It would have been over by the mid-1950s, otherwise. 20 years of fighting primarily western troops with a fig leaf of local rule.
The Vietnam War is largely considered to be 1955-1975. The French were out by 1954, and American troops in any number were there from 1965 to 1973.
> 20 years of fighting primarily western troops with a fig leaf of local rule.
5x to 7x as many South Vietnamese troops died compared to Americans, who had combat troops there for less than half of those 20 years.
Yes, that's the reason the French were out in 1954.
Here's a factoid I recently learned: something like 80+% of Vietnamese refugees were ethnic Chinese (Hoa people), despite constituting a minority of the population from which they fled. Rarely discussed in American history, except perhaps in in-depth treatises, is that ethnic Chinese were the merchant and ruling class in Vietnam for generations, including during colonial periods. That's why the French favored them. It's a classic colonial/imperial techniques to favor a minority group, though AFAIU France basically kept class divisions as they found them. And such minority groups tend to disfavor complete independence as it leaves them more vulnerable. Indeed, continued ethnic conflict after the U.S. departed instigated China to invade Vietnam a few years later.
If the U.S. had fully appreciated the ethnic divisions, it may have made different decisions. State-side the choice to prop up the wealthy, Catholic Diem is well known, but the usual characterizations of that choice completely gloss over the deep and substantial ethnic divisions. (Almost all Vietnamese Catholics were ethnic Chinese, though only are minority of ethnic Chinese were Catholic.) They make the U.S. seem merely tone deaf as opposed to tragically mistaken about the underlying social dynamics. The push for socialism in Vietnam wasn't about political ideology; it was about wrestling control of capital away from a discrete minority ethnic group. Those ethnic enmities ran deep. Without pursuing some of the social reforms sought by Ho Chi Minh a U.S.-backed South Vietnam was always destined to fail.
The irony is that as Vietnam has modernized the same social dynamics have crept back. Ethnic Chinese once again control much (or most?) of the private assets in Vietnam. I have no idea if the ethnic animus has returned to its prior levels, though. Maybe it doesn't matter as much anymore.
I'm not an expert on Vietnam, but I'll just say that whatever their problems with a Chinese merchant class, the problems with a Western burning-villages class were probably bigger at the time.
Also, American and, more generally, anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist discourses tend to infantilize people in these countries. I doubt the Vietnamese had a simplistic, love-hate relationship with either the French or the Americans even after the innumerable atrocities. Just like in every other nation even the masses were and are capable of complex strategic, mixed-motive thinking. Look at the sheer devastation America has caused in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet AFAIU neither most Iraqis nor most Afghanis wish for U.S. involvement to completely disappear. Americans would never believe themselves capable of pressing a war out of pure spite, anger, or retaliation; yet we somehow think other groups do? IOW, there's something problematic in thinking that what fundamentally drove the Vietnamese was a response to American atrocities. Far more likely (and consonant with the notion that all communities around the world tend to behave similarly) is that those atrocities exacerbated underlying, primary dynamics. Afterall, the merchant class by definition didn't tend to live on rice farms. They were centered in the cities.
The U.S. tried to implement many of the same policies the British did in Malaysia. During the communist insurgency in Malaysia the British corralled ethnic Chinese (the primary supporters of communism, such as they were--i.e. it wasn't that simple) into cities and towns. (To this day ethnic Chinese can't own rural farms outright in Malaysia.) But Chinese communities were already mostly urban, and were of course a minority (20-30%). It was a plan that arguably worked by accident. But such a strategy was never going to work in Vietnam because the dynamics were totally flipped. That would have been much more obvious if the U.S. saw the ethnic divisions for what they were.
From the random CIA dispatch reports from Laos and Indonesia I've read, low-level American officials were capable of regional socio-political savvy. I just don't think that appreciation ever translated up the chain. So, for example, people have claimed that the U.S. incited genocide in Indonesia. That seems both true and false. True because low-level CIA officers certainly seemed to understand how political and ethnic divisions overlapped and therefore how their anti-communist campaigning could and did devolve to ethnic cleansing. But I don't think leaders in Washington appreciated that at all. Perhaps mostly out of a racist disinclination to consider such aspects, but oblivious nonetheless.
