Talk:Vietnam War

The Philosophical Concept of the Asian's Contempt for Time

I appreciate everyone's interest in the Vietnam War since I'm an American Vietnam veteran so here's something to mull over: the Asian's "contempt for time". The Vietnamese didn't care how long it took for their country to unify, five years or a hundred years. It made no difference to them. Ho Chi Minh (which means "The Enlightener", his real name was Nguyen Tat Thanh) said that the American people would not stand for a prolonged war in Southeast Asia. Americans like tasks completed on a set schedule. So no matter how many foreign countries might occupy Vietnam, Vietnam would eventually become a unified, independent country. They just had to wait. 69.104.54.170 (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Sgt. Rock

So what do you thneeds addresing the the articel to cover this?Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely you're misstating the case? The Vietnamese may have been prepared to wait a hundred years if they had to, but that's a long way from saying they didn't care how long. Paul Magnussen (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's a culture clash--the Vietnamese were Buddhists primarily and they tend to be fatalistic; also corruption was the way they did business (very overtly, in contrast to Western cultures who attempt to hide their corruption); so this contrast between East and West was formidable, we still don't understand them and they still don't understand us. The Chinese ruled Vietnam for a thousand years but the Vietnamese didn't inbreed with them, they kept their ethnic identity and thus maintained their country's integrity for a thousand years. --I guess they're used to waiting. The mysterious Orient. That's why I think a section for this article covering the Vietnamese point of view would prove illuminating. Any South Vietnamese out there living in the USA reading this article? We sure would like to hear what you think--would it be comparable to the South in the American Civil War being decimated by the Northern States? I know Southerners in the Deep South who are still angry even though the Civil War ended 145 years ago. Vietnam is a great country, by the way, and would make a top-notch vacation mecca. You're right on the ocean, with terrific beaches. The Vietnamese could make billion$ of dollars off tourism. But I digress. 71.157.182.121 (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Sgt. Rock

pyrrhic victory?

It should be fair to declare the N. Vietnemese as a pyrrhic victory due to large ammount of heavy casualites and lose of equipment it took to reach the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.175.238 (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Tough one as it was also a total vistory, they took over the whole country.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(commenting in haste) Is this as viewed from the viewpoint of the victors or as viewed from some other viewpoint? If other info exists which meets WP:DUE criteria, then the article should give that info due weight, citing supporting sources. If not, it should not. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I can get sources that could state such a fact. I mean, the North won sololy by objective but over all tactically, they lost just about every battle they were ever engaged. After you take into account: over all allied loses were about 300,000 while North Vietnemese were over a million. (not counting N. Vietnemese allied loses). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.175.238 (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Your source would have to say it was a pyrrhic victory. I would also point out that the SVN sufferd over 1 million casualties (The usa was not the only country inviolved you nknow). Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

My numbers it only counter deaths, not wounded or missing. Second, I know that the US wasn't the only nation invovled, which is why I used the term allied, not US. Point being is that though the N. Vietnam did secure there over all objective, they lost just about every battle and lost about 4 men for ever 1 they killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.175.238 (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

LONGEST WAR??

How can Afghanistan be the longest war in American History? It says here this shit lasted for 20 fucking years! (1955-1975) Jesus. Does anyone have an explanation for this?

Well for a start the USA withdrew in 1973. thats 18 years (note the lack of expleative, it was hard but someone had to do it).Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

American G.I's and troops were sent in year approximately 1963-1964 and the final evacuation 1973 (or 1975 but 1973 was the mass exodus) thats approximately 9-12 years. Afghanistan, troops were sent in approximately 3 months after september 11th 2001 and are still there today June 2010. So in a perspective it is the longest war in 'american' history. There is a good link here (that could be skewed to the perspective that the reporter was wanting but you would never officially find that out) here with a good paragraph below this reply. Hope that helps. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The Vietnam War's length can be measured in many ways. The formal beginning of U.S. involvement often is dated to Aug. 7, 1964, when Congress passed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, giving the president a virtual carte blanche to wage war. By the time the last U.S. ground combat troops were withdrawn in March 1973, the war had lasted 103 months.

U.S. forces attacked Afghanistan on Oct. 7, 2001. On June 7, the war will complete its 104th month

This artical is not even relevent but since I started to type, the Korean war is the longest war for US forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.175.238 (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

When did the Vietnam War Start?

How did the Vietnam War start.

I don't have clear answers and I need some please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironclad 16 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Okay,here is how the war started: Diem was executed in 1963 and the following year the North Vietnamese started a massive anabasis (invasion) into South Vietnam. To counter this the U.S. landed 3,500 Marines at Da Nang in March of 1965 and by the end of that year there were 200,000 U.S. troops in-country. That's it, pure and simple.Silver Bayonet (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. had Military advisers in Vietnam for sometime. However a decision was made in 1965 to carryout a build up of U.S. Forces to a massive extent. The strategy being that the opponents to the American backed South Vietnamese Government would back down in the face of overwhelming inferiority to U.S. Military strength. What we now call 'The Vietnam War' grew from a refusal of the Vietnamese groups apposed to American involvement to accept that they could not resist such an American Expedition, and the U.S. refusal to back away from the commitment they had so publicly made. Both Americans and Vietnamese then found themselves locked into an escalating spiral of violence where both sides accused the other of intransigence.Johnwrd (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

And to explain the success over many years of North Vietnam's war effort, the slow buildup of US involvement gave North Vietnam ample time to match that buildup. The lesson might be that in territorial wars, outsiders must implement their "overwhelming" superiority quickly and effectively, not just allow it to be inferred. Otherwise the territorial opponents are able to mount an effective defense, and even a respectable offense against the outsiders.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  06:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

