Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 8

message: This article says the war began in 1959 but the vietnamese interwiki says the war began in 1954. Which is the correct date? @
Doitunh 20:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on what you read. 1954 was the date of the partition, and some level of conflict began pretty much immediately. The event that happened in 1959 was the northern Politburo formally authorizing armed operations. And these are the dates for the second Indochina war only; sources that see the war as a struggle against imperialism often identify a single conflict lasting from 1945-1975. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: Vietnam provokes too much of a reactionary view in liberals.  It has become the hair trigger for their pathological despise-the-US tendency.  Much of the subjectivity in this Wikepidia article is hampered by this. Just because you lost a war doesn't automatically imply that you were wrong to fight it. For the left, that is all it means and no amount of facts will ever change that. This Wikipedia article is proof.
Notice how clinically the ideals of the NV are presented in this article: they just want a unified nation. No such antiseptic characterization for the US's motives or actions: imperialistic desires and a proclivity for human right abuses are some of the suggestions.
Here are some facts you won't read in Wikipedia:
	
-Over 900,000 refugees fled the communist takeover in North Vietnam to South Vietnam in the   early 1950's. None fled north.
*The vast majority of this number consisted of Roman Catholics, exorted into exile by their anti-communist priests and bishops; landlords; and former Vietnamese members of the French military, who feared being tarnished as collaborators. 
-After 1954, President Eisenhower provided substantial financial aid to South Vietnam.  This produced an improving social and economic situation.
*So, this was an attempt to "buy" nationalism in the south? 
-The NV communists, who had expected the south to fall, grew concerned and in 1957 resumed terrorist and sabotage attacks in an attempt to destroy the fledgling republic.
*The communists only resorted to armed conflict after Diem moved against cadres in the south that were openly proselytizing for the promised election., which was never going to be held.
-In 1959 Secretary of State Dean Rusk noted that since there were no foreign powers in SV that the only threat it posed to NV was that it was outshining the 'Communist paradise.'
*Dean Rusk only became Secretary of State in 1961.
-From 1960 through 1961 over 3,000 civilians were murdered by the NV terrorists. 2,500 were kidnapped by them.	
*From 1957 onwards the Diem regime killed or imprisoned tens of thousands of former Viet Minh and later members of the NLF.
-A tool of the NV was assasination of key personnel, teachers and intellectuals, administrators, health care specialists, etc. Its one way of damaging the social structure of a village/nation. (see Kennedy's quote below). 
-In 1963 there were 17, 710 terrorist acts:
    Assassinated: Civilians 1,558; Gov't 415; Civil Srv	100.
    Injured		8,375
    Kidnapped	        7,262		
*Guerrilla war, aint it something?
The NV wanted a communist dictatorship, the West wanted a democracy.
Ho Chi Minh wanted to rule, Lyndon Johnson wanted freedom and prosperity for the Vietnamese.
Thats all Vietnam was about.
*Ah, democracy during the Cold War! Pinochet's democracy, Samoza's democracy, the Greek general's democracy, the Shah's democracy, Batista's democracy, all God's children need democracy!
There were many mistakes made by the US in its involvement in Vietnam.
And, of course, the US ultimately had to surrender. However, neither of these were, as this article presumes, the result of an immoral attitude on the part of the US.
*Immoral isn't the word. Blind hubris, tinged with racism, is more like it. Perhaps even worse, a total lack of any knowledge of Vietnamese history, culture, and capabilities.
Whatever the causes of the failure of the U.S. in Vietnam, the only objective was to establish a form of government for a unified Vietnam that provided and protected individual human rights: a democracy.
*See above.
The west had been offering support for a unified Vietnam since the fall of China to the communists. France was not trying to maintain a colony in Vietnam, rather it did not want a despotic communist government to take hold.
*Not even Americans fell for that one. The French struggle in Indochina was perceived (even by the U.S. government) as a colonial struggle, one that it supported only due to France's position in European affairs. It was not until the "fall" of China and, more particularly, the Korean Conflict, that the conflict in Vietnam took on the mantle of "anti-communist" struggle.
If Ho Chi Minh had wanted to unify Vietnam with a democratic form of government, the West would gladly have supported him.
*And why would he have possibly thought that? The U.S. had just paid, equipped, and morally supported the French forces against the Viet Minh. You are caught in the same old trap of the Cold War. Any peasant in some third world boondock who wanted a better life for himself or his children had to oppose an oppressive government supported by one of the two superpowers. What choice did he/she have? Whichever side will provide you with the guns and training to change your situation. 
Since the war ended, communism has had a spectacular collapse worldwide and democracy has blossomed.
*Seems to me that at least one third of the Earth's population still live under a communist form of government, regardless of what Ronnie Reagan's supporters have to say.
Which form of government does history say would have served the Vietnamese people better?
*Its a little late now for second guessing history don't you think?
The following are quotes from the US president's who increased the US's involvement in Vietnam.
"…Strategically, South Viet-Nam’s capture by the Communists would bring their power several hundred miles into a hitherto free region. The remaining countries in Southeast Asia would be menaced by a great flanking movement…The loss of South Viet-Nam would set in motion a crumbling process that could, as it progressed, have grave consequences for us and for freedom":   Eisenhower.
*Ah, the domino principle, claptrap then, claptrap now. Or have you missed the Vietnamese/Cambodian War and the Sino-Vietnamese War?
“…the United States is determined to help Viet-Nam preserve its independence, protect its people against Communist assassins, and build a better life through economic growth.”:    Kennedy.
*And we will do this despite the wishes of the majority of the Vietnamese people and kill a million of them, a couple of million Cambodians and Laotians, and 58,000 Americans.
“…we are bound by solemn commitments to help defend this area against Communist encroachment. 
We will keep this commitment. In the case of Viet-Nam, our commitment today is just the same as the commitment made by President Eisenhower to President Diem in 1954—a commitment to help these people help themselves.”:    Johnson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.201.31.198 (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freedom vs. Despotism 

