Were the Viet Cong enemy combatants?
367979
Yes, the VC (Viet Cong) could have been called enemyk combatants. An enemy combatant is any individual who is fighting against the U.S.
771883
yes here take a look for yourself, and no ones been brought to justice for that and war crimes the u.s commited in vietnam. nazi's didn't last long in history nor will thier predesesors the u.s.
1061808
Yup - they're from Indochina (Vietnam).\nsee http://www.hmongtribe.com
604213
I don't know for sure about the Vietnam war other than South Vietnam wanted to be a democratic society and the north was communism and the US wanted to keep it from spreading, which is the same as what happened in Korea for the most part.  The reason for the Persian Gulf War was because Iraq invaded Kuwait saying that the country belonged to them and we came to Kuwaits defense.
833500
about wars, specifically the Vietnam war.
788764
Communism is the buzzword.  But really its called Imperialism.\nWars outside of national soil are for greed and pride.\nKorea and Vietnam did not represent a threat to the US.  Not until they decided to attack first.
557518
The Americans supported the Southern Vietnamese (non-communists) who were beig attacked by the communists. America withdrew.
889204
You should not speak of things you know not of.\n\nVietnam was divided into two countries before and during the war.  North Vietnam was the aggressor in the Vietnam war.  The NVA, North Vietnamese Army, and the VCs, the Viet Cong, killed more innocent people than what is stated in your specious comment.\n\nPlus, your figure includes the 600,000 NVA killed in legitimate combat and the estimated VC casualties also legitimate combat kills.\n\nGet your facts straight before you make such comments.\n\nFurthermore, your statement insults the brave men that were in the US Armed Forces during the war!
465670
Agree on the tactics that the US implemented in THe Viet war >no\n\nAgree on the overtaking of SAigon by VietCOng> No\n\nAgree on North Vietnam breaking the Geneva conventions > The VietCong Did and yes\n\nIm not sure. Your question is too open ended, try narrowing down the range for people to give more efficient answers
327116
It wasn't all that different from Iraq.  The US decided that we wanted to prevent communist domination, in this case of S. Vietnam.  We said it was to help freedom and democracy, but it was really about a power struggle.  So like the freedom fighters we are, we stuck or noses in to prevent S. Vietnam from Northern invasion.  However, the North had their own supporters like Russia.  As the war lingered on and the draft was forcing young men to fight a war that wasn't directly threatening our national security, a lot of people disagreed...many innocent victims, us and them.  War heros returned to an unpopular welcoming.  The famous boxer Mohammed Ali refused to go and they took his title away from him.  The whole thing sucked.  Not too many guys really wanted to go and many moved to Canada, if their number was picked.  Hippies protested with peace signs while the smoked grass and dropped acid.  I missed a lot of this...a bit young, but I know other guys that were there.  It was no picnic.  One buddy of mine was so ready to fight.  He was #1 in boot camp, ready to storm the beach.  He got his wish, first off the boat, stepped on a mine, blew his face off, lost an eye, half a nose, half a mouth, a bunch of hair, and a little brains, while Nixon and Kissinger watched this whole thing go down the toilet.  It was a stalemate.  Rambo couldn't do it justice.  We finally bailed out.