According to conventional wisdom, at any rate. This is not necessarily the whole story. There is, in fact, much debate as to the exact causes of the war. Gingermint (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Start date of war

MAAG-Indochina was renamed MAAG-Vietnam in November 1955 only because the French dissolved their Indochinese administration at this time. I find it bizarre that anyone would use this as the start date of a war. In early 1958, Vietnam was generally viewed as a country at peace: "The country has enjoyed three years of relative peace and calm", according to P.J. Honey, a British journalist who visited Vietnam in early 1958.[1] Bernard Fall's July 1958 article claiming that a new war had begun was big news and quite controversial. The North Vietnamese Politburo formally approved war in March 1959, although the real decision must been made earlier, perhaps in early 1958 when Le Duan became top leader. The first Vietcong vs. ARVN large unit military action was in September 1959. Encarta gives the dates of the war as 1959-75. Kauffner (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The start date and the reasons for the war are in dispute. The article should reflect this. Gingermint (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• As talked about in the Richard B. Fitzgibbon, Jr. article the start of the war was officially moved to Nov. 1, 1955 by the American Department of Defense in 1998. The November 1955 date was chosen as the new start date because that was when the Military Assistance Advisory Group ( MAAG ) that reorganized from a general Indochina into the different countries that the deployments were stationed. This is shown in the following sources: Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant By A. T. Lawrence Pg20 and defense.gov release. Should the start date be moved to 1955? -- Esemono (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Good question hard to answer for historians. As a political scientist with numrerous publications on Vietnam in French, I'd say in 1956 when the time of general referendum for reunification came without any referendum. At the 1954 Geneva Accords, Zhou Enlai out manouvered all in pressing Pham Van Dong to accept the temporary partition of Vietnam in two temporary military regroupment zones, making the Vietnamese fighting the American for the Chinese to finish the 0-0 Korea War and making the American fighting the Vietnamese (see Joseph Buttinger "The smaller dragon")for the Chinese. The 1979 Third Indochina War or SinoVietnamese War made it evident well after the event (Freudian-Laplanche "après-coup"). -- Takima (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Start date of war

November 1, 1955 is given as the start date of the war based on this press release. But the release doesn't say anything about the start date of the war, but only about "the earliest qualifying date for addition to the database and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial." The renaming of MAAG-Indochina as MAAG-Vietnam hardly qualifies a major historic event. I would define the start date as the first large unit military action, which was 26 September 1959.[2] Only four Americans are on the wall with death dates earlier than this, which seems a thin reason to push the date forward by four years. Kauffner (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The government killed over 2000 communists cadres in anti-insurgency anti-VietMinh drives in 1958. Actually the first attack was an ambush on February 12, 1958 when insurgents killed the occupants of a South Vietnamese army truck. On October 22, 1957 13 Americans were wounded in bomb attacks. In 1956 South Vietnamese government controlled papers started referring to communists as Viet Cong (A shortened version of Viet Nam Cong-San which means "Vietnamese Communist"). From 1955 till the NLF was created the VietMing engaged in a low level armed campaign of intimidation and assassinations in support of winning the election to reunite the country. And IMO all anti-South-Vietnamese-government attacks should be included in the Vietnam War such as the Battle of Saigon (1955) and the suppression of the Hòa Hảo sect. The "Vietnam Veterans Memorial" is for people who died in the Vietnam war and the American qualifying date for the start of the Vietnam War is 1955. -- Esemono (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are going bring in the sects, what about all people killed in the North as a result of Land Reform 1954-1956? Eligibility for the Vietnam War Memorial has nothing to do with when the war started, especially when the dividing line is something arbitrary like the renaming of MAAG. Journalists writing in early 1958 thought Vietnam was at peace. Bernard Fall was the first notable writer to claim that a new war had begun (July 1958).[3] IMO, this is earliest reasonable date to use. The latest reasonable date would be the communist offensive in January 1960, or Dong Khoi uprising. Kauffner (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

So attacks against Americans on October 22, 1957 don't count[4]? The attack against South Vietnamese army on February 12, 1958 doesn't count[5]? Killing and massacres of South Vietnamese government officials, like the 1957 Chau Doc massacre, don't count[6]? It's not only the American start date that changed but in 1955 Diem solidified his power and started the Vietnam War by attacking all his opponents in South Vietnam and then rigging the election. -- Esemono (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Note number 15 was attributed to me, where, under Annotations, it states, “The November 1955 date was chosen as the new start date because that was when the Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) that reorganized from a general Indochina into the different countries that the deployments were stationed.[15]” This sounds disjointed and is not what I wrote. I recommend the sentence presently appearing be deleted and replaced with the following: “U.S. government reports currently cite November 1, 1955, as the commencement date of the “Vietnam Conflict,” for this was the day when the United States Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) in Indochina (deployed to Southeast Asia under President Truman), was reorganized into country-specific units and MAAG Vietnam was established.” A. T. Lawrence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.250.184.150 (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph 3, Note number [182] states as follows: 3. ^ On May 6, 1965 the first American combat troops the, Third Marine Regiment, Third Marine Division, are sent to Vietnam to protect the Da Nang airport.[182]

I don’t believe this is correct; Marines arrived on March 8, 1965. I wrote the following in my book, Crucible Vietnam, on page 27:

“on the 8th of March 1965, 3,500 Marines of the 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade, the lead element of the 3rd Marine Division, stormed ashore near Da Nang, about 100 miles to the south of the DMZ, to become the first U.S. ground combat troops to set foot upon Vietnamese soil (the 1st Marine Division would be dispatched to Vietnam one year later).”

