NationStates Jolt Archive

What's your thoughts on Vietnam, probably many of you didn't live around the time of the war, but of what you learned what's your opinion on it?

Many wars are justified, though this one poorly justified. Not only did they use chemical weapons (and they yet to have paid back the damage to the native Vietnamese who went through the war), but it was against Communism, as said, which wasn't needed. It's nothing more than fear spread awry. However, I am not shaming the people who went to fight in Vietnam. They did what they thought was right, and they were loyal and fought for what they believed in, and suffered through it.

Don't get me wrong, the damage done by the North Vietnamese under Ho Chi Minh was fairly catastrophic, though the damage would be much less if another side didn't come in with guns blazing.

Many wars are justified, though this one poorly justified. Not only did they use chemical weapons (and they yet to have paid back the damage to the native Vietnamese who went through the war), but it was against Communism, as said, which wasn't needed. It's nothing more than fear spread awry. However, I am not shaming the people who went to fight in Vietnam. They did what they thought was right, and they were loyal and fought for what they believed in, and suffered through it.

Don't get me wrong, the damage done by the North Vietnamese under Ho Chi Minh was fairly catastrophic, though the damage would be much less if another side didn't come in with guns blazing.

I agree with you.

What's your thoughts on Vietnam, probably many of you didn't live around the time of the war, but of what you learned what's your opinion on it?
After spending two years in combat there, and thinking about it for almost 40 years now, I've come to several conclusions:

* Vietnam was kind of the last gasp of the old Cold War mentality: "Get the commies before they get us or our friends."

* Vietnam was most probably a mistake, although a good argument can be made that it bought countries like Thailand and Malasia time to build to the point where they could effectively resist communist coups attempts.

* It served to drive home the point that the American military had been trying to make for a number of years: do NOT become involved in a ground war in Asia.

* It enabled considerable weapons, tactics and logistics development for American forces.

* It drove a wedge between the military and the civilian population which has yet to fully heal.

* It gave us considerable insight into effective counterinsurgency techniques.

* It was way too expensive, in terms of casualties, monetary expenditures, and impact on the American citizenry.

* It taught us that a conscript military is not always the best military.

Just a few thoughts.

i think that vietnam clearly shows the folly of going to war with people who are neither your enemy nor in any way a threat to you.

After spending two years in combat there, and thinking about it for almost 40 years now, I've come to several conclusions:

* Vietnam was kind of the last gasp of the old Cold War mentality: "Get the commies before they get us or our friends."

* Vietnam was most probably a mistake, although a good argument can be made that it bought countries like Thailand and Malasia time to build to the point where they could effectively resist communist coups attempts.

* It served to drive home the point that the American military had been trying to make for a number of years: do NOT become involved in a ground war in Asia.

* It enabled considerable weapons, tactics and logistics development for American forces.

* It gave us considerable insight into effective counterinsurgency techniques.

* It was way too expensive, in terms of casualties, monetary expenditures, and impact on the American citizenry.

* It taught us that a conscript military is not always the best military.

Just a few thoughts.

Were you really in vietnam cause I've been wanting to know from people who serves what really vietnam was like. I've seen Full Metal Jacket and Apocaylypse Now, and Platoon I would like to know from someone there what the true experience was.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. And that's what we're doing now in Iraq. Vietnam proved that guerrilla tactics are almost unbeatable.

Not to mention the use of massive bombardment and chemicals weapons. And the many war-crimes commited there, although these can be understood, if not justified, by the fact that the Vietcong where everywhere...In the end though, Vietnam was a tragedy, laying blame or saying smeone was wrong is purposless now...all we can do is try and learn from it.

Of course, it seems many havn't *cough*Iraq*cough*.

Were you really in vietnam cause I've been wanting to know from people who serves what really vietnam was like. I've seen Full Metal Jacket and Apocaylypse Now, and Platoon I would like to know from someone there what the true experience was.
For openers, nothing at all like any of those movies! Groan!

