Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 3

message: Can someone add the names of the two congressmen who discovered the tiger cages in '70?--HistoricalPisces 19:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ngo Dinh Diem and Ho Chi Minh respectively. El_C 09:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Information 

message: This war is named the Vietnam War, yet its content is very concentrated on the involvement of foreigners.  For example, the casualties section formerly only lists US dead and wounded for the anti-communist side when much of the casualties was taken by South Vietnam.  Its effects on American culture is extensively discussed, yet only one small section is devoted to its effect on Vietnam (which I added) - more than a million Vietnamese civilians lost their lives.   Also, while called the "Vietnam War" by Westerners, it should be noted at the beginning that there were numerous wars that occurred in Vietnam and most Vietnamese do not refer to it as such.  DHN 04:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, its Western-centric, and theres plenty of work to be done. Representation of Vietnamese pov (both Vietnamese and ethnic diaspora) is quite welcome —particularly from those who are reasonable and interested in NPOV. -St|eve 17:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't really expect most Vietnamese to refer to it as the Vietnam War, given that they probably don't speak English. But your other points are of course accurate. A lack of interested contributors and unavailability of good references on those subjects to most Wikipedians creates this problem. Solving those issues is a key step to improving the balance of the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't really expect most Vietnamese to refer to it as the Vietnam War" —thats the nature of any exonym, but there seems to be something interesting going on where the U.S./foreign term "Vietnam War" is used by English-speaking diaspora, which has traveled back to the homeland. From the Vietnam POV, it might indeed be best characterized as "the Vietnam Civil War", but with the dominance of the American element it took on an anti-invasion/anti-colonialist character, perhaps best called the "United States-Vietnam War." The naming issue is no doubt interesting. -St|
eve 20:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western-centric view 

message: Somebody removed the assertion of "targetted killings" during the war, claiming that it's "nonsense".  The Vietcong assassinated 36,725 people and abducted 58,499 people that they can't intimidate between 1957 and 1972.  Or did you remove it because you assumed that it's implicating the US?  This reminds me of a brouhaha within the overseas Vietnamese community when Paris by Night staged a bombing scene in one of its music videos. DHN 02:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Phoenix Program was an "assassination campaign" and has received much criticism as an example of human rights atrocities committed by the CIA and the organizations it supports. Indeed, faulty intelligence often led to the murder of innocent civilians, in contravention to the Geneva Conventions. American statistics showed 19,534 members of the Viet Cong “neutralized” during 1969 — 6,187 murdered, 8,515 captured, and 4,832 defected to the South Vietnamese side. --User talk:Calton | Talk 03:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: That was my mistake, I thought it was in reference to North Vietnam (or at least it had been before). Sorry. CJK 19:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Targetted killings 

message: I intend to remove all the incorrect usage of the word American from this article. As far as I'm aware the only troops from America involved in the Vietnam war were from the USA - no other American countries were involved. Markb 10:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: About 20,000 Canadians volunteered to serve in the US armed forces during the Vietnam era. Ellsworth 23:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't doubt it, Ellsworth , but AFAIK Canada as a country was not involved in the war? Markb 09:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Also changing references to "America" and "American" to refer to the USA is in line with approved style. Ellsworth 01:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not and never has been such a policy that I'm aware of. Where have you seen that? - Nat Krause(Talk!) 00:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacing use of 'American', 'America' etc.  

message: Should mention of the papers released in 2003 go in the Gulf of Tonkin section here or remain in any discussion of the Gulf of Tonkin 'incident' in general? Jachra 22:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gulf of Tonkin papers 

message: I removed the information on on WW I and WW II MIA remains. That information seems better suited for the respective articles for those wars rather than here. - Bellhalla 06:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MIA reference to WWI and WWII? 

