Click to Subscribe
▶  More from
Refighting Vietnam with Sam J.
Wrestling Over James’ Assertion That Vietnam Was America’s Most Unjust War
I would like to preface this with a thanks to Sam J. for getting another cylinder firing in this old brain case.
To clarify: I consider territorial expansion, such as the Mexican War, to constitute “just” warfare, and oddly regard meddling “defensive” wars, where a nation expends it’s best men for no gain and thus diminishes itself morally in the face of the enemy and materially in the wake of its allies, as unjust. So, to this crackpot, whether a war is just or not, does not take into consideration any “rights’ held by the enemy, for rights are a proxy power fantasy and have no place in a discussion of warfare, which is about actual power.
I would like to point out, that among the politically incorrect, there is one constant strength that is not duplicated by the politically correct as they retool their minds to grease the gears of their great lie machine, the ability to disagree about particulars and still have an understanding that were on the side of Humanity, not The Machine. I doubt if any reader would agree with all of my assertions and do not harbor a desire that they do so.
Sam J.
"...most unjust war in American history was surely Vietnam..."
I always wonder if people who say these sort of things have ever looked at a map? Let's look at a map of the area.
If you'll notice Vietnam is right in the South China Sea where there's such a huge uproar over the Spratley Islands. Where China's "make a territory" island building business is going on. Vietnam has the best deep water port in the area. If you're a commie you can readily see how Vietnam is a convenient stepping stone to Malaysia, the Philippines and all the major trade routes in the area. The Vietnam war helped keep most of the countries in the region from becoming commie. At the same time the Vietnam war was on there was commie guerrilla wars in all the countries of the region. They fought off the commies and survived so in actuality the Vietnam war accomplished a great deal of it's stated purpose. (Domino Theory)
Even Vietnam itself would not have fallen if not for the Democrat party and the impeachment of Nixon. When South Vietnam fell the South had defeated the guerrillas in the South. DEFEATED! The North invaded in the largest formation of tanks since the battle of Kursk in WWII. All their troops, support, tanks, etc. were lined up on mostly one highway. The Democrat party, (this is no lie and the absolute truth), voted the South Vietnamese troops the cost of a couple of hand grenades and a couple clips of ammo for their rifles. They told Pres. Ford if he used air support they would impeach him and they would have. If air power had been used it would have been a total turkey shoot. Complete utter and total destruction. It would have set them back years if not forever. Exactly like the highway of death in Kuwait. The South Vietnamese fought to the last bullet and then had nothing else. They had nothing to fight with. We could have EASILY stopped the Northern invasion of the South. EASILY. They gave it away. They could do no less considering they said over and over it couldn't be won so they just made it so.
The Vietnam war made perfect sense in a world where you have an adversary who says he's going to take over the whole planet and subject you to domination. It made perfect geopolitical sense when you look at the territory involved and how it related to trade patterns and the territory around it. After all if Vietnam was so unimportant then why did the commies pour so much massive money and arms into the area in order to take it over?
The left continues to say the sacrifice of Vietnam veterans was for nothing yet we can see the difference in commie conquered countries and those that were not conquered. The Vietnam war might not have saved Vietnam but it did save several countries around it. They should be called out on this every time they spout such lies. It's just lies and hatred for the US.
Sam, you are one of my favorite commentators but I am going to flat out disagree with you here.
When I was a boy, I listened to my Uncle Robert [who survived a Jap submarine attack that sunk his ship in WWII] argue against the Vietnam War with my Uncle Bernie, who was shot in the ass above the 38th parallel by a Chicom in Korea [he was in the 82nd Airborne], who argued for the Domino Theory. I was on the fence until about 2011, when I clearly discerned that the U.S. had in effect adopted a hybrid form of media-powered, free-range communism that the old Soviet propagandists could never have achieved without Manhattan and Hollywood. In that light, fighting any war overseas as the Duplicitous Post WWII Spoiled Brat Generational Plague AKA the Baby Boomers bored like worms into the soul of our grandfathers' nation to eat out its heart was ill-advised. American Imperial aspirations, though banking-based, rather than territorial like our British predecessor, has resulted in a similar demographic reflux, such as London now being under the direction of an Islamic mayor and my brother-in-law being told that he will have to learn Spanish if he wants to keep his warehousing job!
The Brits were over there with us shooting Taliban on the roof of the world and now they have a Muslim running the Mother City!
The same thing happened to America, but it was not an undercurrent, reverse invasion of the type territorial empires suffer, but a moral insurgency that grew on the University Hive Farms that has had to import its own underclass. The current rulers of our nation were indoctrinated while the Vietnam war was fought, with opposition to that dirty war of all dirty wars the glue that bound them together in their common cause: war on Conservative, Christian American culture, and the completion of the implementation of the Communist Manifesto.
Stefan Molyneux at Free Domain Radio has done something on this, where he points out that we are basically operating a bastardized version of Marx’s dream with all of the major points in place. He’s got over 1,000 video so I’ll pass on trying to remember which one it was.
Thanks for the update on the Spratleys, Sam J. The Vietnamese were good for beating the piss out of the Chinese and moving against Pol Pot.
Politically I see the Vietnam war as pure evil, with the South, the North and the U.S. all rotten. Could Vietnam have successfully invaded the U.S. if we had not carpet bombed the nation? Sure it was a great bug hunt, killing over a million and only losing 50-some thousand. But how did that strip of jungle and wetland threaten the U.S.?
I have known and spoken with nine Vietnam War combat veterans and have read every memoir I could get my hands on. Loved Six Silent Men. The only Vet I know who did not have his sanity shattered by the experience enjoyed fighting in the jungle, did not mind seeing his buddies die, and enjoyed the cheap, tight pussy.
I'm not clear on the naval strength of North Vietnam at the time, but I doubt if they could have landed a single soldier on U.S. shores. As for the Domino Theory, it has not held up on laboratory earth. The commies would have had to topple dozens of nations to even get within 2,000 miles and would have then faced the greatest blue water navy in human history?
The real threat was the U.S. becoming communist, which it has! Marx would be pleased if he looked at the current situation, and not a shot was fired. In fact, the Vietnam War discredited the Right in this country to such an extent that we now have a Communist president and will soon have a Communist Queen!
Was my friend getting cheap, tight pussy while my other 8 friends and relations died in their mind, worth killing hundreds of thousands of South and North Vietnamese civilians?
Shane, the guy up the street, who can't walk his dog without thugs trying to take his pet and feed it to pit-bulls, still sits on his porch and cries every day about Nam, while a functionally Marxist American government gives the land he supposedly fought to save, away, right around him.
Is that worth a handful of psychos with unshakable minds getting cheap, tight pussy?
I would like to add, that the U.S. commitment to fight anywhere around the world to stop communism was an admittance of its own global aspirations, as is its current commitment to fight Islam. In light of the impossibility of a Mexican-Canadian alliance successfully invading the U.S. [Why should they invade when we are giving it away?] why adventure militarily half a world away? We should annex everything in the Atlantic and Pacific. That would be just. In my opinion, any form of globalism is bad, as it will ultimately erase humanity as we are mono-cropped by our masters.
Look, the Domino Theory was regarded as legit in its day by many brilliant people, but dominos as big as The United States get toppled from within, by their own spoiled spawn, so, if I was playing America in a game of global domination, all my military assets would be devoted to Western Hemisphere dominance.
Thanks Sam J.
prev:  ‘The American Public Myth’     ‹  gaming  ›     next:  Hel Grins, Toothless in the Dark