If you want to see a movie that accurately portrays the Vietnam War, try We Were Soldiers, or Hamburger Hill, or A Rumor of War. Those others, especially Apocalypse Now, were tripe.

Full Metal jacket seemed like it was pretty accurate.

Not to mention the use of massive bombardment and chemicals weapons. And the many war-crimes commited there, although these can be understood, if not justified, by the fact that the Vietcong where everywhere...In the end though, Vietnam was a tragedy, laying blame or saying smeone was wrong is purposless now...all we can do is try and learn from it.

Of course, it seems many havn't *cough*Iraq*cough*.
Why not take the word of someone who was there? Or does primary source information somehow bother you?

Full Metal jacket seemed like it was pretty accurate.
Hardly. :rolleyes:

For openers, nothing at all like any of those movies! Groan!

If you want to see a movie that accurately portrays the Vietnam War, try We Were Soldiers, or Hamburger Hill, or A Rumor of War. Those others, especially Apocalypse Now, were tripe.

Well I mean like was it like if you don't mind me asking? like what were the experiences like? but if you choose not to answer that, that's fine.

Well I mean like was it like if you don't mind me asking? like what were the experiences like? but if you choose not to answer that, that's fine.
Long periods of extreme boredom, interspersed with short intense periods of sheer terror/adrenaline.

This may seem stupid, but are you a veteran of the war?

Vietnam was wrong on many levels, but to me the highest level was that it gave the government something for them to lie to the people about. "We're winning!" Not. I think it was somewhere around the Vietnam era when people shifted from the WWII "We're working for the nation and supporting the war!" mindset to "... Hey, this is wrong." mindset.

Contrary to what Hollyweird would have you believe, most of the time of soldiers is spent maintaining equipment, doing training drills, filling sandbags, fortifiying positions, moving from here to there ( and sometimes right back again ), doing paperwork, writing letters, looking for chow, day-dreaming about home and your girl(s) or family, and other mostly boring shit.

Eutrusca is wrong. Everyone knows that Vietnam was all massive gunfights and grenades that make tons of smoke and sparks :)

Eutrusca is wrong. Everyone knows that Vietnam was all massive gunfights and grenades that make tons of smoke and sparks :)

That, and getting high out of your mind. Of course.

This may seem stupid, but are you a veteran of the war?
I was in Vietnam from September 67- September 69, inclusive. For the first fifteen months I was a Counterinsurgency Team Commander, operating in the Central Highlands, often near the Parrot's Beak. For the last nine months, I was a Company Commander with the 173rd Airborne Brigade ( Separate ). It was like being in two entirely different wars.

Eutrusca is wrong. Everyone knows that Vietnam was all massive gunfights and grenades that make tons of smoke and sparks :)
Heh! Riiiight! :p

I was involved in a few of those, but as I indicated, they were comparatively few and far between.

I was in Vietnam from September 67- September 69, inclusive. For the first fifteen months I was a Counterinsurgency Team Commander, operating in the Central Highlands, often near the Parrot's Beak. For the last nine months, I was a Company Commander with the 173rd Airborne Brigade ( Separate ). It was like being in two entirely different wars.

What was the general situation in those two stations?

Wow. I don't know what else to say.

That, and getting high out of your mind. Of course.
That was far more common in units composed primarily of draftees. In the units where I was an officer, almost all of the soldiers were volunteers, especially in the 173rd Airborne Brigade, where you had to be a double-volunteer: volunteer to go through Airborne training, and volunteer to join the Brigade.

That was far more common in units composed primarily of draftees. In the units where I was an officer, almost all of the soldiers were volunteers, especially in the 173rd Airborne Brigade, where you had to be a double-volunteer: volunteer to go through Airborne training, and volunteer to join the Brigade.

Eutrusca you said it was boring, but that was your experience how can everyone believe it was all boring. Please don't take offense to this, I'm just interested in knowing about this war.