Source: A. T. Lawrence, author of Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173, p. 27.

I don’t believe this represents the start of the Vietnam War, but I believe it does mark “the arrival of U.S. ground combat troops in Vietnam.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.141.103.15 (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this "start date" of the war and I think for the Americans it was March 8, 1965 when the Marines landed. Here's why: the American Civil War started when Fort Sumter was fired on, yet for decades before that the North and the South had been at cross purposes with all kinds of eruptions happening. Why not use John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry in 1859 as the start date for the Civil War? Or the slave Nat Turner's uprising in 1831, etc? The battle plans for WWI were drawn up in 1895! I think we need to commit our entire military for an official start date to be established. The problem with Vietnam is that there was no official declaration of war by the U.S. (the closest thing might be the Tonkin Gulf Resolution on Jan. 7, 1964). Therefore the start date for the Vietnam War seems to be arbitrary, yet we know the exact date the Marines landed in Vietnam, so I would regard the Marines landing on March 8, 1965 as the actual military start date of the war. What do Wiki editors think about this approach to the dilemna? 71.157.182.121 (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Actual Military Start Date of Vietnam War

The Vietnam War for the U.S. Military was divided into 17 Campaigns (it is further divided into 30 Campaigns for individual Service requirements). The first Campaign was The Advisory Campaign which started on March 15, 1962. The last Campaign was the Cease Fire Campaign which ended on Jan. 28, 1973 (it officially ended on March 28, 1973 to allow for a 60 day pull-out of the last few remaining U.S. troops). There were only 746 American military advisors in South Vietnam in January, 1962 but by the end of 1965 there were 11,000. Any Marine will tell you that the war starts when his boots hit the ground so the 3,500 Marines landing in Vietnam on March 8, 1965 to cover for Arc Light, Rolling Thunder and other military operations could be said to be the start of the war. After that the troops built up fast and we had about 200,000 American troops in-country by the end of the year. For the classic military ground war involvement 1965 qualifies as the year for the start of the war for the U.S. Silver Bayonet (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The infobox gives November 1, 1955 as the start date, citing this DoD source, which says, "the establishment of the Military Assistance Advisory Group, Vietnam, on Nov. 1, 1955, is now formally recognized as the earliest qualifying date for addition to the database and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial." That strikes me, as a reasonable date to use, but perhaps a clarifying footnote would be useful. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a footnote about the 1955 date at the start of the actual article. -- Esemono (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Er....., thanks (silly grin). I've changed the footlink for the start date in the infobox to point to that footnote. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"Background to 1949" section

The lead-in to the "Background to 1949" section could use more info. The Vietnamese were ruled by China for 1,000 years, gaining their independence from the Chinese in 938 A.D. The Vietnamese ruled themselves for the next 800 years until the French takeover in 1858 began. Back in 1847 is the first year that the Vietnamese Empire clashed militarily with Europe: French gunboats attacked the port at Da Nang, sinking several vessels and destroying a couple of forts, in response to the arrest of a Catholic missionary, Vietnamese emperors being hostile to Catholicism. The missionary had already been set loose and was reportedly roaming freely around Singapore. Catholic missionaries were eventually successful in Indochina and this created the Buddhist/Catholic dichotomy which later played an important role in the nation's history. The French invaded in 1858 and increased their control until in 1893 they had Southeast Asia in their grasp. Silver Bayonet (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Its already coverd in the linked articels, unless you want this to change to hte history of veitnam page?Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought a nice prologue to improve the article in a literary fashion would be sensible. The mention of the 1,000 year rule by the Chinese and the intervention of the French with armed Catholic militias, etc. gives a nice background to the Vietnam War, making it more easy to grasp in context. Silver Bayonet (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Vietnam War Did Continue

The war did not end for the Vietnamese on April 30, 1975 when "Big" Minh surrendered. The Vietnamese inherited a hornet's nest. There were anti-Communist insurgencies across the country, composed of former ARVN soldiers, religious groups, nationalists, Montagnards, etc. which PAVN (People's Army of Vietnam) was called upon to suppress. PAVN also attacked the Hmong across the border in Laos, in support of the Pathet Lao. In Cambodia the Khmer Rouge was slaughtering ethnic Vietnamese so in 1978 PAVN invaded Cambodia and installed a new government there that would fight against the Khmer Rouge, and this war lasted until 1996 when most of the Khmer Rouge gave up. The Chinese resented Vietnam invading Cambodia so on Feb. 17, 1979 China invaded Vietnam with 100,000 troops. The Vietnamese killed 30,000 of the Chinese troops and the Chinese then went scurrying back across the border to China. Vietnam continued raids on China from a base on Mount Laoshan, and at last report this has settled down to exchanging a few artillery rounds on occasion. For purposes of historical demarcation, March 28, 1973 is the date the Vietnam War ended for America and April 30, 1975 is the date the war ended for the South Vietnamese. I think a little epilogue about the morass of war the Vietnamese found themselves in after the Vietnam War would be intriguing. Silver Bayonet (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

