I came to Australia as a Vietnamese refugee when I was 6 years old. My father died in action (navy) before I was born so growing up here "the war" was always on the back of my mind.

Feed by American Vietnam films and video games that portrayed enemy Vietnamese as a bunch of evil, merciless, unfeeling drones fully deserving to be napalmed and by mother's (like many soutern Viet refugees) own anti-communist bent I grew up hating the north Vietnamese. I grew up hating my northern countrymen.

I'm 30 years old now and my views have changed quite drastically. Whenever Vietnam "the war" rears it head there is a burning anger inside me like nothing else. This war was a colossal waste of life. An unnecessary war that was forced upon Vietnam because foreigners didn't want to let go.

What makes me angry is many fellow Vietnamese can't let go of the war and their anti-communist blabla. They want to hold on to the triple red-stripe yellow flag as if the the state it represents still exists. American films and video games that keep giving themselves the illusion of never being defeated. The Americans and their allies from the top down, despite their defeat, are remorseless for what their misadvanture had done to people who just wanted to be free of foreign domination.

Vietnam is no longer a war but a thriving country making real progress. Visit Vietnam now and you'll see the war was all for nothing.

I agee spacemoomoo.I almost went Vietnam to fight.In the early 80's I taught children of 85 different nationalities and mostly the children from your country were the most polite and eager to learn.
The US administration have yet to learn their lesson,but we still need a balance of power equation to temper the ambitions of China ,Japan,India or even Germany since their compassion will not equal that of the US, post WW2.Reguardless of how you view the US today,they still have the potential of good will and morality to let other countries have their own identity and self determination.
It is just a shame that fools like Bush are allowed so much power.

I watched Kubrick's 'Full Metal Jacket' with my 14 y.o. son the other day, and we were both struck by the depictions of the Americans and the Vietnamese, respectively. The Americans, having been brutalised by their military indoctrination, are bewildered at the lack of gratitude shown by the 'gooks' and 'zipperheads'. The Vietnamese, having been brutalised by the Americans and their allies (including us) and the French before them, are depicted as victims, fanatics or prostitutes. My son was astonished to learn that the Americans and their allies went to war 30 years ago on a false premise (the domino theory) and lost. "What was the point, Dad?" he asked, and I struggled to find an answer.

Our conversation then turned to the latest postcolonial war adventure created by America and its allies (including us) in Iraq, also based on a false premise (WMDs). "Are we going to lose again, Dad?" my son asked, and I again struggled to find an answer.

I finally replied to the effect that I don't think anybody wins or loses wars any more - or rather, inevitably everybody loses.

And in reply to Keith Suter: no, I don't think it was worth the shedding of one drop of blood. It was an utter, stupid waste of people and resources, without even the redeeming feature of having taught the losers a lesson.

The real question is why are we letting it happen again?

Very good question, Kenny. Collective amnesia perhaps? Blind gullibility mixed with good old Aussie racism? Neocolonial deputy-sheriff-ism? Leakage of merino alleles into the national gene pool?

Stuffed if I know, actually. Like hundreds of thousands of other Australians, I marched against the current Oil War, as I did against the Vietnam War.

Where is the love?

The context of Vietnam need be looked at not as an isolated issue but in the context of the world in the 1950s and 1960s.

Following on from Korea and Hungary the expansion and dictatorial pursuits of communism and the consequences of the “domino principal” being applied to SE Asia, it made good sense to draw and hold a line. The War, that Vietnam was a battle of, was a War “won” when the Berlin Wall was torn down and communism collapsed under the weight of its own corruption.

Indeed Col Rouge, it is important to remember that the battle for Vietnam had several positive and several negative effects.
Positive effects include the stopping or slowing of the communist steam roller in SE Asia.
Negative effects include the loss of military will due to the Big Media (thanks alot guys) and communist propoganda and demoralization in the USA. Followed by the loss of political will led to the encouragement of communist efforts in other places of the world.

It is a very messy situation, but it could have been worse, and it could of been better. If the USA and Australia had stayed the course, millions of lives world wide might have been saved.