message: How come Minh isn't on the commanders list here? He kind of started the whole thing.--The Fourth Swordsman 01:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ho Chi Minh

message: "I HAVE signed S. 3394, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, with some reservations, but with appreciation for the spirit of constructive compromise which motivated the Congress.
I sought a bill which would serve the interests of the United States in an increasingly interdependent world in which the strength and vitality of our own policies and society require purposeful and responsible participation in the international community. Foreign assistance is indispensable in exercising the role of leadership in the cooperative and peaceful resolution of conflicts, in pursuing political stability and economic progress, and in expressing the American spirit of helping those less fortunate than we are...."
I think the submitter may be confused with the Freedom of Information Act of 1974 which President Ford vetoed and Congress over-rode him.
Ormondron 13:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php a link to Presidential signing statements 1974 which states states in part: 

message: Heres a good overview I found on youtube: Pinky Show -Ste|vertigo 12:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  video overview 

message: ""You listed the United States first on the anti-communist side even though most of the fighting was done by the South Vietnamese." I think what you are trying to say is that most of the fighting was done in the South, not by the South. The South didnt conduct all those massive boming raids for example. There were a million U.S. troops in Vietnam at one point." 
Peak US troop strength was 535,000 in '68/'69, not 1m as stated here.  69.19.14.29 16:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual peak US troop strength 

