Was America's involvement in the Vietnam War justified?

[Kubra]

Well ultimately it was but here is an important distinction: most Latin American govs aren’t that weak. So your claim doesn’t really apply. South Vietnam was indeed weak though its weakness looked Sinic (e.g. lots of soldiers and their family members ran away in 1975, causing a rout) as opposed to be from any kind of French legacy. I can sort of see a variant of Chiang’s ROC in South Vietnam.

So why can't they solve the problem of drug dealers?Drug dealers are not afraid of the government, but the government is afraid of drug dealers

drugs, really the whole informal economy, is a sticky issue for impoverished states because while yeah it's illegal and bad and all that it's also a source of hard currency flowing into a country and employment that they might not be able to readily replace. I mean what do you do when your most lucrative export is cocaine?

[Shanghai industrial complex]

So why can't they solve the problem of drug dealers?Drug dealers are not afraid of the government, but the government is afraid of drug dealers

drugs, really the whole informal economy, is a sticky issue for impoverished states because while yeah it's illegal and bad and all that it's also a source of hard currency flowing into a country and employment that they might not be able to readily replace. I mean what do you do when your most lucrative export is cocaine?

So Latin America is chaotic.Factories, investment and education will not go there. Children will lose their dreams early.Then people who can't stand this kind of life all came to the US.I saw reporters on TV go to slums in Brazil to interview drug dealers. They carry guns, sell drugs, and one guy say his childhood dream was to be a firefighter.As far as I know, drug dealers in Latin America kidnap and kill judges, hang the head of a police chief in the middle of a road, and kill an entire swat.If it was me, I would ban drugs. Even if it means die at the gunpoint of drug dealers, they can't continue to kill the country

[The Huskar Social Union]

Lol no.

[Kubra]

drugs, really the whole informal economy, is a sticky issue for impoverished states because while yeah it's illegal and bad and all that it's also a source of hard currency flowing into a country and employment that they might not be able to readily replace. I mean what do you do when your most lucrative export is cocaine?

So Latin America is chaotic.Factories, investment and education will not go there. Children will lose their dreams early.Then people who can't stand this kind of life all came to the US.I saw reporters on TV go to slums in Brazil to interview drug dealers. They carry guns, sell drugs, and one guy say his childhood dream was to be a firefighter.As far as I know, drug dealers in Latin America kidnap and kill judges, hang the head of a police chief in the middle of a road, and kill an entire swat.If it was me, I would ban drugs. Even if it means die at the gunpoint of drug dealers, they can't continue to kill the country

>I would ban drugs
but they are banned lol

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

Depends on how you look at it, the reason they were fighting the war made sense, but the way they did it was a joke to freedom and everything it stands for.

[The Marlborough]

From the standpoint of America's strategy at the time regarding containing the spread of communism (or more accurately, Soviet influence), yes. That it turned into such a shit show is something we can only view in hindsight. It doesn't help that America has a pretty poor track record in regards to insurgencies and refused to really learn from other successful examples. I don't like the comparison with the Malayan Emergency tbh. Ignoring the differences in terms of the differences in regards to ethnic group differences when it comes to support for the insurgency, the US stopped trying to pursue a similar strategy pretty early on. Most of the similar ideas and policies were ended before the war really got started in 1965 iirc.

[The Marlborough]

Depends on how you look at it, the reason they were fighting the war made sense, but the way they did it was a joke to freedom and everything it stands for.

This is partially the problem I think with it as well. Scores of Americans were killed and wounded to prop up a pretty flagrant dictatorship that was known in the popular consciousness as well. It conflicts a lot of the American mind frame and set of values, which includes democracy promotion (this has been part of America from a very early period). It's possible to justify it at an arm's length for a lot of Americans but not when it gets to sacrificing a lot of American lives directly. The problem with said attitude is that it's pretty hard to navigate as a world power with it.

[Cordel One]

The CIA does that too (RIP Gary Webb).

Yup. Intelligence services are rarely ethical. The only intelligence service I have heard about that at least gives a shit about citizens of their country is Mossad.

The Mossad are war criminals.

