Movies and TV shows Thread

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
8,416
Reaction score
4,073
Hmmm, I know you're right about the "advisor" role the military was paying in Vietnam. That may still have been going on in 63 or 63. Our involvement in Vietnam dramatically increased under Johnson - so 64, 65, 66. Nasty times.
Yes, the escalation really did not happen until early 1965. The Gulf of Tonkin incident, whatever the reason, occurred in 1964. LBJ did not want to do anything THEN because he was running against Goldwater for president in November. LBJ campaigned on PEACE. LOL!
But in 1963 and before, Diem did not want the US there to actually fight his war. He knew it would give the enemy an extra incentive. But he did want US money, weaponry, and instruction. The Coup which killed Diem occurred the first week in November, just weeks before JFK was assassinated, ironically. And the administration agreed not to interfere when they were informed that it was going to take place.
 

Voyageur

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
4,268
Reaction score
3,939
You were there right around the time Diem was killed. Did you wear regular military duds? I heard that many of those sent over in 1963 wore civilian clothes in order to give the populace the idea that these were simply advisors.
Yes. I was. I wore a uniform. Fatigues while on duty, and chinos when I was off duty in Saigon.
 

Voyageur

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
4,268
Reaction score
3,939
Yes, the escalation really did not happen until early 1965. The Gulf of Tonkin incident, whatever the reason, occurred in 1964. LBJ did not want to do anything THEN because he was running against Goldwater for president in November. LBJ campaigned on PEACE. LOL!
But in 1963 and before, Diem did not want the US there to actually fight his war. He knew it would give the enemy an extra incentive. But he did want US money, weaponry, and instruction. The Coup which killed Diem occurred the first week in November, just weeks before JFK was assassinated, ironically. And the administration agreed not to interfere when they were informed that it was going to take place.
The stories we heard in-country was that the CIA may well have been behind the overthrow of Diem because he wanted us out. All he wanted was our money and equipment.
Hmmm, I know you're right about the "advisor" role the military was paying in Vietnam. That may still have been going on in 63 or 63. Our involvement in Vietnam dramatically increased under Johnson - so 64, 65, 66. Nasty times.
I think you'll find that we had advisors in South Vietnam as far back as the early 1950s. They were there long before I got there. When I was getting close to leaving, the majority of the personnel coming in were special forces. Not the total number but a relatively high number.
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
8,416
Reaction score
4,073
The stories we heard in-country was that the CIA may well have been behind the overthrow of Diem because he wanted us out. All he wanted was our money and equipment.

I think you'll find that we had advisors in South Vietnam as far back as the early 1950s. They were there long before I got there. When I was getting close to leaving, the majority of the personnel coming in were special forces. Not the total number but a relatively high number.
The French were in control of Vietnam after WWII. They opted out in 1954. At that time Eisenhower chose to fill the void in a limited role. After Korea he did not want to abandon it entirely, although it was not the biggest priority on the map in the 50s.
Diem was a strange character, stubborn. He had problems domestically with his people, particularly Buddhists. He was Catholic and educated in the US. Ho Chi Minh was educated in Europe. Diem's brother and sister-in-law had the most influence on him. The Generals turned against him and like you said, the CIA could have pushed for it. Quietly, however, the Kennedy Administration did not really want it to happen. Any change that would occur would need to happen through election. But it did not.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
10,788
Reaction score
4,481
The French were in control of Vietnam after WWII. They opted out in 1954. At that time Eisenhower chose to fill the void in a limited role. After Korea he did not want to abandon it entirely, although it was not the biggest priority on the map in the 50s.
Diem was a strange character, stubborn. He had problems domestically with his people, particularly Buddhists. He was Catholic and educated in the US. Ho Chi Minh was educated in Europe. Diem's brother and sister-in-law had the most influence on him. The Generals turned against him and like you said, the CIA could have pushed for it. Quietly, however, the Kennedy Administration did not really want it to happen. Any change that would occur would need to happen through election. But it did not.
Thanks to you and V for some interesting background on our disastrous involvement in Vietnam.
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
8,416
Reaction score
4,073
Thanks to you and V for some interesting background on our disastrous involvement in Vietnam.
Very tragic period. If there was one event in our history of the last 100 years that hindsight tells us we could have changed that would be it. Economically, technologically, and socially we would be at least 25 years ahead of where we are today. It damaged us severely.
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
8,416
Reaction score
4,073
I'm not so sure about that, things don't always progress linearly. In many ways we've been going backwards socially for many years.
A lot of that was precipitated by that event, although you are correct that not everything progresses linearly.
But you take into account that this was not a one day or one year event. It lasted a long time. All the $$$ spent on a long war instead of elsewhere or remaining with the American people was a drain of our revenue. And it drained the energy in the hearts of the people. Did not matter what side you were on.
Millions of American lives and families were disrupted and displaced permanently not just because of 56,000 killed in combat but all the wounded, all the after effects, both physical and mental, the PTSD and the Agent Orange.
The New Frontier and the Great Society never were truly able to achieve their goals because of it, not that they were all that good.
Yes, we have made so many advances in science, medicine, communications, and technology. Just imagine that we could have had even more, much more.
 

