Historical Things that were never talked about
View Single Post
December 21st, 2012 (3:54 AM).
From The New World
Originally Posted by
Your version sounds quite a bit glossed over itself. The military casualties of the US Army were quite small until the Tet Offensive, and were considerably smaller than the casualties of what was presumed to be the enemy then, and this was one of only two ways that "success" of the war could be measured (the other being another day passing without communism controlling the entire country as opposed to a portion of it being controlled by a US-backed autocrat). In that regard, it was a success.
But, what they definitely don't teach you in school is that the autocratic leader the US backed was so unpopular even 9 years before the first US involvement that he would have been voted out had the fair elections been held in 1956. Backing a wholly unpopular leader is what doomed the US's involvement from the start.
I didn't mean to imply that what I learned was the whole truth. I honestly think that we all learn different parts of the truth and that what we learn has a different bias depending on where we are from. The Tet offensive was definitely the worst of the war combat wise but there was also napalm related casualties and permanent damage from chemicals. It was a war that should have been left to the Vietnamise instead we got involved, backed an unpopular leader and suffered the consequences.
"We have to change our way of thinking if we
really want to change the future."
Discussion & Debates
Joined May 2012
GP, Gimme, Pie, Daniel
View Public Profile
Send a private message to gimmepie
Find all posts by gimmepie
Find threads started by gimmepie
Ignore Posts by gimmepie