Talk:United States in the Vietnam War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 30 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kitaferd.

Above undated message substituted from

talk) 12:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Itsmatt1212.

Above undated message substituted from

talk) 12:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Untitled

I just split this off from the Vietnam War article because it was getting too long. If you have time, please make an introduction and copy over sources, to help round out this article. Thanks! Ahudson 16:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This will definitely not do as an article name. Cripipper 00:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's what the name of the section was in the main article, so... If you have a better idea, please fix it. Or tell me and I'll do it. Thanks for the comment though, amd please tell me if there are any other problems! Ahudson 16:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should the Role of the Soviet Union in the Vietnam War be part of this article or should there be a new article? The role of the Soviet Union was a major factor in the war, and they sent military advisers as well as the Americans. Ottawakismet (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest changing the name to Military history of the United States in Vietnam or something akin to that which would bring it in line with similar articles.
User:FLJuJitsu 10:16, 26 Aug 2021

Why did you Merge?

I don't know exactly what happened and why, but somehow several other articles got merged into this one. This caused this article to become too long, which defeats the purpose of sectioning it off in the first place. I'm not very familiar with the more abstract protocols of Wikipedia, so if I did something wrong tell me. But whoever did this, please respond to this message. Otherwise I'm just going to put it back how it was, albeit maybe with better titles and linkage. Ahudson 18:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The title 'Americanization' was neither historiographically accurate, nor a particularly useful search term. Likewise the article 'Foreign Involvement in the Vietnam War'. Several other articles have not been merged into this one. The only content on this page comes from Vietnam War, in an effort to reduce the size of that article by bringing American-focused sections over here. Unfortunately there are just some articles that are going to be long - and a popular and complex historical topic like America and the Vietnam War is going to be one of those. Cripipper 10:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If 'Americanization' isn't accurate, then why was it the title of the section in the main article? Besides, as far as I could tell, this was a time period, not a themed article. Articles dont have to be too long; wars can be broken up by time period and summarized. Which is what I am doing currently with the Vietnam War article. Ahudson 16:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was fine as a subsection within a larger article - it was the period of the Americanization of the war, but as a stand-alone article it doesn't really make much sense. Cripipper 01:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cripipper, you might want to review some of the material you've merged into the article, because some of it has to do with the Vietnam war in general during the time period that Americans were involved, but is not specifically related to the United States and the Vietnam War.
Also, as you mentioned a lot of the material is from the Vietnam war article. Moving it here to reduce the size of the Vietnam article would be fine, however currently the same exact text is in two places. We need to figure out a way to not have the same content in two articles, either by deleting or drastically reducing the sections on these topics in the Vietnam war article or by removing them from this article. Heavy Metal Cellisttalkcontribs
I agree with your sentiment, and agree that it needs more work, but I think you are being unrealistically ambitious if you think you can have articles on the Vietnam War and The United States and the Vietnam War without significant degree of overlap. E.g. there is a significant amount of overlap between articles on WWII and the U.S. and WWII, or the UK and WWII, etc. The U.S.A. was one of the main protagonists in this conflict - clearly much of the text in the main article is going to concern it. Cripipper 01:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What he means, I think, is that the text is word-for-word exactly the same, meaning that you should be able to "drastically reduce" the vietnam war article. I don't know if I'd go that far, but some of it at least can be summarized if a link to this article is added as well. Ahudson 16:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The text is not word for word the same: there are several sections in this article that do not exist in the main Vietnam War article, and almost every section in this article is longer and more detailed than the main article text. Cripipper 11:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If not, it should be; neither article has received any re-writing edits (other that the Vietnam war intro), just moving stuff around. All of this text, with the exception of a few links and an odd sentence or two, were in the main article when I moved it out in the first place; what happened to it in between is anyone's guess, although it a ppears that for some reason you didn't move some of it back in (i.e. the My Lai Massacre and Operation Linebacker II). Ahudson 00:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually continued to try and cut down on the U.S. military history focused stuff in the main article to reduce it further: my goal was roughly two paragraphs per section as it currently stands. Stuff like the Pentagon Papers and My Lai are not particularly relevant to the bigger story of the war, though of course of intense interest to Americans, which is why I kept them here and not over there. I think we are basically working towards the same end; my main concern is that you are going to unnecessarily over-simplify the main article. Cripipper 01:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cripipper, I have no negative feelings towards America but this article should not be considered history. You have completely written it from the point of view of the PR department of the US military. The idea that "the Pentagon Papers and My Lai are not particularly relevant to the bigger story" is incredibly ignorant to the facts of history and the idea you have written this to be of "interest to Americans" is beyond ignorant. Why is the use of Agent Orange not mentioned? Why are facts such as more than 1,000 hospitals and medical centres were destroyed by Americans absent? Why does it not mention that over 1,000 towns and over 600,000 Cambodians were wiped out during operation Menu? This article does not belong in Wikipedia in its current form and is an insult to the truth. American soldiers willingly committed acts of war amounting to genocide, this is the truth. It should be written by a neutral perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.19.107.6 (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must add some actual historical truths to this posting. As usual the U.S. is again brought into another conflict under the pressure of the U.N. as "peace keepers". We were sent there by a U.N. initiative for a peaceful "exit" of the French goverment forces because of an increased genocide by the Bhuddists on the Catholic Vietnamese who were seen as conspiring with the French occupiers.The Communist North Vietnamese, aka China, saw this as steeling "their" spoils. This was in 1955, and as usual when we do the bidding of the U.N. and other anti-U.S. contries we wind up the scapecoat, and the recieiver of all the angst of the population because we "saved" the aggressors, the French. The U.N. has placed us inso many situations where we have had to clean up after the Germans, French, England, and anyone they required us to face off. As a 66 year old Vietnam veteran (66_67) I know of which I speak. It all started at Dien Dien Phu, not the Tonkin Bay incident that the left want's us to believe. To try and rewrite history because of an agenda or a bias is sickly and obscene! We were also seen to be trying to side with the Christian community rather than bowing to the Communist authorities. But I realize that so many people associated with this site were totally corrupted by their professors and teachers who were right out of the anti-goverment 60's enviroment. Lets have more truth here and maybe it will be considered a legitimate site of research rather than another "wiki" problem! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclebill111 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion that "the U.S. is again brought into another conflict under the pressure of the U.N." is subjective at best and neglects the occasions where the US sought and obtained a U.N. mandate to legitimize it's foreign intervention policies.83.248.190.246 (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Nguyen.jpg

