Quoted: Our greatest enemy then and today remains people like this... +1 www.restoringamerica.org/images/hanoi_jane2.jpg

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: THE UNITED STATES DID NOT LOSE THE WAR IN VIETNAM F'ing A! does anyone know the kill ratio? I have heard it was ~15:1  15 dead charlie to 1 dead US serviceman. If that figure is accurate, we kicked their asses by a long shot.

I don't care if the kill ratio was 1000:1, in the end the enemy held the entire country. That is a loss.  Even if we won every battle, we lost the country, lost the war.  Now I can understand why some want to spin it into something else but it doesn't change the facts and those are that the entire country is under communist control.

Bottom line is that LBJ and McNamara thought we were fighting a war of attrition when in fact is was the other way around.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: THE UNITED STATES DID NOT LOSE THE WAR IN VIETNAM F'ing A! does anyone know the kill ratio? I have heard it was ~15:1  15 dead charlie to 1 dead US serviceman. If that figure is accurate, we kicked their asses by a long shot. I don't care if the kill ratio was 1000:1, in the end the enemy held the entire country. That is a loss.  Even if we won every battle, we lost the country, lost the war.  Now I can understand why some want to spin it into something else but it doesn't change the facts and those are that the entire country is under communist control.

No, for us the war ended with the status quo ante bellum---the North in Communist hands and the South not.  After we withdrew, the South collapsed.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: THE UNITED STATES DID NOT LOSE THE WAR IN VIETNAM F'ing A! does anyone know the kill ratio? I have heard it was ~15:1  15 dead charlie to 1 dead US serviceman. If that figure is accurate, we kicked their asses by a long shot. I don't care if the kill ratio was 1000:1, in the end the enemy held the entire country. That is a loss.  Even if we won every battle, we lost the country, lost the war.  Now I can understand why some want to spin it into something else but it doesn't change the facts and those are that the entire country is under communist control. Bottom line is that LBJ and McNamara thought we were fighting a war of attrition when in fact is was the other way around.

you are correct sir. we won the battle, but lost the war

Quoted: I don't care if the kill ratio was 1000:1, in the end the enemy held the entire country. That is a loss.  Even if we won every battle, we lost the country, lost the war.

Yep.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: THE UNITED STATES DID NOT LOSE THE WAR IN VIETNAM F'ing A! does anyone know the kill ratio? I have heard it was ~15:1  15 dead charlie to 1 dead US serviceman. If that figure is accurate, we kicked their asses by a long shot. I don't care if the kill ratio was 1000:1, in the end the enemy held the entire country. That is a loss.  Even if we won every battle, we lost the country, lost the war.  Now I can understand why some want to spin it into something else but it doesn't change the facts and those are that the entire country is under communist control. No, for us the war ended with the status quo ante bellum---the North in Communist hands and the South not.  After we withdrew, the South collapsed.

And so if you retreat before the battle and lose the field, you didn't really lose?

Some of you guys must have gone to the Clinton School of Policy Spin.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: THE UNITED STATES DID NOT LOSE THE WAR IN VIETNAM F'ing A! does anyone know the kill ratio? I have heard it was ~15:1  15 dead charlie to 1 dead US serviceman. If that figure is accurate, we kicked their asses by a long shot. I don't care if the kill ratio was 1000:1, in the end the enemy held the entire country. That is a loss.  Even if we won every battle, we lost the country, lost the war.  Now I can understand why some want to spin it into something else but it doesn't change the facts and those are that the entire country is under communist control. No, for us the war ended with the status quo ante bellum---the North in Communist hands and the South not.  After we withdrew, the South collapsed.   And so if you retreat before the battle and lose the field, you didn't really lose? Some of you guys must have gone to the Clinton School of Policy Spin.

