View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
C00LAS1CE
Joined: 14 Feb 2010
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 1:31 am Post subject: Korean War v. Vietnam War |
|
|
Having lived in Korea for almost a year now I've thought a great deal about how this country serves as perfect example when arguing in favor of US intervention. I think most Americans feel that every war the US has started/intervened in the past century with the exception of WW2 and Korea has been a blunder, but does it make one a hypocrite to say that Vietnam was a huge mistake and Korea was justified? While both are Cold War conflicts, with US intevention (backed by coalitions) following the invasion of Soviet-backed communist forces of Western-backed capitalist countries, there are striking differences between the two, mainly:
- Intervention in Korea was authorized by the UN
- Intevention in Vietnam was based on a lie (Gulf of Tonkin)
- The French had already had their asses handed to them in Vietnam during the First Indochina War. This alone showed the strength and dedication of Ho Chi Minh's forces and should've been reason enough for the US not to intervene in Vietnam. There was no historical precedent for intervention in Korea.
Keep in mind my information is based on what I've learned from the brief coverage of these wars in my American history courses and Wikipedia, so I'm sure there's a lot I'm missing. Discuss. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
hondaicivic
Joined: 01 Jul 2010 Location: Daegu, South Korea
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 2:50 am Post subject: Re: Korean War v. Vietnam War |
|
|
C00LAS1CE wrote: |
Having lived in Korea for almost a year now I've thought a great deal about how this country serves as perfect example when arguing in favor of US intervention. I think most Americans feel that every war the US has started/intervened in the past century with the exception of WW2 and Korea has been a blunder, but does it make one a hypocrite to say that Vietnam was a huge mistake and Korea was justified? While both are Cold War conflicts, with US intevention (backed by coalitions) following the invasion of Soviet-backed communist forces of Western-backed capitalist countries, there are striking differences between the two, mainly:
- Intervention in Korea was authorized by the UN
- Intevention in Vietnam was based on a lie (Gulf of Tonkin)
- The French had already had their asses handed to them in Vietnam during the First Indochina War. This alone showed the strength and dedication of Ho Chi Minh's forces and should've been reason enough for the US not to intervene in Vietnam. There was no historical precedent for intervention in Korea.
Keep in mind my information is based on what I've learned from the brief coverage of these wars in my American history courses and Wikipedia, so I'm sure there's a lot I'm missing. Discuss. |
One word: Geography. Korea was right between China and Japan and borders with Russia. Huge strategic importance right there. Vietnam is geographically in south-east asia. Less strategic importance. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Peabody
Joined: 24 Sep 2010 Location: here
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 3:31 am Post subject: Re: Korean War v. Vietnam War |
|
|
C00LAS1CE wrote: |
I think most Americans feel that every war the US has started/intervened in the past century with the exception of WW2 and Korea has been a blunder... |
So you're saying WW1 and Gulf War 1 are considered blunders by most Americans? I think you got another think coming...  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Slowmotion
Joined: 15 Aug 2009
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 3:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Vietnam war was stupid because we couldn't even officially go into North Vietnam. On top of that, the better trained and better equipped South Vietnamese troops were a bunch of sissies, the North and Vietcong fought relentlessly.
Similar situation for the Korea war. Funny how hard those communist troops fought just to live a crappier life. Look how it paid off for North Korea. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005 Location: Next to a River
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
On top of that, the better trained and better equipped South Vietnamese troops were a bunch of sissies |
They weren't all sissies, in the closing yrs of that war (maybe months) the paratrooper division held up and defeated 2 tank divisions.
They begged for bomber support and were told by the US that they could not intervene. It was only after the US left that they pulled thier socks up and knew that it was on them, but by then the US was willing to see them fall rather then support them.
If the US pulled out of Afghanistan so the locals know its on them to win the fight, but supported them with bombers and special forces, then the locals might actually win and the US could get over its Vietnam complex.
The reason the US lost was as much due to thier stupidity at times as it was to the strenght of the VC or the NVA. Though the VC pretty much ended as a fighting force after 1968 and the US fought the NVA but as a insurgency.
The final days were a fiasco, but to say that S. Vietnam died in 1975 would be a mistake. The Montarnagd people fighting for their war ended it in 1994. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Fishead soup
Joined: 24 Jun 2007 Location: Korea
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Both the Korean war and the Vietnam war were justified using the domino effect theory. If you watch old footage of American soldiers in Vietnam a common quote was" I'd rather be fighting them here than in Kansas"
Ironically the Comminist army of North Vietnam did domino. They defeated Pol Pot in Cambodia. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Greenman
Joined: 08 Feb 2010
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've always been more interested in the Vietnam war.
Better soundtrack. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
eamo