Eutrusca you said it was boring, but that was your experience how can everyone believe it was all boring. Please don't take offense to this, I'm just interested in knowing about this war.
Oh yea, it can get boring. Just look at me, i'm at war and talking to you at the same time.:D

What was the general situation in those two stations?
Like the difference between night and day.

In the Counterinsurgency field, we concentrated on Civil Affiars work during the day: rebuilding schools and churches, improving marketplaces, upgrading roads, providing medical personnel periodically to outlaying villages, etc. During the night, we used the intel we got from those we helped to identify Viet Cong infrastructure and degrade it in whatever way seemed appropriate.

In the 173rd, we were under the command of "traditional" higher level commanders who were trying to fight the war as if it was WWII or Korea. :(

Eutrusca you said it was boring, but that was your experience how can everyone believe it was all boring. Please don't take offense to this, I'm just interested in knowing about this war.
Oh, it wasn't all boring, trust me! But surprisingly few of those in uniform actually ever fire a shot in anger. Most military personnel are in either combat support, or combat service support, which means primarily logistics, transportation, medical corps, etc.

Oh yea, it can get boring. Just look at me, i'm at war and talking to you at the same time.:D
[ mutters something about frakking qyrenes and wanders off to look for something to kill ] Hehehe! :D

My ideal military job would be the catering corps :D

My ideal military job would be the catering corps :D
Which now means that you would be a civilian, working for a civilian contractor. :p

Which now means that you would be a civilian, working for a civilian contractor. :p

Still my perfect military job, but now it's even better with all risk removed! :D

Which now means that you would be a civilian, working for a civilian contractor. :p
Hell, these days, half the combat troops are civilian contractors. ;)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june04/contractors_4-6.html

It was a mess up from bureaucracy and politically vague objectives and restrictions.

First off, I'm of the increasing opinion the entire idea of how it was fought was incorrect. If a war is to be fought, it must be fought to win. No stopping bombing for negotiations, or some holiday. Keep on, and fight to win. The US should have bombed the Ho Chi Min trail, mined Haiphong, and go into Laos and Cambodia to stop the flow of supplies. Any army, even a guerillia army, will die if it doesn't have supplies.

Second, there were no stated goals that made it easy to say why and for what reason the US was there. There is no historical documentation for a sound byte that was even used to sell it to the American people. In the War of 1812, the catchphrase of the day used to push the war was "Free Trade and Sailor's Rights" (rum w/o ration). In the American Civil War, the Federal idea was "Preservation of the Union." In 1898, it was "Remember the Maine, to hell with Spain!" In 1917, Wilson set out to "Save the World for Democracy." The Second World War was fought at first under "Remember Pearl Harbor, and later under the need to punish Hitler and Tojo. With Korea, it became unpopular, but the justification provided, was to stop the spread of Communism, and show that the US was going to stand up and fight. In Desert Storm and Shield, it was a short, Liberation of Kuwait. There was at least an attempt to provide one for Iraq.

IMHO, the right way to fight in vietnam was to support the ARVN with military supplies, civil aid, air support, and advisors. I'd have stolen book that was written by the Marines in Nicaragua in the 20's or 30's (don't remember exactly which), and the British in Mayalan Confrontasi.

Still my perfect military job, but now it's even better with all risk removed! :D
HA! You wish! You'll probably still get mortored and shot at, the only difference being that you won't be able to shoot back! Mwahahaha! :D

Which now means that you would be a civilian, working for a civilian contractor. :p
What was a cook's job like in the military anyway? Were they just regular soldiers who got a shift at cooking, or are there assigned cooks who just cook and don't fight?

Eutrusca this has been an interesting discussion.

HA! You wish! You'll probably still get mortored and shot at, the only difference being that you won't be able to shoot back! Mwahahaha! :D

Don't mock. I'll have a HUGE ladle, all the cookware I can throw and some cutlery to hurl at the enemy! >: )

What was a cook's job like in the military anyway? Were they just regular soldiers who got a shift at cooking, or are there assigned cooks who just cook and don't fight?
Depends upon when and where you're talking about. For many years, the theory seemed to be that cooks, clerks and "other jerks" didn't need to know much about fighting 'cause that wasn't "their job." Vietnam put the lie to that, since cooks and clerks were sometimes right in the thick of it. During the last ten years or so, the mantra is: "Everyone who wears the uniform is a soldier first."