And you should go back to school and study history again.
It wasn't a BATTLE, it was a war.  Wars end.  We took our troops out of Germany recently and the Germans are still in control there...does that mean we lost WWII?
Yes, the Commies got what they wanted thanks to the media and spineless politicians here, but that doesn't mean the US military lost the war in Vietnam.  THEY WEREN'T THERE WHEN IT COLLAPSED, so how the hell could they lose it?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: THE UNITED STATES DID NOT LOSE THE WAR IN VIETNAM F'ing A! does anyone know the kill ratio? I have heard it was ~15:1  15 dead charlie to 1 dead US serviceman. If that figure is accurate, we kicked their asses by a long shot. I don't care if the kill ratio was 1000:1, in the end the enemy held the entire country. That is a loss.  Even if we won every battle, we lost the country, lost the war.  Now I can understand why some want to spin it into something else but it doesn't change the facts and those are that the entire country is under communist control. No, for us the war ended with the status quo ante bellum---the North in Communist hands and the South not.  After we withdrew, the South collapsed.   And so if you retreat before the battle and lose the field, you didn't really lose? Some of you guys must have gone to the Clinton School of Policy Spin. And you should go back to school and study history again.

I was alive during it.

It wasn't a BATTLE, it was a war.  Wars end.

Yes it did. And this one ended with the communists in complete control of the country and us running out with our tails between our legs. Do you remember the pull out?
I do.

We took our troops out of Germany recently and the Germans are still in control there...does that mean we lost WWII?

Big difference. The Germans are now our allies. Well, sort of. And it has been 51years.

In Viet Nam, what was the GOAL?
To prevent VN and thereby SEA from falling into communist hands.
Well....

Yes, the Commies got what they wanted thanks to the media and spineless politicians here, but that doesn't mean the US military lost the war in Vietnam.

I agree, the War was lost back here in the US. But it was still lost.  Nations lose wars, not just their militaries.

THEY WEREN'T THERE WHEN IT COLLAPSED, so how the hell could they lose it?

That pretty much makes it a surrender. Which, in reality, was exactly what it was.  Exactly. Nobody truly expected that when we pulled out that the communists wouldn't take the south. Everyone knew it would happen. Everyone.

At the one and only Braves game I went to at Turner stadium years ago I watched that putrid bitch walk arm and arm with Turner, Jimma Cartier* and Roslyn  (or whatever that zombie's name is) to their box seats.  Nobody booed or spit at them.

I am ashamed to say I booed but didn't spit.  It was my last visit to see the Braves.


*this is the same SOB who now agrees with Bush on the port deal.

Quoted: I was alive during it.

So was I.

Yes it did. And this one ended with the communists in complete control of the country and us running out with our tails between our legs. Do you remember the pull out? I do.

We withdrew because there was a lack of public support for the war, that is not the same as our military running out "with our tails between our legs."  If anything, it's more like a spoiled child saying "I'm taking my ball and going home," but that's another story.

Good post.  Couple of things I would like to point out.

1) 1973 War Powers Resolution forced the removal of troops from Indochina since Congress would not pass a resolution permiting the president to continue "hostilities" (Public Law 93-148, 93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542, November 7, 1973, Section 5b).

2) 1970 Cooper-Church amendment was the first of several laws passed to limit presidential powers during war time.

In short, our military won the war and Congress gave it away.

Shok

Great info.

BTW my dad is a VN vet.

The Domino Theory was incorrect.  What was happening in Vietnam was much more complex than that.

The War was not lost by us.  We won our part.  

The War was "lost" by the South Vietnamese.  They never really transitioned to being able to effectively run the War (or their country, for that matter).  Instead of picking up the ball, they were content to let us do the work while their corrupt leaders worked on making money and padding their own bank accounts.  Since the country we were fighting to protect was either unwilling or unable (or both) to ever take control of their own destiny, there could never be a "win" in a traditional sense.

The North Vietnamese, on the other hand, were very organized, very focused, very dedicated, and very well led.

I agree that the American public forced our withdrawl from Vietnam but in light of the fact that we had been there for 15 years with no significant or meaningful change in the situation -- and no real indication that anything was going to change -- I think they made the only decision that they could have made.  Remember that the American public was very patient and supportive of the War for a long time.  Having come out of WWII and Korea, they understood sacrifice and the need for it...but when they began to feel that the sacrifices we were making was for nothing, their patience ran out.

Those that fought in Vietnam were the best American soldiers that the world had ever seen.  They were better educated, better trained, and more professional than any other force in the world.  They did their job extremely well and deserved to be treated much better than they have been.

The pull-out had NOTHING to do with them but was the result of a confluence of circumstances that was beyond their control.  Perhaps it was beyond anyone's control...

Quoted: THE UNITED STATES DID NOT LOSE THE WAR IN VIETNAM, THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE DID. Read on........