fair use
.

Please go to

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline
is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newly available document

I added a paragraph under Vietnamization, 1969–1975 that reflects a document now available from the National Security Archives at Georgetown. This document was declassified in May of 2006 and in my estimation changes the discussion over "who lost" Vietnam. It appears that President Nixon dramatically changed the U.S. game plan from supporting a weak Saigon against a strong Hanoi to supporting a strong Beijing against a stronger Moscow. Rather than editorialize I thought I'd let the document speak for itself. The quote I used is on the last page of the 37 page document. It is labeled as Document 10 on the index page given as reference, and is down-loadable as a PDF file.LarG (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Lai

removed:

" The morality of U.S. participation in the conflict was a major political issue both in the U.S. and abroad. First, there was the question whether America should have interfered in what was generally considered to be a civil war. Second, was a proxy war, without a clear and decisive path to victory, worth the number of casualties that were being sustained by both combatants and civilians? Third, there was the question how the American military, which depended on the use of massive amounts of firepower (which tended to hold down casualties), could fight a war against an elusive enemy that was often indistinguishable from the civilian population. Last, how could inexperienced U.S. troops (many of whom were unwilling conscripts) be reasonably expected to engage in such a guerrilla war without succumbing to stress and resorting to acts of wanton brutality? Fighting a mostly invisible enemy (who often utilized the civilian population as a shield) that did not obey the conventional rules of warfare, American troops suffered injury and death from impersonal booby traps and snipers. This could only lead to the kind of fear and hatred that would compromise morals."