So what date do you bleive we should use?Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• The Vietnam War was a War between South Vietnamese government and its enemies, be it communists, religious groups or democratic advocacy forces. You may have a point about the continuing insurgency after South Vietnam surrendered and it would be interesting if you have any sources about the groups you talked about. However, the Cambodian–Vietnamese War, the Sino-Vietnamese conflicts 1979-1990 are separate wars and not part of the Vietnam War that is covered in this article.--Esemono (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The post-1975 pro-ROV attacks shouldn't be counted. If a platoon attack counts then many wars have never ended YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have founded this source about the post-war resistance in South Vietnam. Moreover, is there possible that we can change the name of this article, because this is NOT the only Vietnam War. Before that, the Vietnamese had fought two conflicts against the British and the French, those conflicts were likely also referred to as Vietnam War. 75.31.73.162 (talk) 06:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I have been able to tell the British never called their involvment the Vietnam war (or even a war).Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont think there is any danger of anyone becoming confused with the title. Given common cultural knowledge and the extensive opening introduction. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Post-War Insurgent Groups

There was a great deal of anti-Communist activity after the South surrendered. The book "The Vietnam War Experience", Souter & Giangreco, Carlton Books, 2007, on page 60 lists these anti-Communist insurgent groups that were active after Saigon fell on April 30, 1975: Montagnard tribes of the Central Highlands; religious groups such as the Cao Dai and Hoa Hao; and national anti-Communist organizations such as the Dai Viet and Viet Nam Quoc Dan Dang (which had former ARVN soldiers in their ranks).Silver Bayonet (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a proposal to put into the article which has not been attempted. Monkeymanman (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

They were insignificant. And anyway, Montagnards, Cao Dai and Hoa Hao had always been fighting everyone for independence so it has nothing to do with communist/anit-communist anyway YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Lessons of the War

"If anything came out of Vietnam, it was that air power couldn't do the job.[216] Even General William Westmoreland admitted that the bombing had been ineffective." --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.43.230.194 (talk) 11:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Given the premises, it would be much more correct to state that if anything came out of Vietnam, it was the ineffectiveness of the military instrument handled directly on a tactical scale by the politicians. The air power was ineffective because it was used in the most ineffective way possible. And the lesson was well learned as it led to a new model of military structure, with far more decisional power at the lowest levels (Fire Teams), so that the situation can be handled in times compatible with the rapidity with which the situation modifies at the tactical level. Trying to plan air strikes from Washington as it was done during Vietnam is like trying to hit a fleeing rabbit pointing a fine hunting gun by committee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.43.230.194 (talk) 07:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What sources do you have supporting that view (and there will be some I have no doudt). Also I would add that recent conflcits seem to have re-afirmed the leasson that airpower is an highly ineffective counter insurgency tool. As well, as the fact that bombing a country into the stone age only works if they are not already not that far from there anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The point, as I understood it, was not to say that air power is an effective counter-insurgency tool, but rather that conflict is more effectively managed by commanders close to the action than by politicians and bureaucrats halfway around the planet. I'll offer a cite supporting that: Tom Clancy; Chuck Horner; Tony Koltz (8 January 2008). Every Man a Tiger: The Gulf War Air Campaign. Penguin Group. pp. 515–516. ISBN 9780425219133. Retrieved 23 July 2010. There, General Horner says that target selection by White House leaders with an immense knowledge of the politics of the war but little comprehension of battle contributed to U.S. failure in Vietnam. Horner (who flew Wild Weasel missions into North Vietnam in F-105s) argues there, "Though each higher headquarters will—rightly—have a role in determining goals and objectives, we must keep in mind that those who are closest to the action are the most important participants in the action. They are the ones the so-called higher echelons are there to support." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Horner's comments are slightly disingenuous, since the Air Force itself tried in many instances to keep target selection out of the hands of those closest to the action (Linebacker II suffered so many early losses, for example, due to SAC's obsessive centralization of targeting and tactics). Setup provides some good examples of that, and The Eleven Days of Christmas is a great examination of Linebacker II.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Result

Since this war includes the conflicts in Cambodia and Laos, I recomment that we change the result to "Communist victory." Then we will add the note: North Vietnamese and Viet Cong victory in South Vietnam, Pathet Lao victory in Laos, and Khmer Rouge victory in Cambodia. Always be prepared (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Won the Vietnam War

Okay, here it is, a published, verifiable source by an American Vietnam Veteran that the U.S. did not lose the Vietnam War: "...The U.S. did not lose the Vietnam War--we left by March 28, 1973, and two years later, on April 30, 1975, the South Vietnamese lost the war, not us." --Published in the Chico News & Review, Chico, California, July 29, 2010, Letters, page 6. The aim of the U.S. was to halt the spread of Communism to all of Southeast Asia, and the U.S. accomplished that. The U.S. achieved it's objective. Remember, the U.S. always takes the war to the land of the enemy. No Viet Cong attack was ever launched on American soil. No Communist invasion of the U.S. ever occurred. THAT'S the point. 63.192.100.142 (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It’s a good point that you have made. Although it does sound like one vets opinion. The US were involved to prevent the communist north taking control over the south. This was not accomplished (I don’t think). But you could be correct in the fact that they did stop the spread of communism throughout the region.Monkeymanman (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Excepting Loas and Cambodia. I would also susgest that this would fail RS.Slatersteven (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The snippet quoted and sourced above is a snippet from a reader response in a discussion forum (see it here). It would not be acceptable as a supporting source (per WP:NEWSBLOG, "Posts left by readers may never be used as sources."). Even if this had been published as a straight news item on the front page of the New York Times (relying on presumed editorial fact-checking by the Times as confirmation that the person credited with that statement actually is the person who made that statement), it would fail unless that person was an established expert on the topic of the article and/or there was some other reason to give weight to that statement by that person. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