message: "What do you think is POV?" The South governments came about through attempted nationbuilding by the United States and that was the casus belli. The current version is POV because it emphasised "failure of nationalists to unify the country" which is misleading: Ho abided by the Geneva Convention of 54, but the U.S. did not. The current version fails to mention the immediate background of French colonialism (and the U.S. support for it), the popularity of the nationalists, U.S. nationbuilding in the South starting in 54 (right where the French left off), the unpopularity of Diem, the rejection of elections in 56, and the inevitable "collapse" (reunification) of the South without massive U.S. support. There is of course the popular misconception that the war was one between freedom and communism, which needs to be sort of explained. Maybe we could write an article that just has basic questions and answers? -Ste|vertigo 18:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'll agree that South Vietnam was much more involved in this war than the US.  It suffered more losses than the US and the war was essentially about its survival.  As such, it deserves "first billing" in the combatant list.  I think it's specious to ascribe point of views to "the Vietnamese" when there were no free elections on either side.  It's much more productive to say "To North Vietnam and its allies, the "American War" was like the other Indochina Wars in that it was a war of independence, but one that successfully resulted in a liberation of Vietnam from foreign (Western world) influence.  To South Vietnam and its allies, the war was...".  I think that was in one of the earlier versions of this article but somehow got lost.  We should keep the intro to a max of 2 paragraphs, specifying the combatants, their points of view, the causes of the war, and the results.  All the parenthetical info should be in the body.  I'm not happy with the current "failure of nationalists to unify the country" statement either, but perhaps we can work something out that is more neutral. DHN 19:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, calling the communists the "nationalists" expresses a certain point of view.  South Vietnamese also view themselves nationalists (in fact, contemporary South Vietnamese historians call the war the Nationalist-Communist war, in parallel to the Chinese Civil War).  The fact was that there were two sides in this conflict: a communist side and an anti-communist side.  The NLF contained some non-communist members, but they were hardly influential.  I think calling one side communist and the other anti-communist is the best way to describe the two sides. DHN 19:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I appreciate your suggestions and think we can work well together on a good opening. I think it should be longer than two paragraphs however, as the subject is one of depth and interest - its not merely a clash between ideologies. I agree that the terms are difficult, which is why I dislike the communist vs. anti-communist paradigm. In fact I think its a rather specious argument if its not framed in the right context: It only became an anti-communist war after the U.S. installed Diem and promoted an ideology of Western allegiance. Even Diem no doubt had misgivings about this relationship. In general I think it wouldnt be too controversial or biased to explain things in terms of majoritarian versus minority governments - the colonial backdrop is important. It sets the basis for why the South identity you described to emerged (in a short time), and why the much older identity of majoritarian nationalism prevailed (as it tends to do). -Ste|vertigo 21:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stevertigo's changes  cont'd 

message: ARVN 230,000/300,000 (only few more), ROK 5,000/11,000 (twice) and US 58,193/153,303 (less than three times)? Compare with the Australian 37/187 or NZ 512/2,400 (both about five times). 
Usually, it's about three-four times, and the heli MEDAVAC was praised at the time, and now it's claimed it was less effective than in WWII? I'd (somewhat and hardly) understand only ARVN (and the Aussies, of course). --HanzoHattori 14:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The dead to wounded ratios 

message: There's an awful lot of spelling mistakes in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.26.106.44 (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: Im suggesting that this article include an overview section which summarises a few major points: Generally, how the war was and is now viewed by the relevant parties, what the causes were (besides the tendentious "the failure of the North to gain control of..."), and what its effects were. This should come before the history sections. -Stevertigo 12:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview section 

message: When I was reading a book called "Big Book of BUGS!" (I can't remember the title correctly), where they stated that the war started since a squid or a jellyfish (that was lighted) looked like a torpedo from the north, is this any true? JZX100 01:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnam war caused by Squid (or Jellyfish)? 

message: I know for one that My Lai is definitely one, but Agent Orange, to some, is in the grey area. At the time AO was used, it was not known to have such disastrous long term effects on humans. In that sense, could its consequences on humans really have been forseen? Please note that I am not advocating any point of view; I'm just trying to reach a consensus on this. TheKillerAngel 02:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the exception of cancer (which most scholars believe its long term effects were not known at the time), how is that contrary to the Geneva Conventions with respect to War? It was a defoliant used to rob the Ho Chi Minh Trail of its overhead cover. BLU-82 bombs were used for the same purpose and for clearing helicopter landing zones, but could not cover as much of a range as Agent Orange. BQZip01 03:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, burning trees and underbrush (from napalm, white phosphorus shells or simply from small arms fire), depositing small pieces of lead in the ground (spent bullets), creating craters (artillery and mortar shells), digging holes purely for military purposes, clearing fields of fire with bulldozers or machetes, building concrete bunkers and just about every other aspect of fighting a war destroys crops and damages the ecosystems. That would make just having a war into a war crime, Mace. War is not easy on the environment whether you use chemicals that have a long-lasting and toxic effect or not. Looking at the use of chemicals in US agriculture at the time, it is apparent that no lasting negative effects were imagined. --Habap 15:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would you consider the use of Agent Orange a War Crime? 

