I'm more inclined to agree with Joe that it's more of a threat to governments - by enabling large numbers of people to instantly communicate and organise, and by providing alternative viewpoints to the 'party line'. Isn't this why the internet is heavily controlled and censored in authoritarian regimes like China?
Sure, it can work that way too, and China does control its web as does N Korea, But it doesnt take much stretch of imagination to see modern tech improvements being used against us, the people as well. Not saying it currently is, at least on any large and deep scale but i bet its on the agenda of the secret service and govts.
Trouble is, if its done right it may be difficult to know.
AJSki2fly
07-10-2019, 17:42
Can you provide a hypothetical scenario of how that might work?
Don’t need to, I believe it is used in China for propaganda and people management.[emoji33]
Don’t need to, I believe it is used in China for propaganda and people management.[emoji33]
Can you be more specific about the 'people management' thing. What are the nuts and bolts of it and what are they managing the people to do?
Mikeandvan
07-10-2019, 23:27
A bad tool I can think of is an Atom or Hydrogen Bomb, not much use really apart from killing several million people in one hit and leaving the area it hits radioactive for many years, but I am sure there are some out there that will argue it has its good uses.
There are so many people out there who believe that the American dropping of the Atom bomb on Japan was justified, really, so many. Even after hearing the historical statements of the president and Generals of the time that 'Japan would have surrendered anyway' they stick to their belief that the murder of over a million civilians in 2 nuclear strikes and one massive regular bombing campaign involving napalm amongst other bombs on Tokyo (actually killed more than each of the atom bombs).
There are so many people out there who believe that the American dropping of the Atom bomb on Japan was justified, really, so many. Even after hearing the historical statements of the president and Generals of the time that 'Japan would have surrendered anyway'
That was what was said after the event. If Japan was ready to surrender 'anyway', why had they not already done so? The allies called on Japan to surrender unconditionally, or face destruction, as part of the Potsdam Declaration in July 1945, but the Japanese government vowed that they would fight on.
Mikeandvan
08-10-2019, 10:19
That was what was said after the event. If Japan was ready to surrender 'anyway', why had they not already done so? The allies called on Japan to surrender unconditionally, or face destruction, as part of the Potsdam Declaration in July 1945, but the Japanese government vowed that they would fight on.
That proves my point exactly, imo its never ok to kill civilians, especially on such an industrial level, that is close what the Nazis were doing.
tbf, we didnt start it, and in such a conflict, no-one is really a civilian alas. It really was us or them; it had to be us. Theygot warned, then even after the first one they refused to give in, so a second(and last as we had no more)was used.
It is true that their use was also useful in seeing how they really worked in practice and also to hopefully gain an advantage over the Russians in discussions, BUT, that wasnt really the main military aim... it was to save a huge amount of lives, many of them ours
tbf, we didnt start it, and in such a conflict, no-one is really a civilian alas. It really was us or them; it had to be us. Theygot warned, then even after the first one they refused to give in, so a second(and last as we had no more)was used.
It is true that their use was also useful in seeing how they really worked in practice and also to hopefully gain an advantage over the Russians in discussions, BUT, that wasnt really the main military aim... it was to save a huge amount of lives, many of them ours
that's correct. read about the battle for Okinawa and how many casualties the Yanks took there. Based on that they estimated they would take 1 million casualties in the first 12 months of an invasion of mainland Japan.
Aside from that if the invasion had gone ahead and there was conventional fighting for the Jap home islands how many civilians would have died during that? Almost certainly more than in the two nuclear strikes. The Japanese government expected all women and children to fight - and they were up for it as well. The reality is there was no acceptable option except to use the nukes.
That proves my point exactly
It doesn't 'prove your point' which was that the Japanese 'would have surrendered anyway', which is precisely what they didn't do.