So Vietnam Veterans are not experts on the Vietnam War? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.154.158.245 (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

no, they are not 188.109.184.204 (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they are. You should talk to Vietnam Veterans sometime. They know stuff you would find incredible, stuff that isn't in the history books. A lot of things that went on during the Vietnam War were Top Secret and they weren't allowed to discuss it until five years after they separated, by which time they had moved on with their lives. Did you know that 75% of Vietnam Veterans were volunteers? (People think it was a draftee Army.) Documents are being de-classified daily and I'm waiting for the actual history of the Vietnam War to be published someday. What these vets tell me is totally different than what we read in the history books. First hand accounts are not allowed in Wiki however, so this leaves a big hole in the article but I suppose there are many subjects that don't fit into Wiki's standards for inclusion. But anyway, keep up the good work, guys, I have an avid interest in the Vietnam War and appreciate Wiki's historical overview.71.154.158.137 (talk) 06:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You could probably line up a lot more veterans that say that the US lost the war.. only most of them would be from the other side of the conflict. Sifting through anecdotal evidence to arrive at historical truth is a job for historians and not wikipedia. Participants in an event are also not neutral observers and are prone to obvious bias regarding their own side. Sus scrofa (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

An example of trying to elucidate what really went on during the Vietnam War can be seen in President Obama's recommending yesterday that General John D. Lavelle's four stars be restored. During the Vietnam War Lavelle was demoted to the rank of two star general and forced to retire because of politics and his being used as a scapegoat over the issue of protective reaction strikes. Here it is, almost 40 years later and his name is finally being cleared! Lavelle was a great Air Force general but he was used as a scapegoat. Wiki has a really good article on him which I encourage you all to read. It will give you some insight into the Vietnam War. Here's a quote by Lavelle from the Wiki article..."If anybody really wanted the total story or wanted the true story, no effort was made to gather it by historians, by the Senate, by the press, by the Air Force."71.154.158.137 (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It should also not be forgotten that after the Great War German generals and veterans all claimed they did not lose or if they did it was not because they were defeated on the battlefield but at home. Just because veterans and officers do want to believe something does not make that something (especially if those officers might want to shift blame) true.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Slatersteven makes a good point, I've talked to American GI's who have been stationed in Germany, and there are German veterans of WWII who feel that they did not lose, that the Americans simply had more men and material. For instance, the Tiger tank and Panther tank were superior to the American Sherman tank but the Americans built 40,000 Sherman tanks while the Germans only built 1,355 Tiger I tanks. It was overwhelming logistics that won WWII for the Americans. It was logistics also that won the war for the North in the American Civil War, the North simply had more men and material and General Grant used this strategically to defeat the South (the South had to melt down church bells to get metal to make guns). In the Vietnam War it was logistics that allowed North Vietnam to vanquish the South after the Americans left. When the Americans left, they took their money with them and South Vietnam lost its logistical supply and billions of dollars in aid. Here's some data from "Eyewitness Vietnam", Gilmore and Giangreco, Sterling Publishing, New York, 2006, pgs. 275-276...After the U.S. left, all military training of South Vietnamese soldiers was stopped. Lack of money for spare parts forced the South Vietnamese to cannibalize equipment; hand grenades, bullets and artillery shells were rationed, soldier's salaries were lessened so that some soldiers had to get extra work to make ends meet or they stole military equipment and sold it; thousands of South Vietnamese soldiers deserted every month, inflation soared, and unemployment was rampant. By 1974 1/3 of South Vietnamese civilians were out of work. ...So yes, the old saying that an army travels on its stomach appears all too true. By 1975 South Vietnam was a hollow shell and Shirley Temple could have conquered it with a BB gun and a lollipop.71.154.158.137 (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is (in a sence) the point. The US did not just withdraw from SVN they abandoned it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the U.S. abandoned Vietnam, currently the U.S. is Vietnam's chief export market and Americans are the #1 foreign investor in Vietnam. Just last Tuesday an American warship, a destroyer, docked in DaNang to conduct friendly exercises. It seems the U.S. won the war economically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.225.242 (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

After how many decades of ignoring the country (which by the way is still ruled by the same party that fought the Americans, So who won?), beside if we use that criteria I think Japan easily beat the US in WW2.Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, under the concept of "Hakko ichiu", Japan has done a great deal of conquering. Using military force to achieve world dominance is just one method, there are also economic methods, religious methods, cultural methods, etc. As far as Vietnam, once the U.S. got the Vietnamese addicted to Coca-Cola and all the other clap-trap of Western "civilization" we had them conquered, they just didn't know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.229.16 (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hahahaha, what? There are Americans that are STILL claiming they won the Vietnam war? Even after ALL this TIME? Oh my. Yeah sorry American, reality doesn't change because you personally don't appreciate the outcome. 124.148.249.46 (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane

No, I think only a few Americans might contend that we won the Vietnam War. It's certainly not a mainstream opinion. --Habap (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I liken the American involvement in Vietnam to England's imperialism in the 19th century--if you've studied British history, Britain had all kinds of campaign medals for military involvements of Britain all over the world. I don't think concepts like winning and losing are helpful in understanding the matter, it's more a matter of international equilibrium and has to be looked at in the "big picture" concept. England, France, Germany, Spain--all had international exploits and military involvements but when these became economically or politically unfeasible they pulled out. 64.169.154.183 (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's something interesting that occurred to me--We never invaded North Vietnam. How can we conquer a country if we don't invade it? How can we either lose or win if we don't invade? This seems to be a major point that everybody overlooks. 71.157.182.121 (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

History is replete with examples of war-winners who did not invade their opponents: the U.S. over Britain in the Revolutionary War, the Allies over Germany in the First World War, the U.S. over Japan in the Second World War, Britain over Argentina in the Falklands, etc. etc. Of course one would not say that these countries "conquered" the others but they certainly won the wars in question. Barnabypage (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, your source of a 'Vietnam Veteran' is 100% bias to the US favour. According to source analysis templates (V=DAC2 & DATA), your source ranks between 0-3 validity the highest being 1045. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.133.136 (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm Dreaming Of A White Christmas

I think mention should be made that the broadcasting of the song "I'm Dreaming of a White Christmas" was the code for the evacuation of Saigon April 29-30, 1975 in Operation Frequent Wind, thus ending the Vietnam War. It sort of caps the article (and the war) and adds a poignant literary sense and I feel would be an improvement to the article. 71.154.158.137 (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Effect on the United States -- Section

Effect on the United States, 8th paragraph, second sentence, currently states, in part, “By war's end, 58,193 soldiers were killed.”

