• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do you agree the US aggression in Vietnam was immoral

  • Firstly, the US supported and funded the French in their war in Vietnam. By funding 78% of French war budget, the US committed an act of war against the Vietnamese
  • Secondly, the US used French puppet, illegimate State of Vietnam to create South Vietnam, without the permission of the goverment of Vietnam at that time (North Vietnam).
  • Thirdly, the US used South Vietnam to prevent the reunification of Vietnam, as it knows that 80% of the population supported Ho Chi Minh.
For those hostile acts, the US immorally dragged 58.000 American youngsters to their gruesome deaths, and ruined even more lives.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm not really interested in assessing things as (im)moral. I'm interested in assessing what the intended goal was, what values that goal expressed, and whether or not the means used to reach that goal were functionally proper and appropriate under the circumstances. I'm not a philosophical pacifist (though I used to be), even if I maintain pacifism in practice in my own life. I haven't studied enough of the Vietnam war to make a good assessment of it one way or another, and it was before my time on this plane of existence.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
"Immoral" is such a loaded word that I'm reluctant to use it.
That being said, our attack was immoral.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
To the question asked on the title of this thread, yes.

I was originally for the war, being the son of an Army father, but as I learned more when doing a research paper for one of my undergrad classes I became solidly against it. Several years later and after being married, if I had been drafted we decided to move to Canada since I so strongly felt the war was both unwinnable and immoral. Fortunately, I didn't get get drafted.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
  • Firstly, the US supported and funded the French in their war in Vietnam. By funding 78% of French war budget, the US committed an act of war against the Vietnamese
  • Secondly, the US used French puppet, illegimate State of Vietnam to create South Vietnam, without the permission of the goverment of Vietnam at that time (North Vietnam).
  • Thirdly, the US used South Vietnam to prevent the reunification of Vietnam, as it knows that 80% of the population supported Ho Chi Minh.
For those hostile acts, the US immorally dragged 58.000 American youngsters to their gruesome deaths, and ruined even more lives.

I think immoral might be measured in terms of one's actions failing to correspond to one's stated principles. When the French pulled out of Vietnam, the country was purposely divided. It was supposed to be only temporary, until an election could be held in 1956 for the people to democratically elect a unified government. Trouble was, the U.S. and South Vietnam were convinced that the communists would win such an election, so they refused to participate. This, by itself, demonstrates a betrayal of the democratic ideals the U.S. claimed to uphold, which is hypocritical - the highest form of immorality which can ever exist.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I think immoral might be measured in terms of one's actions failing to correspond to one's stated principles. When the French pulled out of Vietnam, the country was purposely divided. It was supposed to be only temporary, until an election could be held in 1956 for the people to democratically elect a unified government. Trouble was, the U.S. and South Vietnam were convinced that the communists would win such an election, so they refused to participate. This, by itself, demonstrates a betrayal of the democratic ideals the U.S. claimed to uphold, which is hypocritical - the highest form of immorality which can ever exist.
Exactly. And the French had warned us that there was no way we could win unless we were willing to basically destroy the country in the process. But we knew better.:rolleyes:
 

Stanyon

WWMRD?
What one sees as moral or immoral is irrelevant, our involvement in Vietnam seemed to be what was felt as necessary by some to expand our control and inhibit the expansion and control of others doing the same.
Things like this didn't help:
Massacre at Huế - Wikipedia
The Blood-Red Hands of Ho Chi Minh

I'd say it was more about global political positioning and influence than any real care about the Vietnamese people or Vietnam itself on all sides, but that could probably be said about most wars anywhere at anytime.

Countries involved in the first and second Indochina war:
  1. France
  2. Japan
  3. The United Kingdom (members of Allied Control Commission (ACC))
  4. India (members of ACC)
  5. Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam)
  6. Soviet Union
  7. People’s Republic of China
  8. North Korea
  9. Cuba
  10. Laos (Kingdom of Laos and Pathet Lao)
  11. Cambodia (Khmer Republic and Khmer Rouge)
  12. Republic of Vietnam ( aka South Vietnam (1955 – 1975) succeeded State of Vietnam (1949 – 1955) )
  13. The United States
  14. South Korea
  15. Australia
  16. New Zealand
  17. Thailand
  18. Philippines
  19. Taiwan
  20. Spain
  21. Canada and the ICC (later ICCS)
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
  • Firstly, the US supported and funded the French in their war in Vietnam. By funding 78% of French war budget, the US committed an act of war against the Vietnamese
  • Secondly, the US used French puppet, illegimate State of Vietnam to create South Vietnam, without the permission of the goverment of Vietnam at that time (North Vietnam).
  • Thirdly, the US used South Vietnam to prevent the reunification of Vietnam, as it knows that 80% of the population supported Ho Chi Minh.
For those hostile acts, the US immorally dragged 58.000 American youngsters to their gruesome deaths, and ruined even more lives.

I know what side of the debate you're on.

And, your three bullets actually do not summarize the entire Vietnam war correctly. It's true to a point but quite disingenuous to only mention those three items.