Mikeandvan
08-10-2019, 12:55
My point was originally to show the truth of Adrians statement - "A bad tool I can think of is an Atom or Hydrogen Bomb, not much use really apart from killing several million people in one hit and leaving the area it hits radioactive for many years, but I am sure there are some out there that will argue it has its good uses.'" I then stated that it seems a majority of people take the view that the use of the atom bomb on Japan in WWII was entirely justified. Several posters then confirm this in the usual fashion using quasi military jargon completely forgetting we are talking about the lives of millions of civilians, who else killed civilians on such an industrial scale? Totalitarian regimes like Russia and Nazi Germany. Japan was also a totalitarian regime, but I never think the civilians of any country should bear responsibility for the actions of their governments. Japan could be seen as the beginning of Americas role as world policeman, Vietnam, the Middle East, countless lives lost through heavy bombing campaigns. Japans foolish bombing of Pearl Harbour cost a few thousand American - mostly soldiers - lives, the death rate of American military personnel to Vietnamese military/civilian must be something like at least 1/10. It seems America can just bomb away with impunity and we're all supposed to look away. Also once again, may'be it depends on what historians you read, but Japan were ready to surrender and probably would have done so. What need was there for America to storm their island? A ridiculous notion! What threat did Japan pose to America? The country was on its knees after the U.S. bombing of Tokyo in march 1945 which was even more deadly than Hiroshima or Nagasaki in terms of immediate casualties! I wonder how many U.S. civilians were killed during WW2?
us had over 400k deaths. we had about same, slightly more tbh if you add in blitz casualties. russia had 24 mil deathes, most civilian. japan had 2mil military deaths.. and about 500k+ in civilians.
Mikeandvan
08-10-2019, 13:45
us had over 400k deaths. we had about same, slightly more tbh if you add in blitz casualties. russia had 24 mil deathes, most civilian. japan had 2mil military deaths.. and about 500k+ in civilians.
Exactly, Japan around half a million civilian deaths all due to American bombing, how many American civilians killed during the whole of WW2? 12,000. So again what threat was Japan to America!
! What threat did Japan pose to America? The country was on its knees after the U.S. bombing of Tokyo in march 1945 which was even more deadly than Hiroshima or Nagasaki in terms of immediate casualties! I wonder how many U.S. civilians were killed during WW2?
Pretty much all the 400,000 US servicemen who were killed had been civilians prior to Pearl Harbour. They were then drafted to fight the Germans and Japanese with no choice in the matter.
The thinking in the U.S at the time was that if the entire nation of Japan was sunk into the sea with 100% casualties no-one would have cared.
Part of the problem is that 80 years of peace has made us soft and we now judge the actions of our predecessors not only with the comfort of hindsight but with a badly mistaken sense of superior morality.
No-one is saying these are good things to have happened. But I would suggest that they were, in the context of the time, justifiable.
The Japanese had to be seen by everyone, and especially the Japanese to be totally crushed. Their system of militarian govt had to be banned so it never happened again. It never has.
Exactly, Japan around half a million civilian deaths all due to American bombing, how many American civilians killed during the whole of WW2? 12,000. So again what threat was Japan to America!
I think what is more telling is the 2 mil+ military deaths.... they prefered to die than surrender.. that was their psychology and why what was done was done.
Mikeandvan
08-10-2019, 14:01
Pretty much all the 400,000 US servicemen who were killed had been civilians prior to Pearl Harbour. They were then drafted to fight the Germans and Japanese with no choice in the matter.
The thinking in the U.S at the time was that if the entire nation of Japan was sunk into the sea with 100% casualties no-one would have cared.
Part of the problem is that 80 years of peace has made us soft and we now judge the actions of our predecessors not only with the comfort of hindsight but with a badly mistaken sense of superior morality.
No-one is saying these are good things to have happened. But I would suggest that they were, in the context of the time, justifiable.
