DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | Campus "Unrest" demonstrations and consequences, 1970-1971 | Facts and Arguments About The War In Vietnam

Transcribe
Translate

Campus "Unrest" demonstrations and consequences, 1970-1971

Facts and Arguments About The War In Vietnam

FACTS AND ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE WAR IN VIETNAM

Cost of the War:
The total cost has been over 120 billion dollars. At the present level, it costs over $46.5 million a day.: 2.3 million an hour.
Casualties of the War:
Dead .....42,000 (33,629 in Korea)
Injured .....211,000 since 1961. (double the injuries in Korea; 4 times the injuries in WWI.)

ARGUMENTS YOU WILL PROBABLY HEAR:
* SOUTH VIETNAM WAS INVADED BY A FOREIGN COUNTRY: This is false. The two Vietnams are not two countries, but one divided by a civil war. The 17th parallel is their Mason-Dixon line. Also Gen. Ky and pres. Thieu are from North Vietnam.
*WE ARE FIGHTING TO PROTECT SOUTH VIETNAMESE FREEDOM: This is also false. The present So. Viet government jailed all political opposition that advocated peace, and in the 1967 elections, got less than a majority of the vote. In So. Vietnam there is no freedom of speech, no freedom of press. We are fighting to protect a corrupt dictatorship.
* We have commitments to the South Vietnamese: The basis of our commitments is very questionable. The SEATO pact calls only for a meeting of member nations in the case of any armed attack. NO SUCH MEETING HAS EVER BEEN HELD. When we went in with funds and advisors from 1950-55, there was no stable government in South Vietnam. American money, the CIA, and American military aid created the government of Ngo Diem. A majority of Buddhists (and the CIA) put him out.
*IF WE LEAVE, THERE WILL BE A BLOODBATH: Buddhist leaders in So. Viet do not buy this at all, and a mojority are Buddhist.  But the argument is absurd. FOR THE WAR ITSELF IS THE GREATEST BLOODBATH THE VIETNAMESE PEOPLE HAVE EVER KNOWN.

People may also defend the war with the following arguments:
*"MY COUNTRY RIGHT OR WRONG," When people say this, they imply that the actions of government transcend morality. When someone believes that violence at home, on campus, in the streets, is wrong, but thinks that violence that kills over 1000 people a week is right, something in his head is not together. The real argument is that a country may have interests that justify a war. But there is no way to justify this one. Then it follows that this country, being wrong, should get out of vietnam without delay. Another implication of this argument is that leaders from the top know what is in the interests of the people. Ask people if they think the men in Washington know what is right for them. If governments can make mistakes at home, they can make them abroad. No one in Southeast Asia has told our government what they want: in So. Viet, they have never had an election in which everyone voted, or could do so. But we can be sure they do not want to die  that they don't think it is right for them to be bombed because there is one Viet Cong in their village.
*"Only the PRESIDENT KNOWS." This argument is supported by a belief that there is sanctity in secrets. It also assumes that information does not have to be interpreted. Both of these assumptions are wrong. 
Secret information is only good if it can produce results. Presidents since Eisenhower have all claimed to have secret information that would lead to an end of the fighting in Vietnam. But all of them also had advisors who interpreted those secrets. THE INFORMATION IS NOT IMPORTANT IF THE INTERPRETATION IS WRONG. If advisors to American presidents had ever been right about their interpretations, there would not be a war in SouthEast Asia. IF YOU TREAT A CIVIL WAR AS A FOREIGN INVASION, YOU CAN'T USE INFORMATION, SOME OF IT OBVIOUS, TO BRING ABOUT PEACE. What Nixon has done in Cambodia is the same interpretation of facts that got us into Vietnam in the first place. The Viet Cong are a guerrilla force, and they fight on the run. They survive because the people support them. if we get them out of Cambodia, they can go somewhere else. They are in their home territory, among their own people. They own the jungle. A PRESIDENT WHO RELIES ON SECRETS, BUT INTERPRETS THEM WRONG, CAN NEVER GET RESULTS. HIS SECRET INFORMATION THEN, IS NOT IMPORTANT TO KNOW.