Sorry, that should be:

"THE UNITED STATES MILITARY DID NOT LOSE THE WAR IN VIETNAM, THE PUSSIES AT HOME DID"

Our withdrawl from Vietnam guaranteed the collapse of South Vietnam. It really makes no difference if the enemy shoots you all or convinces you to go home. Either way, we're gone and their tanks are in Saigon.

TAG

Quoted: Those that fought in Vietnam were the best American soldiers that the world had ever seen.  They were better educated, better trained, and more professional than any other force in the world.  They did their job extremely well and deserved to be treated much better than they have been.

Absolutely. those guys were my heros grwoing up. Still are. And there is not a year that goes by that I do not appreciate what they went through and how well they fought to a greater degree.

The pull-out had NOTHING to do with them but was the result of a confluence of circumstances that was beyond their control.  Perhaps it was beyond anyone's control...

Perhaps.
Bad decision to become involved there IMO.

I would also question how patient the American population was. Support for the War in Viet Nam fell apart pretty early.  Conservatives understood but the socialists, with the media as allies, were able to wear that support down and eventually even conservatives decided we should get out due to the incredible lack of support here in the US.
It would do us all well to remember that TV was relatively new(we got our first TV in 1962 when I was 4) and in general people believed what they were told. We are somewhat more sophisticated now.  In any event it was used by the socialists as a very powerful tool in shaping public opinion on many things, including the war.

The JFK assassination had profound implications for the War and for the Cold War, social policy at home, etc.  A couple of bullets left LBJ in power, the worst President in the history of the United States.  With those shots it seems the fate of 58,000 American fighting men and that of the country went.  In all honesty, I still don't think we have recovered from the LBJ presidency.  Perhaps we never will.

Quoted: Those that fought in Vietnam were the best American soldiers that the world had ever seen.  They were better educated, better trained, and more professional than any other force in the world.  They did their job extremely well and deserved to be treated much better than they have been.

Lets not get too over the top, shall we? They were draftees, and I'll wager that the WWII generation were better soldiers as America hadn't quite pussified as much in the 40's, nor had the rampant drug problems that plauged the Vietnam-era military. Lets not even compare to the all-volunteer force of today.

Still, the rest of your post still stands. Even with the problems we had, we still kicked the balls out of everybody else, and they most definitely deserve much better than they got.

Quoted: Lets not get too over the top, shall we? They were draftees, ...

I respectfully assert that I am absolutely correct.  Draftees or not, I stand by my statement in full.  They may have not been as "military" or "spit and polish" as conventional wisdom would expect but they were the best of the day.  I can't think of a war in history where the individual soldier was in a more difficult situation.  They had to deal with so much crap (both over there and at home).  

I don't mean to appear to diminish the WWII or Korean War soldier.  At the core, the American fighting man has always been the best in the World.  The difference is in the training, education, equipment, and in some respects, the "non-conformist" nature of the soldier fighting in Vietnam. In spite of all the political, emotional, and public relations distractions they had to deal with, I think they did pretty damn well -- on a lot of levels.

Nor do I intend to rank them against our current forces.  For many of the same reasons, the World has never seen a better or more dedicated fighting force than the current American military.  I would always hope that each new generation of our warriors become better and more capable than the last.  Just like I want my son to be better and more successful than I have been.

Quoted: Quoted: Lets not get too over the top, shall we? They were draftees, ... I respectfully assert that I am absolutely correct.  Draftees or not, I stand by my statement in full.  They may have not been as "military" or "spit and polish" as conventional wisdom would expect but they were the best of the day.  I can't think of a war in history where the individual soldier was in a more difficult situation.  They had to deal with so much crap (both over there and at home).   I don't mean to appear to diminish the WWII or Korean War soldier.  At the core, the American fighting man has always been the best in the World.  The difference is in the training, education, equipment, and in some respects, the "non-conformist" nature of the soldier fighting in Vietnam. In spite of all the political, emotional, and public relations distractions they had to deal with, I think they did pretty damn well -- on a lot of levels. Nor do I intend to rank them against our current forces.  For many of the same reasons, the World has never seen a better or more dedicated fighting force than the current American military.  I would always hope that each new generation of our warriors become better and more capable than the last.  Just like I want my son to be better and more successful than I have been.

Spot on.