"Murder, kidnapping, torture and intimidation were a routine part of Viet Cong (VC) and People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) operations during the Vietnam War. They were intended to cow the populace, liquidate opponents, erode the morale of South Vietnamese government employees, and boost tax collection and propaganda efforts. Estimates of the total number of South Vietnamese civilians killed by the VC/PAVN between 1954 and 1975 range from 106,000 to 227,000."
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_Cong_and_People%27s_Army_...
The name Vietnam most probably based on Nanyue or Nam Viet a small little known kingdom created by Qin Dynasty deputy General, name Zhao Tuo or Tro Duo, a Han Chinese [1]. The indigenous or the native people of central and south Vietnam are not from China, they are mainly from Austronesian origin probably Taiwan so called Chams or Cham people [2]. They were the main inhabitants of the land for more than a thousand years (around 1500 years) and had a flourishing Champa kingdoms from 2nd to 16th century AD. The Chams mainly Muslim at the time, had been evicted just like the Moro in the Spain during the Spanish Inquisition or forced to convert. The eviction is completed after the Kinh people from the north displaced them during the Nam tien or "March to the South" and by doing that essentially tripled the original northern kingdom area size [3]. It's a kind of ethnic cleansing by today's standard.
The Kinh is originally ethnic Chinese intermarriage with local Tai-Kadai of the northern Vietnam. For about a thousand years they were essentially conquered and ruled by imperial China. As an analogy the Chams is like the Maya people of Vietnam, until they were eventually evicted rather than assimilated in around 16th AD by the Nguyen lords from the north to the other surrounding countries/areas towards the end of Nam tien movements.
The Chams has a proper civilization called Champa just like the Mayan civilization. The Chams' language is the pre-cursor to the modern Malay and Indonesian language. Their oldest writing on a stone tablet namely Dong Yeng Chau contains an old classical writing of Chams languages in the 4th century AD and was discovered recently in modern Quang Nam province, central Vietnam. It is amazingly still comprehensible if you know the modern language [4]. Interestingly the old name for Quang Nam is Simhapura or Lion City, and it is highly probable than the Cham people conquered Singapore (Singapura) and renamed it similar to their capital's name just like York in the UK becomes New York in the US.
[1]http://eastasiaorigin.blogspot.com/2018/05/ethnic-origin-of-...
[2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chams
[3]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nam_ti%E1%BA%BFn
[4]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%90%C3%B4ng_Y%C3%AAn_Ch%C...
Afghanistan was better of before US took it... now Taliban controls more territory then they did before US came in...
list of countries that depended on the USA that got totally screwed over is larger then the list of a few that USA let become rich and prosperous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
Iran problems began with islamic revolution, and USA had nothing to do with it, no?
> Afghanistan was better of before US took it
Which conflict you are talking about? War in Afghanistan started almost 50 years ago.
> now Taliban controls more territory then they did before US came in
Yeah, the US need to finish what it started. I think Trump decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan was a mistake.
This is incorrect. In 1953, the United States overthrew the democratically elected PM and installed a dictator. The Islamic Revolution was a response to that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
Anyway, it does not disprove my point about countries which became dependent on US, and civil wars where one party is supported by the US.
As for Afghanistan, the taliban has only recently expanded its territorial base before 9/11. The afghan government of today controls more territory than the soviet backed state ever did; whose control only extended to the major population centers and connecting arteries.
Also, you don't need to visit a country to learn what it's GDP per capita compared to other countries in the region. And you don't need to visit the country to learn that it's citizen are used as a source of cheap unskilled labour, in the country and abroad.
Vietnam is not doing too bad though, they are gradually switching to proper market economy.
The orange website is quite left-leaning, and there's nothing racist in my comments. Your opinion is understandable, but it doesn't mean I'm "wrong".
And no, I'm not going to bend to groupthink. Freedom of speech and freedom of conscience is a greatest achievement of western civilization, and I'm going to use it despite of increasing number of attempts of left-leaning activists to shut it down.
> Maybe reflect on your opinions a bit and reconsider a few of them?
Believe me, I do it, when I learn something new. But only then, but not when I'm downvoted/flagged or told I'm wrong or racist.
