Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 6

message: The article is generally POV in favour of the official US position. Which is not surprising since it is generally written by people exposed to the official US point of view over 50 years.
There is a tendancy to adopt the official line as true, particularly to assume stated war aims to be actual war aims. An example:
"Rolling Thunder was the code name for a sustained bombing campaign against North Vietnam conducted by United States armed forces during the Vietnam War. Its purpose was to destroy the will of the North Vietnamese to fight, to destroy industrial bases and air defense (surface-to-air missile or SAMs), and to stop the flow of men and supplies down the Hồ Chí Minh Trail."
Ww
:Yes, it is true that one of the main aims of Rolling Thunder when it began was to boost morale in South Vietnam, and that 'mission creep' set in after that, but beyond that you are incorrect to say that the above aims were false.  The entire intellectual underpinning of graduated response was to convince Hanoi to 'call off' the attacks in the South by demonstrating that the U.S. had the capacity to destroy the North, without actually having to go that far.  What are the war aims you had in mind that you do not feel are addressed here?  Cripipper 21:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV in favour of official US history

message: During the war North Korea sent fighter pilots to Vietnam, I feel we should add them to the official history. Links: N Korea admits Vietnam war role and North Korea fought in Vietnam WarCanpark 05:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it is mentioned now Istanbuljohnm 09:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: North Korean participation in Vietnam

message: Why is the My Lai massacre listed under the Nixon administration?  March 16, 1968 would have been the LBJ administration.
: Because the massacre would take on a great significance when it was descibed in detail in the US newspapers, in 1969, when Nixon was presidentIstanbuljohnm 09:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because stating the truth would make it on Johnson's (D) watch instead of Nixon's (R). I love how predictable Wikipedia is. Haizum 09:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To note, and all "liberal bias" comments aside currently neither the words "My Lai" or "Massacre" are mentioned in this article, and quite frankly if you feel it is being misrepresented, then change it.  That's what Wikipedia is based around. Haemo 07:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Lai massacre 

message: This article reads like it's about "Foreign policy of the United States during its war in Vietnam", rather than the Vietnam War.  Most of the action took place in South Vietnam, yet hardly anything is said about the social, economic, and political situation there (how did Thieu gain power? what was his rule like? what was the mood of civilian Vietnamese?) while minute details about the situation in faraway USA are discussed at length (Robbie Kennedy's candidacy, some guy's primary election fortunes in some tiny state, protests in a college in Ohio, US foreign policies post-Vietnam, etc.)  This article needs a serious rewrite, and needs to focus on where the action is. 207.178.224.50 22:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. A more appropriate title would be "U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War". Beit Or 17:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Centric 

message: I notice the article once said 'political defeat' and now 'Political and military' defeat in the war box, US won every single engagement of the war apart from the earlier Vietcong vicotories that fueled the US intervention.
Every single engagement of the war? Perhaps you have never heard of the fall of the Ashau SF border camp? Or the loss of Kham Duc - the largest American defeat of the conflict? RM Gillespie 01:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you cannot win a war with your military and later pull out because of that, then its a military defeat. Israel did a lot of damage and killing during the recent war in Lebanon, yet Hezbullah still came out the victor. Its the same thing. It doesnt matter how many battles you win or people you kill, its about whether you accomplish your objective or not.Khosrow II 00:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *U.S. troops were not withdrawn because of Congress pulling the funding for them.  They were withdrawn as part of Nixon's 'Vietnamization' plan. Cripipper 16:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No, the article clearly says that funds for the South Vietnamese government were cut off by Congress; by December there were no U.S. troops left in Indochina to fund.  By the summer of 1972 there were fewer than 25,000 U.S. combat troops left in the country.  By the time of the signing of the Paris agreements in January 1973 there were practically none.  All advisers officially left before the end of March 1973 (though many stayed on in different guises). Cripipper 00:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Defeat?  

message: Theirs not so much mention of the phillipine involvment! I want info on that!--Johnston49er 07:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phillipine Involvement 

message: e with the insurgency with the aid of U.S. materiel and advisers
:*Fixed. Cripipper 15:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Materiel (materiél) is the correct word. Cripipper 15:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo 

message: The article that states that the US Military was evacuating from the US Embassy is false. The helicopter is a "civilian" helicopter (Air America), and they were evacuating from an apartment building. 
"The picture of a Huey helicopter evacuating people from the top of what was billed as being the U.S. Embassy in Saigon during the last week of April 1975 during the fall of Saigon helped to establish this myth. 
 
This famous picture is the property of Corbus-Bettman Archives. It was originally a UPI photograph that was taken by an Englishman, Mr. Hugh Van Ess.
Here are some facts to clear up that poor job of reporting by the news media.
Facts about the fall of Saigon
It was a "civilian" (Air America) Huey not Army or Marines.
It was NOT the U.S. Embassy. The building is the Pittman Apartments. The U.S. Embassy and its helipad were much larger.
The evacuees were Vietnamese not American military.
The person that can be seen aiding the refugees is Mr. O.B. Harnage. He was a CIA case officer and now retired in Arizona."
Here is your source. 
http://www.vhcma.org/fact.html
I ask that you would change this to the facts, not popular speculation. Students use wikipedia as a resource, and false information does not need to be given.
70.61.253.210 16:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helicopter Evacuating Vietnamese Civilians from roof of US Embassy. 

message: Notably worse in this article than typical, I'm afraid.
With all the discussion about content, organization, and
subjectivity, this should not be pushed aside.
If anyone with authority wants a list of typos etc, I'd
be happy to provide one. (e.g. "hugh" io huge under Laos)
Breaking with good sense and suggested rules, I can even
provide an email address if you want. Or just leave word
on my Home page (Dan4J). 
I'm not familiar with "Editprotected", but willing
to use if it can be explained simply and it's OK.
Dan4J 22:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typographical Errors, Punctuation, Phrasing 

message: Why it's "600,000"? Civilian dead were some 900,000, not 1,000,000 (mostly South Vietnamese). --HanzoHattori 13:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Communist losses were 1,100,000 dead 

message: i have just created a new article about an air operation for the US that went perfectly 7:0 
7 MIG-21s, 0 F-4 phantoms 
it is called operation Bolo and i would like you guys to see 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bolo
Tu-49 01:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Bolo