I'm not too familiar with the rules of war, but a soldier is a soldier and a civilian a civilian. One is not supposed to kill civilians, and once again what threat was Japan to the U.S. at that time, what justified the killing of so many Japanese civilians? I suppose you think Vietnam was a good idea as well.
the Japanese during 37/45 period murdered well over 6 million Chinese, Koreans, Malaysians, Indonesians, Filipinos and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war..some rate it at 10m.
Mikeandvan
08-10-2019, 14:23
the Japanese during 37/45 period murdered well over 6 million Chinese, Koreans, Malaysians, Indonesians, Filipinos and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war..some rate it at 10m.
As I said before, I wouldn't hold civilians responsible for their governments actions. It is well documented that Japan was on its knees in '45, the U.S major triple bombing campaigns of 1945 were to show the world who was gonna be post war world leader.
Mike Reed
08-10-2019, 15:14
Pretty much all the 400,000 US servicemen who were killed had been civilians prior to Pearl Harbour. They were then drafted to fight the Germans and Japanese with no choice in the matter.
The thinking in the U.S at the time was that if the entire nation of Japan was sunk into the sea with 100% casualties no-one would have cared.
Part of the problem is that 80 years of peace has made us soft and we now judge the actions of our predecessors not only with the comfort of hindsight but with a badly mistaken sense of superior morality.
No-one is saying these are good things to have happened. But I would suggest that they were, in the context of the time, justifiable.
An astute observation, Martin, with which I'd agree. The very fact that it took the Japanese hierarchy a week (?) to procrastinate after the first bomb would indicate that the American assumption of greater loss of life from prolonging the war holds water. The (brainwashed) nationalistic psyche of the Japanese nation at that time rather reinforces that premise.
I remember buying a super duper portable Japanese FM radio in 1960/61 after saving hard; clever and innovative little people just one and a half decades after the holocaust. My wife's parents only knew Japanese education and governance during their earlier lives and few Taiwanese had a bad word for their conquerors during that period, unlike, as I gather, the Koreans. Over half a century, they were relatively benevolent in that island, I'm told. The 'invasion' of their countryman Cash My Cheque in '49 really did ruffle feathers though; strange world !
Does this push the thread deflection envelope too far, I wonder ? It does mention both woman and hifi, after all !:)
I'm not too familiar with the rules of war, but a soldier is a soldier and a civilian a civilian. One is not supposed to kill civilians, and once again what threat was Japan to the U.S. at that time, what justified the killing of so many Japanese civilians? I suppose you think Vietnam was a good idea as well.
Reminds me of that line from an old film (can't recall which one).
'You can't do that, it's against the Geneva Convention!'
'Yeah but this isn't Geneva pal.'
The reason they have 'rules of war' and so forth isn't for the benefit of the soldiers. It's for the benefit of snowflake middle-class types who sit at home wringing their hands about what's being done in their name. It's so they get the impression that in general, war is a civilized business conducted by gentlemen and that it really isn't such a bad thing. When the reality is that it is brutal and hideous beyond comprehension.
The only way to avoid it is not to have the war in the first place because once it starts all bets are off, all the rules of civilization are suspended.
There is just no point in wringing you hands over the details or imagining that we could have still fought the war but been a bit more picky about how we did it, just, you know, to avoid upsetting the horses.
Vietnam - well it seemed like a good idea at the time. They went in with the best of intentions. Once again context is everything and you can't morally judge the actions of the past from the point of view of the present. Unless you are some sort of lefty-revisionist historian of course in which case it is your raison d'etre. But IMO those sort of people want a good slap.
Mikeandvan
08-10-2019, 18:10
Reminds me of that line from an old film (can't recall which one).
'You can't do that, it's against the Geneva Convention!'
'Yeah but this isn't Geneva pal.'
The reason they have 'rules of war' and so forth isn't for the benefit of the soldiers. It's for the benefit of snowflake middle-class types who sit at home wringing their hands about what's being done in their name. It's so they get the impression that in general, war is a civilized business conducted by gentlemen and that it really isn't such a bad thing. When the reality is that it is brutal and hideous beyond comprehension.