message: New information (is to be expected) on what happened on August 4 1964.
Washington Post on August 4 1964--Brz7 13:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  August 4 1964 

message: Contrary to the impression left here, it wasn't limited to a handful of named operations, it was continuous, & the article completely omits this. (I'd fix it, but I don't know enough.) A couple of facts: first MiG kills in 'Nam, 2 MiG-17s on 17 June 1965, were by Commander L.C. Page/RIO Lt J.C. Smith off Midway; first MiG by a Spad, also off Midway, was by Lt C.B. Johnson & Lt S.W. Hartman, 20 June 1965.  Trekphiler 08:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airwar Vietnam 

message: I updated the demostration photo to have more detail.
Please look at the photos used in this article.  Not the politician photos in the beginning but everything starting with the Young Marine photo.  If you scrolled down and only looked at them they portray a slanted view.  1) Picture of a young, dazed Marine, 2) US Bombing, 3} Kids after a napalm attack, 4) An execution, 5)Anti War Protest, 6) My Lai and finally the photo of the final Americans withdrawing.  
If I had asked someone to compile a list of every bad thing that happened during the war I believe that all of these might appear.  Would anyone be opposed to other pictures being added to this photo.  Nothing crazy, just 1 or 2 pictures of some actual fighting.  Just something that doesn't portray every negative that occurred.  Interested to hear any thoughts--Looper5920 12:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated Photo 

message: In this section you can discuss and vote on various minor edits up to a single sentence.
*Issue 1: 'perceived' (from introduction)
current text: "Being Western-oriented and perceived as less popular than Hồ Chí Minh's northern government, the South Vietnam government [...]"
proposed text:"Being Western-oriented and far less popular than Hồ Chí Minh's northern government, the South Vietnam government [...]"
Argument: "perceived" adds no information, as it is is not attributed to a particular side. The obvious attribution would be to the people of Vietnam, in which case 'perceived less popular' would be logically equivalent to is less popular, except that "perceived" now appears a sneaky attempt at casting doubt on the popularity. If such doubt exists please refer to information to back up your case and we will settle that question first.
Counterarguments:
There is no proof that most Vietnamese would elect Ho over Diem. No one has conducted a study and both men had serious flaws. Perhaps you're right, but it can't be stated as if we can make predictions here. CJK 21:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To my knowledge practically everybody, and particularly american planners considered it a fact.Jens Nielsen 21:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'perceived' remains a sneaky way of casting doubt of the factual issue. Since none of us seem to believe that Ho Chi Minh was less popular, I will suggest a compromise: replace 'perceived' with 'widely believed', which should be uncontested. Jens Nielsen 11:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *I vote in favour of the proposed text replacing 'perceived' with 'far less', because i consider the latter more informative, and more correct. Jens Nielsen 20:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I am in favour. It is too much work Jens Nielsen 14:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe it was Westmoreland. Here's an article in the Washington Post that refers to it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/18/AR2005071801713.html --hvn73 05:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote here for various minor edits 

message: The current text is substantially, but I imagine unintentionally, misleading:
:"The first draft lottery since World War II in the United States was held on 1 December 1969, and was met with large protests and a great deal of controversy; statistical analysis indicated that the methodology of the lotteries unintentionally disadvantaged men with late year birthdays."
In the first place, this gives the impression that the draft began in 1969 and that this caused large protests. In point of fact, the draft had been in existence continually since 1940, with the exception of a lapse in 1947-1948. Tens of thousands were conscripted for the Vietnam War before the Draft Lottery. The purpose of the draft lottery was manifold: (1) to reduce the abuses of the local Draft Boards, many of which corruptly picked and chose who would be drafted and who was "deferred"; (2) to give more certainty to young men who were subject to the draft, but postponed career decisions because of the uncertainty of service; and (3) maybe most importantly but not put forward openly by the Nixon Administration, to divide youth opposition. Nixon correctly figured that, once a good half of the eligibles were, in effect, exempted from the draft, they would no longer be so interested in protest. And he was right. This gave Nixon the time to wind down the war on his own timetable. -- Cheers (from one who caught cold from the Draft) Cecropia 08:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 1969 Draft Lottery 

message: Hi Folks.
This newer version is much more decent than the former piece of  war propaganda, after 25-30 years of Vietnam reunification and the wounds healed. Vets and Protesters are now aging and retired. Here comes the time for History and deeper thougts.
Takima 16:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newer version 

message: http://www.vvmf.org/index.cfm?SectionID=110&Wall_Id_No=50152.0
:The soldier died in 1981 from injuries suufered in 1969. -- Cecropia 17:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  last death in 81? 