not sure that is directly relevant to the massacre itself. It's also quite slanted to a particular point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZubenelgenubiA2L (talk • contribs) 01:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of changes in China

When reading this article, I became confused (perhaps because of my lack of Chinese history. Take note of these two time line items:

  • February 1946 — The French sign an agreement with China. France gives up its concessions in Shanghai and other Chinese ports. In exchange, China agrees to assist the French in returning to Vietnam north of the 17th parallel.
  • 1949 — Chinese communists reach the northern border of Indochina. The Viet Minh drive the French from the border region and begin to receive large amounts of weapons from the Soviet Union and China. The weapons transform the Viet Minh from an irregular large-scale insurgency into a conventional army.

I would propose modifying the first sentence of the second entry to: "The now communist Chinese reach the norther border of Indochina." This would clarify the changes that occurred in China between these two entries. FrankCarroll (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 98.235.176.167, 8 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The final paragraph of the section entitled "Search and destroy, the strategy of attrition" is very poorly written. It reads like a middle school book report!

98.235.176.167 (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: I can't figure out a way to write it any better than it currently is, why don't you try then re-request an edit. Spitfire19 T/C 05:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to remove section on "Operation Grey Cloud"

The Operation Grey Cloud section does not cite any sources, is much too detailed given the level of overview provided on the page, and is not relevant to the overall page. Operation Grey Cloud should be relegated to a reference link in this page, if it is retained at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.55.58.138 (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, even more. This is mostly or entirely word-for-word the plot of the film Operation Dumbo Drop as written on that page of Wikipedia. Without sources, I also think this section needs to be removed entirely. It's not clearly true in general, and is pretty clearly untrue in the details.23.29.37.4 (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some lady on Twitter openly admitted that she added it; link here. Should be removed. --Cus.moritz (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infamous strategies

Why is there nothing in this article about American strategies used in the war which are often regarded as war crimes, like the spreading of Agent Orange, the forced relocation of people and the destruction of villages? This article shows very much an American military perspective on the war. It's a shame. Bever (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because nobody cared to respond to this issue in the previous two years, I added a POV tag to the article. Bever (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The lead also uses the disputed domino theory (without using the term) as a justification for the American involvement in the war, as a fact: "This would have resulted ..." Bever (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The domino theory import there is, I think, an inference by you and not an implication in the article. BOP concerns and the domino theory were, as I recall without researching, factors in US decisions re more direct involvement. This is probably easily supportable, but whether it ought to be mentioned at that point in the article is open to question. I've wikilinked Balance of power (international relations). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: not NPOV - needs more antiwar protest information

The article seems to mention just a few specific protests in the timeline. There is lots of info at Vietnam War Protests, etc. which should rate at least one section given their number, scale and coverage. Facts707 (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for US involvement

Someone has added a "Reasons for U.S. intervention in Vietnam". A lot of it isn't sourced.....but one thing that really caught my eye was the first paragraph...saying LBJ was trying to prove his "manliness"? There are a couple of cited sources but source #33 doesn't say this as far as I can tell. #34 does, but it's fairly brief. This (at minimum) seems to be a issue with WEIGHT. Most RSs (Karnow, Lind, etc) put the war in the context of the Cold War and also our wanting to keep a commitment to a ally. (Plus the domino theory and so on.) Probably a lot of that should be trimmed (at minimum).Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I will attempt to find more sources to support the information that has been provided.
With regards to some specific comments you make, I agree that the main reason for the U.S. intervention in Vietnam was due to the Cold War tensions, although I would argue that the commitment to an ally is less significant, and is more a result of America attempting to prevent a communist threat. Central to the section I added, whilst proving their masculine strength was perhaps not the main reason for intervention, it can well be argued that it is nevertheless a factor of importance. LBJ was attempting to prove himself as a strong President, and the domestic pressures led to a strong (and perceived as masculine) approach to defeating communism. As stated, source #34 speaks of this in a lot of depth regarding the role of masculinity in the intervention, and #33 makes reference more so to proving toughness versus communism than specifically to LBJ. I appreciate your comments, and would like to hear your opinion but without doubt, the role of gender has been neglected entirely from this historical event even if it was not a central reason. Mozza10 (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands now, it is a issue as far as WEIGHT goes. A whole paragraph on gender roles in this? That's a problem. Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it has too few sources to be stated as fact, one line like "some historians have claimed...." Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Working class war

