English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

themselves? I mean if there really was over 1 million of them, wouldn't that have been a pretty bad *** army?

2007-06-21 08:05:00 · 13 answers · asked by Peace Maker 2 in Politics & Government Politics

That does not equate with the Holocaust.

Jews in Europe did not have a standing Army or their own nation.

2007-06-21 08:11:50 · update #1

WOW...what every happened to personal responsibility, I guess thats just a "catch phrase" for you NeoCons.

2007-06-21 08:13:02 · update #2

13 answers

Contrary to popular belief, ARVN (South Vietnam Army) was holding their own ground against the Viet Cong and NVA until congress cut off support to South Vietnam. ARVN held 95% of South Vietnam after U.S. combat forces were reassigned from Vietnam.

Nixon promised to continue military aid in support of South Vietnam and the U.S. had the option of re-entering the war if the peace treaty was violated. That promise didn't matter much after Nixon resigned and congress started to cut aid to South Vietnam. Guns don't work without bullets and helicopters cannot fly without fuel and parts to maintain them.

In the meantime, the Soviet Union and China increased their support to North Vietnam and the NVA quickly became the more dominant army in Vietnam for the first time in the entire war. South Vietnam was without adequate equipment and supplies to effectively oppose the NVA when the Ho Chi Minh Campaign started, and ARVN was routed in a very short time.

Many forget about the peace treaty between the U.S., South Vietnam, NLF (Viet Cong) and North Vietnam. The U.S. had the right to re-enter the war when North Vietnam broke the treaty with invading South Vietnam. Instead, congress refused any effort to re-engage or assist South Vietnam, and left South Vietnam to fall to the communists.

Among the 1 million that you are claiming in the bad *** army were several of my uncles. One died in combat. Three were captured and imprisoned for many years after the war ended. One uncle had all his legs and arms broken and his eye riped out of his head. They deserve much more respect than the false claims of them not trying to fight against communism for their country.

2007-06-23 10:20:21 · answer #1 · answered by MojaveDan 6 · 2 1

Three million Cambodians died at the hands of the Khmer Rouge. While they were Communist they were not on the side of the Vietnamese. In fact it was the Vietnamese who defeated them.

I don't know what figure you mean in Vietnam. The Army of the Republic ARVN, lost over a million men, the North Vietnamese lost over a million men, the Viet Cong lost over a million men. Civilian Casualties were in the millions.

End result is that we are now friends with Vietnam and Cambodia

2007-06-29 10:47:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The Simple answer is that we Lost the war. Our Casualties were in the 10s of thousands. As the War droned on there were more and bigger protests here in the states. The equipment we were using was for battlefield armament not gorilla war fair. The Communists were gaining control through the people. The simple farmers and low income guys watched there whole villages burned to the ground and families annihilated. The anger toward the U.S. was at the grass roots and growing. This is why we pulled out of Viet Nam.

2007-06-27 11:55:11 · answer #3 · answered by MisquetoFarmer 2 · 0 0

Pol Pot was the murderer, not the U.S. The REAL lesson in Vietnam, is, that Johnson should NEVER had dedicated so many troops to what was a civil war between the North and South. Ike and JFK had troops there as "advisors", but, LBJ made it a war. Iraq is different in many ways, but, bolstering governments far and away from us is unwise and headed for disaster, judging from our experience with Iraq and Vietnam.

2007-06-21 15:14:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

By that logic one could deny the holocaust.

Neither South Vietnam nor Cambodia had a large enough standing army to stand up to the North Vietnamese supplied and bankrolled by the Chicoms.

2007-06-21 15:07:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

The South Vietnamese were not even a close match to the NVA, and they did fight. Nixon sealed their fate when we cut and ran!

The bad A__ Army was the NVA! Iraq is a cakewalk compared to Vietnam!

2007-06-21 15:12:03 · answer #6 · answered by cantcu 7 · 4 0

Because Americans do not care about people in other countries being slaughtered. If Americans did, many millions who are slaughtered in this world wouldnt have been.

Americans have a low view of life, just look at the abortion and murder rates. They cry about the military who are killed in the war but look the other way at all the gang wars, murders and even the 3000 people killed on the roads each day in the US.

2007-06-27 22:31:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

The Democratic Party's lack of financial funding for the war left us weak and unable to complete that mission. Nixon had no other choice.

2007-06-27 05:45:36 · answer #8 · answered by Homer S. 2 · 1 0

The devil was in the details, and the U.S. went in with a half of a plan and a fear of communist aggression that wasn't there. People died in vein while others lived in vein.

2007-06-29 14:04:33 · answer #9 · answered by wakemovement 3 · 0 0

They did, and they lost. The South Vietnamese can't stand up to forces backed by China and the Soviet Union. Just like the peaceful Iraqis can't stand up to al qaeda backed by Iran and Syria.

But whatever, we just wanted peace and love...

And by the way, it was more like two or three million, buddy

2007-06-21 15:07:46 · answer #10 · answered by Gonzo Rationalism 5 · 4 1

fedest.com, questions and answers