Also to quote you: "I would hope CEO to protect someone saying “be safe from rioters and looters in BLM marches”, but that won’t happen.
It’s easy to protect someone who is supported by the majority. " Is pretty borderline racist. Maybe not overtly so, but the fact that you equate protesting getting killed with looting and rioting rubs a little too close to it. Oh and then denying racist policies are, in fact, racist just because they don't meet the dictionary definition of it.
Also - freedom of speech being the greatest achievement of western civ? No wonder it took the Muslim civilizations to get us out of the dark ages. And left-leaning activists shutting it down? Jesus dude. Read the constitution. You clearly have no idea what freedom of speech (in America) is.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
That's it. CONGRESS. Nothing about market forces pushing tech companies to deplatform people. Nothing about "cancel culture" or whatever. I mean, I also remember the Bush years, when we had "Free Speech Zones" and nobody on the right was really concerned about it because it only affected people who were protesting the Iraq/Afghanistan debacle.
I mean, Florida (a state run by a pretty right-wing governor) just passed a law essentially denying tech companies freedom of speech. The projection from the right is absolutely ridiculous at this point.
Sometimes, you're just wrong. Whether you admit it or whether you claim you are being some superior moral authority and refusing to bend to "groupthink."
> the fact that you equate protesting getting killed with looting and rioting rubs
Sorry, I could not understand that phrase. Who is getting killed, and what I equate to what?
> Oh and then denying racist policies are, in fact, racist just because they don't meet the dictionary definition of it.
It's really hard to talk to people which like to redefine words. Calling everything and everyone racists and literal nazis just because they don't like it.
I'll stick to the dictionary.
> And left-leaning activists shutting it down? Jesus dude. Read the constitution. You clearly have no idea what freedom of speech (in America) is.
Freedom of speech is far broader term than US constitution even in the US.
For example, UK has freedom in speech, but it is not in the constitution.
On the other hand, many authoritarian countries have more more freedom of speech in the constitution than the US. But they don't really have free speech.
"Cancelling" people for speech reduces that free speech even if it does not violate constitution.
I must say, you have no idea what freedom is speech is.
> I mean, Florida (a state run by a pretty right-wing governor) just passed a law essentially denying tech companies freedom of speech. The projection from the right is absolutely ridiculous at this point.
Denying companies right to deplatform people might be a limitation of business freedom or whatever, but calling it attack on freedom of speech, this is a hot take.
Yeah, we definitely have very different understanding of freedom of speech.
Just in case, this is a quote from wikipedia:
Freedom of speech: Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.
Censorship: Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. ... Censorship can be conducted by governments, *private institutions*, and other controlling bodies.
Emphasis mine.
People were out protesting the murders of black men by police, and you refer to them as looters and rioters in your prior comments - along with some defenses of Gab/Parler - both of which I was banned from for posting things that weren't right wing enough. Great freedom of speech there. I was cancelled by the right!
> Freedom of speech is far broader term than US constitution even in the US.
Right, that's why I said "in America" - which is commonly where people make up complaints about supposed leftists trying to get rid of it - when nearly every law limiting it in my lifetime has been proposed by either Republicans or Democrats - neither of which are leftist.
>"Cancelling" people for speech reduces that free speech even if it does not violate constitution.
No, it doesn't. If I choose to shop somewhere else because I think your products suck, or because I disagree with your views, I'm not reducing the total freedom of speech - I am using my right, in a semi-free market, to give business to whomever I choose. If you come into my house and say things I don't want being said in my house, it's my right to ask you to leave. If I go into a business with no shirt and no shoes - guess what - I get no service. I broke the rules, they don't have to serve me. This does not "reduce free speech" in any way. Free speech doesn't mean you get to do anything you want, and besides which, there are already limits on it - speech that incites violence, things like yelling "fire", making false statements under oath, threatening to kill someone, we had all kinds of anti-smut laws for decades here, on and on. I mean, do you bitch when AMC won't show a movie that isn't rated by the MPAA? Is that "censorship" or is it a business exercising their right to not show something they disagree with?
