Did we win in Viet Nam?

John Kunkel wrote:

The "domino theory" that fomented the U.S.'s involvement originated in the
Eisenhower/Nixon administration. In fact, the first public use of the
"dominos falling" terminology to defend involvement in SEA was in a
presidential news conference in April 1954. Troops and the CIA were there in
'53.
Kennedy inherited the failed foreign policy and Johnson ran with it.

While Ike's administration may have "invented" the Domino Theory, their
involvement in SE Asia would likely not have gotten much further than monetary
and clandestine support had Nixon won in '60. Kennedy upped the ante
considerably with Laos and then South Vietnam and while its arguable had he not
been killed in Nov. '63 that Kennedy would have reversed earlier policies,
there is no direct proof of that.



BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Excerpted essay by John O'Sullivan (editor, National Interest):

Vietnam on the Mind

HANOI, SAIGON, NHA TRANG — ... [i]f Vietnam is to be the comparison of first
resort in whatever conflict the U.S. finds itself, we need a better
understanding of its general significance.

Vietnam was really two wars — a war between the Communist North and the
anti-Communist South, and a local skirmish in the Cold War that pitted the U.S.
and its allies against the Soviet Union and its allies. North Vietnam won the
first of those wars in 1975 — or so it seemed at the time. But the ruthless
imposition of a Stalinist straitjacket on the whole of Vietnam led not only to
the forced departure of hundreds of thousands of "boat people" but also to
hopeless economic stagnation. Victory brought not prosperity but poverty and
isolation.

Eventually the North Vietnamese political leadership realized that reform was
necessary and in 1988 embarked on a program of liberalization on the Chinese
model — that is, a gradualist program of free-market economic reforms under a
continuing one-party "socialist" government.

Market reforms were slow, reluctant and inadequate at first, but they have
accelerated sharply in the last three years. While Vietnam is still a very poor
country — its annual per capita income is only $477 compared to South
Korea¹s $18,000 — it is growing rapidly. A visitor to the cities like Hanoi
and Saigon is overwhelmed by signs of economic vitality, of small business
growth, of a building boom, and above all of a youthful, Westernized, energetic
population.

About 70 percent of the Vietnamese were born in the aftermath of the war of
which they have little memory and apparently less resentment. ...

[A] Martian landing in Saigon or Hanoi today with no knowledge of history since
1970 would assume that the South must have won the war. These cities have all
the boutiques and designer labels of London or Venice — and more homegrown
entrepreneurial vitality than both. (He would probably dismiss the occasional
hammer-and-sickle in neon lights or Red Star poster as the kind of kitsch
nostalgia for Marxism-Leninism found also in Manhattan night-clubs or on
Paris¹s left Bank.)

A few years ago, the more far-sighted Vietnamese had a saying: "Our past is
French; our present is Russian; our future is American." That future is almost
here — with foreign investment beginning to feel secure, with Vietnamese
exiles in France and the U.S. returning to establish businesses, ...

Whether this progress continues will depend, of course, on whether the Hanoi
government continues to liberalize. Western investors need the security of the
rule of law, especially contract and property law, if they are to remain for
the long haul.
But the signs are promising. And if that happens, then the North's victory in
1975 will have achieved little more than postpone the rise of another
capitalist "Asian Tiger" by about 25 years.

What of the significance of Vietnam as a local skirmish in the Cold War? Here
we have the testimony of Asia's principal elder statesman, Lee Kuan Yew, First
minister of Singapore. He has pointed out that the American intervention in the
war halted the onward march of Communism southwards for 15 years — roughly
from 1960 to 1975. In that crucial period, the new ex-colonial states of
Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, maybe India itself, took advantage of this
incidental American protection to develop their economies from poor
agricultural and trading post economies into modern industrial and information
societies. By the time the war was over and North Vietnamese tanks were surging
into Saigon, these countries were prosperous NICs (i.e. newly industrializing
countries), more or less immune to the Communist virus and capable of resisting
external attack.

Nor does the story end with the safety of Singapore. In the late 1980s, when
the Soviet politburo was debating perestroika, Mikhail Gorbachev cited its
success — tiny Singapore, exported more in value than the vast Soviet Union
— as demonstrating the need to dismantle the socialist command economy. (At
the exact same moment, Hanoi was embarking on its own hesitant liberalization.
Coincidence?)

If Lee Kuan Yew is to be believed, then, the U.S. intervention in Vietnam was a
major factor is achieving the West's overall victory in the Cold War. It held
the line while freedom and prosperity were established in non-Communist Asia
— and that provided the rest of the world, including the evil empire itself,
with a "demonstration effect" of how freedom led to prosperity. ...


Chris Mark

If Lee Kuan Yew is to be believed, then, the U.S. intervention in Vietnam was
a
major factor is achieving the West's overall victory in the Cold War. It held
the line while freedom and prosperity were established in non-Communist Asia
— and that provided the rest of the world, including the evil empire itself,
with a "demonstration effect" of how freedom led to prosperity. ...


Chris Mark







I would agree. Viet Nam was but one battle in the Cold War.

John O'Sullivan wrote:

A visitor to the cities like Hanoi
and Saigon

Hmm...I believe the city of Saigon has been called Ho Chi Mihn City since 1976.

Twice Sullivan calls it Saigon....


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

In article ,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

John O'Sullivan wrote:

A visitor to the cities like Hanoi and Saigon

Hmm...I believe the city of Saigon has been called Ho Chi Mihn City since
1976.

Twice Sullivan calls it Saigon....

There are official names, and there are names being used.

According to a couple of people who recently visited VN, in Ho Chi Minh
City, nobody there that they heard called it anything but Saigon.

Lisakbernacchia wrote:

How many think we won in Viet Nam?Lost?


We fought ourselves to a draw, Lisa dear, and at a price made much higher than
necessary by fools such as yourself.

We won in Viet Nam and lost in Washington and Paris. Your bitterness is misdirected.



Jack

We won in Viet Nam and lost in Washington and Paris. Your bitterness is
misdirected.


I don't see how anyone can say with a straight face that we "won" anything in
Viet Nam.

NVA army units siezed the capital of the south, ran up their flag -- they even
changed the name. We and our allies had to flee. That's defeat.

Walt

From: (Lisakbernacchia)


How many think we won in Viet Nam?Lost?

People, I looked at Lisa's AOL profile. She's a child. It would probably be
best to treat her as such.

Name: Lisa

Location:
..:*
*:.
..:*
*·. ((¨`·´¨)) . ·*
×*.·``·.·´´ ·.*×
Marital Status: d Bernacchia
OoOh yeaaaAh!

Hometown HomePage: http://hometown.aol.com/lisakbernacchia/



Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

B2431 wrote:

People, I looked at Lisa's AOL profile. She's a child. It would probably be
best to treat her as such.

"She" is and "she" is not.

Treating "her" as such, however, is the best way to go.



Jack

We won every battle fought in Vietnam! But we lost the war in Vietnam when
the backstabbers in Washington D. C. commenced undermining the American and
Vietnamese troops by refusing to support them with funds, etc.

Some politicians will gladly sell their birthright of freedom for even
momentary political power. Just look at how certain political and media
factions are currently obsessing over Abu Ghraib while dismissing the
butchering of a fellow citizen, Nicholas Berg! We see those same Vietnam
backstabbers now trying to undermine our troops efforts in Iraq!

Backstabbers have existed throughout history ( Christ's Judas and Caesar's
Brutus, for example). Fortunately they have never been able to prevail! But
they need always to be exposed for the moral snakes they truly are!

WDA

end




"Lisakbernacchia" wrote in message
...
How many think we won in Viet Nam?Lost?