5 ms·

>One morning he had the 0100 watch while the Canberra was steaming down the coast of North Vietnam firing its 8-inch guns against targets of opportunity (bicycl

by nemo 6y ago

>One morning he had the 0100 watch while the Canberra was steaming down the coast of North Vietnam firing its 8-inch guns against targets of opportunity (bicycles, water buffalo and occasional trucks) on Highway 1. Just steaming along casually bombarding civilians and livestock like normal.

nickff 6y ago
The North Vietnamese would often transport military supplies on livestock, by bicycle, and in unmarked vehicles. In any case, it doesn't excuse their repeated torture and murder of PoWs.
- teachrdan 6y ago
  That's a straw man argument. To apply the principle of generosity, OP is referring to the author's total lack of acknowledging US crimes against Vietnamese civilians, even as it focuses (quite reasonably!) on the torture of American POWs. There can be no conversation about the US war in Vietnam without recognizing the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed by American forces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Casualties
  - nickff 6y ago
    What are you talking about? Not everything you dislike is a logical fallacy. I am not saying that I know for a fact that those targets were military; I am just saying that it was very difficult to differentiate 'legitimate targets' in a situation where the enemy does not advertise their insignia (as required by the Geneva Conventions). The Vietnam War was a war, and wars cause civilian casualties. North Vietnam ran a very effective, organized campaign of terror against South Vietnam and its supporters. The South Vietnamese and American forces were each responsible for many deaths of innocents, through negligence and more isolated malevolence.
    - AtlasBarfed 6y ago
      Why were we there again? "A war is a war" is a particularly terrible argument given the war in discussion was the Vietnam War
  - refurb 6y ago
    And there can be no conversations without recognizing the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of civilians killed by the North Vietnamese/Russia/China. That’s not whataboutism, that’s setting context for why were we’re bombing North Vietnam in the first place. These things don’t happen in a vacuum.
- nemo 6y ago
  I don't know if anyone would suggest that the US's indiscriminate summary executions of civilians for the crime of riding a bicycle justified anyone torturing anyone, but I certainly didn't.
  - nickff 6y ago
    Well, we don't know how many of the people on Highway 1 were carrying military supplies. This is exactly why the North Vietnamese avoided displaying insignias; they were using their civilians as human shields, and pretending that everyone not wearing a uniform was innocent.
    - celticninja 6y ago
      This may have been part of the reason, the other is that there was a significant portion made up of irregulars, the equivalent of militia members in the states. They didnt have uniforms or insignia covered vehicles with which they could transport weaponry, and they weren't going to spray the cow with an insignia were they. Don't be a fool for the PR, they didn't purposely not wear uniforms, in the same way that the Taliban dont wear a uniform. In general these are not armed forces but irregulars, locals protecting their homeland. If the US was invaded do you think every gun owner is going to sign up and dress in military fatigues? Or are they going to fight back regardless of what they happen to be wearing?
      - nickff 6y ago
        The Geneva Conventions require display of insignia, though not necessarily uniforms. Similar clothing or large enough patches would suffice. There are exceptions for people who spontaneously take up arms to defend their homes or towns. If, on the other hand, one side systematically avoids identification of combatants and related personnel, that side is responsible for any civilian deaths (as well as not being entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions).
        dragonwriter 6y ago
- celticninja 6y ago
  If they run they are VC, if they don't run they are well disciplined VC. You would do well to remember that poor treatment of the opposing force went both ways in Vietnam. And that the US were the invading force. https://www.history.com/.amp/topics/vietnam-war/my-lai-massacre-1 https://www.history.com/.amp/topics/vietnam-war/my-lai-massa...
  - zeveb 6y ago
    > And that the US were the invading force. No, the North Vietnamese were the invading force. They invaded South Vietnam, and after the Paris Peace Accords they invaded it again and conquered it.
    - celticninja 6y ago
      You say conquered they say unified. It was only split into North and South as a result of the Independence movement (against colonial French occupation). And actually, an associated declaration stated that after the troop withdrawals (signifying the actual demarcation of North and South) an election would be held for the reunification of the country. This provision was subsequently never agreed to by the South Vietnamese or the United States. So the North Vietnamese invaded their own country to wrest control from a puppet US supported government, after they had reneged on a democratic option for reunification.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
refurb 6y ago
Yup. The US just decided to bomb civilians one day. No reason. Your statement is somewhat useless without context.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  There was reason alright. The goal was to destroy Vietnam and give it to the French so that Europe would stay aligned with the US or the USSR. You know, very good reasons to bomb kids on bicycles.
  - refurb 6y ago
    By 1967 (this article) the war had nothing to do with the French. They got chased out and were trying to undermine the South Vietnamese gov’t.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Sure, but the root cause for kids being blown up is because France was threatening non-aligment with the US. As far as that there is nothing the Vietcong did that was out of the ordinary and that would warrant blowing up kids on bicycles for fun.
      - refurb 6y ago
        Well, the Vietcong were assassinating thousands of Southerners in their effort to overthrow the Southern Government. It’s not like they were just living peaceful lives.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        Sure. Does that justify, as an American, to fire explosive shells out of a 20cm gun into kids on bicycles, knowingly?