[The Marlborough]

IIRC the majority of those who fought in Vietnam were volunteers, not conscripts. Something like 2/3 or something.

wasn't the point of conscription so folks would volunteer instead of waiting to get their number drawn
Deffo remember that being said somewhere

That may have been part of it though the US tried to have people more genuinely committed to taking on combat roles voluntarily to be put in those positions. Also iirc it was the WWII and Korean War generation(s) that most heavily opposed the war. Baby Boomers for most of it were the most supportive out of the three for the war, even at the end and it didn't drop below 50% until after Tet iirc and so there would have been a considerable pool of enthusiastic recruits to draw from, to some extent.

[Nakena]

It was to a degree justified as it was supporting South Vietnam against northern communist aggression.

Ironically, despite all the horrible shit that happened, in its original intention it's one of the more "justified" wars in american history. A good example also how "justified" causes can sometimes lead to the biggest and most awful atrocities.

I'd like to point that out since hypermoralist grand standing is recently again high in the ratings.

[Ethel mermania]

wasn't the point of conscription so folks would volunteer instead of waiting to get their number drawn
Deffo remember that being said somewhere

That may have been part of it though the US tried to have people more genuinely committed to taking on combat roles voluntarily to be put in those positions. Also iirc it was the WWII and Korean War generation(s) that most heavily opposed the war. Baby Boomers for most of it were the most supportive out of the three for the war, even at the end and it didn't drop below 50% until after Tet iirc and so there would have been a considerable pool of enthusiastic recruits to draw from, to some extent.

Most of the anti war protesters were baby boomers. Baby boomers were the peaceniks and hippies. Remember the Woodstock generation then are today's baby boomers.

[The Marlborough]

That may have been part of it though the US tried to have people more genuinely committed to taking on combat roles voluntarily to be put in those positions. Also iirc it was the WWII and Korean War generation(s) that most heavily opposed the war. Baby Boomers for most of it were the most supportive out of the three for the war, even at the end and it didn't drop below 50% until after Tet iirc and so there would have been a considerable pool of enthusiastic recruits to draw from, to some extent.

Most of the anti war protesters were baby boomers. Baby boomers were the peaceniks and hippies. Remember the Woodstock generation then are today's baby boomers.

I am aware, but those were largely subcultures and the anti-war movement didn't explode until after Tet when support for the war started to tank among every demographic, but especially Baby Boomers. Baby Boomers were the most enthusiastic and supportive demographic. In 1967 something like 60% of Baby Boomers supported the war while less than half of the Greatest Generation did.

[Ethel mermania]

Most of the anti war protesters were baby boomers. Baby boomers were the peaceniks and hippies. Remember the Woodstock generation then are today's baby boomers.

I am aware, but those were largely subcultures and the anti-war movement didn't explode until after Tet when support for the war started to tank among every demographic, but especially Baby Boomers. Baby Boomers were the most enthusiastic and supportive demographic. In 1967 something like 60% of Baby Boomers supported the war while less than half of the Greatest Generation did.

That simply is not my memory.

[Pan Evropa]

Yes. Google Domino Theory. All interventions to stop the spread of communism were justified, period. It is a shame that horrible war crimes happened but the war itself was necessary to stop the spread of communism. Losing Vietnam was a tragedy for the democratic world.

[Page]

Yes. Google Domino Theory. All interventions to stop the spread of communism were justified, period. It is a shame that horrible war crimes happened but the war itself was necessary to stop the spread of communism. Losing Vietnam was a tragedy for the democratic world.

Vietnam effectively contained the pandemic within weeks and now people are out living their normal lives not even needing to wear masks while the "democratic world" is approaching a million deaths.

[Ethel mermania]

Yes. Google Domino Theory. All interventions to stop the spread of communism were justified, period. It is a shame that horrible war crimes happened but the war itself was necessary to stop the spread of communism. Losing Vietnam was a tragedy for the democratic world.

That was lost in 1945, when the west supported Frances return to Indochina

[Adamede]

Yes. Google Domino Theory. All interventions to stop the spread of communism were justified, period. It is a shame that horrible war crimes happened but the war itself was necessary to stop the spread of communism. Losing Vietnam was a tragedy for the democratic world.