829724
Viet Nam fits this?  Despite superior resources etc the Americans (and French prior to this) were whupped by chinks with sticks assuming the moral high ground
157123
I have uncles that fought on both sides of the war, and can write a book that will contradict most of the answers before me. Saving all the writing, I'll give a digested version.\n\nThe war was not just about Americans fighting communism. It was a common people fighting each other for how they though their country should be. It was very much a civil war, and lots of Vietnamese lost their lives on both sides fighting for what they thought was right.\n\nSaying that something could have been done to ensure victory for ARVN and American forces indicates a gross lack of knowledge about what was actually happening in Vietnam because victory over the communist forces was ALWAYS available at any time. \n\nThe South and Americans were never allowed to win the war. The VC base of Cu Chi (the tunnels) is a good example of this. Cu Chi is about 20 miles from downtown Saigon, and close enough to launch missles into Saigon every night. ARVN and American forces wre forbidden to enter the area eventhough every aspect of that VC base was known and more than enough resources was available to clear it at any time. You cannot win a war when it is fought like this.\n\nThe North NEVER had the ability to win the war. The NVA and VC forces never won a major battle and could not hold a position against ARVN or American forces. NVA and VC forces had a fraction of the armaments and equipment and easily overwhelmed by the resources and firepower available to ARVN and American forces. \n\nThe Tet offense was a military FAILURE for the NVA and VC forces. The VC forces was destroyed as a fighting force and the NVA exhausted most of their armaments during the Tet offense. The government and history book try to tell a different story tomake the NVA and VC forces as more formidable opponents.\n\nThe ARVN and American forces in Vietnam didn't loose the war. The American politicians did by deciding that the war not useful anymore.\n\nSo what can be done to win the Vietnam war? The war was never really lost. Communism is taking it's last breath in Vietnam after ruining the country for many years. Now, all the Vietnamese people want Americans back and not just the South. Instead of fighting to hold part of the country, we can now vacation and do business with the whole country. The communist politicians in Vietnam lost their war too.
745832
hell no, we take pride in our voluntary fighting force, vietnam taught us that our fighting effectiveness is hindered by inducting pukes who wouldnt serve to save their own skin. they are a liability, not an asset.\n\nThe koreans are different. Their homes are sighted by Communist artillery, they have a patriotic duty to serve and protect their homes. American homes are sighted by terrorists for destruction and conquest, but the liberal pukes in this country have convinced us to disregard this threat, and to start defunding the military and focus on prosecuting people for engaging in the war. the average joe doesnt realize the threat from the islamo-fascists, because they are not as plainly visible as the hardened communist artillery bunkers pointed at their cities, it is a shadowy threat that we face, and if they cant see the threat, then they are less inclined to fight it. I thought 9-11 woke people up, I was mistaken.
240651
I do not understand exactly what you mean, but I suspect you are asking when did large numbers of Vietnamese come to Australia. Obviously, there were probably a few people from many different countries in Australia, but this probably wouldn't require the question you ask. So, when you refer to when, I will take it you mean large numbers.\n\nAfter the Americans (and some of its allies) left Vietnam in  1975, there was no one to fight against the Communist North Vietnamese who were waging war against the South. We were fighting against the North and when we left, there was no one to help the Southerners. Eventually, financial support and training also was removed from the South, while the North was receiving all it needed from it's allies. The North was simply to strong for the South and the North won. The northerners began to kill many from the south. The Southerners took to the sea in small fragile boats to escape the bloodshed. Hundreds of thousands fled. Many of these people wound up in Australia and in the United States. \n\nThis was after 1975. Many of these people weren't automatically given citizenship, but they were still living in countries like Australia, which is just to the south of Vietnam. It took in about 300,000 Vietnamese.\n\nThis is all from my general knowledge, but here is a good site that can explain some of the events.
989592
Kudo's for some good work, although I doubt that many liberals will buy into these facts.  I would like to take issue with one area of contention and that is the Viet Nam war.  It is true that JFK sent in advisors to contain the communists, but it was the old hawk Lydon Baines Johnson that escalated the war and sent in troops.  I believe that Viet Nam was Johnson's war.  After he lost the stomach to continue, when he had Charlie on his knees following the Tet offensive, the old fool announced that he was hanging up his spurs.  Johnson too, was a democrat and a shameless coward.  The loss of that war should  be credited solely to LBJ.
316996
that would be the catholics. AKA French catholics. The French ran some of the most notorious prison systems in the world in both Cambodia and Vietnam.
687275
You were never spat on or called names because all the ones there at airport that day were probably all your little Anti war protesters buddies. come to welcome their cowardly buddy home from the big bad war. You have mentioned that during your Military service that you JOINED THE ANTI VIETNAM WAR PROTESTERS. And that you stayed in the Military working at the DOD for a further 24 years, Doing hush hush top secret jobbies. I would like to know just how that fitted in with YOU being an anti war protester. What was your top secret job selling US secrets to the ENEMY.