Political belief is not (and should not be) a protected class, therefore nobody is required to transact with you, they have a choice. It's also your choice to get butthurt and complain about being cancelled (on the very platforms that are supposedly doing the cancelling, just like Marjorie Green wearing a "censored" mask while speaking on national TV).
I get the the right has never really had to suffer any consequences ever, at least in America, for anything, so this may be a little disconcerting. Go ahead and look up how many right wing groups the FBI/CIA infiltrated just for being right wing, and compare that to America going out of it's way around the world to disrupt anything even remotely left of liberal. Or how many left wing publications have been targeted over the years by the government. Or how communism (as much as I disagree with it) was the biggest scare in the world and would get you blacklisted ("cancelled") here in the 50's for even being remotely associated or making someone think you might be associated with it, even if you were a famous physicist who led the development of the atomic bomb. Or you know, the Bush years, where I was teargassed and arrested for peacefully protesting the fact that my tax dollars were being used to bomb people who didn't do anything to me. Have you been teargassed or arrested for exercising your supposed right to free speech? I know the people arresting me DEFINITELY weren't spending their nights reading Chomsky, so if they weren't leftists "cancelling" me, then who were they?
No, I referred to people who were looting and rioting.
Also, it was not murder. George Floyd case was manslaughter at best. I think it is not even manslaughter, but I'm not a lawyer. Again, as I said before, it's hard to talk to people who redefine words for their advantage.
> along with some defenses of Gab/Parler - both of which I was banned from for posting things that weren't right wing enough. Great freedom of speech there. I was cancelled by the right!
It is called deplatforming, not cancelling. If that's true, shame on them! Show me the proof, I'm condemn both of these platforms.
> If I choose to shop somewhere else because I think your products suck, or because I disagree with your views, I'm not reducing the total freedom of speech - I am using my right, in a semi-free market, to give business to whomever I choose.
Yes. But if you dig 10 years old tweet, and then demand a company to fire an employee, and gather a big crowd, that is cancelling.
By the way, my personal policy is to ignore companies which participate in any political activity, whether they support gay rights, christian rights, nazi rights, black rights, human rights, animal rights or whatever, I don't care, I would pick a company which just sells a product. Simply because dividing society is bad, and I support companies which do not do that.
> Free speech doesn't mean you get to do anything you want, and besides which, there are already limits on it - speech that incites violence, things like yelling "fire"
Technically it does limit free speech. And limiting free speech is sometimes acceptable, when it is universally acceptable. Only a dozen of knuckleheads would support freedom to shout "fire" in a theater.
> do you bitch when AMC won't show a movie that isn't rated by the MPAA? Is that "censorship" or is it a business exercising their right to not show something they disagree with?
It is not freedom of speech issue for several reasons: they are not monopoly, their resource is limited, there are children who watch TV etc.
> I get the the right has never really had to suffer any consequences ever, at least in America, for anything, so this may be a little disconcerting. Go ahead and look up how many right wing groups the FBI/CIA infiltrated just for being right wing
Technically it was never? just because they are left wing, US has so many laws, there's a law to harass anyone. Ruby Ridge was one of many case where right-leaning people were harassed by the government. But I agree, until recently, left wing were harassed by the government more often.
That statement of yours looks like you are willing to retaliate against rights for injustices of the past. This is very shortsighted, let alone inhumane. Those FBI/CIA agents and their bosses are long dead. Don't punish children for the sins of their fathers.
> Have you been teargassed or arrested for exercising your supposed right to free speech?
I can tell you my story, and there are unpleasant parts in it, believe me, I know what I'm talking about. But that story is not for this website, we can continue in e-mail if you wish. [email protected] is a redirect e-mail.
Anyway, I'm always on the side of those oppressed. When free speech is restricted for someone, I'm all for them regardless of their political views, lefts, rights, jews, arabs, blacks, whites, gays, christians, nazis, doesn't matter. When peaceful protesters get arrested, again, they have my full support regardless of their views. But when people start burning buildings because of police incident resulting in non-intentional killing of junkie criminal resisting arrest, they have no my support.
I am of the opinion that you should not be on the side of nazis, ever. Siding with people who want to take away the rights of everyone who doesn’t look like them is kind of a little hypocritical on your part, oh great defender of free speech who also somehow supports people who want to take away the speech (and lives) of people who disagree.
