Hacker News Reader

Comment by michaelsshaw | Hacker News Reader

>This event, marked by ingenuity and daring, showcased the unconventional warfare tactics that defined the conflict

Why are the US's (or the west at large) war crimes always seen as "cool" and "unconventional" when it is just terrorism. We never celebrate the Viet Cong for defending themselves successfully against the most powerful military in the world, against all the odds, over decades. The Vietnam war was ridiculously unjust.

>Despite inherent risks and equipment limitations, they successfully neutralized a significant threat.

This is what I'm talking about. The invaders are the threat.

I don't think we should celebrate any person that took part in Vietnam, especially not their "genius" and "ingenuity". If they truly were smart, they wouldn't have done what they did.

View on HN

Well, that’s one way to look at it. Another is to consider the fact that the target was an Antonov 2. How did that get there?? Soviets were the original invader, following a power vacuum from the fall of Japan and inability of France to reestablish a colony. Mass executions were taking place in the north prior to US involvement.

It was quite messy, including the US actions, and the “facts” can vary wildly based on who tells the story, but it is inaccurate to simply label America as the invader.

When you invade a country, especially one that has nothing to do with you, you are the invader, by definition.

And the point was: so was Russia, prior to that.

I couldn't agree more.

Just a slight point I think is more making:

> We never celebrate the Viet Cong for defending themselves successfully against the most powerful military in the world, against all the odds, over decades.

"During the Vietnam War, China provided substantial military and economic aid to North Vietnam, playing a crucial role in supporting their war effort against the United States. This aid included troops for infrastructure repair and defense, military equipment, and financial assistance."

But you are correct.

Yes and Russia too. They had all this Russian gear.

Ironically both were allies of the US only just over a decade before Vietnam started

They were both fighting a common enemy. That didn't make 'm besties. The moment WW2 was over, the cold war started.

I think you can celebrate the ingenuity of a moment in a conflict without condoning the whole of it. Shooting down a plane with a helicopter is hard, this is the first time it happened as far as we know.

Also, when I was taught about the Vietnam War there was a huge amount of respect paid to the creativity of the North Korean forces in how they ran their military operations. Obviously a 1/n anecdote.

FWIW, I was taught that it's unfortunate we didn't get all of Korea.

Pure guess on my part, but I suspect today’s North Korean population might wish we’d gotten the north too.

They actually believe they are geniuses. More than the stories about their own greatness, is the level of Energy they have to run around telling the stories non stop come what may. And promoting people who do so. That's the biggest factor in what stories stay alive and what stories are forgotten. Someone has to constantly bang the drum. Frequency matters more than anything. Who beats the drum the most? People who have the most energy and no other work or capacity to do any other work.

Someone or group with matching energy has to then waste their lives running behind this over energetic army to neutralize the effect. Who is going to do that full time> No one sane.

Because we do not saddle every individual soldier with responsibility for an entire war. That is the responsibility of politicians, and the people who elect them. Don't like the Vietnam war? Talk to all those people who voted in the leaders that perpetuated that war. Do it fast. They aren't getting any younger.

This soldier did not commit a war crime by shooting down an enemy plane. He was doing exactly what he was asked by his country to do.

Also, he saved all the people stationed there. At least for two weeks until they got overrun.

> We never celebrate the Viet Cong

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_Cong_and_People%27s_Army_...

... and the US military has done far worse. And yet here we are celebrating their crimes.

The US military was never the worst. The Germans and Japanese were real monsters during WWII. The US treated POWs fairly well.

Even the Brits were worse, firebombing the hell out of German cities full of civilians. The US did far more dangerous (to themselves) daylight raids so they could actually see what they were targeting. And could target industrial and military facilities.

You probably wanted to mention Bataan and shovels but held back.

> Why are the US's (or the west at large) war crimes always seen as "cool" and "unconventional" when it is just terrorism.

I have read the article carefully and I'm unsure why do you think this incident is terrorism?

Calling this terrorism or a war crime shows the GP has a strong bias and lacking of understanding the reality of the war, or what war even is

Traveling to another country against their laws with the express purpose of killing their citizens is terrorism, even if your government doesn't see it that way. Every lift of a finger, every breath, every thought, every moment had by an American in Vietnam was a crime. Frankly, participating voluntarily makes one truly irredeemable.

Irredeemable? Yikes. Strong disagree, not sure it’s worth debating the more nuanced aspects. There’s a whole lot more to the conflict than you are acknowledging, and it was very messy on all sides.

Yikes. Are you related to someone who invaded Vietnam? It seems like it. And I don't much see nuance in mass murder. Injecting nuance into very clear black-and-white moral situations is a common tactic of people who have done bad things. Holocaust deniers lure people into their racist views by starting with "well, it was a little more nuanced than that."

Even worse, you wanted to drive-by shut me down by saying there's "nuance" and just leaving it at that. Do you think I'm incapable of thought, or do you actually not understand the issue yourself, and that's why you refuse to take a stance either way? What specific nuances am I missing? Please, nuance the Vietnam war. Please morally justify joining the military with the purpose of invading someone else's country and killing their citizens.

Always? Celebrating the war in Vietnam is a very fringe viewpoint in the US.

Hence I used the general term of "war crimes" committed by the west. The things the enemies do are "savage" and "disgusting" but when we do it, it's some cool ass James Bond-style shit that is super dope and should happen more. For example, the recent Israeli pager attack, a blatant war crime, was reported on this way[0].

"By the end of the day, at least a dozen people were dead and more than 2,700 were wounded, many of them maimed ... Some of the dead and wounded were Hezbollah members, but others were not; four of the dead were children."[1]

This is the reality of war crimes. It isn't cool or ingenious. It's unbelievably immoral.

[0] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-former-mossad-agents-det...

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/18/world/middleeast/israel-e...

Wow, those goalposts moved from the US in Vietnam to Israel and Hezbollah really fast!

It's not. It's another example of western crimes being portrayed in this fashion. Please re-read the passage, this time without willfully misunderstanding me.

Because the US wasn't invading. The US was defending South Vietnam from North Vietnam, because the fear was if they fell to communism then more Asian countries would. We basically helped with a civil war.

For starters, this is an American website run by Americans. To expect any different is equal to the intrinsic value of a pound of rotten fish.

Once upon a time, there was a bit more than nationalism, meaning the own side is right by principle, but things like beeing on the side of human rights, democracy, political freedom, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com