The last paragraph of the "working class war" is uncited....and it makes a number of POV statements like "But the fact remains that a large majority of the US military were made up of the working class, and they were forced into war because of a class opportunity divergence combined with an individual yearning for meaning in life."

A real big problem with that (and this whole section) is the fact the vast majority of Americans at this time were working class. According to RS, only about 8% of Americans at this time has a undergrad degree or higher. It's sort of misleading to say anyone was forced into it when that was the vast majority of the nation.

Furthermore, there has been research that contradicts this. In (for example) 'Stolen Valor...' (by B. G. Burkett) he cites research done by a professor at MIT (i.e. Arnold Barnett) that showed that 26% of the combat deaths came from families in the highest income range. (see p.58) There is other data as well. I think this section should be cited better and should include alternative POVs. Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will aim to reduce the number of POV statements. I will revise sentences like "but the fact remains that a large majority..." to "it can be argued..."
I will do research on other views but the aim of this section is to offer the argument set out by Appy that people- and namely the working class- were not always hawkish (contrary to media representation) and that a combination of push and pull factors caused them to fight in Vietnam Quaero101 (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 03:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

United States in the Vietnam War → United States involvement in the Vietnam War – Consistency with Opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War 2804:248:FBA9:1A00:C165:4145:6B52:3EDD (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @
    WP:CONCISE, but I'm not that fussed myself. CHeers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Was US involvement inevitable?

Hello, I wanted to add a small section on whether or not US involvement in the Vietnam war was inevitable, at the end of the section which details the US reasons for intervening. I've had a couple of problems with the reliability of my sources (I was unaware of the Wikipedia guidelines as I have never done this before). If anyone has any suggestions/ opinions I'd really appreciate it - or is this maybe the wrong page to include a paragraph of this theme? I think it could be interesting but don't want to insert it into the wrong page if no one else thinks it should be there. Thanks! Mperry34 (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure what this will add, as I am unsure any RS regards it as inevitable or has even discussed this. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. Frederik Logevall (Making Sense of the Vietnam Wars : Local, National, and Transnational Perspectives, 2008) discussed the 'inevitability thesis' surrounding the US intervention in the Vietnam war, and debated both for and against the idea that it was inevitable - there a lots of points to discuss from this chapter about whether or not it was inevitable. He comes to the conclusion in the end that US intervention was avoidable, but makes a very interesting debate beforehand. However, if people do not think that a section on this topic will add anything to the page, then I won't write anything. Thanks Mperry34 (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just in passing, I'll point to Bradley, M.P.; Young, M.B. (2008). Making Sense of the Vietnam Wars: Local, National, and Transnational Perspectives. Reinterpreting History: How Historical Assessments Change over Time. Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-520-22919-8.. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Whilst I am only an amateur in this area, I have seen and heard many a discussion/debate over the inevitability of the USA's involvement in the Vietnam war and would love to see it available on this page as this seems to be the overall summary of the US in the Vietnam War. Keep up the great work Mperry34! B1GMelman613 (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Lind's book on Vietnam makes the case it was very likely (in part to maintain the USA's credibility in the Cold War). Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for these suggestions - I will have a read of them and add some points to my current research about the inevitability of the Vietnam war. And then hopefully add this to the page and open it up for more contributions once it's done. Thanks again! Mperry34 (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, here is my suggestion for a passage on the debate on the inevitability of US intervention in the Vietnam war:
Was US intervention in the Vietnam war inevitable?
According to Michael Lind, the United States’ “strategy of global containment of the communist bloc made it practically inevitable that they” would, at least to some extent, involve themselves in the Vietnam war (Page 76 Michael Lind). The question instead was not whether to join, it was how to join. The best outcome for the US was, of course, stopping Indochina from falling to Communism, however the main concern for the US was its domestic and external credibility – in essence, they would have preferred to be defeated than to be seen as giving up on Vietnam (Page 77 Michael Lind). Mperry34 (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just mentioning
WP:DUE in re all of this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I was thinking about this, this seems to be one or two authors' opinions. Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request to include gender roles in US involvement