by nemo 6y ago

nickff 6y ago

The North Vietnamese would often transport military supplies on livestock, by bicycle, and in unmarked vehicles. In any case, it doesn't excuse their repeated torture and murder of PoWs.

teachrdan 6y ago
That's a straw man argument. To apply the principle of generosity, OP is referring to the author's total lack of acknowledging US crimes against Vietnamese civilians, even as it focuses (quite reasonably!) on the torture of American POWs. There can be no conversation about the US war in Vietnam without recognizing the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed by American forces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Casualties
- nickff 6y ago
  What are you talking about? Not everything you dislike is a logical fallacy. I am not saying that I know for a fact that those targets were military; I am just saying that it was very difficult to differentiate 'legitimate targets' in a situation where the enemy does not advertise their insignia (as required by the Geneva Conventions). The Vietnam War was a war, and wars cause civilian casualties. North Vietnam ran a very effective, organized campaign of terror against South Vietnam and its supporters. The South Vietnamese and American forces were each responsible for many deaths of innocents, through negligence and more isolated malevolence.
  - AtlasBarfed 6y ago
    Why were we there again? "A war is a war" is a particularly terrible argument given the war in discussion was the Vietnam War
- refurb 6y ago
  And there can be no conversations without recognizing the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of civilians killed by the North Vietnamese/Russia/China. That’s not whataboutism, that’s setting context for why were we’re bombing North Vietnam in the first place. These things don’t happen in a vacuum.
nemo 6y ago
I don't know if anyone would suggest that the US's indiscriminate summary executions of civilians for the crime of riding a bicycle justified anyone torturing anyone, but I certainly didn't.
- nickff 6y ago
  Well, we don't know how many of the people on Highway 1 were carrying military supplies. This is exactly why the North Vietnamese avoided displaying insignias; they were using their civilians as human shields, and pretending that everyone not wearing a uniform was innocent.
  - celticninja 6y ago
    This may have been part of the reason, the other is that there was a significant portion made up of irregulars, the equivalent of militia members in the states. They didnt have uniforms or insignia covered vehicles with which they could transport weaponry, and they weren't going to spray the cow with an insignia were they. Don't be a fool for the PR, they didn't purposely not wear uniforms, in the same way that the Taliban dont wear a uniform. In general these are not armed forces but irregulars, locals protecting their homeland. If the US was invaded do you think every gun owner is going to sign up and dress in military fatigues? Or are they going to fight back regardless of what they happen to be wearing?
    - nickff 6y ago
      The Geneva Conventions require display of insignia, though not necessarily uniforms. Similar clothing or large enough patches would suffice. There are exceptions for people who spontaneously take up arms to defend their homes or towns. If, on the other hand, one side systematically avoids identification of combatants and related personnel, that side is responsible for any civilian deaths (as well as not being entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions).
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
celticninja 6y ago
If they run they are VC, if they don't run they are well disciplined VC. You would do well to remember that poor treatment of the opposing force went both ways in Vietnam. And that the US were the invading force. https://www.history.com/.amp/topics/vietnam-war/my-lai-massacre-1 https://www.history.com/.amp/topics/vietnam-war/my-lai-massa...
- zeveb 6y ago
  > And that the US were the invading force. No, the North Vietnamese were the invading force. They invaded South Vietnam, and after the Paris Peace Accords they invaded it again and conquered it.
  - celticninja 6y ago
    You say conquered they say unified. It was only split into North and South as a result of the Independence movement (against colonial French occupation). And actually, an associated declaration stated that after the troop withdrawals (signifying the actual demarcation of North and South) an election would be held for the reunification of the country. This provision was subsequently never agreed to by the South Vietnamese or the United States. So the North Vietnamese invaded their own country to wrest control from a puppet US supported government, after they had reneged on a democratic option for reunification.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

refurb 6y ago

Yup. The US just decided to bomb civilians one day. No reason. Your statement is somewhat useless without context.

sudosysgen 6y ago
There was reason alright. The goal was to destroy Vietnam and give it to the French so that Europe would stay aligned with the US or the USSR. You know, very good reasons to bomb kids on bicycles.
- refurb 6y ago
  By 1967 (this article) the war had nothing to do with the French. They got chased out and were trying to undermine the South Vietnamese gov’t.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Sure, but the root cause for kids being blown up is because France was threatening non-aligment with the US. As far as that there is nothing the Vietcong did that was out of the ordinary and that would warrant blowing up kids on bicycles for fun.
    - refurb 6y ago
      Well, the Vietcong were assassinating thousands of Southerners in their effort to overthrow the Southern Government. It’s not like they were just living peaceful lives.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Sure. Does that justify, as an American, to fire explosive shells out of a 20cm gun into kids on bicycles, knowingly?