The years immediately after the Vietnam war proved the domino theory to be incorrect. Like "weapons of mass destruction" the domino theory proved a false premise to go to war because communism never spread to the rest of Asia as was thought. Perhaps the reason for this was because it was a nationalist war to take back Vietnam's sovereignty and unite a country that was and kept divided by colonial powers?

For the south the transition to communism made no difference. People simply don't know. South Vietnam back then wasn't a shining light of democracy in Asia. Everything you thought the commies were; merciless, torturers, human rights abusers, corrupt, banned freedom of speech, association and free press...It was already there under the southern bureaucracy anyway.

For the US soldiers, like Iraq, it was opportunity to kill gooks, indulge in wanton destruction and engage in racist genocide. All backed up and given a legitimacy because they there to help the South Vietnamese and save the world from Communism.

The positive effects was that the North won a worthy victory. They were more determined, willing to sacrifice and in the end they achieved their objective. Vietnam won its sovereignty.

The negative was that more bombs were dropped on Vietnam than by all sides during the entire WWII, 80 million litres of agent orange dumped onto it, 3 million Vietnamese north and south died, Vietnam became an international pariah at the behest of a sore loser.

If there was any positive effects from the war it was, like now, the profits to be made from war by contracts to the American military. Over $US 50 billion was spent.

You're views are typically USA fan-boy perspective. Probably dismayed the US didn't use nuclear weapons on the gooks. Keep playing those video games.

SpaceCowMooMoo “You're views are typically USA fan-boy perspective. Probably dismayed the US didn't use nuclear weapons on the gooks. Keep playing those video games.”

I have an opinion.

I have a right to express it, without the asides or derogatory allusions contained in your infantile spate.

I have that right “to express” partly because someone decided to draw a line at Vietnam, instead of leaving all the “dominos” to fall.

As I said before – the “War” was won not on the “battlefields” of Vietnam but in the collapse of the Berlin wall and the liberation of the communist countries of Eastern Europe and the former USSR.

The remaining communist dictatorships will likewise fall – unable to maintain the subjugation of their populations in the face of superior democratic systems and the world will be a better place.

All, in part, because of the “resolution” displayed in Vietnam and the years subsequent to it. - Typically - Ronald Reagan was the architect who knew, with regard to the “Star Wars” initiative, a deterrent does not have to “work” to “work” as a deterrent.

That such a worldly respective is beyond your limited grasp comes as no surprise or disappointment. Pseudo-intellectuals / ineffectuals are, invariably, the source of their own frustration – I suggest you get used to it.

So postulate and pontificate all you want – but if you get “insulting” with me, I am quite capable of responding with something which outclasses any rudeness you are capable of attempting.

OOO-er. Col has an opinion and he has a firm grip on it and will continue to waggle it in your face despite an everest of facts to the contrary ;)

Was the Vietnam war worth it - as worthy as any war I guess where innocent citizens are gassed, bombed, burned and generally turned into mince.

While communism is far from perfect and I am v/pleased we are a democracy here - it is not as evil as the reactionary types would have us believe.

War is about power - who has and who wants it.

For Col just having a different POV is considered an insult by him.

"So postulate and pontificate all you want – but if you get “insulting” with me, I am quite capable of responding with something which outclasses any rudeness you are capable of attempting."

Col, bullying is not debating. I enjoy a stoush but your posts are more about thumping your 'opponent' than actually engaging a lively discussion.

My attempt at humour (above) will probably not help either, however I am getting very fed up at just how personally some posters take a difference of opinion.

Grey you are right – the problem with war – it is fought under conditions of some stress and lacks the opportunity of hindsight or reflective judgement.

A lot of things would have been different with better intelligence and understanding of the enemy.

Regarding the media circuses both current and Vietnam, to be honest, whilst the embedding of journalists into military units seems all the “rage”, like newsreels were in Vietnam –

The problem with “news” is it will interfere with the serious business of “War” and most seriously, to the detriment of the blokes we send to wage it.

Xena – to say I have ignored your posts is to endow them with more attention than they deserve.

Col your analysis of the links between European Communism and the communism in SE Asia is quite ignorant. Are you basing your assessment on any reputable historical account or your own amateur, bigoted ideas?