message: Please add  in interwiki section. Thanks! -- Givegains 13:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that template even do anything? Christopher Parham (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA in zh.wikipedia 

message: The aftermath section of this section is really poor. It seriously lacks a neutral point of view, claiming the retreat didn't bring about anything bad at all. How about the murder of 1.5 million Cambodians, or the hundreds of thousands of ARVN soldiers thrown into reeducation camps where thousands of them died. Or the millions of refugees fleeing the country under the brutal regime. These points were adressed earlier, but someone has removed them. Sometimes, Wikipedia is really hopeless. Tridungvo 22:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I came to the talk page to make much the same comment. The aftermath is only framed in terms of US domestic and foreign policy with no information about what happened to the Vietnamese people. --ThirdSide 19:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aftermath

message: While it is generally unknown to most of the west, tigers were used extensively during the vietman war by the native people to protect themselves, along with their land. The Vietnamese hold a special understanding of tigers, and therefore are able to control and bring tigers to an almost domestic level, something that the West has been unable to achieve. The tigers native to Vietnam are the Indochinese tigers (Panthera tigris corbetti)a relatively votile species, common in the densly forested areas of Vietnam. These were the tigers primarly used by the native Vietnamese against the Western troops, but imported tigers also played an important role in the Vietnam War. Some of the most infulential battles of the War were won by the use of tigers, as most tigers were virtually unaffected by the small bullets used by most artillery during the war. It could take up to 15 bullets to stop a charging tiger, so tigers were much more effective at penetrating enemy lines than humans.
::a.k.a. Apocalypse Now, you might want to suggest some sources and also to sign your posts :) SGGH 15:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this, and think it should be included! :P 65.191.114.156 04:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Tigers in the Vietnam War 

message: The In popular culture section is very messy. Could someone make it into a proper list, or a seperate page? Jai Soun 22:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Messy

message: You might want to archive some of the above? SGGH 14:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: archive

message: I think that impact on US culture was really huge and write only
The Vietnam war has been featured heavily in television and films. The war also influenced a generation of musicians and song writers.
is simply not enough IMO. --Have a nice day. Running 20:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Covering its impact on American culture without covering its impact on Vietnamese culture makes the article unbalanced. It has a much more profound impact on Vietnam than it ever did to the US. DHN 22:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  popular culture 

message: Why do we have to persist that we did not lose veietnam war.  We sent in troops, and were strategicly defeated by a less superior force that made us withdraw, because no plan could be made to defeat them.  This is clear evidance to say that we were defeated by military means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.176.170 (talk • contribs) 
Ummm... how about the fact that they lost nearly TWENTY times as many men as we did? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.40.212 (talk • contribs) 
:Winning a war like this isn't about who kills the most. It's about getting your own way through physical force. If you don't get the enemy to do what you tell them to do, it is not a victory. Malamockq 03:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Loss? 

message: At one point in the war, L.B.J. was not telling how many troops were really there and it turned out to be more than 540,000, in this article, the biggest number is 16,000.  I would like to edit this so that anyone doing research is not misinformed. "Peak troop strength in Vietnam: 543,482 (April 30, 1969)" This is from "http://www.vietnam-war.info/facts/facts3.php"
Bigmux15 02:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why both can't be true. Remember that South Vietnam also had men fighting, as well as the United Nations (I think they deployed more than the US, unless if I'm confused with Korea). Your source doesn't say that the statistics are US only, or even anti-communist only for that matter. On the other hand, the article says John F. Kennedy increased the number of US troops from 500 to 16,000 (note that it also doesn't say if this was the maximum number of US troops deployed at one time). Hope that helps. · AndonicO Talk 11:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I thought there were far larger numbers of troops in nam, upwards of 300,000. And as far as I was aware the United Nations didn't have much involvement. The US, Australia, and South Vietnam vs. North Vietnam with Chinese supplies, and the Vietcong. SGGH speak! 19:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of soldiers 

message: "The French gained control of Indochina (Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam) during a series of colonial wars, from 1859 to 1885."
I think it would be informative to at least provide links to the wars or events which transpired which allowed France to control Indochina. Malamockq 02:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the pre-history the article doesn't mention, nor link to any other article which explains how France took control of Vietnam 

message: EOM —63.249.110.32 19:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote 104 in defoliants section actually links to 102 

message: why the russians and chinese are mentionned as combatants here but are forbidden in the First Indochina War despite my several evidences from official sources?? (see Civil Air Transport, Battle of Dien Bien Phu) :o) sacrés ricains! Shame On You 02:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: LOL