The only way to avoid it is not to have the war in the first place because once it starts all bets are off, all the rules of civilization are suspended.
There is just no point in wringing you hands over the details or imagining that we could have still fought the war but been a bit more picky about how we did it, just, you know, to avoid upsetting the horses.
Vietnam - well it seemed like a good idea at the time. They went in with the best of intentions. Once again context is everything and you can't morally judge the actions of the past from the point of view of the present. Unless you are some sort of lefty-revisionist historian of course in which case it is your raison d'etre. But IMO those sort of people want a good slap.
If you haven't already done so then I suggest you watch the BBC documentary 'Vietnam'. see how pure Americas intentions were. And there was plenty of opposition to Americas involvement at the time, you don't have to be a so called 'lefty revisionist' to question that.
If you haven't already done so then I suggest you watch the BBC documentary 'Vietnam'. see how pure Americas intentions were. And there was plenty of opposition to Americas involvement at the time, you don't have to be a so called 'lefty revisionist' to question that.
I've seen the documentary (and all the others). So what part of America's intentions would you say were not 'pure'. The original aim was to prevent the spread of Communism and so reduce the threat to the American way of life. They saw that as a good thing. They didn't intend to get sucked in the way they did and end up like a gambler chasing his losses.
The lefty revisionist version would say that the entire conflict was orchestrated by the military-industrial complex so they could sell more bombs. Obviously the military-industrial complex did quite well out of the whole thing. But that's a side effect, not a cause.
Mikeandvan
08-10-2019, 20:32
I've seen the documentary (and all the others). So what part of America's intentions would you say were not 'pure'. The original aim was to prevent the spread of Communism and so reduce the threat to the American way of life. They saw that as a good thing. They didn't intend to get sucked in the way they did and end up like a gambler chasing his losses.
The lefty revisionist version would say that the entire conflict was orchestrated by the military-industrial complex so they could sell more bombs. Obviously the military-industrial complex did quite well out of the whole thing. But that's a side effect, not a cause.
That very one you mention, to stop the spread of Communism, what right does America have to dictate what systems other countries live under? The whole Vietnamese escapade was an immoral shambles. With Nixon at the helm, that ended with Watergate. I mean they literally bombed the shit out of that country and Cambodia, all in the name of humanitarian intervention, same with the two Iraqi wars. Apart from Americas assistance to Europe in WW2, I can't think of one conflict where American intervention has done nothing but make matters worse.
Apart from Americas assistance to Europe in WW2, I can't think of one conflict where American intervention has done nothing but make matters worse.
America's assistance to Europe in WWI?
I've seen the documentary (and all the others). So what part of America's intentions would you say were not 'pure'. The original aim was to prevent the spread of Communism and so reduce the threat to the American way of life. They saw that as a good thing. They didn't intend to get sucked in the way they did and end up like a gambler chasing his losses.
The lefty revisionist version would say that the entire conflict was orchestrated by the military-industrial complex so they could sell more bombs. Obviously the military-industrial complex did quite well out of the whole thing. But that's a side effect, not a cause.
Well, the military-industrial complex had an interest in prolonging/extending the conflict, and undoubtedly put pressure on the politicians to keep going even when it was clear that US involvement wasn't achieving its aims.
That very one you mention, to stop the spread of Communism, what right does America have to dictate what systems other countries live under? The whole Vietnamese escapade was an immoral shambles. With Nixon at the helm, that ended with Watergate. I mean they literally bombed the shit out of that country and Cambodia, all in the name of humanitarian intervention, same with the two Iraqi wars. Apart from Americas assistance to Europe in WW2, I can't think of one conflict where American intervention has done nothing but make matters worse.
No-one has 'the right' to do anything but that doesn't stop them. 'The right' to do something only exists on paper and in the minds of armchair commentators.
