Was America's involvement in the Vietnam War justified?

[Kubra]

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.

Uhhhh idk if we can really say that in the case of vietnam lol
Like for whatever folks think of the norf it was at least a functional state where the government bore at least a remote resemblance to those it represented, as opposed to the souf.

[Picairn]

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.

"A pro-western dictatorship in Vietnam is better than a pro-USSR dictatorship." You mean the same dictatorship that was set up by a foreign empire, had a hardcore Catholic in charge who prosecuted the Buddhist majority, and massacred innocent people in search for communists? Something the Vietnamese despise most is a regime entirely formed by foreign empires. Those regimes are traitorous to the country and the people, and will only serve foreign interests.

At least the North had more legitimacy. The Communist Party there had operated in the country since 1930, and was an active participant in the 1945 Revolution. Also they guided the Vietnamese through the French recolonization war and won.

[Postauthoritarian America]

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.

I have read Kirkpatrick, thank you, and it is a tendentious load of BS, a false dichotomy and a cornfield's worth of strawmen all at once. That anyone would read it in the year 2021 and take it seriously frankly astounds me. Take it from me, none of the hundreds of thousands of victims of "traditional authoritarian" governments felt any better that they were tortured, raped, oppressed and murdered by right-wingers rather than left-wingers, nor did supporting some of the most odious regimes on the planet do the US a lick of good. All, absolutely all, the US accomplished in Vietnam apart from terrorizing and brutalizing the Vietnamese people and creating corruption and chaos was to delay the nation's development into the reasonably-governed growing economy it is today. If I were you I would update my reading list to include, well, anything authored in the current century.

[Cordel One]

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

This is meaningless.

Not quite. They were once commonly held beliefs until we realized they were wrong, like "domino theory". As a communist I wish that's how it works, but it's really just an excuse to accelerate the military industrial complex.

[The Horror Channel]

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.

Agreed. Israel should be abolished

[Insaanistan]

The Mossad are war criminals.

Agreed. Israel should be abolished

All in favor of abolishing Israel and Hizballah (and Hamas too) say “Aye”.
Aye.

[The Jamesian Republic]

Agreed. Israel should be abolished

All in favor of abolishing Israel and Hizballah (and Hamas too) say “Aye”.
Aye.

“Aye.”
Also by extension we set a united government between the Hebrew and Muslim population that protects civil rights of all citizens. Whose government does not see Palestinian or Israeli land but rather sees it as Israstinian land. That is my proposal for a new government and country; Israstine, or The United Israeli and Palestinian Republic of Israstine.

[Ethel mermania]

Kids, this thread is about Vietnam, not Israel. Right continent wrong side of it.

[Insaanistan]

Kids, this thread is about Vietnam, not Israel. Right continent wrong side of it.

Sorry about that.
Back to ‘Nam, boys!

[Ethel mermania]

Kids, this thread is about Vietnam, not Israel. Right continent wrong side of it.

Sorry about that.
Back to ‘Nam, boys!

And it's one, two, three,

What are we fighting for ?

Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,

Next stop is Vietnam;

And it's five, six, seven,

Open up the pearly gates,

Well there ain't no time to wonder why,

Whoopee! we're all gonna die

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

In an effort to defeat a brutal dictatorship, the US decided to prop up in its place... a different brutal dictatorship. Well done, guys. What a shining city on the hill, the moral leader of the free world.

The last time that an American military intervention had a solid claim to legitimacy is the Second World War and the kind of creative opinions expressed by the original post here is a big reason why plenty of non-Americans harbour deeply negative feelings towards the US.

Americans can keep shrieking hysterically about the supposed threat that Russia or China or more abstract threats like “socialism” or “Islamic terrorism” pose to democracy all they want, but we’ve already lived for decades with a psychotic and imperialist world superpower, I’m sure we can survive a different one.

[Risottia]

...we should have intervened in the conflict on behalf of South Vietnam (the democratic side, obviously),

>South Vietnam
>Democracy
choose one.

I honestly believe we were justified in fighting that war, not only did we have a reason to fight in it because of the Gulf of Tonkin incident,

And your casus belli was a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident
The original American report blamed North Vietnam for both incidents, but the Pentagon Papers, the memoirs of Robert McNamara, and NSA publications from 2005, suggest that the dismissal of legitimate concerns regarding the veracity of the second incident by state department and other government personnel was used to justify an escalation by the US to a state of war against North Vietnam.[5][6][7]

On Sunday, August 2, 1964, the destroyer USS Maddox, while performing a signals intelligence patrol as part of DESOTO operations, was claimed to have been approached by three North Vietnamese Navy torpedo boats of the 135th Torpedo Squadron.[1][5] Maddox fired three warning shots, and it was falsely claimed the North Vietnamese boats attacked with torpedoes and machine gun fire.[5] Maddox expended over 280 3-inch (76 mm) and 5-inch (130 mm) shells in a sea battle. According to the false report: One U.S. aircraft was damaged, three North Vietnamese torpedo boats were damaged, and four North Vietnamese sailors were killed, with six more wounded. There were no U.S. casualties.[8] Maddox was "unscathed except for a single bullet hole from a Vietnamese machine gun round".[5]

In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded that Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese Navy on August 2, but that there were no North Vietnamese naval vessels present during the incident of August 4. The report stated, regarding the first incident on August 2:

at 1500G, Captain Herrick ordered Ogier's gun crews to open fire if the boats approached within ten thousand yards (9,150 m). At about 1505G, Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist [North Vietnamese] boats. This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first.[5]

[New American Unionist State]

Was it justified? Yes. It was. To stop the spread of communism/ athoritarianism. Was the south perfect? No. Was it better then the north? Yes. The probelm with Veitnam is you dont fight a war you dont want or care to win. If we went into the war and went into it with a "LETS DO THIS!" attitude we could very well have won. Also the US did underestimate the enemy combined with bad planing... But we could have esaly have made it justified. If we went in to acctully win.