Add a new comment below:
Sam J.May 23, 2016 4:45 AM UTC

"...Vietnam war was the first fought from a purely managerial business perspective, with war managers, and soldier workers, producing enemy bodies, and if the only thing that counts in warfare is economics, then it was impossible for the US to lose, it was impossible for a peasant economy to beat the US, it just couldn't happen..."

Hopefully I'm not annoying people too much. I see things a certain way and just tell it like I see it. Vietnam was fought in a kind of fucked way because of McNamara. Ford's genius boy. My feelings on McNamara is he was the poster boy for "the Peter Principle". A popular book that explains incompetence in organizations by one simple principle. You rise to your level of incompetence. Therefore most everyone at the top is at their level of incompetence or they would move up. Maybe not always right but a decent guide to any organization none the less.

Giving McNamara some slack is the situation he was in and the cards he was dealt. China had already caused us no end of casualties in Korea. However ill equipped the Chinese had so many Men they just ran our asses over. Whose to say if we pressed Vietnam too much or invaded they wouldn't do so again? We didn't know. The rift between China and Vietnam was not so apparent at the time and the Chinese were doing crazy shit to their country. Who knows what they would do.

I read somewhere that in reality most wars throughout history were more like Vietnam. WWI and WWII were aberrations. Mostly no one just gives up. Wars just drag on until both sides are weary enough to just call it a day.

My cousin went to Nam. He got lucky and drove a truck. He said he would drive on these little dirt roads as fast as humanly possible and the truck would take a bullet or two every now and then. It tickles me the way he talked about it. I wish I could convey the joviality of his story.

Myself I was too young but I remembered young Men that were in the neighborhood that went and died.
Sam J.May 22, 2016 6:25 AM UTC

"...If Murica had really been serious about fighting communism we would have helped the people who were actively fighting the bolsehviks in the crucial 1940's..."

Hmm...gets complicated but I agree and disagree at the same time. Basically there were most average Americans against the Commies while mostly Jews and their lackeys were for the commies. We got played. Same as the 9-11 wars. We got played.

"...In truth, America was always the flip side of the Soviet Union, its principles rooted in the same Enlightenment/materialist ethos..."

Revilo Pendleton Oliver said much the same thing. He thought that Europe would save us but...

His books are online. Worth reading but I warn you he hates the Jews. "The Jewish Strategy" is very good.