This statement could be more accurately expanded to state: “During the Vietnam War, according to the official DoD figures, Americans suffered 47,434 hostile deaths, comprised of four categories: Killed in action (40,934); died of wounds (5,299); missing in action/declared dead (1,085); and captured/declared dead (116)); while an additional 10,786 deaths (18.5%) were non-hostile, meaning they died from other causes besides combat, which included illness, accidents, missing/presumed dead, and even homicides. It is these two categories (hostile and non-hostile) that comprise the total of the 58,220 troops who died in Vietnam.” [source attached]

A. T. Lawrence, author of Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173, p. 154. [Footnoted Sources] Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division (SIAD), Defense Manpower Data Center, casualty figures provided to author on 31 Dec 2007, and, Vietnam Conflict - Casualty Summary, June 2004, assembled by the Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division (SIAD), and, CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, Updated June 29, 2007, p. CRS-11. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.250.184.150 (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, the 10,000 or so that died "non-hostile" deaths did not receive a Purple Heart since they did not die in combat. There was only one American woman in the military to die in combat in Vietnam, 1st Lt. Sharon Ann Lane, a young, pretty nurse of only 25, who was awarded the Bronze Star with Combat "V" for valor, the Cross of Gallantry and the very rare and prestigious National Order of Vietnam Medal which was the highest award given to officers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.55.200 (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I went on-line to the Department of Veterans Affairs at the following website:http://www1.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_americas_wars.pdf This fact sheet, dated May 2010, confirms the number of American deaths in Vietnam at 58,220. It also confirms the number 10,786 for non-hostile deaths and 47,434 hostile deaths. The Director of the Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division, Defense Manpower Data Center, had provided me his working spreadsheet on these numbers back in December of 2007 when I was working on my book. So I feel that this is a good confirmation of the number of hostile and non-hostile deaths in Vietnam. A. T. Lawrence, author of Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.141.119.38 (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that “friendly fire” deaths were listed under accidental deaths. It wasn’t until 1985 that award of the Purple Heart was finally authorized (Public Law 99-145) for wounds received as a result of friendly fire. The U.S. Department of Defense states that 153,303 U.S. troops were wounded in Vietnam, which only counts those who required hospitalization, in essence, those considered to be most seriously wounded; it does not count the other 150,332 additional soldiers (acknowledged by DoD, but in a separate category), who received flesh wounds from shrapnel or from small arms fire (some of whom received multiple wounds during their tours) and received treatment at field aid stations, and were then sent back to their units, which boosted the total number of U.S. soldiers wounded in Vietnam to 303,635, all of whom were entitled to award of the Purple Heart. [Source: A. T. Lawrence, author of Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173, p. 160. [Footnoted Sources] CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, Updated June 29, 2007, pp. CRS-3, CRS-4.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.141.109.183 (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I see that the most recent CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, dated February 26, 2010 now states a total of 303,644 U.S. military personnel were wounded in Vietnam. There were 153,303 who required hospitalization, and another 150,341 (wounded from shrapnel or from small arms fire who received treatment at field aid stations, and were then sent back to their units). Consequently the number 150,332 (derived from the CRS report of June 2007) that I cited above should be changed to 150,341. Here is the website for the CRS report: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf This will effect your two entries under Casualties and Losses for the U.S., which should cite 58,220 (vice 58,159) dead, and 303,644 (vice 303,635) wounded. A. T. Lawrence 72.197.57.247 (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I remember reading one Marine's account that his company commander was yelled at for having too many casualities in his unit so the commander would go through the aid tent kicking out the Marines that had been lightly wounded, telling them to get back on the line, thus artificially lowering the casualty count but at the same time denying them their Purple Hearts. I don't know if this was an isolated incident or more widespread, and can't remember where I read it, it was on the Internet though. Anybody else heard of this? 209.77.229.16 (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

One last change should be made to the section titled, Effect on the United States: 8th paragraph, first sentence, currently states, “More than 3 million Americans served in Vietnam.” This statement is not correct. VFW Magazine (January 1998), which I consider to be a reliable source, states: 2,594,000 personnel served within the borders of South Vietnam (January 1, 1965 - March 28, 1973), while another 50,000 men served in Vietnam between 1960 and 1964. A total of 3,403,100 (including 514,300 offshore) personnel served in the Southeast Asia Theater (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, flight crews based in Thailand, and sailors in adjacent South China Sea waters). A. T. Lawrence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.250.181.56 (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC) I see in my book, where I use the numbers of U.S. personnel serving in Vietnam, I refer to a 1997 (vice 1998) VFW Magazine edition: A. T. Lawrence, Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173, p. 109. [Footnoted Source] VFW Magazine April 1997.

