The wall that heals

by **cavalierlwt** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:03 pm

All this over a Cold War pissing contest, when all was said and done, the political effect on the greater world was...zero. No major political ramifications one way or another.

by **PudriK** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 2:20 am

I'm sure the figures from Iraq are quite similar. The efficiency of the American military, in human terms, is astounding. Even in urban combat, which is historically bloody for both sides. Of course it's hard to know, since the media is obsessed over the American death toll, but we get no figures for American casualties, and rarely are told numbers of Iraqi killed or wounded. (Not that this is necessarily the media's fault... I don't think Pentagon releases wounded figures, and insurgents have a habit of removing their dead to keep us from getting an accurate count. And of course, they don't provide wounded statistics, either.)

by **TChicken** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 2:45 am

why "The wall that heals"?

by **PraiseA||ah** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 8:50 am

Originally posted by cavalierlwt
All this over a Cold War pissing contest, when all was said and done, the political effect on the greater world was...zero. No major political ramifications one way or another.

I'm not sure you understand the world political climate. Which part of the world was not affected by the Cold War? In fact, one could say our current war with Iraq is more or less a direct result of the Cold War. The US has helped put many a dictator into power and then propped them up to keep the country from accepting support and therefore becoming allied with the USSR. Africa and the Middle East are rife with examples of this. The ramifications are countries in political, social and economic upheaval due in no small part to the injust rule of those dictators. And lastly, my understanding of the world political climate isn't very good either, but I know that the Cold War still has a political impact even today and no doubt for many years to come.

by **cavalierlwt** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 9:03 am

Originally posted by PraiseA||ah
I'm not sure you understand the world political climate.

That's a bad way to start a post my friend.
Anyhooo
It's not the Cold War that had no major ramification in the world picture, it's the Vietnam war that I said that about, and I stand by that assertion.
The U.S failure in Vietnam did *not* lead to the ultimate collapsing of democracies first in all of asia, then all of the world. The Domino theory just didn't pan out, no communism spreading like wild fire, with each victory making the Soviet Union (the face of communism) stronger. On the flip side, Vietnam wasn't the triumphant victory that the Communists wanted. It didn't flourish. It's people fled in droves. It remained heavily subsidized from there ever after, barely eaking out a living. Not exactly a model that the communists wanted to showcase to the world.
So, all that struggle, all that loss of life (Cold War pissing contest) over the hearts and minds of a bunch of dirt farmers, turned out to be inconsequential. Didn't hurt the US/World like they claimed it would if we didn't succeed, Didn't help the communists promote their ideology or help them take over the world. Just amounted to....nothing.

by **SavageParrot** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 9:12 am

The little fact oft forgotten and to my experience completely ignored in american textbooks was that in the wake of WWII the vietnamese did in fact set up a democratic govenment but that it was the French, with the full support of the US military (You flew/shipped them there and supplied arms for them) who overturned this government. Most textbooks tend to leave out the US involvement in that little imperialist action in favour of putting the blame entirely on the french. So yes the vietnam war was pointless it was just an attempt to make up for a mistake you made 20 years earlier . Not that this in anyway diminishes the sacrifice of the soldiers on both sides fighting for their countries who deserve to be honoued. I just think all politicians are twats...

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552642/Vietnam_War.html

by **PraiseA||ah** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 9:18 am

Originally posted by cavalierlwt
That's a bad way to start a post my friend.
Anyhooo
It's not the Cold War that had no major ramification in the world picture, it's the Vietnam war that I said that about, and I stand by that assertion.
The U.S failure in Vietnam did *not* lead to the ultimate collapsing of democracies first in all of asia, then all of the world. The Domino theory just didn't pan out, no communism spreading like wild fire, with each victory making the Soviet Union (the face of communism) stronger. On the flip side, Vietnam wasn't the triumphant victory that the Communists wanted. It didn't flourish. It's people fled in droves. It remained heavily subsidized from there ever after, barely eaking out a living. Not exactly a model that the communists wanted to showcase to the world.
So, all that struggle, all that loss of life (Cold War pissing contest) over the hearts and minds of a bunch of dirt farmers, turned out to be inconsequential. Didn't hurt the US/World like they claimed it would if we didn't succeed, Didn't help the communists promote their ideology or help them take over the world. Just amounted to....nothing.

I knew that wasn't a good way to start - that it might sound a little harsh but if you'll look I said at the end of the post that my understanding wasn't the greatest.

As it turns out.. my undestanding of your post itself wasn't the greatest.

LOL

Alright. I agree with what you have to say regarding Vietnam, the war and it's current impact or lack thereof.

by **cavalierlwt** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 9:46 am

Originally posted by SavageParrot
The little fact oft forgotten and to my experience completely ignored in american textbooks was that in the wake of WWII the vietnamese did in fact set up a democratic govenment but that it was the French, with the full support of the US military (You flew/shipped them there and supplied arms for them) who overturned this government. Most textbooks tend to leave out the US involvement in that little imperialist action in favour of putting the blame entirely on the french. So yes the vietnam war was pointless it was just an attempt to make up for a mistake you made 20 years earlier . Not that this in anyway diminishes the sacrifice of the soldiers on both sides fighting for their countries who deserve to be honoued. I just think all politicians are twats...