rmontro

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
6,391
Reaction score
2,744
But you take into account that this was not a one day or one year event. It lasted a long time. All the $$$ spent on a long war instead of elsewhere or remaining with the American people was a drain of our revenue. And it drained the energy in the hearts of the people. Did not matter what side you were on.
As much as I love the '60s from a cultural standpoint, Vietnam is the big negative of that era. Still, I would hope that we've learned some lessons from it.

Although not everything was a positive culturally either, as far as that goes.
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
8,416
Reaction score
4,073
As much as I love the '60s from a cultural standpoint, Vietnam is the big negative of that era. Still, I would hope that we've learned some lessons from it.

Although not everything was a positive culturally either, as far as that goes.
It set us back. It set the world back. Imagine the Internet and cell phones a decade earlier. And the use of DNA, 10 or 15 years sooner. And all the strides we made with cancer. When a civilization can unite its energies for the positive gains and not be deterred by the dark side of human existence so much can be achieved and faster than we can imagine.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
37,181
Reaction score
11,565
Location
Madison, WI
As much as I love the '60s from a cultural standpoint, Vietnam is the big negative of that era. Still, I would hope that we've learned some lessons from it.
Yet, here we sit, bombing Iran. Thinking "We" need to change other countries into something that "we" perceive to be the way they should be. :confused:
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
10,788
Reaction score
4,481
Very tragic period. If there was one event in our history of the last 100 years that hindsight tells us we could have changed that would be it. Economically, technologically, and socially we would be at least 25 years ahead of where we are today. It damaged us severely.
A lot of lives were lost, 50,000 plus Americans and an uncountable number of south and north Vietnamese. Wars are expensive, moreso when they result in a disaster like Vietnam.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
10,788
Reaction score
4,481
A lot of that was precipitated by that event, although you are correct that not everything progresses linearly.
But you take into account that this was not a one day or one year event. It lasted a long time. All the $$$ spent on a long war instead of elsewhere or remaining with the American people was a drain of our revenue. And it drained the energy in the hearts of the people. Did not matter what side you were on.
Millions of American lives and families were disrupted and displaced permanently not just because of 56,000 killed in combat but all the wounded, all the after effects, both physical and mental, the PTSD and the Agent Orange.
The New Frontier and the Great Society never were truly able to achieve their goals because of it, not that they were all that good.
Yes, we have made so many advances in science, medicine, communications, and technology. Just imagine that we could have had even more, much more.
Agent Orange. My brother was a photographer's mate in the Navy at Cubic Bay during Vitenam. He mounted, dismounted, and processed the film from the planes that dropped AO. He developed early-onset Parkinson's at age 49 and died at 66. And he didn't get comped by the government because he was not physically in Vietnam.

A lot of direct cost in terms of lves and $$$ - and the opportunity cost - what could have been done with all that treasure.

As of late, it seems the USA has not learned a lesson from that tragedy.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
37,181
Reaction score
11,565
Location
Madison, WI
A lot of lives were lost, 50,000 plus Americans and an uncountable number of south and north Vietnamese. Wars are expensive, moreso when they result in a disaster like Vietnam.