message: Under casualties it says there are some estimates pklacing the nuumber of casualties as high as 4 million. We need a non-WWW source to back this up please. We've been through this controversy before. I quote from Wikiwatch:
:"On Sept. 2, 2002, Wikipedia's article on the Vietnam War declared that the government of Vietnam "released figures on April 3, 1995 that a total of one million Vietnamese combatants and four million civilians were killed in the war." On Sept. 3, 2002, someone added "The accuracy of these figures has generally not been challenged," just in case we considered doubting them."
:"Unfortunately, the figures released by Vietnam in 1995 really said that 2 million civilians were killed in the North and South (altogether), which somebody misinterpreted as 2 million in the North and 2 million in the South. Anyone familiar with the war should have immediately suspected some sort of mistake. After all, how could a war fought almost entirely in the South have killed an equal number of innocent bystanders in the North? The only possible explanations could be A) it didn't, or B) the American bombing of the North was a holocaust. Naturally, many commentators have used these mistaken numbers to prove Point B."
:"I challenged these unchallenged figures on Nov. 5, 2004. I even announced the mistake on my web site on Dec. 22, 2004."
:"The mistake was finally (after over 1,500 revisions to the article as a whole) corrected on April 8, 2005 -- just barely missing the tenth anniversary of Vietnam's official announcement. Wikipedia, however, still assures us -- without a trace of irony -- that "The accuracy of these figures has generally not been challenged." I'm sure that when someone challenges these numbers, they will continue to assure us that these numbers have not been challenged."
:"Meanwhile, in the 2 years, 7 months and 6 days that Wikipedia assured us that 4 million civilians were killed, the mistake has spread to 455 different sites across the web. Prediction: Because the mistaken death toll of 4 million civilians has become so widely reported, the sheer pervasiveness of it gives it authority, and at some point in the future, Wikipedia will change back to it."
:"Prediction: Because the mistaken death toll of 4 million civilians has become so widely reported, the sheer pervasiveness of it gives it authority, and at some point in the future, Wikipedia will change back to it."
This error is now so pervasively engrained on the WWW that we need either to take out the 4 million figure or have a non-web based source citing it. Coricus 10:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Robert McNamara, in his regretful memoir of the war, references a figure of 3.2 million."  Relatively minor nit to pick here, but this could use clarification: Was McNamara referring to civilian casualties only in the U.S. portion of the war, or to the 1954-to-Fall-of-Saigon time frame referenced immediately above the McNamara reference? LareM 21:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civilian Casualties Controversy 

message: Servicemen who went to Vietnam from well-to-do areas had a slightly elevated risk of dying because they were more likely to be pilots or infantry officers.
Vietnam Veterans were the best educated forces our nation had ever sent into combat. 79% had a high school education or better. [McCaffrey]
Here are statistics from the Combat Area Casualty File (CACF) as of November 1993. The CACF is the basis for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial (The Wall):
Average age of 58,148 killed in Vietnam was 23.11 years. (Although 58,169 names are in the Nov. 93 database, only 58,148 have both event date and birth date. Event date is used instead of declared dead date for some of those who were listed as missing in action) [CACF]
 
