Difference between revisions of "Talk:Vietnam War"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(On My Changes)
(On My Changes: Don't bite the newbies)
Line 51: Line 51:
:"An administrator named TK" Yes, that is indeed me, and you most certainly are not at Wikipedia, Jake.  Respond where you are questioned, please, and drop the attitude. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 17:49, 5 September 2010 (EDT)
:"An administrator named TK" Yes, that is indeed me, and you most certainly are not at Wikipedia, Jake.  Respond where you are questioned, please, and drop the attitude. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 17:49, 5 September 2010 (EDT)
::TK, although Jake's changes are sweeping, he's new here. Please be gentle, since you are (in fact) a gentleman. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:18, 7 September 2010 (EDT)

Revision as of 08:18, 7 September 2010

What was the first Indochina Conflict? GodlessLiberal 15:06, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

That was the war between the French and the Viet Cong that took place in the late 1940s - early 1950s, prior to our involvement.--Conservateur 18:22, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Unless strong documentation can be provided, I have to support Hojimachong's decision to remove what appears to be odd claims of an imminent North Vietnamese surrender at the time we pulled out. Learn together 15:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

This article is woefully inadequate

A lot of work needs to be done on this topic. There's a great deal of information left out. Also, the U.S. did not lose this war. When the U.S. pulled out S. Vietnam was safe and secure. The VietCong was destroyed and the borders were agreed to by the Paris Peace Accords. It was only after the U.S. was completely out of the region that the North Vietnamese attacked. It was 2 years after the U.S. pulled out that North Vietnam invaded. However, because of communist infiltration of the U.S. govt. and Congressional efforts to squash S. Vietnam and the violation of the SEATO treaty to render air support to the S. Vietnamese, the North felt this was the opportune moment to invade. All this is left out from the article. Scorpio 15:24, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I beleive that outline of telling events is very good. How's this, "Vietnam was lost in a spasm of Congressional irresponsibiltiy after Congress cut off aid to the South Vietnam govt and the hard won peace negotuiations by Henry Kissinger". RobS 22:52, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

About the only thing the Vietname War article does not discuss... is the Vietnam War. But at least we have a list of really hip songs from that era ;-) Learn together 16:17, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, it's not ready to be displayed. I'm going to demote it to a /draft. --Ed Poor 16:23, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

"stated military goals of the Americans were not met".. So basically, you lost the war. Funny way to say it. FreakyM 10:10, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

This site is an embarrassment. I included some of the most accurate statistics in respect to the war and they are deleted. I guess having the U.S.A be part of a war claiming the lives of millions; many of them innocent is just too liberal. I guess that implies the facts themselves are liberal (which obviously cant be allowed) making this site no more than poor propaganda. Wikipedia has a very accurate breakdown of this war, the casualties, who was involved, as well as a very detailed escalation as to the events that occurred right up to the present day. I also find it hilarious that Nixon isn't mentioned once in this whole article.

You may wish to add constructive information about the course of the war, battles, tactics, etc. We are aware this article construction could use assistance as the section title makes apparent. Civilian casualties are largely unknown and guessed at in only the broadest terms. If your edit seems designed to add little except a negative light, then it may well be reverted, as happened here. It would be hoped that in the future you may be able to help to fill in the gaps that we already know exist instead of merely pointing out they are there. Learn together 16:29, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Speculation as to America's failure

The primary reason is probably the total psychological commitment of substantially all North Vietnamese and many South Vietnamese people to reunification of the country.

Whose opinion is that? It doesn't ring true. I was in the army for 5 years (two decades after this war, though). I heard a lot of other reasons. --Ed Poor Talk 21:08, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

It was the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Hitler rose to power with the invasion of Czechoslovakia; Britian went to war with Germany so another Czechoslovakia would not occur; the entire world was engulfed in what became known as World War II so no more Czechoslovakia's would occur; the North Atlantic Alliance was created, with Czechoslovakia in mind, "for the right of self-determination of peoples," which the Czechoslovakia lost after 1938; the policy of Containment, which was basis of US involvement in Korea and Vietnam was to insure no more situations like Czechoslovakia; the US kept 175,000 troops in Europe upto the collapse of the Soviet Union supposedly so tiny nations like Czechoslovakia would not be invaded and made slaves again.
While the hippies rioted in the streets, and while the US (as the article states) was approaching 600,000 men in Vietnam, to contain Soviet expansion, and for the right of self-determination of peoples, the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia. It was pretty obvious at that point, the whole thing was a fraud. That yes, the evil Nazi regime was evil and needed to be destroyed because it invaded Czechoslovakia. But when the godless commies did it 30 years later, what did NATO & the US do? Nothing. Rob Smith 21:44, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
Hitler didn't have nukes. And it was obvious by mid-1939 that Hitler would not stop with Czechoslovakia and Poland. In 1968, we had a reasonable expectation that the Sovs would stop with Czechoslovakia, at least in Europe. Not defending Western inaction, just saying the two situations were different.--Frey 12:15, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Number of Vietnamese Who Supported Communism

I've read several times that two thirds of the Vietnamese population (both north and south) supported the communist government, and that there were meant to be elections but these were refused. Does anyone else know anything about that, and should it be included in the article?

I personally met the author of Le Gulag Vietnamien (The Vietnamese Gulag), when he first immigrated to the US and was looking for a translator and a publisher. "Support" of a totalitarian regime is enforced by draconian government measures (to say the least).
When has any Communist dictatorship held a plebiscite on whether Communism should continue (or be replaced by democracy)? The only dictator I know of, who voluntarily stepped down after a successful coup, is Augusto Pinochet. (Leftists hate to mention this, preferring to smear him with accusations of mass murder while whitewashing Che Guevara, Ho Chi Minh, and so on. --Ed Poor Talk 07:25, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Is cite for rewrite still needed?

This page is cited for rewrite due to not giving "the origin of the war, what it was fought about, and what the sides were", but all this is basically mentioned. I will remove it if no objections.Daniel1212 19:26, 21 November 2009 (EST)

On My Changes

An administrator named TK asks me: "Usually editors post on the article's talk page before revamping the entire article, so I need to ask you what direction are you going? I take it you saw the proposed changes page?"

I don't think I've revamped the entire article, though I have expanded on it. I'll let my changes speak for themselves, though I'd be happy to respond if there are any objections.User:JakeRMurrin

"An administrator named TK" Yes, that is indeed me, and you most certainly are not at Wikipedia, Jake. Respond where you are questioned, please, and drop the attitude. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:49, 5 September 2010 (EDT)
TK, although Jake's changes are sweeping, he's new here. Please be gentle, since you are (in fact) a gentleman. --Ed Poor Talk 09:18, 7 September 2010 (EDT)