Since we are in the Movies and TV Shows thread, that reminds me to watch "Deer Hunter" again. Great movie.
 

Voyageur

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
4,268
Reaction score
3,939
My brother's brother-in-law, and best friend, began suffering from agent orange when he was in his 30s after driving truck in Vietnam for a year, delivering agent orange as many shipments. It took over 15 years before the government accepted responsibility and even then, wanted to do so in a limited capacity, including refusing him VA disability saying his problems weren't related to service.

He's still alive, 79, and is on the verge of being in a nursing home with hospice care. He's at home but family can't keep up with it. Even now, the government limits his in-home help to a few paltry hours a week. It's the system, and how it works. When we serve in harm's way, we're lauded as the heroes of America. When we come home, we become a drain on society if we have been damaged by war. I've known way too many casualties of Vietnam and other situations that have been treated unfairly.

I mentioned a friend out here some time ago, that I worked with as a cop, who was part of the clean-up crew for the crashed B-52 up in Iceland in the 60s. They gave them clothing they said would protect them, but it didn't. Airmen who worked on cleaning up the site were dying due to cancers that were created by the work they did. My friend was one of a handful who decided to take it to the courts in a class action suit. They won the case but the government pretty much dumped them anyway, and they all died from their cancers.

I remember my father-in-law. He served during WWII. He won 3 bronze stars and had 3 matching purple hearts. He was there in Africa, was there in the invasion of Italy, and again, when we stormed the beaches of Omaha, and he was one of the first soldiers to cross the Rhein River into Germany. He came home broken from the war and never actually totally recovered. You were considered weak if you didn't tough it out in those days. He would get quiet and moody quite a bit. He didn't even want to go anywhere for visits. He wouldn't and couldn't talk to anyone until I married his daughter and he found someone who'd been down a similar path he could talk to. It wasn't easy. He suffered more than I think I could have endured. But at least he had someone who listened to him when nobody else seemed to know how.

I can give you more "war stories" about what happens to some personnel after they are no longer in the military. Maybe about those that I knew who took their own lives, or those who ended up on the streets homeless, until they succumbed to weather or health conditions that should have been cared for by the military.

It's true that war is hell, but in all honesty, to a lot of veterans who make it home and suffer from so many conditions created by their being in harm's way can be even more devastating in many ways.

I'm proud of my son who stepped up and served in Afghanistan. It's something he wanted to do because he lost friends at the WTC when it was attacked. He served for them because it was the Taliban in Afghanistan that needed to be stopped. He came home damaged through injury, and mentally. He never had anger issues until he served there but he did for a few years after coming home. He also lost a large percentage of his hearing from artillery fire, blew out a knee completely, and got a back injury carrying a wounded soldier about 2 miles on his back to an evacuation chopper, over rocky and uneven ground. He applied for VA assistance and ended up getting pretty much nothing but a "thanks for service." Since then, he has gone up to 40% disability and has benefit of VA hospitals and medical services.

So, if I don't sound much like a hawk when it comes to us going to war, I'm not. I would defend my country to the max, and I would defend democracy to the max as well, but I would never go to war or want any of my children or grandchildren or friends families to go to war unless there's a reason so compelling that it requires that we stand up and be counted.

When I see the news talking about how Iran has cost us $50 billion, I look past that and see the lives we've lost and those we've taken. I see the lives the Israelis have lost and those that were innocents that died. I see the school in Iran that was accidentally hit and over 150 school children killed. I see war with the view that in the end, nobody wins.

Sorry if this sounds like a lecture, that's not the intent. I'm just pointing out how I see it based on my experience, and that of others I know and have known.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
10,788
Reaction score
4,481
My brother's brother-in-law, and best friend, began suffering from agent orange when he was in his 30s after driving truck in Vietnam for a year, delivering agent orange as many shipments. It took over 15 years before the government accepted responsibility and even then, wanted to do so in a limited capacity, including refusing him VA disability saying his problems weren't related to service.