Quoted: Lets not get too over the top, shall we? They were draftees

erm, better look up your stats... since it's my understanding that a much higher percentage of WW2 vets were drafted than in Vietnam.

....not to put too much of a downer on this, but remember, there were 58,000+ guys like you and me, that can't post their opinions here.  What a waste of good people.  

Quoted: ....not to put too much of a downer on this, but remember, there were 58,000+ guys like you and me, that can't post their opinions here.  What a waste of good people.

Some say that's why the whole world is going to hell.  All sides took only the best people, and these people did their utmost, so they are dead.  What's left within the draftable generation?  A higher percentage of human garbage.  Sure, there are some good people left, but the others have a much easier time outbreeding them.


As far as the truth about Viet Nam, it was a bastard war that needed to be fought.  Young people nowadays forget or are brainwashed out of the fact that the USSR and China were virtually one when it came to opposition to the US.  If we did not stand up to them, they would feel it easy to roll us over/"bury us" as Kruschev said.  ANd, they would get a lot more proxy fighters from all the countries they had taken over to fight us.  China, in particular had to be shown we would fight and, we conveniently had a large force on their southern border.

The war was lost by stupid Americans, and dishonest, subversive americans (I refuse to capitalize them).

The stupid Americans were the ones who believed the LBJ lies and fairy tales, and the propaganda against Goldwater.  The Democrat lies were that Goldwater wanted to go nuclear and was a madman.  No, he was a poker player, and would bluff the Chinese and the Vietnamese and their Russian string pullers.  Those who were alive at the time may remember, though in another context, him saying: "As us Western poker players say, put up or shut up!" He also said, either get the war over fast (nuclear if necessary) or don't fight it.  A lot of those dead and wounded would be productive still if people had listened.  All he was saying was "shit or get off the pot."  But, the silly Americans who lived in a fairy tale world thought he was too mean.  So, they voted in LBJ.  He wouldn't make it a big war.  HAHAHAHAHA!  And, tears for the lives wasted, many friends among them.

The dishonest , subversive americans like jane fonda, and others like her, along with the news liars led astray even decent people.  What can one analyze?  The information one is given; and, if the information is bad, then what?

By the way, many will say jane fonda was only exercising free speech.  Not true.  If she marched around in front of the White House with a sign saying "Nixon is a scumbag" one might give her the benefit of the doubt, no matter how crude it might be. (I wasn't a big Nixon fan, but that kind of action would be distasteful, to say the least, but I'm exaggerating for the point.)  But, she went TO THE ENEMY.   The news didn't mention that aspect, they made her a heroine instead.  Shows what crooks they were: what would they have done had someone in 1943 gone to consort with Hitler?  Same deed; I think the reporting would have been different.  I'll put it this way, When Rep. Jim Wright of Texas had disagreements with President Reagan, and was in Europe, a newspaper there asked him about it in an attempt to get a sensational story.  His answer was that any disagreements or discussions "ended at the water's edge"  (menaing thay stopped at out side of the Atlantic).  I may have disagreed with Mr. Wright's politics, but I respected him as a man of honor, something unknown to Hanoi jane and her kind.

The war was thrown away by such fools.  Men and women died, we were made to walk away by a Congress populated by opportunists testing the political winds, and, what the teachers and history people like to ignore, we were prevented from supporting the South Vietnamese left behind.  The crooked diplomats, yes, the same ones who danced for a year in PAris while arguing of the shape of the lousy conference table while troops died, gave it all away through "Vietnamization" and then the Congress not supporting what they engineered.  

Now the bastards want to say the war was lost (implicitly, by the troops).

You know its funny --Ive met lots of guys who say they served in VN --some who did some of whom I had doubts but dont know one way or the other --- neither here nor there IMHO.  The funny part is that I have never met one single person --not one, who is proud or will even acknowledge being a VN war protester etc.

Quoted: Quoted: Lets not get too over the top, shall we? They were draftees erm, better look up your stats... since it's my understanding that a much higher percentage of WW2 vets were drafted than in Vietnam.

I don't mean to use the term pejoratively, sorry if that's how it came across. But on the flip side, do you want the guy that wanted to join the army or the guy whose only concern is to serve his 180 without getting shot?

The consensus I've read is that recruit quality dropped severly during times of draft because you had far less leeway to boot people. Yes, there are exceptions, but that's the general principle. That and the social situation the US was far less supportive and open to martial service during Vietnam than WWII, producing far less motivated draftees. This not to take away from their service or their sacrifice, but to call them the best American soldiers is inaccurate hyperbole.