Saving...

FACTS AND ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE WAR IN VIETNAM Cost of the War: The total cost has been over 120 billion dollars. At the present level, it costs over $46.5 million a day.: 2.3 million an hour. Casualties of the War: Dead .....42,000 (33,629 in Korea) Injured .....211,000 since 1961. (double the injuries in Korea; 4 times the injuries in WWI.) ARGUMENTS YOU WILL PROBABLY HEAR: * SOUTH VIETNAM WAS INVADED BY A FOREIGN COUNTRY: This is false. The two Vietnams are not two countries, but one divided by a civil war. The 17th parallel is their Mason-Dixon line. Also Gen. Ky and pres. Thieu are from North Vietnam. *WE ARE FIGHTING TO PROTECT SOUTH VIETNAMESE FREEDOM: This is also false. The present So. Viet government jailed all political opposition that advocated peace, and in the 1967 elections, got less than a majority of the vote. In So. Vietnam there is no freedom of speech, no freedom of press. We are fighting to protect a corrupt dictatorship. * We have commitments to the South Vietnamese: The basis of our commitments is very questionable. The SEATO pact calls only for a meeting of member nations in the case of any armed attack. NO SUCH MEETING HAS EVER BEEN HELD. When we went in with funds and advisors from 1950-55, there was no stable government in South Vietnam. American money, the CIA, and American military aid created the government of Ngo Diem. A majority of Buddhists (and the CIA) put him out. *IF WE LEAVE, THERE WILL BE A BLOODBATH: Buddhist leaders in So. Viet do not buy this at all, and a mojority are Buddhist. But the argument is absurd. FOR THE WAR ITSELF IS THE GREATEST BLOODBATH THE VIETNAMESE PEOPLE HAVE EVER KNOWN. People may also defend the war with the following arguments: *"MY COUNTRY RIGHT OR WRONG," When people say this, they imply that the actions of government transcend morality. When someone believes that violence at home, on campus, in the streets, is wrong, but thinks that violence that kills over 1000 people a week is right, something in his head is not together. The real argument is that a country may have interests that justify a war. But there is no way to justify this one. Then it follows that this country, being wrong, should get out of vietnam without delay. Another implication of this argument is that leaders from the top know what is in the interests of the people. Ask people if they think the men in Washington know what is right for them. If governments can make mistakes at home, they can make them abroad. No one in Southeast Asia has told our government what they want: in So. Viet, they have never had an election in which everyone voted, or could do so. But we can be sure they do not want to die that they don't think it is right for them to be bombed because there is one Viet Cong in their village. *"Only the PRESIDENT KNOWS." This argument is supported by a belief that there is sanctity in secrets. It also assumes that information does not have to be interpreted. Both of these assumptions are wrong. Secret information is only good if it can produce results. Presidents since Eisenhower have all claimed to have secret information that would lead to an end of the fighting in Vietnam. But all of them also had advisors who interpreted those secrets. THE INFORMATION IS NOT IMPORTANT IF THE INTERPRETATION IS WRONG. If advisors to American presidents had ever been right about their interpretations, there would not be a war in SouthEast Asia. IF YOU TREAT A CIVIL WAR AS A FOREIGN INVASION, YOU CAN'T USE INFORMATION, SOME OF IT OBVIOUS, TO BRING ABOUT PEACE. What Nixon has done in Cambodia is the same interpretation of facts that got us into Vietnam in the first place. The Viet Cong are a guerrilla force, and they fight on the run. They survive because the people support them. if we get them out of Cambodia, they can go somewhere else. They are in their home territory, among their own people. They own the jungle. A PRESIDENT WHO RELIES ON SECRETS, BUT INTERPRETS THEM WRONG, CAN NEVER GET RESULTS. HIS SECRET INFORMATION THEN, IS NOT IMPORTANT TO KNOW.