Did the Americans say 'Let's get involved in Vietnam, it will fuck up the Vietnamese and fuck us up as well', or did they say 'We need to get involved in Vietnam otherwise we are going to end up fucked up.'?
Everyone always goes into everything with the best of intentions. Even the Nazis. Judging with hindsight is easy.
Well, the military-industrial complex had an interest in prolonging/extending the conflict, and undoubtedly put pressure on the politicians to keep going even when it was clear that US involvement wasn't achieving its aims.
Yes, that is certainly true but it wasn't the only factor in keeping the war going. That alone would not have been enough.
AJSki2fly
09-10-2019, 07:42
No-one has 'the right' to do anything but that doesn't stop them. 'The right' to do something only exists on paper and in the minds of armchair commentators.
Did the Americans say 'Let's get involved in Vietnam, it will fuck up the Vietnamese and fuck us up as well', or did they say 'We need to get involved in Vietnam otherwise we are going to end up fucked up.'?
Everyone always goes into everything with the best of intentions. Even the Nazis. Judging with hindsight is easy.
Ok having actually been to Vietnam and spoken with people who were caught up in the war, and next generation and both Vietcong and USA vets, I will pass comment.
First the general consensus from both sides it was a war that should have never happened, Vietnam ended up being the pawn between two major powers Russia and USA who didn’t give a f**k about Vietnam, all they wanted to do was flex their political muscles and show who was the super power.
Vietnam went down the communist route to try and dig itself out of severe poverty, which has been seen in several other countries. The people of Vietnam still generally revere Ho Chi Min as a man who had the people at his heart, irrespective of their politics.
The vets view in general was that the Vietnamese saw the US army etc as the invader of their country irrespective of what politicians said from either side, and this meant that the Vietnamese generally felt they should defend their country.
The USA vets said of the USA troops realised what the situation was, apart from some die hard red necks who were as a result promoted up the ranks whether capable or not. So it was not where most wanted to be, also they felt it was immoral, the majority of the Vietcong were unarmed with modern weapons, they resorted to digging booby trap pits, medieval hand made weapons, and poison darts etc, all used in guerrilla ware fare, and living down tunnels. Later on they got limited supplies arms from Russia.
A higher ranking US vet told me that 6 months before they left they were ordered to agent orange the Mekong Delta and then naphalm it, even though they knew they were already preparing to pull out. Quite dishonourable, and shameful in his view, this continued till the day they left.
So to sum up a disgusting war which was completely unfounded, two meddling supper powers getting involved in another country, how many times have we seen this.
By the way if you go to Vietnam today even though it is communist, it is in my view one of the most capitalist countries in the world I have ever visited. Also the people are lovely.
Ok having actually been to Vietnam and spoken with people who were caught up in the war, and next generation and both Vietcong and USA vets, I will pass comment.
First the general consensus from both sides it was a war that should have never happened, Vietnam ended up being the pawn between two major powers Russia and USA who didn’t give a f**k about Vietnam, all they wanted to do was flex their political muscles and show who was the super power.
Vietnam went down the communist route to try and dig itself out of severe poverty, which has been seen in several other countries. The people of Vietnam still generally revere Ho Chi Min as a man who had the people at his heart, irrespective of their politics.
The vets view in general was that the Vietnamese saw the US army etc as the invader of their country irrespective of what politicians said from either side, and this meant that the Vietnamese generally felt they should defend their country.
The USA vets said of the USA troops realised what the situation was, apart from some die hard red necks who were as a result promoted up the ranks whether capable or not. So it was not where most wanted to be, also they felt it was immoral, the majority of the Vietcong were unarmed with modern weapons, they resorted to digging booby trap pits, medieval hand made weapons, and poison darts etc, all used in guerrilla ware fare, and living down tunnels. Later on they got limited supplies arms from Russia.