Also, the civil rights movement is not the distant past. Ruby Bridges is still alive. The FBI did what they could to fuck that up. Occupy too, and now BLM. These are not ancient history, these are events within (some of) our lives.
I did not get that. Do I need to know him personally to know that he has junkie and a criminal?
> And to think the protests were about a single person
Sure protests were for all good and against all bad.
But there were too many posters about George Floyd and other black criminals, there was too many lies in crime statistics posted by left-wing media supporting these protests, so let's say these protesters were misinformed at best.
> clearly you don’t care enough to be informed.
Well, you have formed your opinion about what I know and what I don't (not the first time in this thread). It's not my job to convince you otherwise. Continue living in an imaginary world where everyone who disagree with you is literally nazi.
> I am of the opinion that you should not be on the side of nazis, ever.
Thank you for your opinion, but I'm not on the side of nazis. I'm on the side of freedom of speech and other human rights.
> Siding with people who want to take away the rights of everyone who doesn’t look like them is kind of a little hypocritical on your part
I'm not "siding" with these people. I try protect their rights and freedom as well as rights and freedoms of anyone else.
I'll try to explain the difference, but it is so obvious, so explanation might be hard.
There are two reasons: humanist and practical.
First, even serial killers and rapists deserve humane treatment, right to fair trial etc. Including free speech. Abandoning eye for an eye principle is also a great achievement of the western civilization.
Second, if society today decides it is acceptable to take speech rights from nazis, tomorrow it will decide it can take speech rights from communists, day after tomorrow you won't be able to talk freely. It happened too often throughout history, even in modern times, literally in the last decade (I'm not talking about the US, but it applies to the US to some degree).
Yes, since you only seem to know what right wing media tells you. Rush Limbaugh was also a junkie and a criminal by those standards, yet he gets a medal of freedom or whatever.
> George Floyd and other black criminals
This is why you are an uninformed racist. You can disagree all you like but it doesn't really change the reality of it.
> everyone who disagree with you is literally nazi.
I never called you or anyone who disagrees with me a nazi. I said "defending nazis is reprehensible" basically.
> I'm on the side of freedom of speech and other human rights.
Again, no you are not. If you defend those who would seek to take away the lives of others, you are not on the side of human rights. Right to life and all that.
> serial killers and rapists deserve humane treatment, right to fair trial etc. Including free speech. Abandoning eye for an eye principle is also a great achievement of the western civilization.
I agree, but this isn't a trial.
>decides it is acceptable to take speech rights from nazis, tomorrow it will decide it can take speech rights from communists
I mean, it did? Look at the 50's. Rightwing cancel culture and deplatforming at it's finest. Also, taking away the rights of those who don't respect the same right in others is kind of ok - that's sort of what our justice system is based on, since you likened this to a trial.
You cannot seriously believe he was not a criminal and a junkie.
Here the left wing sources about his criminal history: https://www.nytimes.com/article/george-floyd-who-is.html
Here is left wing source about his drug use: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/08/us/derek-chauvin-trial-ge...
> Rush Limbaugh was also a junkie and a criminal by those standards, yet he gets a medal of freedom or whatever.
Many criminals junkies walk free regardless of their skin color. George Floyd was just too unlucky to be high on several drugs, committed crime and resisted arrest on the same day. This combo could not end well.
> This is why you are an uninformed racist. You can disagree all you like but it doesn't really change the reality of it.
I'm not a racist, and I don't talk with people who throw insults, and generally don't talk to people who cannot conduct a constructive dialogue.
So this is my last reply to you. You may reply, and I'll read that reply, but I won't reply to you again. It was an interesting conversation. Thanks!
> I never called you or anyone who disagrees with me a nazi.
I was speaking figuratively. It just happens way to often by left wing people. In fact, you just called me racist in the same message. There's irony in that.
> If you defend those who would seek to take away the lives of others, you are not on the side of human rights.
I must say, you don't understand the modern meaning of human rights. Even criminals have these rights. Like UN requires it, all of the western countries signed it, most of the world countries signed it. It is universally agreed on in the western society. Well, I thought so, until I read your comment, and was quite disappointed. I thought better of left-wing people.