The domino theory was a lot of rubbish perpretated by frightened people who had no understanding of the situation. The same sort of 'fear' is what leads you and others to fear those 'illegal immigrants'.

Your hysterical fear of communism (and other cultures) is unfounded and is an insult to the strength and resilience of democracy and the power of economic growth to convert people.

The only countries in which communism has ever been successfully implemented are those in which the population were poor, disempowered and had never had any 'freedom' of choice.

There were people at the time who knew the Vietnam War was foolish and the whole idea of the 'domino theory' misunderstood by the US and Austtralia. They have been proved right and if you cannot see this, you need to read a bit of history rather than making up your own version.

Mollydukes – I am pleased you noted - my disgust of communism, just like any other malevolent force.

That you would prefer us all to suffer under the yoke of enforced subservience to the state is your choice, not mine.

Just remember the “model” I pursue entitles both you and I to free expression and democratic elections. The socialist/communist model is the one which subjects everyone to the omnipotent power of the faceless bureaucrats and party machine of the levellers and a straight jacket of no-choice conformity, where we suffer “equally” whatever rubbish the state decides we are fit to receive and without a right of reply or expression.

Suggest I am bigoted all you want. When you express your one eyed view, you have to rely on cheap lines to get attention.

Allude to what were real fears for many people as much as you care.

Suppose I am fearful if you wish ( not that there is anything I have ever written to suggest I am xenophobic –the last BBQ I held at my house had people born in 9 different nation states – from Communist China to USA and including Sri Lanka and Germany - hardly the BBQ of someone “fearful of other cultures”, as your own pitiful and absolute ignorance claims.

If you think there is anything of merit in the rubbish you pedal – I suggest you first go ask someone from a previous communist block country – they have had the “real” experience of it – and not the “pseudo-intellectual theory-fest”, best viewed through the haze which is induced by a nice bottle of Chardonnay.

Not only was the war worth it but as Michael Lind says in his book of the same name (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684870274/qid=1115282967/sr=8-2/ref=pd_csp_2/002-0606768-8882425?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) it was necessary. The US was involved in a life and death struggle with the Soviet Empire. Vietnam was one battle in that war. The US could not be seen to be abandoning states and people to the Marxists. To do so would be to indicate to its allies that it was not up to the battle, inviting those allies to seek an accommodation with the Soviets. Every advance and expansionist move by the communists had to be opposed or else those who were under threat would not feel able to rely on US protection and thus would seek other accommodations. So we have Korea and Berlin. Neither strategically vital but each had to be saved to demonstrate that the US was willingly to do so.

Several people have claimed that the domino theory was proved false. But this is not clear. By fighting the war the US bought 10 years to stablise those nations that were potential dominoes. Even so, dominoes fell and not just in S-E Asia. In the years following the US defeat we had series of states fall under the communist sway as the US lay paralysed and unable to respond - Cambodia, Afghanistan, Angola, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Yemen, Benin, Congo, Zaire, Verde and Madagascar. We also had the example of détente as erstwhile allies sought to come to an arrangement with what seemed to be the rampant and victorious Soviets. Meanwhile the Soviets were so buoyed by the withdrawal of the US that they expanded into the Third World and in their hubris saw no problems in waging aggressive war in Afghanistan.

Defeat in the war saw a long US retreat only arrested by the rise of Reagan, Thatcher, John-Paul 2 and Walesa. Even so, to have not fought it would have carried even worse consequences for those states in S-E Asia that were in the path of the world revolution. Many states were spared the killing fields of Kampuchea because of the Vietnam War

It is important to remember that in Vietnam, the war to which Keith Suter refers is known as the 'American War'.

Well, was the 'American War' worth it? For the Vietnamese the answer must be an overwhelming YES!

In 2005, there no American military base on Vietnamese soil, nor any Chinese or Russian. Vietnam today, despite an unsuccessful 20 year post war economic blocade by America, is a prospering FREE nation which attracts foreign investment on VIETNAMESE TERMS.

In 2005 there are fourteen (14) permanent American miliary bases under construction in IRAQ.