A higher ranking US vet told me that 6 months before they left they were ordered to agent orange the Mekong Delta and then naphalm it, even though they knew they were already preparing to pull out. Quite dishonourable, and shameful in his view, this continued till the day they left.
So to sum up a disgusting war which was completely unfounded, two meddling supper powers getting involved in another country, how many times have we seen this.
By the way if you go to Vietnam today even though it is communist, it is in my view one of the most capitalist countries in the world I have ever visited. Also the people are lovely.
All agreed. My argument is that the conflict happened not because America was/is 'evil' but because they thought they were doing what was necessary. With hindsight we can see that it wasn't necessary, but they didn't know that at the time. And once you start a war, even with the best of intentions, lots of terrible things are going to happen.
It's one thing to be a Monday morning quarterback and criticize the decision with hindsight, it's another to be the judge and jury of the morality of it. Morality is subjective, just like sound quality. The most terrible things are done by men who think they have the 'moral right' because they are completely untroubled by their conscience.
AJSki2fly
09-10-2019, 08:49
All agreed. My argument is that the conflict happened not because America was/is 'evil' but because they thought they were doing what was necessary. With hindsight we can see that it wasn't necessary, but they didn't know that at the time. And once you start a war, even with the best of intentions, lots of terrible things are going to happen.
It's one thing to be a Monday morning quarterback and criticize the decision with hindsight, it's another to be the judge and jury of the morality of it. Morality is subjective, just like sound quality. The most terrible things are done by men who think they have the 'moral right' because they are completely untroubled by their conscience.
I quite agree, but at the same time I think that those in power were pretty aware of the consequences of going half way around the world all in the name of keeping people free from communism. Even the US veterans I met, one or two high ranking ones were of that opinion at the time, not in hindsight.
The veterans were there in a charity basis trying support ex Vietcong and their families to build new and better lives. It was good to see, both sides realising they were caught up in something rather nasty and out of their control or influence at the time.
I just wonder how easy it would be for a current day power to utilise modern tech to rise up against others, in comparison to back then.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I quite agree, but at the same time I think that those in power were pretty aware of the consequences of going half way around the world all in the name of keeping people free from communism. Even the US veterans I met, one or two high ranking ones were of that opinion at the time, not in hindsight.
The veterans were there in a charity basis trying support ex Vietcong and their families to build new and better lives. It was good to see, both sides realising they were caught up in something rather nasty and out of their control or influence at the time.
I just wonder how easy it would be for a current day power to utilise modern tech to rise up against others, in comparison to back then.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
depends on the battlefield, but modern tech is hard to beat, although in end you still need guys on the ground to mop up. The way the Yanks went about it, they were always going to lose. The British tried to tell them it was a slow hearts and minds thing that would work but the US had no patience... also their generals had a lot of hardware they were just itching to use.
So evil?, overall no, but they didnt have Vietnam's best interests at heart either. Their morbid fear of communism was at heart of it
All agreed. My argument is that the conflict happened not because America was/is 'evil' but because they thought they were doing what was necessary. With hindsight we can see that it wasn't necessary, but they didn't know that at the time. And once you start a war, even with the best of intentions, lots of terrible things are going to happen.
It was, of course, a French war to begin with. Graham Greene's 'The Quiet American' (1955) is an excellent novel set at the time when the French were about to quit and the US intervention was about to begin.
It was, of course, a French war to begin with. Graham Greene's 'The Quiet American' (1955) is an excellent novel set at the time when the French were about to quit and the US intervention was about to begin.
Yes, that's good book, the film was a bit disappointing though.
The French might have been doing the fighting in Vietnam but the yanks were paying for it. It was the price of keeping France out of the Soviet orbit. Blackmail, essentially.
Ok having actually been to Vietnam and spoken with people who were caught up in the war, and next generation and both Vietcong and USA vets, I will pass comment.