  Deaths          Average Age      
      Total     58,148          23.11 years
      Enlisted  50,274          22.37 years
      Officers  6,598           28.43 years
      Warrants  1,276           24.73 years
      E1        525             20.34 years
      11B MOS   18,465          22.55 years
Five men killed in Vietnam were only 16 years old. [CACF]
The oldest man killed was 62 years old. [CACF]
11,465 KIAs were less than 20 years old. [CACF]
Nice use of numbers. Now consider that those most likely to be killed were infantry officers or NCOs or helo crewmen. Then factor in the millions of men who were not killed between 1965 and 1973. The average age was of a combat infantryman was 19. RM Gillespie 14:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear, hear.  The statistics in this entire silly "myth" section are ludicrous. They are an excellent example of how statistics can be maufactured to prove almost anything. I found most of the claims absurd, on their face alone. 66.108.144.49 01:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Myth: The war was fought largely by the poor and uneducated.

message: The 1990 unsuccessful movie "Air America" helped to establish the myth of a connection between Air America, the CIA, and the Laotian drug trade. The movie and a book the movie was based on contend that the CIA condoned a drug trade conducted by a Laotian client; both agree that Air America provided the essential transportation for the trade; and both view the pilots with sympathetic understanding. American-owned airlines never knowingly transported opium in or out of Laos, nor did their American pilots ever profit from its transport. Yet undoubtedly every plane in Laos carried opium at some time, unknown to the pilot and his superiors. For more information see http://www.air-america.org
Lets face it, the CIA supported clandestine army of Vang Pao could not have survived, economically or militarily, without the income generated by the sale of its annual opium crops. Whether Air America/Bird/CAT pilots or crewmembers knew that they were transporting (and I find it difficult to believe that they would not know) opium is irrevelent. It was done. 12.152.8.229 15:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Myth: Air America, the airline operated by the CIA in Southeast Asia, and its pilots were involved in drug trafficking.

message: The American military was not defeated in Vietnam. The American military did not lose a battle of any consequence. From a military standpoint, it was almost an unprecedented performance. (Westmoreland quoting Douglas Pike, a professor at the University of California, Berkley a renowned expert on the Vietnam War) [Westmoreland] This included Tet 68, which was a major military defeat for the VC and NVA.
THE UNITED STATES DID NOT LOSE THE WAR IN VIETNAM, THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE DID.
Oh Boy, here we go again. How long is it going to take for Americans to figure out that the winning or losing of battles was irrevelant to the outcome of the conflict? The Hanoi regime and the NLF continuously stated that the war was both political and military in its essential nature. The US military and the politicos at the time always knew about the stated policies of their enemies, yet continuously failed (as so many continue to to do) to understand them. They just considered these statements of essential strategy to be so much propaganda. The US failed in its goal of establishing a stable and viable regime in Saigon that was capable of defending itself after eight years of effort. Its strategy of attrition (and the too little, too late "One War" concept) failed miserably. So, although the US military did "win" most (but not all) of its battles, that fact is irrelevent to the outcome of the conflict. RM Gillespie 15:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is obvious that the Americans lost the war, though perhaps not militarily.  The Southern dictatorship was an American marionette.  Its defeat was only another American defeat.  The Americans were not directly militarily overpowered, but they were pretty much forced to succumb to the determination of the Vietnamese people and to the fierce critisism from all around the world.  The fact is that Vietnam won and America lost.  Ionius Mundus 06:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that marionette implies more control than the Americans actually had. My impression is that the puppet government was basically run by thugs, con-men and opportunists whom the Americans tried to control, but only with a certain level of success. Of course, I am only speculating, based on what I read 20 years ago when studying this. --Habap 14:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree.  However, even you confirm that it was a puppet government, correct?  Ionius Mundus 15:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. While it may at some point have seemed legitimate (not sure about the initial years of the government) it was certainly a puppet government. When I read your initial inclusion of the term, I thought it was POV, but it was probably the context. The South Vietnamese governments literally lived and died based upon whether it was perceived that they had full US support. --Habap 16:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Myth: The United States lost the war in Vietnam.