30 years on, the declining American Empire still maintains an overwhelming yet increasingly weaker network of military bases to enforce its economic will. This will to dominate by force is declining with America's waning economic superiority. Like America's increasingly bankrupt economy, it will eventually collapse as with all such imperial powers, much the same as the Soviet imperial model which imposed its military will on soverign peoples.

The American War was a 20 year demonstration by America that it would not give away its illegal possession of Vietnam. Likewise it has become apparent in only a fraction of that time that America is just as determined to keep its newest illegal possession of IRAQ. Whether after 20 or 30 years of destructive war the same inevitable final defeat of American imperialism in the middle east is assured.

Looking back in 30 years the FREE peoples of Iraq will also say this war was worth it.

Col It’s a bit funny (perhaps obsessive?) the way you latch onto the word ‘communism’ and then apparently stop reading and begin pounding your keyboard.

You missed the whole point of my sentence and you also seem to be imagining things. I must have used invisible ink when I referred to you as a bigot, or was you dreamin’?

What I said was that your fear of communism coming to Australia is ludricrous, because democratic countries do not become communist. It is dire poverty and dissaffection with the current regime that provides the seeds for communism.

I am not quite sure what mhaze means when he says that the US bought 10 years by their militaristic adventure in Vietnam.

It is also not the case that because a few countries in SE Asia became communist, that the domino theory was correct.

It wasn’t the influence of the Marxists from China or the Soviets who contributed toward these countries falling. It was dissatisfaction with the governments and colonial masters that they had.

The US could have been far more effective in preventing the spread of communism if it has addressed these issues rather than upholding the corrupt South Vietnamese Government.

Over 2 million vietnamese were killed during the war.
Hundreds of thousands continue to suffer the effects of the chemical warfare which was used by the US against them. Thousands of children are born each year in Vietnam with birth deformities linked to the dioxin in Agent Orange.
I wonder what percentage of people would see any positive effects of the war.
I wonder that no members of the loosing side were convicted of war crimes.

I wonder if every country could have a ministry of Peace with a healthy budget if we would have all these wars.

Peace

Mollydukes asks what I mean by the US buying 10 years via the war. When Kennedy first committed troops many of the boardering states were in no position to withstand a determined communist offensive. Had the south fallen in the mid '60s many other states would have been under the pump. The war gave the US and the west 10 years to shore up those states so that by the time the war was lost the boardering states (sans Cambodia) were in a position to resist.

Mollydukes also tells us that the states that fell under Marxism in the 1970’s did so without “influence of the Marxists from China or the Soviets”. So the massive Chinese material support for Pol Pot, the Cubans in Angola, the Russian “advisors’ in Ethiopia, half the Russian army in Afghanistan – these had no influence? The fact is that, after the US defeat, as predicted by the domino theory, the Soviets saw the tide of history turn in their favour and they sought to export revolution everywhere they could. Until Reagan the US was impotent to stop them.

Mark, the influence from the 'communists' would have had little effect if the people in those vulnerable countries had believed there was any other alternative to the miserable lives that they were leading.

The question is why were they so unaware of the relative benefits of communism and free-enterprise systems and why did they not understand that they too could participate in the sort of economy that the first world enjoyed?

LOL, what do you mean ‘the Soviets saw the tide of history turn in their direction’? That is very impressive histrionic rhetoric but quite meaningless.

Poor Ronnie, no need for me to point out his failings. You'd have to be a ‘true believer’ to attribute the fall of the Soviet Union to him and his incompetent military exploits.

You write ‘they sought to export revolution everywhere” - as if revolution was a package that can just be carried into a country and lo and behold everyone rises up and institutes some loony dictator who will make their lives even worse?

I do wonder why you are so unsure of the power of capitalism. Do you not understand that communism needs the fertile soil in which to flourish and the promise of economic wealth is a much more powerful weapon with which to kill the seeds, than an army?

Mollydukes “You missed the whole point of my sentence and you also seem to be imagining things. I must have used invisible ink when I referred to you as a bigot, or was you dreamin’?”

I am not sure how you can pretend you did not suggest something, when up this page you write

Posted by Mollydukes, Wednesday, May 04, 2005 7:26:53 PM
”Col your analysis of the links between European Communism and the communism in SE Asia is quite ignorant. Are you basing your assessment on any reputable historical account or your own amateur, bigoted ideas?”