message: when will the First Indochina War be part of the Cold War in the US? BTW 2 US pilots were killed in mission at dien bien phu in 1954! Shame On You 02:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ok people

message: *(1972): "A B-52D Stratofortress aircraft, from Strategic Air Command, line up for takeoff as they prepare for strikes over Hanoi and Haiphong, North Vietnam, during Operation LINEBACKER". Shame On You 04:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: excellent PD picture for wikicommons

message: In the section stating that after the formation of North Vietnam, that there was a land-reform program with mass killings that occurred, I think that there should be a competent source reference here.  Also, there should be some attempt to list numbers of those killed.  Just stating the oft-repeated propaganda line of the west does nothing to further our understanding of what actually occurred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.54.100.103 (talk • contribs) 
:The figures are according to the following sources:
:*50,000 killed and 100,000 imprisoned - The Viet Minh Regime, Government and Administration in the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, Bernard Fall, Greenwood Press, Connecticut, 1975.
:*Other gives between 15,000 and 50,000 killed,  Võ Nhân Trí, using Party records, reached a 15,000 figure. DHN 06:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: North Vietnam Crimes?

message: This entire article has a left wing, anti-US, anti-democracy feel to it.  The South Vietnamese government is referred to almost everytime as a "puppet" government in a condescending manner.  North Vietnam was a puppet government of the Chinese and Soviet Union just as much or even moreso than the South but is never referred to in this way.  Millions of Vietnamese died fighting for freedom and democracy.  Our cause was just but was undermined by our own government.  Bottom line is the bad guys won and the good guys lost and that should be the lesson to be remembered not this revisionist left-wing history being told here.
:Wow, somebody still believes that there are good guys and bad guys in the war...
:I don't want to speak for the whole article, but all uses of the word "puppet" appear to refer to pre-1954 governments that were indeed dominated by France, despite being nominally run by Vietnamese. The post-Geneva independent state is not referred to in that manner. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Jane Fonda write this? 

message: You have made several unproven claims or statements: "1. North Vietnam was a puppet government of the Chinese and the Soviet Union .... 2. Millions of Vietnamese died fighting for freedom and democracy. 3. Our cause was just but it was undermined by our government." 4. South Vietnam was not a puppet of the US.
1. Former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara admitted in his book Argument Without End that he and others in Washington gravely misjudged the relationship between the three states mentioned. The Soviet Union and China did help North Vietnam. After centuries of being colonized first by the Chinese and then by the French, however, the Vietnamese were determined to have a unified and independent country. In 1979, China briefly invaded Vietnam. You don't invade a puppet. The Soviet Union did nothing. You do protect a puppet. See McNamara.
2. From 1955 to 1975, South Vietnam never had one single free or fair election. They were all interfered with in one way or another. The US knew about this and sometimes actively support it. That's real "anti-democracy," not just a "feel." So much for "freedom." Please see Stanley Karnow's book Vietnam: A History. (Karnow was the chief Asia correspondent for Time Magazine)  
3. Please see cite 2. The Official History of the United States Army says that the military was responsible for the defeat in Vietnam. They're the experts, so I'm not going to argue with them. I've never heard the United States Army called "left wing" or "anti-US" before. So, lets not start now. And no ... Jane Fonda did not write the Official History of the United States Army, so lets just leave Jane out of this.
4. South Vietnam was a US creation, as Washington sought to salvage territory from the disastrous French defeat of 1954 in Indochina. The United States refused to hold All-Vietnam elections, as stipulated under the Geneva agreement. Another good example of "anti-democracy." As President Eisenhower later wrote "80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh." P. 372. Washington selected Diem as the leader of Southern Vietnam and advised him on how to rig the referendum that led to the creation of the new Republic of Vietnam in 1955. See President Dwight D. Eisenhower's memoir. Would you call General Eisenhower "left wing?" If South Vietnam wasn't a "puppet," why did it collapse after the US withdrew support? That was the whole point of Vietnamization. To make South Vietnam stand on it's own two feet. See President Richard M. Nixon's memoir (not that infamous Revisionist Left Winger?). Also see Argument Without End. Robert S. McNamara, James Blight, Robert Brigham, Thomas Biersteker and Colonel Herbert Schandler. As McNamara and company conclude: "The Nixon administration, like the Johnson administration, could not give the South Vietnamese the essential ingredient for success: genuine indigenous political legitimacy." P. 368.   
Thank you for your comments. I'm always happier to read contributions which are backed up by solid facts, rather than dubious popular legends. If you would like to try and prove any of the myths you have mentioned, please do so by citing reliable and verifiable sources. Then we can add them to the article and improve its quality. Thanks. --219.78.21.61 02:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No ... Historians wrote this! 