> Also, taking away the rights of those who don't respect the same right in others is kind of ok
So it's OK to rape the rapist, I got it. And I already replied to that: fortunately eye for an eye was abandoned by the western civilization, but unfortunately left-wing people are pulling civilization back to the dark ages.
The NY Times is NOT left wing, it is liberal. Same with CNN. Also, the Times article says he moved away to get a fresh start. Do you believe a person is ALWAYS a junkie or criminal? I've been to jail. Does that mean I am a criminal, permanently?
Since when are police allowed to be executioners? How can you be ok with that? Why can't non-lethal force be used, a person brought to jail, and then charged with a crime. He wasn't charged with anything, and in America I thought people were "innocent until proven guilty."
>I'm not a racist,
So you are one of the only humans I have ever met who has no unconscious bias, is perfectly aware of the entirety of their mind, and does not need anyone else to hold up a mirror for them to show them their blind spots. Got it.
> It just happens way to often by left wing people. In fact, you just called me racist in the same message.
You should hear what I've been called by right wing people. And I'm not saying all racists are nazis. Some racists are just racist without knowing it, some are "culturally racist" like much of my family - ignorant, usually. Some are just racist and don't want to exterminate other races, but believe all sorts of bullshit bell-curve garbage. There are plenty of other categories.
>Even criminals have these rights.
Yes, we agree. And what was being protested last year was the unequal application of those rights, and police forces acting as judges, juries, and executioners, when they are supposed to be people who apprehend (not kill) criminals or gather evidence to use at a trial. I used to live in a 99% white neighborhood. My former roommate was a black man. I never had a front license plate on my car (illegal here) in the three years I lived there and never had a problem. He drove without one for a week and got pulled over three times. By cops who "weren't racist" according to them. You think those cops thought they were racist? You could have even been one of them for all I know.
>So it's OK to rape the rapist, I got it
No, I don't believe in an eye for eye but you keep putting up straw men to try to make me into some caricature of what you think a left wing person is, like how calling people nazis happens often so I'm obviously doing it, when you were the first person to mention them at all anyways.
In fact, every single person on the left that I know of is pretty against retributive justice and instead prefers rehabilitative justice. In a rehabilitative system, someone like George Floyd would have gotten addiction counseling, support as he was getting back on his feet, and help keeping his life in order, and the protests of last year would likely never have happened. This is just more projection from you. The right wing is always the one who is all about eye-for-an-eye - how many right wing people are calling for the abolition of the death penalty? Isn't "tough on crime" usually a big hit with the right wing voting bloc? Even liberals are on board with that garbage. How many prison abolitionists can you name on the right or even center? It's how we end up with shit like the Clinton crime bill or whatever.
My understanding of the war was the USA wasn't there to make Vietnam the 51st State. They were there fighting a proxy war against the Russians and Chinese and to protect the south of the country that wanted nothing to do with the communists.
How could the Viet Cong have been as successful as they were if they didn't have substantial support in the south?
There was supposed to have been a referendum on re-unification in 1956, but it was cancelled by South Vietnam's Ngo Dinh Diem.
Vietnam was absolutely a second world country at that time, and it was an awful proxy war for many people. The theory that was used was the domino theory, that if a first world country would fall to a second world country, then others would start to fall in a "line of dominos".
And some people did not want to live under socialism/communism, and asked the US in defending themselves. The two countries, North and South Vietnam, and their allies, agreed to end hostilities:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Accords
North Vietnam then broke that agreement:
When I was in HCMC, I visited the The War Remnants Museum. It is on the same level as Auschwitz in my mind. It made me physically ill.
I was so unbelievably ashamed for my country and it's awful leaders during that time. The more I've learned about the war in the time since, the more I've started to understand that we are heavily indoctrinated in the US to believe a ton of bullshit growing up, particularly in relation to our foreign policy blunders.
I'm sorry for the suffering inflicted upon your country and people.
The North had Hanoi Hilton and Desert Inn and plenty of places it kept and tortured political dissidents and American POWs in violation of the Geneva convention. The Vietnam War was a giant mistake, a huge blunder, however, as others have mentioned the Korean war was fought under similar pretexts and no one regrets the U.S. stepping in to save South Korea.