Thank you CRC

Quoted: FOUR OUT OF FIVE WHO CLAIM TO BE Vietnam vets are not. Un believable! To all real Viet Nam vets out there, welcome home!   I know I wouldn't be here today if one vet hadn't returned...

With "all due respect," I have never really got into the "Welcome, home !"(This post is not directed at  mcnielsen in ANY bad way so please understand my point.) I guess because when I returned from Vietnam me and my companions were met by a Senior citizens group as we deplaned and thanked for our service and when I got home my family threw a big party for me and welcomed me home. I never felt mistreated, misunderstood or ashamed of my service by anyone. I know people do the "Welcome Home !" thing out of sincere appreciation and patriotism but I guess I was one of the fortunate sons and REALLY got welcomed home.

  Fifth Estate = Fourth Column!!  

Quoted:This not to take away from their service or their sacrifice, but to call them the best American soldiers is inaccurate hyperbole.

There is no doubt that the draft pulled more heavily from the less "well-off" classes.  There is probably no doubt that few -- regardless of class -- wanted to be there.  In addition, I doubt that there were very many that saw the War the same way as the public or the politicians saw it -- as in, "why the f*** am I here?".  They, as a group, didn't buy/understand/subscribe to the "domino" theory or any other of that bull.  They just wanted to stay alive and bring themselves and their buddies home.

Once again, in spite of all that, they did an absolutely outstanding job under absolutely insane conditions.  I think that alone makes them THE BEST.

Your use of the phrase "inaccurate hyperbole" is a bit disturbing to me.  I'm sorry but there is a lot of mis-information and mis-understanding about Viet Nam (on both sides of the political pole) and maybe I'm a bit over-sensitive about it.  In the end, you can get as academic and analytical as you want and you are entitled to your opinion.  For me, however, there is no doubt that they WERE -- insubordinate and unmilitary -- the best of their day and I, for one, am VERY proud of each and every one of them.

As the lucky owner of lottery #156 and having lived through that era, I highly doubt social position kept very many out of Nam.  When the Vietnam bell tolled you answered.  Exceptions were few and far between.

Quoted: As the lucky owner of lottery #156 and having lived through that era, I highly doubt social position kept very many out of Nam.  When the Vietnam bell tolled you answered.  Exceptions were few and far between.

Damn ! We must have lived in different countries with the same name !

A former North Viernamese general once said the NVA and Marines lost 4 million men and women in South Vietnam alone.  That doesnt include the ones killed in Cambodia, Laos or North Vietnam, and it doesnt include their naval and air force.  It damn sure doesnt include the VC who were shat upon by the North.

I read a few years ago that our adversaries death total could've bested 5.5 million.  You do the math.


There is no doubt, in my 25 year old mind, that the Troops, Marines, Sailors, Airmen, and Coasties  sent to fight Vietnam were/are one of the best fighting men this great country has ever produced.  

Quoted: A former North Viernamese general once said the NVA and Marines lost 4 million men and women in South Vietnam alone.  That doesnt include the ones killed in Cambodia, Laos or North Vietnam, and it doesnt include their naval and air force.  It damn sure doesnt include the VC who were shat upon by the North. I read a few years ago that our adversaries death total could've bested 5.5 million.  You do the math. There is no doubt, in my 25 year old mind, that the Troops, Marines, Sailors, Airmen, and Coasties  sent to fight Vietnam were/are one of the best fighting men this great country has ever produced.

I couldn't agree more. And whether they were draftees, high school dropouts, whatever, they were some of the baddest fuckers we ever sent to war and they sure knew how to kick ass.  Not to demean our guys now because they are an awesome fighting force but they have not gone through anything even close to what happened in Viet Nam. Not IMO anyhow.

Quoted: A former North Viernamese general once said the NVA and Marines lost 4 million men and women in South Vietnam alone.  That doesnt include the ones killed in Cambodia, Laos or North Vietnam, and it doesnt include their naval and air force.  It damn sure doesnt include the VC who were shat upon by the North. I read a few years ago that our adversaries death total could've bested 5.5 million.  You do the math. There is no doubt, in my 25 year old mind, that the Troops, Marines, Sailors, Airmen, and Coasties  sent to fight Vietnam were/are one of the best fighting men this great country has ever produced.

