Why would Bush revise Vietnam's history with the U.S.?

Question

Bush stated that the cause of the Cambodian genocide in the years following American withdraw resulted from the withdraw. This is a wildly simplisitc and myopic view on the matter.

I believe that when a military swamps a region with war, creates an environment where foes flood a region with money and arms, and violence and battles are the norm, it is no surprise that one war can lead to another. Republicans, my God, read an effective history book or two on Vietnam and other key world events. If not, we will suffer similar mistakes such as Iraq and Vietnam in the future.

Defeatest dems of 1967? LBJ, a democrat, got us deep INTO the conflict in Vietnam mate. Serious questions started to arise about America's military being able to WIN in Vietnam after the "TET Offinsive" in '68.

Answer 1

The problem with Vietnam was that we were never going to win. The enemy knew the terrain and they were never going to stop fighting (even if their leaders said they were done). They were hiding behind trees and rocks while we were marching is straight lines. They were fighting for their homeland and what they thought was right. We were fighting because we had some kind of warped view that if we did not fight communism it would spread.

We had about as much chance of winning Vietnam as the British had of winning the Revolution.

Answer 2

No, it was JFK who said Vietnam was going to attack us. That's what got us involved in the Vietnam civil war. Ridiculous? As ridiculous as your question. What Bush was saying was that when we bailed on the South Vietnamese the takeover by the North Vietnamese resulted in over a million S. Vietnamese executed, not to mention another million boat people dead at sea trying to flee the victorious NVA, and the thousands killed by the Khmer Rouge. To cut and run from Iraq would mean an escalation of a shakey situation overseen by a weak govt that would result in a full blown civil war with Iran pulling the strings.

Answer 3

Speaking of reading history...:

Facts about the end of the war:

Myth: The domino theory was proved false.

The domino theory was accurate. The ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand stayed free of Communism because of the U.S. commitment to Vietnam. The Indonesians threw the Soviets out in 1966 because of America's commitment in Vietnam. Without that commitment, Communism would have swept all the way to the Malacca Straits that is south of Singapore and of great strategic importance to the free world. If you ask people who live in these countries that won the war in Vietnam, they have a different opinion from the American news media. The Vietnam War was the turning point for Communism.

The fall of Saigon happened 30 April 1975, two years AFTER the American military left Vietnam. The last American troops departed in their entirety 29 March 1973. How could we lose a war we had already stopped fighting? We fought to an agreed stalemate. The peace settlement was signed in Paris on 27 January 1973. It called for release of all U.S. prisoners, withdrawal of U.S. forces, limitation of both sides' forces inside South Vietnam and a commitment to peaceful reunification.

The 140,000 evacuees in April 1975 during the fall of Saigon consisted almost entirely of civilians and Vietnamese military, NOT American military running for their lives.

There were almost twice as many casualties in Southeast Asia (primarily Cambodia) the first two years after the fall of Saigon in 1975 then there were during the ten years the U.S. was involved in Vietnam. It forced Vietnam to enter Cambodia to end the carnage and they killed over 150 thousand in the process.

The suggestion that the deaths of nearly 1.5 million people was in no way related to ending aid to South Vietnam is absurd.
The comparrison to Iraq is indeed arguable but certainly a valid reference and not in the least bit myopic You're guilty of your own accusation.

Answer 4

First off, the democrats have been comparing Iraq to Vietnam since almost the beginning of the war.

As far at Tet of 68------years later the North Vietnamese admitted that they were defeated in the Tet Offensive and were on the verge of total defeat. The only thing that saved them were the liberals in Washington who pushed to get out of Vietnam. That was when the North Vietnamese realized that all they had to do was just hang on a little longer.

Answer 5

Why are you revising the history of Vietnam?

In the Tet offensive, the US CRUSHED the NVA. General Giap has repeatedly said that they were hanging on by a thread after that, and the only thing that kept their hopes up was the leftists in the US who protested the war and the media (like Cronkite) and the politicians who wanted to cut & run.

Talk about needing to pick up a history book!

Answer 6

Sorry, but it is you and your other revisionists who are being untruthful. In spite of our winning the Tet Offensive and the war, we pulled out due to political and media myopia. This, in turn, helped fuel the Cambodia genocide. No honest study of the Vietnam War can lead a sane person to a different conclusion.

BTW, it might be nice if the liberals actually knew what the President said before they open their traps.

Answer 7

If we had stayed in Vietnam and prevailed, which we were on track to do after the Tet Offensive, the mass genocide in Cambodia and other surrounding countries would never have happened. If we prevail in Iraq then we won't have to worry about any mass killings there either. If we cut and run like you cowardly Democrats would like us too, then the outcome will be similar to what happened in Vietnam and the surrounding countries.

Answer 8

You are wrong. I listened to Mr. Bush's speech, yesterday. He was exactly correct in his evaluation of the results of pulling out of Viet Nam. You seem to be a member of the "blame America first, last, and always" crowd.
I was in the US Army in the late 60's. I know exactly, from my personal experience, what transpired. I don't have to rely on revisionist history books.

Answer 9

It's not wildly simplistic and myopic: it's a lie. Remember, this is Bush we're talking about. The guy who actually apologized for the U.S. stopping in Berlin and not immediately starting WW3 against the Russians. You could only get that psychotic if you spent your military service drunk and high instead of seeing what war is really like.

Answer 10

Someone tell Vinnie that it was Nixon that pulled the troops out of Vietnam.