I like to point out what the Americans did with the Korean war and for South Korea. Very few in South Korea are complaining. Once you see the difference in life style between South and North Koreans, you might appreciate more what the US did there. Oh wait, we can see the difference so now we ask what went wrong with the Vietnam war?

The problem is that the US assumed the Vietnam war should have been fought the same way as the Korean war and as WWII. This was their first major guerrilla warfare. They could never hold position and couldn't differentiate between ally or foe. They also blundered with the allies in the South. The southern Vietnamese democracy government was a sham. It wasn't a democracy but a dictatorship pushing Catholicism on a majority of Buddhists.

I don't blame US for trying. It was their execution that failed.

Many of us, (since I'm a Southern Vietnamese), hoped that our early lives could have been comparable to South Korea but hey, my life didn't turn out too bad after immigrating to the US.

Luckily, Vietnam had Ho Chi Minh who is no way comparable to the Un family. He actually cared for all Vietnamese and their freedom. That was his overall goal and unfortunately, communism was his only tool to do so. He did try to ally with the US early on, but his letters failed to reach the president before fully turning to communism.

Just get your facts right. The following will really help:
Episodes | The Vietnam War - New
 
Last edited:

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Nice “have you stopped beating your wife?”-type loaded question. The U.S. involvement in Vietnam is complex. Attempting to use it as a tool for U.S. bashing is beneath you.
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
I think immoral might be measured in terms of one's actions failing to correspond to one's stated principles. When the French pulled out of Vietnam, the country was purposely divided. It was supposed to be only temporary, until an election could be held in 1956 for the people to democratically elect a unified government. Trouble was, the U.S. and South Vietnam were convinced that the communists would win such an election, so they refused to participate. This, by itself, demonstrates a betrayal of the democratic ideals the U.S. claimed to uphold, which is hypocritical - the highest form of immorality which can ever exist.

A democracy to vote for communism? And once it turns to communism, is that a win for democracy? How then does it turn back to a democracy?

Most Vietnamese was forced into communism because it was all they had to defeat imperialists. In hindsight, we know what works best now don't we?
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
  • Firstly, the US supported and funded the French in their war in Vietnam. By funding 78% of French war budget, the US committed an act of war against the Vietnamese
  • Secondly, the US used French puppet, illegimate State of Vietnam to create South Vietnam, without the permission of the goverment of Vietnam at that time (North Vietnam).
  • Thirdly, the US used South Vietnam to prevent the reunification of Vietnam, as it knows that 80% of the population supported Ho Chi Minh.
For those hostile acts, the US immorally dragged 58.000 American youngsters to their gruesome deaths, and ruined even more lives.


Usually the US involves itself to the affairs of other countries for it's own benefit. Not for the benefit of the countries it's getting involved in. It's not for the people, it's not for humanity although that's usually what's promoted. It's usually some economic interest.

Is it wrong for he US to work for its own economic interest? I think with this as the main motivation humanitarian interests tend to fall by the wayside.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
A democracy to vote for communism? And once it turns to communism, is that a win for democracy? How then does it turn back to a democracy?

Most Vietnamese was forced into communism because it was all they had to defeat imperialists. In hindsight, we know what works best now don't we?

The only answers I can give would be speculative, answering "what if." If we had demonstrated that we respected their sovereignty and what kind of government the people wanted, then they might have been more neutralist in the geopolitical game of chess known as the Cold War.

The trouble lies in using countries as pawns in a larger game. In Vietnam, we sided with communists because we thought they would be effective in fighting Japanese occupation, but once that war was over, then the communists became our enemy again.

The lesson here should be to leave other countries alone and let them resolve their own problems, allowing self-determination and self-rule.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
No I wouldn't call it immoral as there were two sides to the debate. The other side is that we (Americans) had to check the worldwide spread of totalitarian (one party all-powerful) communism. I know I wouldn't want to live under such a system.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Two things, with one being does the ends justify the means, and the other that exactly what kind of threat did a Communist Vietnam really have for us? As it turned out, they are now one of our major trading partners.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I'm not really interested in assessing things as (im)moral. I'm interested in assessing what the intended goal was, what values that goal expressed, and whether or not the means used to reach that goal were functionally proper and appropriate under the circumstances. I'm not a philosophical pacifist (though I used to be), even if I maintain pacifism in practice in my own life. I haven't studied enough of the Vietnam war to make a good assessment of it one way or another, and it was before my time on this plane of existence.
It was to battle the evil empire COMMUNISM. Since it was seen as the total obliteration of the american way of life (or capitalism) if left unchecked we used proxy states to control the growth of the evil empire COMMUNISM.

think isis with the nuclear bomb and thats the feel at the time. Two deeply colliding idiologies today to have a mutual agreement the rich are manifestly destined to get richer and keep the poor stupid. Its oligarchies of finace and money in russia china and the US. And other locations that are the evil empire today.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
  • Firstly, the US supported and funded the French in their war in Vietnam. By funding 78% of French war budget, the US committed an act of war against the Vietnamese
  • Secondly, the US used French puppet, illegimate State of Vietnam to create South Vietnam, without the permission of the goverment of Vietnam at that time (North Vietnam).
  • Thirdly, the US used South Vietnam to prevent the reunification of Vietnam, as it knows that 80% of the population supported Ho Chi Minh.
For those hostile acts, the US immorally dragged 58.000 American youngsters to their gruesome deaths, and ruined even more lives.
That was a brutal war!
 