I concur. Here's what I have read in "Eyewitness Vietnam", Gilmore and Giangreco, Sterling Publishing, New York, 2006, on page 10. There were 2,594,000 American personnel who served in South Vietnam (boots on the ground), just less than 25% of whom were draftees, belying the myth that the Americans were a draftee army in Vietnam (66% of Americans were draftees in WWII by comparison). In all, 3,403,100 Americans served in the Southeast Asia theatre of operations, including air bases in Thailand and ships offshore of Vietnam. 10% of deaths were among helicopter crews, both combat and non-combat deaths. Of those serving in Vietnam, 88.4% were Caucasian, 10.6% black and 1% "other". Almost one fourth (23%) of the soldiers in Vietnam came from "privileged" families. 63.192.100.247 (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Posted in the article

Note number 15 has been attributed to me under Annotations, it states, “The November 1955 date was chosen as the new start date because that was when the Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) that reorganized from a general Indochina into the different countries that the deployments were stationed.[15]” This sounds disjointed and is not what I wrote. I recommend the sentence presently appearing be deleted and replaced with the following:

U.S. government reports currently cite November 1, 1955, as the commencement date of the “Vietnam Conflict,” for this was the day when the United States Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) in Indochina (deployed to Southeast Asia under President Truman), was reorganized into country-specific units and MAAG Vietnam was established.

Source: A. T. Lawrence, author of Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173, p. 20. (Submitted by User:41.250.179.3)

Off2riorob (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Stats

I'm not sure what there is here to discuss. I simply cited a demographic estimate on the war casualties that the AP called the most detailed demographic study. There's absolutely no reason why it cannot be included in the article. Obviously, some don't like the estimate because they want to believe in a higher one. It's worth noting that while my source is a demographic survey; the one you have at present is a link to an assertion on a webpage, without any study backing it up. I kept that estimate intact; I simply included another.

No demographic study ever conducted has estimated a death toll as high as 3, 4, or even 5 million. Right now I'm looking at photos of peace activists with signs reading "Over 600,000 Vietnamese Dead!" No house to house survey endorsed such findings, no medical journal. R.J. Rummel puts the total as 1.2 million dead-- South and North Vietnamese, and Laotians and Cambodians.

Look at the Cambodian civil war: Bannister and Johnson estimated the death toll from the war to be around 275,000. Sampson, too, believed that the toll from the war was overestimated. He suggested that civilian deaths "could be numbered in tens of thousands, but not more," and also noted that military attachés estimated the size of each army to be between 100,000 and 150,000. One survey said 230,000 was "the highest mortality we could justify." No survey ever conducted has gotten anywhere near 1.5 to 2 million Cambodians and Laotians killed.

The fact remains that the estimates currently cited are official figures from the Vietnamese government. That's fine to note; but one should not censor other sources. The Vietnamese originally claimed 2 million dead, to which Noam Chomsky replied: “In the case of Vietnam, we literally do not know within millions the real number of civilian casualties. The official estimates are around two million, but the real number is probably around four million.” Others claimed even 2 million was Communist propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.118.198 (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

In the citation that has been there for some time these figures are supported. These figures here should more or less be equivalent to the figures here Vietnam_War_casualties. Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I was told the US had a 20 to 1 kill ratio, which sort of jibes with the figures. The Commies could be giving either a low or high figure for propaganda purposes, or maybe for once they're telling the truth. I recall some Lt. fresh out of West Point at the beginning of the war saying "We can't kill them fast enough". So apparently there was a lot of killing with modern mechanized warfare. Did the Commies keep good figures, though? Did they record every insignificant rice farmer who got killed? I kind of doubt it. Under General Giap, people were expendable, like throwaway beer cans. 71.157.182.121 (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The planned ratio was 12:1 but the Americans couldn't consistently hold that ratio. -- Esemono (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Exit of the French, 1950–1954

I feel that the last paragraph of the Section titled, Exit of the French, 1950–1954, should be expanded, to include the following:

France’s elite paratroopers and Legionnaires were decisively defeated by the Vietminh on the 7th of May 1954. The bloody 56-day battle of Dien Bien Phu had ended, into which the French had poured more than 16,000 troops and suffered nearly 1,300 killed and more than 5,000 wounded.

During the more than seven years (from December 1946 to May 1954) that the French had been fighting in Vietnam, French Union Forces (made up of Frenchmen, French Foreign Legionnaires, and French Colonial troops from Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Senegal, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia) suffered more than 74,000 deaths, of which 20,685 were Frenchmen.

Source: A. T. Lawrence, author of Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173, pp. 16-17.

[Footnoted sources: Bernard B. Fall, Hell In A Very Small Place: The Siege of Dien Bien Phu. (Cambridge, Mass: Da Capo Press, 2002), p. 483; Bernard B. Fall, Street Without Joy. (Mechanicsburg, Penn: Stackpole Books, 1994), p. 385; and, Micheal Clodfelter, Vietnam in Military Statistics: A History of the Indochina Wars, 1772 – 1991. (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 1995), p. 33.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.141.97.113 (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thgis is coverd in the article on the French involvment.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I was looking for some reference to casualties suffered by the French, but I did not see any. A. T. Lawrence

As this articel is about the American period I am not sure that listing French casulaties is relevant. the proper place for that is in the artciel i the French Indo-China conflict.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Dak Son versus My Lai

A lot of attention has historically been given to the massacre at My Lai by Americans, which overshadows the horrible atrocities committed by the other side such as the massacre at Dak Son by the Viet Cong. I certainly don't like dwelling on such things, but is there some way we could bring balance to the article? The atrocities committed by North Vietnam were deliberate and planned, and were part of their war strategy. 71.157.182.121 (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The differance is that events like the My Lai massacre had major impts on the way the war was percieved. Whuilst most of the non US massacres had li8mited propoganda impact, thus limited impact on the war.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Vietnam War was Unconstitutional