In which part of "amateur bigotted ideas" do you not suggest I am a bigot - maybe you were deluding yourself that you did not write it - but then you do not have opportunity to follow Stalins way and erase all history of people who offend you as he did - just as you cannot erase your own hypocrisy when it suits you.

Now if you had a clue about anything and appreciation of what happens beyond the distance of your own nose, you would realise that the war in Vietnam, as several other posters, as well as myself, have indicated was not simply about “Vietnam” but about stemming the tide of communism.

One of the things you seem enjoy indulging in is "freedom of expression" of your views.
I can only assume you would be one of the first to complain at the censorship of individual views and choices under the oppressive socialist regimes – the exact type of political system you seem to whimsically support and would have us all “indulge” in. That is hypocrisy and humbug, the delusions of the ignorant, and those too shortsighted to see how dark the shadow is cast by the “nanny state”.

Oh dear,
The anonymity of the internet post is definitely getting in the way of intelligent debate here folks.
I hate to be a bureacrat - a system incidentally which is common to both "capitalist" and "socialist" governments (actually a place where power accumulates under almost any form of governance, forgive my ignorance otherwise) - but we did all sign up to a few rules of engagement:

- Please keep responses on topic.

- Do not flame.

- Do not "shout" (use capital letters excessively).

The third rule is certainly a bit restrictive, my reading ears were blasted by the incendiary language and abusive rhetorical techniques being employed by more than one poster in the Suter chain on Vietnam using lower case letters...
To be honest, the first rule is where we are all losing the plot really. Let's keep comments about the individual poster off limits for the sake of our obligations under the agreement, and also human decency, and stick to the subject matter please.
Are the administrators awake? Some of the posts in this chain are offensive.
We are here trying to discuss the problem of the aggression of nations while we openly exhibit extremely aggressive behaviour to one another. Luckily we are not facing one another with a modern military arsenal.

Vietnam the war (of words) still lingers.

Any war is terrible and wasteful– the war against the Nazis and their allies was horrific but it was necessary unless we all wanted to live in under barbarian slavery. There is no doubt that the punitive policies of the Versaille Treaty following WW1 along with the social destructive impact of the Great Depression provided a fertile ground for the rise Hitler and his Nazis and all the atrocities that followed.

It is obvious by some of the comments posted there is very little knowledge of the world as it was then, so I can only suspect that most of the commentators are young. The rise of Communism as a world revolutionary movement not unexpectedly found appeal amongst the exploited in the colonial dominated nations of the world.

Ho Chi Minh learnt Communist myths, first in France, then in the Soviet and from his experience with the Maoists in China, he applied them in Vietnam. First against the French Colonisers, in which he earned brownie points in the eyes of many Vietnamese, but the brutality of the revolutionaries scared many others, hundreds of thousands who fled south in 1954.

Ho Chi Minh and his cohorts backed by both the Soviet Union and China, started the war against his fellow countrymen in the South of Vietnam (who were in turn backed by the Americans), after Geneva in 1954. Yes I know the arguments both for and against ‘the elections’ that were mooted at Geneva and the pros and cons of the domino theory – there are protagonists on both sides. To the arguments put forward in Keith Suter’s article, there are equally strong and pertinent arguments that oppose his, and on either side there are many suppositions that can never be tested. History shows that Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos succumbed to Communism, millions died under Pol Pot, millions fled from Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, similar numbers suffered imprisonment, torture, on occasions death in the re-education camps scatted through out Indo-China. Hundreds of thousands died in their escape from those three sad countries.

Bagsy

Vietnam was an unecessary war.If America wasn't there in the sixties and seventies,Vietnam would have converted to the free market system many years ago.With all the good intentions of the US, it was the worst decision to be there,both for the US and the peoples of Vietnam and Cambodia.Too many have suffered and died for no result.How could the US have supported Pol Pot who murdered over a million directly and was responsible for another two million starving to death in Cambodia?

It is not only Japan who should admit their mistakes,but also America and China who should come clean,since they will be destined to repeat their errors without some act of contrition.