Hello, I've recently gathered research supporting the claim that gender and enforced ideals of masculinity played a role in LBJ and his advisor's decision to intervene. More specifically how this idea of masculinity was tied to not looking weak in the face of communism. However, when looking back on this page's history I can see two people have tried to add this before and it has been denied. I think my question is why? I do agree that there were more important factors at play, however, I think it deserves to be mentioned as it did play a role in how decisions were made.

Therefore seeing that someone has already tried, I thought I would approach the community and ask what can I do to get this section included? Any reply would be greatly appreciated! Bethaitken1 (talk) 10:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"tied to not looking weak in the face of communism" Are you suggesting that their
anti-communist policies were linked to their machismo? It seems kind of a strange argument to me, since practically every American president enforced anti-communist policies during the Cold War (1947-1991). Dimadick (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
By finding multiple RS that discus this as a specific subject. Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you both for the reply!
The passage discusses the role that gender and the concept of masculinity played in America's decision to intervene in Vietnam. In terms of references, it has multiple historians supporting this research.
You reference the term "RS", i'm not familiar with the term, could you please let me know what this means?
Once thanks again for your responses. Bethaitken1 (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wp:v may come into it, the sources must say that "masculinity played a role in LBJ and his advisor's decision to intervene", and in a way that makes this different form other wars. Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: This seems to be a bizarre point to make. I can't think of too many highly regarded sources on the war that list this as a reason. (I think I've seen more sources that attribute it to LBJ being from Texas than that.) Like Slatersteven said, we will need some good sourcing for that.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!
I'm happy to share what I've written to you, how best should I do this? Bethaitken1 (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here, on this talk page, and not three times. Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!
'm very sorry for the mishap but I did not put that on three times, I made one edit. Below is my proposition for the passage...
The Impact of Gender Roles.
In recent years historians have introduced new research that suggests gender roles played an important role in LBJ and his administration's decision to intervene in Vietnam. LBJ has been argued by historians to have been insecure in his position in government. Blema Steinberg suggests that when it came to the Vietnam War ‘LBJ bent over backwards to assert his machismo as compensation for a pervasive sense of weakness and inadequacy’. These ideas of gender and masculinity can also be seen in the environments which LBJ and his administration occupied. K.A. Cuordileone argues that both Johnson and Kennedy always had the option not to intervene. However, ‘that neither man could perceive them is testimony to how much they were both encumbered by an institutionalised masculine ideal’. This idea of an ingrained sense of masculinity can be suggested further by Robert Dean. He argues that when considering why the U.S intervened in Vietnam, the social construction of masculinity among the administration has to be considered to understand how the decision was made. Bethaitken1 (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike this suggestion for a number of reasons. 1. it does not warrant its own section (maybe one line tops). 2. It is Gender roles or MAschismo, they are not quite the same (and this reads a bit like
wp:or). 3. do these sources say "an important role" or just "A role (again this might be OR). Also is this research or opinion? Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi,
Thanks for your feedback! I understand your points and won't make any further attempts to add this section. Bethaitken1 (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_in_the_Vietnam_War&oldid=1212206684"