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear cases about the Constitutionality of the Vietnam War. Since Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states that only Congress can declare war, not the President, numerous attempts were made to declare the war illegal (and those participating in it to be war criminals under the Nuremberg provisions). See: Mora v. McNamara, 1967; Mitchell v. United states, 1967; Massachusetts v. Laird, 1970. Is the reluctance/cowardice of the US Supreme Court to take a stand on the legality of the Vietnam War significant enough to be included in the Wiki article? Or is it just a minor side issue? The Supreme Court is pretty much a laughing stock in the U.S.--people don't give credance to what nine crabby old men and women with their personal biases think. 66.122.184.14 (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

How do you propose to improve the articel?Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought Wiki editors might like to include mention of the fact that the US Supreme Court selectively decided not to hear cases on the Constitutionality of the war, thus hiding from the issue. The "Opposition to the Vietnam War" section in the Wiki article would be a good place for insertion. There's a good online source at Answers.com under "Vietnam War", under sub-heading "US Supreme Court: Vietnam War", which gets into it in some detail. Probably just a sentence or two would suffice for the Wiki article. I don't want to alter the article because I'm not an experienced editor. 66.122.184.14 (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This is all original research. siafu (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well, here's some direct quotes from Answers.com under Vietnam War, referencing the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia (Vietnam War)--"The Court ducked the toughest of these questions: the Constitutionality of the war itself." And ..."the Court persistently employed its discretionary authority to determine which cases it would hear to exclude from consideration all Constitutional challenges to the war." 66.122.184.14 (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be a good addition to the article to add something in that says that the constitutionality of the war was challenged and that the US Supreme court refused to consider the cases. We can not say that the war was unconstitutional because the Supreme Court never decided a case that way and that s just someone's opinion. ~~ GB fan ~~ 02:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with this. We can repoprt a fact not comment on it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

A sentence might be appropriate, though the Korean War had already established that the President could send troops into combat without a declaration of war from Congress. As such, the precedent of the Korean War is a reason enough for the Supreme Court not to hear the cases. If no case has been put before them since 1970, there has been no opportunity to rule on the Constitutionality since then, so there's nohtin cowardly about the last 40 years. I'm not sure where you are, but I've not heard anyone says the Supreme Court is "a laughing stock" around here. --Habap (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting point, but the U.S. became ensnared in the Korean War because of U.N. Resolution 83. As a member nation of the United Nations, the U.S., along with many other countries, contributed troops and materiel to the war. It was a U.N. war, not an American war (though the U.S. contribution was immense). By the way, I'm an American old codger in my 60's and we old folks complain about the Supreme Court all the time--it might be an age thing. I would agree with Slatersteven and GBfan--we should report the deliberate, pre-meditated avoidance of the Supreme Court to hear cases about the Constitutionality of the Vietnam War (since it's an important issue), but not interject our own interpretative comments. One of the Supreme court justices wrote dissenting opinions about the court's refusal to hear cases about the Constitutionality of the Vietnam War. It would be interesting to read the opinions, I wonder if they're in the local law library at the university. 66.122.184.14 (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

From my point of view, it doesn't matter whether the UN was at war, since nothing in the Constitution authorizes the UN to declare war for the United States. The last thing I'd want is for the heads of state of every other country in the world to be able to determine US foreign policy. I mean, should the Burundian ambassador have more influence on whether the US goes to war than a US Senator? Why even elect a government if we start ceding authority to the UN? So, that it was a UN war doesn't exempt the President or Congress from their obligations to the Constitution. --Habap (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter what anyones POV is, what matters is what RS say. In this respect did congress say that Korea acted as a precident or not. If they did end of story theres your justification. If they did not then we can't.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

My mistake in using the POV phrase. Korea was also not a declared war, as Congress did not declare war. We'll have to wait on 66's research to know if the Supreme Court used that as a reason for not hearing the cases. Since we don't currently know why they did not hear the cases, we should be careful with our wording - that is, saying it was "deliberate, pre-meditated avoidance" is putting words in the mouth of the Court. --Habap (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Or we could all check. Heres a start [[7]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's what I've gleaned so far: the cases about the legality of the Vietnam War largely stemmed from draft dodgers who were looking for some legal angle to get out of the war. Maybe the old justices didn't want to give the draft dodgers a legal loophole. Justice Douglas would dissent in the Court's denial, wanting to hear the cases, claiming the cases had "standing" and "justiciability" (two legal terms). Douglas said "We have here a recurring question in present-day Selective Service cases". Apparently he wanted the question answered in regard to draft dodgers, since cases kept coming up. The US Supreme Court did mention that the Pact of Paris and the Treaty of London were the controlling authorities, that determining the legality of the war was not within the US Supreme Court's jurisdiction. The Pact of Paris (1928) forbade wars of aggression. Since the North Vietnamese were the aggressors, they would be the liable party. The US was defending South Vietnam from the invading aggressors, so the US would not be liable (according to the Pact of Paris). And here's something really interesting: officially declaring war in the US drastically alters the financial system of the country, all kinds of legal mechanisms go into play, insurance rates change, the banking system changes, etc. So there would be strong financial incentives not to "officially" declare war. The Justices back then were Earl Warren (Chief Justice), Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, John M. Harlan III, William J. Brennan, Jr., Potter Stewart, Byron White, Abe Fortas, and Thurgood Marshall. 66.122.184.14 (talk) 06:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)