The development of the Cold War after WW2 was a focal point for Western unease and resistance to Communist expansion both in Europe and in Asia. That is a fact of life. Despite their propaganda every Communist regime was oppressive and either through crazy economic policies or totalitarian control was responsible for the deaths and suffering of their populations. In the Soviet Union, China and in Cambodia those deaths were measured in millions, in Vietnam no one knows the total but there were hundreds of thousands in the North before the 1954 partition alone. The collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe prompted the development of the market economy in China and Vietnam because of the Communist leadership in those countries feared for their own control. They remain only communist in rhetoric but they still maintain their power by being police states if not as totalitarian as they were initially.

Vietnam is still more repressive than the inept and variably corrupt republican governments that existed in the South before 1975. As for corruption, the current Vietnamese prime minister said last October that corruption threatened to bring down the regime. Why is corruption so pervasive? Because there are still no checks and balances, there is no democratic suffrage where alternative ideas can flourish and challenge the dictated orthodoxy, there is no free press that can publicly challenge government over bad policies and so on. (There is no public Opinion websites for instance.) There is no doubt that the standard of living is improving with the freer economic climate and that peoples’ lives are improving, especially in the cities. In time things will change.

I really enjoy Vietnamese culture which has been steadily freeing itself from Marxist strictures. I admire their art, their spirit, the friendly openness of the ordinary person. Despite daily Government TV propaganda about the glorious heroism of the revolutionary struggle, young Vietnamese just want get on with living and enjoy some of the fruits of their labour, the old, the poor and the handicapped Vietnamese if they have no family, are often left to struggle to survive.

Bagsy

Arjay - disagree - the necessity was as real as fighting the Japanese in WWII and the war which should have been fought to prevent the annexation of Tibet by China.

Whilst the French stuffed up Vietnam, with a common border to China and the historic experience of clandestine military transfer and soldiers from China to North Korea during that conflict, Vietnam would not have evolved into a free market economy as you claim anyore than China is evolving into a democracy (regardless of its "free market status").

VIETNAM-''What a waste''

It's a shame that Vietnam in all its turmoil has become a capitalist
country.Communist freedom has been lost to materialist globilization,and to say that ''strict communist lines'' have failed to run and unite the country is true,however can we blame any ''western influence'' or interference in this failure.
Has the resentment torwards American or other cultures of the world been supreesed only becouse of the growing joining to the rest of the nations.in other words,has a accepting of a foriegn idealistic demorcratic society,been placed upon the people and culture of vietnam,against there will and a sell-out of their traditional politics and culture,all for that coca-cola outlet or the local Mcdonalds,all for profit at the expence of the people and land.
if communism has failed then the Vietnam war in its waste and misery could have been avioded,what was the purpose of a communist takeover?,it has been tamend by a capatitilist master.
As it stands however,the United States and her allies have in fact ''won the Vietnam battle'',the war has been lost but the battle has been won.
The fighting war was lost when the nation fell to the north communist rule,resulting in a nation united in a common fellowship.
The battle,however,has now been won as the communist rule is failing and a capitalist society is now emerging.with western or outside influences growing with each decade.
Over the long battle ahead traditions may not be lost fully or replaced by the market system and economic growth will not be solved by capatilism fully,its a nation that can not adapt fully as its traditions will not allow a demorcratic form of rule(simuler to the current middle east transformations)and they will face many challengers as other materialistic global nations.

Vietnam has always been fighting for INDEPENDENCE and its own social values.
A new ideaology has come to Vietnam with their traditional values now becoming a lost generation and with the Soviet Union collapse in 91,she lost her much needed support,thus,Vietnam started to open-up to foriegn commercial penertration,despite all this tranformation however the nation will see only slow growth over the next degades as capitallism extends its deadly virus into another nation,changing its traditional culture and values.
The world mourns as another nation is overcome and communism,along with national socialism(THE 2 GREATEST FORMS OF POLITICAL/SOCIAL GOVERNMENT)dissapears from the world stage,destroyed by the parrasite called democracy and its symptoms-materialism and capitalism.

The war was completey worth it in the method of Forward Defense