I agree that the country is in a terrible position and only note who runs all the primary propaganda outlets TV, radio, newspapers, textbooks, science journals and contributes 60% of the Democrat parties funding and 50% of the Republican parties funding. I say look at those people and there you will find a great deal of the destruction of the country. After all they own it they should be responsible for it.
Sam J.May 19, 2016 7:10 PM UTC

I need to add a little something. A good deal of Vietnam vets grief and stress is decades of people telling them they just wasted their time and died for nothing. It's just not true. In all wars people are fucked up mentally but when you're attacked as being a dumb ass for ever being in all that stress in the first place it weighs heavily on the mind. I got the idea that the Vietnam vets saved South Asia from Lee Kuan Yew the former Prime Minister of Singapore. A super, super smart guy who was very thankful that they fought there. Next time you talk to vet tell them what I said. The big reason that they have been denigrated is because the left LOST Vietnam. They are directly responsible. They always say that it couldn't be won. Well that's because they fucked it up. They are a huge pack of liars. It WAS won. The South had defeated the Viet Cong (southern guerrilla group) after Tet. Completely destroyed. From that time on it was mostly all Northern troops invading the South. If Nixon had been in office he would have blown their asses to kingdom cum like he did in Cambodia. When the N. Vietnamese were in Cambodia they moved massive amounts of material there in place for an invasion. Nixon blew them from hell to back and it was 1975 before they could regroup.

When I say left I'm not talking about union guys or old fashioned labor Dixiecrats. I'm talking about the White hating, US hating, commie loving, left. As far as I'm concerned the commies are just another form of dictatorship. Same for the Oligarchical capitalist we have now. I hate them too. I guess I'm sort of a National Socialist without all the parades, uniforms and degradation of other races. I'm certainly not a supremacist as White are so stupid we've given up the whole damn country. I see nothing supreme about that. Doesn't mean I want more races here, I don't. Not because I hate them so much as I wish to live with my people. They have their own countries. Let them live in theirs and if it sucks where they are they need to fix their countries and not demand that we bend over to make them happy in ours.
responds:May 20, 2016 9:56 AM UTC

This is your article now, Sam.

Add whatever you like. I think I called enough B—52s down on us to make it fun.
Sam J.May 19, 2016 4:54 PM UTC

I stand by what I said and believe you're conflicting several ideas and "times" in your response. What is now is not what was then. Just because the Commies didn't win the whole enchilada doesn't mean they couldn't have. When you play chess does the first move of a pawn determine the whole game. No but it matters. Each move matters.

The cold war was serious business. The commies had over 30,000 nuclear weapons aimed at us. They had insurgencies all over the planet. They said publicly they were going to destroy us. Did Vietnam directly threaten the US. No but Cuba did. After Cuba went into the Soviet camp they sponsored wars all throughout Central and South America.

Vietnam is strategic in that control of it would foster control of Malaysia, the Philippines and then eventually cutting off all Asian trade. First moves of the pawn.

The grind down of the commies in Vietnam reduced their willingness to venture further. If they had won handily...well nothing like success to motivate but they didn't.

"...I would like to add, that the U.S. commitment to fight anywhere around the world to stop communism was an admittance of its own global aspirations, as is its current commitment to fight Islam..."

This is why the first thing I said was "then and now" being different. I totally agree we should massively pull back. Fuck the world and all the people in it. America first. We do not presently have a power capable of and threatening us with defeat. At the time of the Vietnam war this was not true. Many serious people thought we were destined to lose no matter what we did.

China will be a real problem in 10 to 15 years but maybe not even then if we just back off. Fuck NATO, SATO, TOMATO, GATO and all the free rip America trade agreements. The present is like it is because the Capitalists see no threat to their rule like when the Soviets were in power so they are sticking it to use big time with the Oligarchical power play.
guestMay 19, 2016 12:59 PM UTC

I recommend this video on Vietnam as a technowar:

The Vietnam War: Reasons for Failure - Why the U.S. Lost

He makes a great point how the Vietnam war was the first fought from a purely managerial business perspective, with war managers, and soldier workers, producing enemy bodies, and if the only thing that counts in warfare is economics, then it was impossible for the US to lose, it was impossible for a peasant economy to beat the US, it just couldn't happen.
Mesc FraklinMay 19, 2016 12:09 PM UTC

If Murica had really been serious about fighting communism we would have helped the people who were actively fighting the bolsehviks in the crucial 1940's. Instead we bombed and flattened them, all while communists agents were in high echelons of government.

In truth, America was always the flip side of the Soviet Union, its principles rooted in the same Enlightenment/materialist ethos..Spengler and many germans (not all national socialists either) saw this metaphysically. Look at typing up America in Chains and then tell me about 'freedom' and 'liberty'.

The irony piles on when you see the former Communist countries in Europe being healthier culturally, more masculine and actively resisting the new Invasions while where the Americans liberated are now decadent and weak.

The bitter pill we of the different factions of the Right have to swallow about the cold war is that America in the end was the more destructive force than the may have more bodies, the other has destroyed the soul (to paraphrase Bowden).

Now it can be argued that the 'intellectuals' who led the Russian Revolution found influence over here after Stalin didn't play ball but that is another story...