He's still alive, 79, and is on the verge of being in a nursing home with hospice care. He's at home but family can't keep up with it. Even now, the government limits his in-home help to a few paltry hours a week. It's the system, and how it works. When we serve in harm's way, we're lauded as the heroes of America. When we come home, we become a drain on society if we have been damaged by war. I've known way too many casualties of Vietnam and other situations that have been treated unfairly.

I mentioned a friend out here some time ago, that I worked with as a cop, who was part of the clean-up crew for the crashed B-52 up in Iceland in the 60s. They gave them clothing they said would protect them, but it didn't. Airmen who worked on cleaning up the site were dying due to cancers that were created by the work they did. My friend was one of a handful who decided to take it to the courts in a class action suit. They won the case but the government pretty much dumped them anyway, and they all died from their cancers.

I remember my father-in-law. He served during WWII. He won 3 bronze stars and had 3 matching purple hearts. He was there in Africa, was there in the invasion of Italy, and again, when we stormed the beaches of Omaha, and he was one of the first soldiers to cross the Rhein River into Germany. He came home broken from the war and never actually totally recovered. You were considered weak if you didn't tough it out in those days. He would get quiet and moody quite a bit. He didn't even want to go anywhere for visits. He wouldn't and couldn't talk to anyone until I married his daughter and he found someone who'd been down a similar path he could talk to. It wasn't easy. He suffered more than I think I could have endured. But at least he had someone who listened to him when nobody else seemed to know how.

I can give you more "war stories" about what happens to some personnel after they are no longer in the military. Maybe about those that I knew who took their own lives, or those who ended up on the streets homeless, until they succumbed to weather or health conditions that should have been cared for by the military.

It's true that war is hell, but in all honesty, to a lot of veterans who make it home and suffer from so many conditions created by their being in harm's way can be even more devastating in many ways.

I'm proud of my son who stepped up and served in Afghanistan. It's something he wanted to do because he lost friends at the WTC when it was attacked. He served for them because it was the Taliban in Afghanistan that needed to be stopped. He came home damaged through injury, and mentally. He never had anger issues until he served there but he did for a few years after coming home. He also lost a large percentage of his hearing from artillery fire, blew out a knee completely, and got a back injury carrying a wounded soldier about 2 miles on his back to an evacuation chopper, over rocky and uneven ground. He applied for VA assistance and ended up getting pretty much nothing but a "thanks for service." Since then, he has gone up to 40% disability and has benefit of VA hospitals and medical services.

So, if I don't sound much like a hawk when it comes to us going to war, I'm not. I would defend my country to the max, and I would defend democracy to the max as well, but I would never go to war or want any of my children or grandchildren or friends families to go to war unless there's a reason so compelling that it requires that we stand up and be counted.

When I see the news talking about how Iran has cost us $50 billion, I look past that and see the lives we've lost and those we've taken. I see the lives the Israelis have lost and those that were innocents that died. I see the school in Iran that was accidentally hit and over 150 school children killed. I see war with the view that in the end, nobody wins.

Sorry if this sounds like a lecture, that's not the intent. I'm just pointing out how I see it based on my experience, and that of others I know and have known.
I get it V. All war is hell. The people who do the fighting and somehow survive are forever changed by the experience.

You are rightfully proud of your son and I am sorry about what happened. At least he gets to use VA hospitals and medical services, which is the only right thing to do.
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
8,416
Reaction score
4,073
Yet, here we sit, bombing Iran. Thinking "We" need to change other countries into something that "we" perceive to be the way they should be. :confused:
War comes about because of conflict. And the hardest part becomes when do we engage and how long do we avoid. Woodrow Wilson tried hard to stay out of WWI but could not. Eisenhower knew that lives would be lost on DDay. But just how many. We wish we could live peacefully in our own sphere without having to deal with what happens in the rest of the world. War is hell as they say. Ironically, we must remember that as we are about to celebrate 250 years as a nation that it was due to war that we became just that.
 

rmontro

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
6,391
Reaction score
2,744
Yet, here we sit, bombing Iran. Thinking "We" need to change other countries into something that "we" perceive to be the way they should be. :confused:
A very different situation. And if not for Vietnam, we'd probably have boots on the ground as well.
 
Top