I don't know whether or not the U.S. made all the right choices in the Cold War against the U.S.S.R. Would you prefer a world in which the U.S. hadn't engaged at all against Russia or stayed completely out of Asia (as well as European conflicts)? I don't know if the world that exists today would be better or worse off, really hard to say.
* The existence of films critical of the war does not imply that the mainstream "serious" political opinion of the day (that you would read in national newspapers, for example) went beyond calling the war a "quagmire" or "disaster", then with a justifying "but...", usually mentioning Domino theory or Containment as you implicitly do. I disagree with that assessment.
* The fact that North Vietnam (or Japan, or anyone) were awful in their treatment of PoWs doesn't excuse the US treating civilians in South Korea terribly. You are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of your own actions (or a close ally's actions), not someone else's. It's not "whataboutism" to focus on the effects you can actually control, even if it's historical. You can't change the past, but you can learn from your own history and understand what is "foreign propaganda" and what's actually just an uncomfortable truth.
* I can think of a few US interventions in the Cold War that seem to have hurt more than they helped, even with info available to decision-makers before committing to them. Vietnam is one of them.
Edit: I don't want to contribute to a pointless back-and-forth asking leading questions of each other, and don't have the time to go into major detail or link reading material, but I just thought I'd at least elaborate my thoughts more on the "blunder" comment, and the point about focusing on your own actions.
I'm generally pretty stoic about these sorts of things, but that museum really did a number on me. I felt emotional and choked up most of the time and it put a damper on the rest of my day. I'm glad I went, though.
Right now, it's very popular on sites like Reddit and increasingly here to fill threads with bad historical takes that list everything bad the US has ever done, as if its acting in a vacuum where no other countries exist. In nearly every case of US intervention, you'll find that other countries were intervening on the other side. That's what the cold war was about. Domino theory was valid and rational. Large marxist countries exported revolution, allied powers supported governments resisting revolution. You might enjoy the underdog story of ethno-nationalists defeating the "empire" but on the other side of that story is always millions of families who lost lives and property to shitty redistribution schemes afterwards. My parents are from a latin american country that suppressed its marxist rebellion(with US help), but I have Cuban-American friends whose grandparents weren't so lucky.
I'm honestly curious how a non-socialist/communist South Vietnam would look like. (I speak as someone whose family is from Central/Eastern Europe: so while I was not born in a totalitarian system, I visited family a few times while it was still around.)
But it's also no South Korea or Taiwan as far as development.
The Vietnamese people are smart, clever, hard-working, and I really do appreciate them and I hope their government gets out of their way so they can shine.
From the virtually complete annihilation of civilian infrastructure in the north to the widespread deforestation, poisoning, and unexploded ordinance in the south, the US barely left a country behind. Such comparisons are incredibly disingenuous without a view of how long Vietnam had to spend just rebuilding functioning infrastructure, education, etc and all without wealthy foreign investment. The Vietnamese people and government should be applauded for everything they have achieved.
South Korea was the recipient of one of the largest and most consistent foreign aid packages for decades. From 1946-1978 South Korea received as much foreign aid from the US as all of Africa combined over the same period. (South Korea has a population of 50 million; Africa has a population of 1.3 billion.)
And then on top of that was the military aid from the US, which made up 20-40% of all aid. Half a billion dollars just under the CRIK program from 1950-1956. Even today, the US spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year on its military presence in South Korea.
And that's just from the US. Japan also contributed billions of aid and development money.
Meanwhile Vietnam received no foreign aid and was instead under a 30-year trade embargo until 1995. Unsurprisingly, as soon as the embargo was removed, the Vietnamese economy began growing strongly (9.5% growth in 1995).
A similar story can be told about Taiwan and the massive economic and military aid it received from the US.
Plus South Korea and Taiwan were both single-party dictatorships with state-directed economies for decades, so it isn't really clear what was so great about them being "state capitalistic but not democratic". See the 228 Massacre in Taiwan, for instance.
First, it's a country and their people want to remain independent from the US. I don't see anything wrong with it. Their people, born in that country, fight that war, and they win.
Second, after the war, the winning party didn't do a great job to improve the country and condition. That's another discussion.