Joined: 08 Mar 2003 Location: Shepherd's Bush, 1964.
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm constantly amazed at how some Americans think it's justifiable to go to war because it looks like a country thousands of miles away will adopt a different political system to theirs. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
BoholDiver
Joined: 03 Oct 2009 Location: Canada
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No one should predict the strength of an enemy based upon the performance of the French army.
JUst sayin'. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
southernman
Joined: 15 Jan 2010 Location: On the mainland again
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's only called the Vietnam war in the west. Everyone in Vietnam calls it the American war.
That sums up what all Vietnamese think about it.
The Korean's who served in the Vietnamese war were ruthless and possibly the most feared of all the allied soldiers. Korea was/is strategically important. Vietnam was just warmongering to keep the arms maunfacturers and rednecks happy |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006 Location: China
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good post Southernman. The U.S.S.R. chose to use the North Koreans as proxies to tie up the U.S. Of course they would have loved to have had all of Korea to threaten Japan and to bully China.
Vietnam; our best general Maxwell Taylor thought it was a fool's errand. Just stupidity.
Eamo: think it through if the U.s. had not stopped Stalin you would not have a job. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
eamo

Joined: 08 Mar 2003 Location: Shepherd's Bush, 1964.
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
rollo wrote: |
Good post Southernman. The U.S.S.R. chose to use the North Koreans as proxies to tie up the U.S. Of course they would have loved to have had all of Korea to threaten Japan and to bully China.
Vietnam; our best general Maxwell Taylor thought it was a fool's errand. Just stupidity.
Eamo: think it through if the U.s. had not stopped Stalin you would not have a job. |
Yes I would! I'm assuming you're suggesting that, if not for the US, the Soviets would have taken over all of Europe and I would be speaking Russian now?
Well, the Soviets took control of lots of eastern European countries like Poland, Yugoslavia, etc......did they make those people start speaking Russian? That would be a no......they continued to speak their traditional languages.
Is that what you're talking about? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
rollo wrote: |
Eamo: think it through if the U.s. had not stopped Stalin you would not have a job. |
I don't understand why you keep pushing this idea. Even if you want to assume that, had the United States not intervened in Korea it would be impossible to get work teaching English in the hypothetical unified Korea (which isn't a given), what makes you think he couldn't have simply gotten a job somewhere else? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Fishead soup
Joined: 24 Jun 2007 Location: Korea
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fox wrote: |
rollo wrote: |
Eamo: think it through if the U.s. had not stopped Stalin you would not have a job. |
I don't understand why you keep pushing this idea. Even if you want to assume that, had the United States not intervened in Korea it would be impossible to get work teaching English in the hypothetical unified Korea (which isn't a given), what makes you think he couldn't have simply gotten a job somewhere else? |
Makes lots of sense. There are EFL/ESL jobs in Vietnam |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
eamo

Joined: 08 Mar 2003 Location: Shepherd's Bush, 1964.
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fishead soup wrote: |
Fox wrote: |
rollo wrote: |
Eamo: think it through if the U.s. had not stopped Stalin you would not have a job. |
I don't understand why you keep pushing this idea. Even if you want to assume that, had the United States not intervened in Korea it would be impossible to get work teaching English in the hypothetical unified Korea (which isn't a given), what makes you think he couldn't have simply gotten a job somewhere else? |
Makes lots of sense. There are EFL/ESL jobs in Vietnam |
There are even ESL jobs in North Korea.........and they actually prefer British passport holders like me! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|