First the general consensus from both sides it was a war that should have never happened, Vietnam ended up being the pawn between two major powers Russia and USA who didn’t give a f**k about Vietnam, all they wanted to do was flex their political muscles and show who was the super power.
Vietnam went down the communist route to try and dig itself out of severe poverty, which has been seen in several other countries. The people of Vietnam still generally revere Ho Chi Min as a man who had the people at his heart, irrespective of their politics.
The vets view in general was that the Vietnamese saw the US army etc as the invader of their country irrespective of what politicians said from either side, and this meant that the Vietnamese generally felt they should defend their country.
The USA vets said of the USA troops realised what the situation was, apart from some die hard red necks who were as a result promoted up the ranks whether capable or not. So it was not where most wanted to be, also they felt it was immoral, the majority of the Vietcong were unarmed with modern weapons, they resorted to digging booby trap pits, medieval hand made weapons, and poison darts etc, all used in guerrilla ware fare, and living down tunnels. Later on they got limited supplies arms from Russia.
A higher ranking US vet told me that 6 months before they left they were ordered to agent orange the Mekong Delta and then naphalm it, even though they knew they were already preparing to pull out. Quite dishonourable, and shameful in his view, this continued till the day they left.
So to sum up a disgusting war which was completely unfounded, two meddling supper powers getting involved in another country, how many times have we seen this.
By the way if you go to Vietnam today even though it is communist, it is in my view one of the most capitalist countries in the world I have ever visited. Also the people are lovely.
More or less my impression when I visited Vietnam 25 years ago.
Yes, that's good book, the film was a bit disappointing though.
The French might have been doing the fighting in Vietnam but the yanks were paying for it. It was the price of keeping France out of the Soviet orbit. Blackmail, essentially.
I thought it was because Vietnam had been a French colony and they were fighting to keep control, as in Algeria, but it's not something I know much about, apart from the US anti-war protests in the late '60s.
Mikeandvan
09-10-2019, 12:50
No-one has 'the right' to do anything but that doesn't stop them. 'The right' to do something only exists on paper and in the minds of armchair commentators.
Did the Americans say 'Let's get involved in Vietnam, it will fuck up the Vietnamese and fuck us up as well', or did they say 'We need to get involved in Vietnam otherwise we are going to end up fucked up.'?
Everyone always goes into everything with the best of intentions. Even the Nazis. Judging with hindsight is easy.
Funny thing is it was capitalism in the region 'the Asian tiger' that fucked up America, it should have encouraged Communism all along!! America now = No manufacturing jobs and a clown as president. Asian economy = Booming, with 'communist' China at the helm, on the brink of having the world's biggest GDP.
I thought it was because Vietnam had been a French colony and they were fighting to keep control, as in Algeria, but it's not something I know much about, apart from the US anti-war protests in the late '60s.
It had been a French colony. As you're aware part of the price we paid for American help was the breaking up of the Empire. But the French told the Yanks that if they wanted them on their side and not cosying up to the Soviets, they would need to help them re-establish control in their colonies. The US wasn't happy about it but they agreed to bankroll it. After Dien Bien Phu popular support in France for the war dropped sharply so they gave it up and the Americans went in. Although it was just special forces advisors to begin with.
Lots of good books on it but I'd recommend 'A Bright Shining Lie' by Neil Sheehan as being the best one I've read if you want a full understanding of how the USA got sucked in and all the many ways they went wrong after that. Needless to say none of it was as simple and straightforward as some people tell it. It's a long book but very well written, not a difficult read.
Funny thing is it was capitalism in the region 'the Asian tiger' that fucked up America, it should have encouraged Communism all along!! .
Ha ha - yes probably true in retrospect plus the cost of the war was astronomical and damaged their economy very badly.
Mikeandvan
10-10-2019, 19:47
Is Trump right to pull out of Syria and apparently 'abandon' the Kurds? My instincts tell me yes, the middle east is very complicated and tribal, best leave them to it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.