Why did only the UK support the war?

Not so. Viet Nam and Iraq were not just wars.

 

The Viet Nam war was a just war as is the Iraq war. To say otherwise is to say our nation acted unjustly and that we who have fought in these wars were parties to that injustice. This is completely wrong!

In the case of the Viet Nam war, the injustice rests not with what we did but what we didn't do when the so called "peace treaty" we signed - and forced our friends to sign - was blatantly not honored by the enemy. That was passive injustice - not active - and the veterans had no part in it. The cowards at home demanded, formulated, supported, and then forced the implementation of that plan. The consequences have been many years of injustice for a whole nation of people. We went into Viet Nam, in general, as part of our efforts to take a stand against the spread of Communism around the world and to follow up on the consequences World War II. It was in the best interests of our nation to do that because Communism was a serious threat to our continued freedom. We could see the threat they posed and we knew we had to stop it even though it was dangerous, expensive, not easy, and we had to pick and choose the venue. We chose Korea and then Viet Nam as places to take a stand. We went to Viet Nam to help its people who wanted self representative government - free from colonialism of nations like France - and to prevent our enemies from forcing a repressive Communist society upon them. That's what we were doing there. It was a just cause which all veterans of that war should be proud to have had a part in doing. We can't change the outcome now but we need to stop discrediting the effort.

In the case of the Iraq war, the potential injustice rests not with what we've done thus far but with what we may or may not do in the future. If we drop this fight like we did Viet Nam it will go down in history as another "loss" despite the victory we've had in the fighting. The same kinds of cowards as those of the Viet Nam era stand ready to sell out the victory gained by the blood of our warriors. The consequences may be any number of possibilities none of which are likely to be good for the people of Iraq, good for the area, nor good for our long term national interests. The consequences only stand to encourage our enemies - today and tomorrow - to take on the big gutless "paper tiger" we will have become. We went into Iraq as a part of the war of terrorism as clearly detailed by Congress in the resolution declaring this war. It is war. It is war for justified reasons. We're the good guys. The enemy are the bad guys. We've helped Iraq's citizens establish the roots of a self representative government. They're struggling with it but they've made a lot of progress and, in the long term, they stand to be much better off because of it than they have been for generations, we stand to establish a strong hold in the region to be an example for change, and we establish a firm friendly base from which to pursue the neighboring hot beds of radical Islamic thinking that breeds unimaginable acts of terrorism such as we experienced in 2001. We're going to be dealing with those people one place or another and "over there" is better than "over here". That's what we are doing there. It is an honorable and just cause which all veterans should be proud to be doing. We need to tell them that and stop talking failure, claiming our actions are illegal, and discrediting our reasons and methods at every turn.

 

Doesn't France owe us one too?

 

Nevermind both "wars" were allowed to go forward because public opinion was based on very shakey or false pretenses presented by our leaders and media at the time. Our history of attemped nation building adventures seem to have all relied heavily on such unreliable pretexts. Is it reasonable and "just" to keep starting these adventures on such pretexts?

 

Both wars went forward because they were the right thing to do. They were what the people wanted as expressed by their elected representatives.

There was nothing false about the situation in Viet Nam. The reason we went to war there was proved by its ultimate outcome. We didn't stop the Communists from taking the South but history does give us credit for stopping it there.

"Nation building" is what we do because we don't believe in leaving our enemies in a state of destruction or to the adverse effects of chaos and anarchy. They are difficult adventures and they do take time. We don't have ideal conditions to work with. Our "friends" are often very different that we are. I suppose we could take the approach of "laying waste" to our enemy's land and people leaving them to rebuild on their own. If we took that approach the same group opposed to what we do now would rise up to object to that as well claiming we should help them rebuild.

I could agree on the matter of it being better not to start what we really don't intend to finish but that's for the future and not the present.

 

The Gulf of Tonkin incident that precipitated the Viet nam War has long been suspect.

Tonkin Gulf Intelligence "Skewed"
According to Official History and Intercepts​

Newly Declassified National Security Agency Documents Show Analysts Made "SIGINT fit the claim" of North Vietnamese Attack
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 132 - Update


Washington, D.C., 1 December 2005 - The largest U.S. intelligence agency, the National Security Agency, today declassified over 140 formerly top secret documents -- histories, chronologies, signals intelligence [SIGINT] reports, and oral history interviews -- on the August 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident. Included in the release is a controversial article by Agency historian Robert J. Hanyok on SIGINT and the Tonkin Gulf which confirms what historians have long argued: that there was no second attack on U.S. ships in Tonkin on August 4, 1964. According to National Security Archive research fellow John Prados, "the American people have long deserved to know the full truth about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The National Security Agency is to be commended for releasing this piece of the puzzle. The parallels between the faulty intelligence on Tonkin Gulf and the manipulated intelligence used to justify the Iraq War make it all the more worthwhile to re-examine the events of August 1964 in light of new evidence." Last year, Prados edited a National Security Archive briefing book which published for the first time some of the key intercepts from the Gulf of Tonkin crisis.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/press20051201.htm

 

There was a whole lot more involved than the Gulf of Tonkin incident!

 

Like what?

 

Do I really need to recall all the historical events prior to 1964 that were reasons - valid positive just reasons - for our envolvement in Viet Nam?

Some people are always looking for some evil conspirarcy on America's part and use the 2005 report quoted as "proof" that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a "lie" and a "fraud". It was not! There were two attacks. The first was on 8/2/2004 and the second was on 8/4/2004. It turns out that the second was most likely a phatom attack - one perceived to be real by the defenders but not like the first - but no one was using it as "lie" to justify further action. Even the report makes these facts clear although the quotes always emphasize the second phatom attack as if it were a purposely fabricated event to justify our subsequent actions. Our actions had already been justified. Certainly the attack served as a "trigger" to take further action but it did not stand alone as the only basis for it.

Some people refuse to believe the Communists were - and for that matter still are - a threat to our liberty and we were in Viet Nam to try to prevent their expansion into that area in the name of "liberation" of the Vietnamese from the colonial reign of France that came to an early end partly because of World War II. We'd already witnessed what they did in the Soviet Union and China. We knew their goal was world domination. There was zero injustice in our motives. It's just too bad we didn't completely finish the job in Viet Nam because a lot of people have suffered greatly fighting to keep the Communists out and then unwillingly living under their control since 1975.