message: The Article claims:
"Vietnam began to repress its ethnic Chinese minority. Thousand fled and the exodus of the boat people began. In 1979, China invaded Vietnam in retaliation for its invasion of Cambodia, known as the Third Indochina War or the Sino-Vietnamese War. Chinese forces were easily repulsed."
The Sino-Vietnamese War article clearly stated that the "repulsion" of the Chinese was anything but "easy." Vietnam had to resort to using Women and Children for suicide missions. Also, the Chinese advanced forty km into Vietnam before pulling their troops out, where is the "ease" of repulsion that was claimed by this article?
On another note, Frequent misspellings of the Khmer Rouge also appears in that section, giving it an unprofessional look, especially since there are instances which the correct spelling was used.
-Since nobody objected, I'm changing that sententce to "Chinese forces were repulsed with difficulty." AKFrost 00:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In the Aftermath Section

message: Theories of remaining in the war should be discussed, other than just the domino theory.  For example, Charles De Gaulle was telling Europe that Americans would abandon them in a crunch, and Johnson thought he had to prove him wrong in order to hold NATO together.  We supposedly were defending freedom and democracy, but there was no freedom or democracy, until after the generals kept overthrowing one another, and we pressured them into an election.  In that election, only certain people were permitted to run.  And Lyndon Johnson was concerned with his place in the history books, fearing he would be the first president to lose a war.  The most important reason though, was to prevent an election.  The Vietnamese had won a war of independence, and had agreed with the French that there would be an election in one year.  Everybody knew that Ho would easily win an election, so the U.S. stepped in and provided advice, arms and money to prevent that from happening.  We could have avoided 58,000 American deaths, 250,000 Viet military deaths and countless civilian deaths if we had been willing to let a people freely elect their own leader. (66.141.75.174 02:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ?? 

message: Dear I stand on land, just a quick question. You have never cited one single source, biased or otherwise, for your opinion that the United States was not militarily defeated in Vietnam.  So, please clarify something for everyone: are you saying that you are better informed than the United States Army? Yes or No? Any "ifs, ands, buts" will be taken as a Yes. Thanks. --219.78.66.147 04:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple Question: ''I stand on land'' 

message: I propose we move this article to 2nd Indochinese War (or something similar) so this article 
fits in better with the past of the region. We can have a redirect so that when people search for vietnam war or vietnam conflict, it will take them to the proposed name above. --MKnight9989 12:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd Indochinese War 

message: This is the most commonly accepted name for the war. Moving to 2nd Indo was would confuse people.--219.77.144.23 07:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnam War 

message: The article fails to establish that there were never two distinct countries of North Vietnam and South Vietnam...  The Geneva Conference only established a DMZ but never formed two seperate countries.  I do not understand why the author continues to refer to government located in Saigon as South Vietnam...  Just because the Saigon Government was located in the southern half of the country did not establish it as its own soverign country.  Nor did the socialist government located in Hanoi establish the northern half of the country 'North Vietnam'.
There were never two seperate countries!  Only two over lapping governments struggling to unify a politically broken [b]single[/b] country.
--User:jwnewm 0049, 5 June 2007
I think this rumor came about because of the fact that there are two races in Vietnam. The Tonkins, in the north, and the Annamese, in south. --MKnight9989 12:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnam was Never Divided 

message: The division of Vietnam is addressed in the "Exit the French" and "Diem Era" sections of the article. Both sections make it explicitly clear that the division of Vietnam was supposed to be temporary, pending national elections. South Vietnam and North Vietnam did become countries, however, when they were given diplomatic recognition by other countries.--219.77.138.192 08:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnam Divided 

message: :Image:Nguyen.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Nguyen.jpg