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552642/Vietnam_War.html

Our textbooks don't blame the french, in fact the ones I read growing up didn't really mention them much at all in Vietnam's context.
I try to see the conflict also the way people back then saw things. Vietnam had been a French colony for long, long time. The US had no problem with the Viet Mihn, until they rebelled against the French. Now I look back at the factors then (compared to the way we think today). British, American, and French colonialism wasn't a dirty word like it is now. The West largely considered these colonies to be like children, lucky to have the intervention of a kindly 'civilized' nation like France, the US, and Britain. We were all doing it all over the world, Africa, South America, as well as Asia. So there's that type of thinking. And we were doubly sympathetic to the French after their rough time in WWII. Then throw in the fear of Communism. This is the big one. It may seem irrational now but consider the situation back then. The Soviets have gone through one Five Year Plan after another, collectivization didn't work out too well, no 'Workers Paradise' and all that after this many years. The deep thinkers of the Communist think tanks start saying crap like 'Well...we forgot to tell you that until the *entire* world is free of capitalists, there will be no workers paradise, and even in the Soviet Union communism can't flourish completely with the West still being Capitalist. At this time, America has a stronger than you would expect Communist movement, pretty much born from the Great Depression--If there ever was an advertisment for Communism, the Great Depression was it. It shook our beliefs in our system right to the core. So look at that setting, our fear of Communism, our beliefs in colonialism, our feeling for the French. Vietnam was like a train on track, heading in one sad direction only. That's why I say that if I were an adult back then, I probably would have totally believed in the Vietnam war. The people back then didn't have the knowledge we have today about how things would turn out. They made reasonable choices given the info they had, given the state of the world back then. Just turns out they were totally wrong.

by **cavalierlwt** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 9:54 am

Sorry for the double post. I was just thinking, about the twat politicians, in particular.
At some point, the reality of Vietnam became known, who knows what year. At some point, people must have said, "here's the situation, here's how it's going to go..period. Nothing will change it". From that point, to the point of our withdrawal, I wonder how much time passed, I wonder how many people on both sides died.
This might be the absolute worst thing about politicians: They simply can never say 'I made a mistake'. Not during their term of office. Maybe 30 years later in a book they will admit mistakes. Have you ever heard any President, Prime Minister, Premiere, Grand Poobah, etc *ever* just say "I was wrong about this war", or "raising/lowering the taxes was a bad move" or "I should have never signed that bill"? If a leader did that, he could immediately start fixing his mistake. We all make mistakes, and the most successful of us are the ones that figure it out and correct *when* it counts.
This is why politicians are twats, they care less about correcting/adjusting their decision, instead they will stick the status quo and hope it somehow works out in their favor. Christ, what egos they have.

by **cavalierlwt** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 9:58 am

Originally posted by PraiseA||ah
I knew that wasn't a good way to start - that it might sound a little harsh but if you'll look I said at the end of the post that my understanding wasn't the greatest.

As it turns out.. my undestanding of your post itself wasn't the greatest.

LOL

Alright. I agree with what you have to say regarding Vietnam, the war and it's current impact or lack thereof.

I took no offense. As a rule of thumb, if someone misreads my post, I consider it a strong possibility that I may have worded it awkwardly. I just decided to have a little fun with you on my opening line, I made sure to throw the word 'friend' in there to make sure you knew I wasn't offended.

by **SavageParrot** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 11:29 am

Originally posted by cavalierlwt
I try to see the conflict also the way people back then saw things. Vietnam had been a French colony for long, long time.

That may have been the case but at the ed of the war the vietnamese had set up a democratic government of their own and there was no French presence at all, untill you armed them up and sent them in that is...

by **cavalierlwt** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 11:48 am

I'm not defending the morality of it, certainly not by today's standards. I'm just pointing out that back then it was a no-brainer for us to favor the French over the Vietnamese. Back then we wouldn't recognize a democratic vietnamese govt as being a 'real' govt anymore than we would recognize a group of six year old kids who formed their own democratic govt.
As for the amount of blame you are throwing on the US vs the French for their attempt at bringing Vietnam back under their control, I think you really letting the French off the hook and putting the US on it. We provided them aid, which included military aid, but to say we armed them sounds like they had no military, and we completely gave them a military, then sent them into Vietnam. France is responsible for their war with Vietnam, the US is responsible for it's war with Vietnam.

by **SavageParrot** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:01 pm

No I'm English, French guilt is always taken as read

Should have explained that I guess

by **Chacal** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 2:37 pm

Originally posted by TChicken
why "The wall that heals"?

Yes, strange as it sounds. It's hard for us Canadians to understand. Because of the political situation at the end of the Vietnam war, US soldiers weren't greeted as heroes when they came back. There was something shameful about having served over there.

And yet those soldiers had suffered as much as those during WWII, they were killed, wounded, had lost comrades all the same. Often their lives were broken but they had to suffer in silence. Perhaps the worst thing was that those who died had little or no recognition.

The memorial is about them. As it says on the nps web site: "The purpose of this memorial is to separate the issue of the sacrifices of the veterans from the U.S. policy in the war, thereby creating a venue for reconciliation.".

I remember when the design was made public and when the memorial was put up. There was quite an outcry by both opponents and supporters.

In the end, the veterans decided. They came, read the names, touched them, cried.

And in doing so, they were healed.

by **Destructor** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 2:38 pm

i'm surprised the pentegon papers haven't been meantioned. Saw the guy who blew the whistle on them speak at my school. it was interesting but i was worn out from lack of sleep and ended up napping through the 2nd half of his talk.

The wall that heals

Who is online