War on Vietnam motivated by false allegations

Remove all ads!

I never even suggested that the 2 events were the same thing. In regards to the missile crises, you said you were defending your home. I simply wanted to know what the US was defending by the US sponsored Bay of Pigs.

So please don't ask me to read up on history when you misunderstand what I am writing.

 

This thread is about the Vietnam war. Chandos brought up the Cuban missile crisis. YOU brought up the Bay of Pigs in response to a comment I made to Chandos -- you should be more clear about the inferences you are drawing.

The Bay of Pigs is on the same level as the Viet Nam war (as I said, read your history it will show the same thing). The missiles were the only threat Cuba ever gave the US. The Bay of Pigs just followed the domino theory (that and a bit of pent up aggression on the part of the Eisenhower camp).

 

@T2Bruno:
This may be off-topic, but the statement is so crude I have to reply.

Funny. I never thought anyone could summarise, and in such few words, my own view of what the government and military of the USA must consider a sacred rule. It is not OK when the bad guys do something (invade a country, torture enemy POWs, help causing a cup d'etat, amass and use weapons of mass destruction...); but it's OK if the USA do it. Because the USA are the good guys and laws don't apply to them.

 

Colthrun: The point is moot (hence, who cares). The US military had troops and weapons in place AT THE REQUEST of the host nations. Simply put, no country was capable of withstanding an attack by the Soviet Union -- the US troops and weapons provided a necessary deterent to Soviet aggression (which, as I said before, was very real). The Soviet goal WAS global domination.

With missiles aimed at the US from Cuba the whole deterence thing would have been gone. Soviets invade country X. If the US retaliates, missiles launch from Cuba and hit Washington DC, New York and Chicago -- end result, the US does nothing and country X is now a welcome member of the Warsaw Pact. Sorry, but the good guy/bad guy thing did apply with the USSR. And a host of nations agreed, including yours.

If you wish to talk about the cold war it should be in a different thread -- but as it's ancient history (for most of the posters) it would get very little discussion. Much like this thread....

 

No T2, Carter did nothing except boycotte the olympics. Reagan supplied those fighting the Evil Empire with weapons. Weapons that eventually drove them out.

 

That's what I said. If you are specifically talking about Afganistan, the USSR occupied Afganistan. They basically stayed until they were bored and ran out of money (world opinion helped a little). Our weapons did not even dent the Soviet Union. Not in our hands, not in anyone elses hands. Most of the political and financial punishments to the USSR were done by Carter almost immediately -- Reagan kept them in force. The boycott of the Olympics was the only visible thing and it cost the Soviet Union billions of dollars.

Some called Afganistan the USSR's Vietnam -- that is far from true. The Soviets inflicted massive casualties -- it was a massacre and very one sided (over 1 million Afgans dead versus 15,000 Soviets). They went in force and kicked butt and kept kicking it until they left (and kicked it on the way out). There were no politicians telling the military what not to attack . There was no concern about the civilian population.

The only thing that saved Afganistan was the spending policies of Reagan. He forced the USSR into financial ruin. Spending killed off the USSR, not bombs or bullets.

 

Well, the Cuba crisis had one obvious winner and that were the Russians. Losers were Cuba and the US. The US agreed to withdraw their nuclear bombs from Turkey if the Russians would withdraw theirs from Cuba. This of course means, that the Cuba crisis helped to considerably enhance the security of Russia, that got rid of those nasty US missiles in Turkey.

I don't like they idea to spill the blood of a complete stranger just to uphold some ideals. It's a disgusting concept to ravage the neighbours garden just to prove a point.

Na, I don't think so. But of course that could be the beginning of a trillion of facts exchange multi-posting spam. The view that the Russians were on the highway to bankrupcy from the death of Stalin on seems to me the most plausible. It was in the seventies (or even late sixties ?) that the Gorbachevs were in Italy were Raisa just went crazy about all that bling and even toliet paper. Never ever underestimate the importance of toilet paper. It seems so trivial until it's not there.

 

I can't agree. Everyone knew it was only a matter of time before technology would make it a mote point as to where the missles were located anyway. The real loser was Khrueshcev who was replaced because the Russians did not agree with your assessment of the outcome.

Sorry, T2. I did not know you were responding to me directly. I thought we were discussing the Cold War and the domino theory. Ideals had never entered into the discussion. Also, how does one not account for Vietnam as a consequence of the Cold War?

 

I didn't know I said anything different -- the Vietnam war was a part of the cold war (as was the whole flawed domino theory).

Fighting abroad requires a person to fight for an ideal -- fighting at home is fighting for, well, to defend your home. Different motivation.

 

@Chandos

Perhaps I didn't make myself here -- of course we know what DID happen. My argument is that IF the Sovet Union and its fellow communists had managed to merely waltz in with no opposition to Korea and Vietnam, they MIGHT have gained access to extra resources, continued their advancement and got hold of more territory, and using those resources built themselves up to the point that they DIDN'T go bankrupt in later years.

I'm just saying that now we have hindsight; at the time the domino theory was plausible, feasible, and certainly something that the U.S. had to take into account in her foreign policy

 

Well, as I said, there a million of sources giving a different picture. The reason he was sacked was his temper. The dude was too honest, up-front and just like Gorbachev once said: too much rock-n-roll. It's just no good business for a superpower if the world thinks your leaderhead is a jerk. But despite his strange behaviour, I think that khruschev was very capable, just no diplomat. Not at all.

But anyway, I don't think that there is a direct connection between Cupa and that Khruschev was sacked a few years later. Domestics and his general abysmal foreign policy (diplomatic wise, the doctrine of peaceful co-existence sounds reasonable to me) and his biggest blunder: Overthrow with China. Now the USA was pretty lucky to have realpolitik Nixon, taking advantage of the Russian's big blunder.

But yes, it doesn't matter were long-range rockets are stationed. The Cuba was mainly a storm in a glass of water and showing of cojones. Yet the Russians got rid off the missiles in Turkey. In the heated times that were, I bet there were people in the pentagon staring at a map of the mediterranian. Was the Crimeran-War for nought?