[Cordel One]

Was it justified? Yes. It was. To stop the spread of communism/ athoritarianism. Was the south perfect? No. Was it better then the north? Yes. The probelm with Veitnam is you dont fight a war you dont want or care to win. If we went into the war and went into it with a "LETS DO THIS!" attitude we could very well have won. Also the US did underestimate the enemy combined with bad planing... But we could have esaly have made it justified. If we went in to acctully win.

South Vietnam was authoritarian, "domino theory" isn't reality, and communism is cool.

[Sanghyeok]

Was it justified? Yes. It was. To stop the spread of communism/ athoritarianism. Was the south perfect? No. Was it better then the north? Yes. The probelm with Veitnam is you dont fight a war you dont want or care to win. If we went into the war and went into it with a "LETS DO THIS!" attitude we could very well have won. Also the US did underestimate the enemy combined with bad planing... But we could have esaly have made it justified. If we went in to acctully win.

The south was better, which is why the north remained popular enough for over a decade to maintain morale and troop numbers even when the US razed villages and bombed civilians.

[Monsone]

Was it justified? Yes. It was. To stop the spread of communism/ athoritarianism. Was the south perfect? No. Was it better then the north? Yes. The probelm with Veitnam is you dont fight a war you dont want or care to win. If we went into the war and went into it with a "LETS DO THIS!" attitude we could very well have won. Also the US did underestimate the enemy combined with bad planing... But we could have esaly have made it justified. If we went in to acctully win.

The irony is the US did go in with a victor's attitude and was certainly very full of itself. There very much was a let's do this attitude. The issues was that Vietnam had been at war with one country or another since the early 1940s, and proved to be unbreakable even with the sheerly absurd amounts of firepower the US did field. The only way to win in Vietnam would be to destroy the nation and it's people to such an extent, with absurdly high losses of troops, material, and eye-wateringly high civilian casualties. No US administration of the time was going to commit the resources to do that. Simply put, South Vietnam was important, but not important enough to commit to permanently.

[Adamede]

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.

I don’t think the victims quote care if the billets that killed them where shot by communists or fascists.

[Kubra]

Was it justified? Yes. It was. To stop the spread of communism/ athoritarianism. Was the south perfect? No. Was it better then the north? Yes. The probelm with Veitnam is you dont fight a war you dont want or care to win. If we went into the war and went into it with a "LETS DO THIS!" attitude we could very well have won. Also the US did underestimate the enemy combined with bad planing... But we could have esaly have made it justified. If we went in to acctully win.

In what ways was it better than the north

[Ethel mermania]

Was it justified? Yes. It was. To stop the spread of communism/ athoritarianism. Was the south perfect? No. Was it better then the north? Yes. The probelm with Veitnam is you dont fight a war you dont want or care to win. If we went into the war and went into it with a "LETS DO THIS!" attitude we could very well have won. Also the US did underestimate the enemy combined with bad planing... But we could have esaly have made it justified. If we went in to acctully win.

In what ways was it better than the north

The food was better. Vietnamese/French fusion cooking is delicious.

[Kubra]

In what ways was it better than the north

The food was better. Vietnamese/French fusion cooking is delicious.

aw the flavour is a regional thing rather than a result of the political divisions. And in any case we'll have to write this off as a matter of taste, I prefer the simpler broth in the north for my pho.

[Cuthon]

People forget that the North was explicitly Anti-Imperialist and more nationalistic than marxist in its thinking. America actually supported its struggle in the First conflict against the French. People need to stop looking at look more at the ideologies of these leaders than the party that they align themselves with.

[Ethel mermania]

People forget that the North was explicitly Anti-Imperialist and more nationalistic than marxist in its thinking. America actually supported its struggle in the First conflict against the French. People need to stop looking at look more at the ideologies of these leaders than the party that they align themselves with.

Wilson rejected ho in 1919. Source the US government helped the Vietnamese against the French please?

[Ethel mermania]

The food was better. Vietnamese/French fusion cooking is delicious.

aw the flavour is a regional thing rather than a result of the political divisions. And in any case we'll have to write this off as a matter of taste, I prefer the simpler broth in the north for my pho.

I have a place in Brooklyn for you.

[Kubra]

People forget that the North was explicitly Anti-Imperialist and more nationalistic than marxist in its thinking. America actually supported its struggle in the First conflict against the French. People need to stop looking at look more at the ideologies of these leaders than the party that they align themselves with.

Wilson rejected ho in 1919. Source the US government helped the Vietnamese against the French please?

US did embed OSS agents with the Viet Minh, I don't recall any material support but I don't think it would have been uncalled for.
It wasn't in support of them against the French, it was in support of them against the Japanese. It's the same as America technically helping Al Qaeda in Yemen against the Houthi's.

[Ethel mermania]

Wilson rejected ho in 1919. Source the US government helped the Vietnamese against the French please?

US did embed OSS agents with the Viet Minh, I don't recall any material support but I don't think it would have been uncalled for.
It wasn't in support of them against the French, it was in support of them against the Japanese. It's the same as America technically helping Al Qaeda in Yemen against the Houthi's.

Right it was support in their war against the Japanese, and I do believe some material support as well as training and medical support was provided ( long time since I looked at it)

The Americans put the French back in Vietnam, as Truman caved to de Gaulle and provided material and transportation. If truman had backed Minh i do wonder how communist Vietnam would have wound up.