And don't forget that, at the same time, they were building hospitals, schools, roads, civil infrastruture, teaching, and yes, marrying into the people that lived there.  There is a much bigger story there than has ever been told -- or accepted.  Viet Nam was not just another War.

ETA:  If you are interested, a good starting point is Stanley Karnow's book, Vietnam, A History.  It is not the definitive work but it is a good framework to begin your study -- if you really want to know, that is.

Quoted: Quoted: As the lucky owner of lottery #156 and having lived through that era, I highly doubt social position kept very many out of Nam.  When the Vietnam bell tolled you answered.  Exceptions were few and far between. Damn ! We must have lived in different countries with the same name !

+ 1 Gazillion.  Ever heard of student deferment and the National Guard?

- a Gazillion.  You had to have a deferment or be able to get in the National Guard.  At least that's the way it was around here.  

Quoted: ETA:  If you are interested, a good starting point is Stanley Karnow's book, Vietnam, A History.  It is not the definitive work but it is a good framework to begin your study -- if you really want to know, that is.

I have the book.  I also have about 200 more books that I've read, and re-read numerous times.  I'm an addict to the time period.  I read everything I can get my fat hands on about the subject.  I've been that way for 15 years now.  I've owned every history teacher I've ever had when it comes to the subject.  I love history.

History is the foundation for the future.

History.  Its whats happening.

CLIFF NOTES:

Vietnam was a political failure, never a military one

Quoted: Quoted: ETA:  If you are interested, a good starting point is Stanley Karnow's book, Vietnam, A History.  It is not the definitive work but it is a good framework to begin your study -- if you really want to know, that is. I have the book.  I also have about 200 more books that I've read, and re-read numerous times.  I'm an addict to the time period.  I read everything I can get my fat hands on about the subject.  I've been that way for 15 years now.  I've owned every history teacher I've ever had when it comes to the subject.  I love history. History is the foundation for the future. History.  Its whats happening.

I'm with ya.  I think it is an outstanding book.  Truman said that the only history that is new is the history  you haven't read (Truman by McCulloch is another good one).  We wonder what is wrong with America?  I think I have figured it out -- coaches teach history.

JFK assasinated. LBJ takes over.  The rest is history.   11/22/63 - The Day America Fell.

tag

Quoted: JFK assasinated. LBJ takes over.  The rest is history.   11/22/63 - The Day America Fellthe day Dallas Police Officer JD Tippit was gunned down.

JD Tippit

America has never fallen.  We've stumbled, but never fallen, and by the grace of the big kahuna, we never will.

Sorry, we lost. We walked away. To say the South Viet Namese lost the war is a cop out. We went in and and we left .

Sorry, folks, we  lost. Deal with it.

Quoted: JFK assasinated. LBJ takes over.  The rest is history.   11/22/63 - The Day America Fell.

To correct it, the day America began to fail was inauguration day, 1961.  

Quoted: Sorry, we lost. We walked away. To say the South Viet Namese lost the war is a cop out. We went in and and we left . Sorry, folks, we  lost. Deal with it.

The facts are correct.  The loss squarely falls on the Congress, populatted to a greater extent than now with left wingers, who failed to support the agreements we made.  Vietnamization ultimately failed because the Congress walked away from our obligations.  Sure, the Members were responding to the politics of the time and the american people who wanted to live the child's life.  But, the Congress ultimately cast the votes which resulted in action.  No excuses, because the same creatures would say they "have a responsibility to exercise their own judgement"(and quote Burke in so doing)  when, for their own motives, they wish to go against their constituents.

I don't accept a simple "we lost" as it is simplistic, and carries with it the assumption, which the criminals in office wanted to foster, that the troops lost it.  They did not!

.

One other small tidbit of information regarding the Vietnam war, that most people don't realize is that the theory, as we were told by our leaders, for going there, was that if Vietnam falls, so will SE Asia, like Dominos.  
Here's what most people dont realize:  By making that statement, our leaders showed no confidence in the system of Democracy.  They thought the people of SE Asia would prefer communism to democracy.  Their fears were, ultimately, wrong.  Shows a lot of faith in our leadership

rj - are you hinting that our fate was sealed when the powers that be chose LBJ as VP?  If so, you may be right.