Woberts

The Perfumed Seneschal
I agree, it was completely immoral. As @Stevicus said, America decided that the democracy it loves so much doesn't count if they don't like the winner. Same thing happened in Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Brazil, Congo, and possibly Syria.
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
The only answers I can give would be speculative, answering "what if." If we had demonstrated that we respected their sovereignty and what kind of government the people wanted, then they might have been more neutralist in the geopolitical game of chess known as the Cold War.

The trouble lies in using countries as pawns in a larger game. In Vietnam, we sided with communists because we thought they would be effective in fighting Japanese occupation, but once that war was over, then the communists became our enemy again.

The lesson here should be to leave other countries alone and let them resolve their own problems, allowing self-determination and self-rule.

Let me just ask some broad questions.

What government should all humans live under?

Does it make sense, that humans should live under different governments?

Does it also make sense, to separate humans between arbitrary lines of property and nationalities?

When you suggest that we allow others to govern themselves, what does that really mean? Are they actually living as they want under a government like communism? Obviously, that's a bit rhetorical. There is no they in communism. People do not choose to be governed as communists. They are forced to be communists.

If we had to choose one nation to rule us all, what nation should that be? Of course, I'm setting up my own goal posts here but what if the Germans won WWII, is that good for the human race?

We get caught up so easily on borders, race, sex, and individual traits that we easily forget that we're all human. We all deserve the best society that can be offered to us.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Let me just ask some broad questions.

What government should all humans live under?

Does it make sense, that humans should live under different governments?

Does it also make sense, to separate humans between arbitrary lines of property and nationalities?

Well, if we're talking about ideally (as impractical as we can imagine), all humans should be unified as one globally. Kind of like what John Lennon described in his song "Imagine." If all humans believed in it and went along with the principles therein, there probably wouldn't even be any need for government at all, let alone different governments.

Since such a thing is considered to be virtually impossible, ostensibly due to the failures of human nature and the inherent flaws of our species, then some sort of government is necessary. As far as what makes sense, government is seen as a practical necessity based on the circumstances a given body of people in a given land are facing.

When you suggest that we allow others to govern themselves, what does that really mean? Are they actually living as they want under a government like communism? Obviously, that's a bit rhetorical. There is no they in communism. People do not choose to be governed as communists. They are forced to be communists.

But who forces them to be communists? God? Aliens from outer space? Or is it "people"? If there are people who conceive and invent communism and actively choose it, then obviously some people are choosing to be governed as communists, correct?

If we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people - and if a majority of those people choose communism, then that's what they're going to have.

If we had to choose one nation to rule us all, what nation should that be? Of course, I'm setting up my own goal posts here but what if the Germans won WWII, is that good for the human race?

Well, if the Germans won WW2, and if they ruled the world and eliminated all the "non-Aryan" nationalities, then those who are remaining would be "white Aryans," and they would then be the entire human race (since there wouldn't be anyone else left). A few generations down the line, after all the victims have been dead, buried, and forgotten, what kind of life would the remainder of the human race have?

That's how they justified themselves. Despite how ugly and atrocious war and mass killings were, they considered it a worthy sacrifice to make in order to achieve what they foresaw as a peaceful, plentiful, idyllic society for their descendants in the "Thousand Year Reich."

Of course, the main drawback was in the means of achieving that goal, and they surprisingly found that most of the "non-Aryan" races didn't want to be eliminated and have their nations/cultures destroyed. They fought back and outnumbered the Germans, who were utterly defeated.

Such a goal of world conquest is often considered just as impossible as a peaceful transition to global cooperation and the unification of humanity as imagined by John Lennon.

But trying to convince all humans of all nations to voluntarily cooperate and unify with each other of their own free will seems far less messy, violent, and murderous than what the Nazis did. The communists wanted all the workers of the world to unite, not by force, but of their own free will.

The fact that so many people refused to cooperate with such a noble goal is how the communists ended up hitting snags and opposition. The communists apparently viewed their detractors as selfish, greedy, bourgeois - and that they were only thinking of themselves and not caring a whit about their fellow human.

Even to this day, many people see selfishness and greed as negative, immoral human qualities - and the more brazen it gets, the more infuriating it can be for a lot of people. Looking over human history, it can sometimes generate so much fury and rage as to lead some people to want to kill those who are selfish and greedy - or at least try to re-educate them to try to convince them that selfishness and greed are morally wrong.

Whether or not it's moral to kill those who are immoral is a judgment call.

We get caught up so easily on borders, race, sex, and individual traits that we easily forget that we're all human. We all deserve the best society that can be offered to us.

What's the best way to get people to care and show compassion for their fellow human, to treat them with dignity and respect them as equals, simply on the basis of the fact that they're human, regardless of any other factors?
 
Top