Vietnam was never truly democratic.

[The Marlborough]

I am aware, but those were largely subcultures and the anti-war movement didn't explode until after Tet when support for the war started to tank among every demographic, but especially Baby Boomers. Baby Boomers were the most enthusiastic and supportive demographic. In 1967 something like 60% of Baby Boomers supported the war while less than half of the Greatest Generation did.

That simply is not my memory.

Understandable if you lived in a particularly anti-war area and of course the post-Vietnam narrative that emerged can also change people's memories of the time period. Then of course as the war went on and views changed, people might have a tendency to simply remember their last position on the war as opposed to earlier ones, especially when you consider the view of it in hindsight. However, polling from the time period backs it up. If you cannot access that paper, someone on Reddit was kind enough to turn the data from it into a graph.

[Kubra]

Yes. Google Domino Theory. All interventions to stop the spread of communism were justified, period. It is a shame that horrible war crimes happened but the war itself was necessary to stop the spread of communism. Losing Vietnam was a tragedy for the democratic world.

but Vietnam wasn't democratic

[Cordel One]

Yes. Google Domino Theory. All interventions to stop the spread of communism were justified, period. It is a shame that horrible war crimes happened but the war itself was necessary to stop the spread of communism. Losing Vietnam was a tragedy for the democratic world.

We once believed that the Earth was flat and that asbestos was perfectly safe to be around. Also, South Vietnam was not a democracy.

[Ethel mermania]

That simply is not my memory.

Understandable if you lived in a particularly anti-war area and of course the post-Vietnam narrative that emerged can also change people's memories of the time period. Then of course as the war went on and views changed, people might have a tendency to simply remember their last position on the war as opposed to earlier ones, especially when you consider the view of it in hindsight. However, polling from the time period backs it up. If you cannot access that paper, someone on Reddit was kind enough to turn the data from it into a graph.

Maybe, I grew up in nyc and I had relatives who were very active in the anti-war movement.

[Freiheit Reich]

Nope. The USA should stay neutral and not attack other nations unless attacked first. The last time US involvement in a war was justified was in WWII against Japan because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. It is such an easy stance but Americans don't like things to be easy it seems.

Switzerland is doing very well by maintaining neutrality.

[Saint Yosx]

No it was not. Yes communism in some cases is bad however 90 percent of communists are just regular people, who just have a different way to thinking. I think America originally had good intentions with the fight against communism however, when America started to call anybody who thought differently and was slightly on the left, a communist, that’s where they went wrong. I mean America became the thing they hated, tyranny. They called MLK jr a communist, they called civil rights activists communists, they called democrats communists.

[Tergai]

No.

This is an issue that is extremely close to my heart, as someone who is part of the Vietnamese diaspora. The lofty goal of spreading "democratic ideals" in the Cold War was nothing more than a farce to the public. Ngo was not democratic, and neither were Nguyen and Tran. The only good choice that anyone in the South Vietnamese government did (that I can remember) was surrendering Saigon to the PAVN/NLF. To say that South Vietnam was "democratic" or anything related is utterly ridiculous.

[Pan Evropa]

Yes. Google Domino Theory. All interventions to stop the spread of communism were justified, period. It is a shame that horrible war crimes happened but the war itself was necessary to stop the spread of communism. Losing Vietnam was a tragedy for the democratic world.

Vietnam effectively contained the pandemic within weeks and now people are out living their normal lives not even needing to wear masks while the "democratic world" is approaching a million deaths.

who gives a shit lol. there was no covid pandemic 50 years ago.

Vietnam was never truly democratic.

Also, South Vietnam was not a democracy.

but Vietnam wasn't democratic

So what? Read Jeane Kirkpatrick's "Dictatorships and Double Standards". Liberal democracy > Traditional Authoritarianism > Communist totalitarianism. A pro-western dictatorship in Vietnam is better than a pro-USSR dictatorship. A liberal democratic Vietnam is better than both, of course.

We once believed that the Earth was flat and that asbestos was perfectly safe to be around.

This is meaningless.