The US should have bombed the Ho Chi Min trail, mined Haiphong, and go into Laos and Cambodia to stop the flow of supplies.
They did do some of those things, didn't they?

I just remember that Laos is actually the most-bombed country in history. They dropped in one air offensive more than they dropped on Germany or Japan in WWII.

Don't mock. I'll have a HUGE ladle, all the cookware I can throw and some cutlery to hurl at the enemy! >: )
That'll be effective. Riiiight! Heh!

Don't mock. I'll have a HUGE ladle, all the cookware I can throw and some cutlery to hurl at the enemy! >: )
Yes...ahem...Enemy...
(for those who didn't get it, I was implying that the chefs in the military will get shot at by soldiers who didn't enjoy the food)

Eutrusca this has been an interesting discussion.
I hope so. It's vitally important that we all remember the "lessons learned" from everthing we've been through. Some of the higher commanders in Iraq seem to have lost their notebooks. :(

what was the soldiers reaction to the My Lai massacre?

That'll be effective. Riiiight! Heh!

Wouldn't you be unnerved if some small skinny guy, weighed down by pots and pans tried to assault you with a fork... Actually, don't answer, please.

Depends upon when and where you're talking about. For many years, the theory seemed to be that cooks, clerks and "other jerks" didn't need to know much about fighting 'cause that wasn't "their job." Vietnam put the lie to that, since cooks and clerks were sometimes right in the thick of it. During the last ten years or so, the mantra is: "Everyone who wears the uniform is a soldier first."
Ah crap. So much for my hope that I could just be a cook if the draft were to ever show up due to a war with Iran or anything...

Wait. Does exercise-induced asthma disqualify someone from the military, or does it have to be full blown asthma?

I'm safe from conscription, being asthmatic and allergic to bullets.

<_<

>_>

It was a mess up from bureaucracy and politically vague objectives and restrictions.

First off, I'm of the increasing opinion the entire idea of how it was fought was incorrect. If a war is to be fought, it must be fought to win. No stopping bombing for negotiations, or some holiday. Keep on, and fight to win. The US should have bombed the Ho Chi Min trail, mined Haiphong, and go into Laos and Cambodia to stop the flow of supplies. Any army, even a guerillia army, will die if it doesn't have supplies.

Second, there were no stated goals that made it easy to say why and for what reason the US was there.

3. IMHO, the right way to fight in vietnam was to support the ARVN with military supplies, civil aid, air support, and advisors.
It was indeed a "mess up from bureaucracy and politically vague objectives and restrictions."

"First." This was a political decsion which overruled the military's insistence that forbidding even the option of invading North Vietnam would be like tieing one hand behind our back. FYI, we did go into both Laos and Cambodia, but only temporarily albiet repeatedly.

Second." This is one of the major reasons the entire mess degerated into a "body count" fiasco, which didn't exactly endear the military to the American populace, nor did it accurately measure how the war was progressing.

3. The Special Forces "A" Team was an ideal instrument to use in Vietnam, but as I mentioned earlier, there were too many high ranking commanders still stuck in the "conventional warfare" age.

Ah crap. So much for my hope that I could just be a cook if the draft were to ever show up due to a war with Iran or anything...

Wait. Does exercise-induced asthma disqualify someone from the military, or does it have to be full blown asthma?
I don't know. It may or may not disqualify you from service depending upon how badly they need people. I don't think it's something you're ever going to have to worry about though, since the draft is a thing of the past. If we're ever forced into reinstating the draft, we're all in big, big trouble.

what was the soldiers reaction to the My Lai massacre?
Mostly sadness that American soldiers had been involved in something so terrible.

I don't know. It may or may not disqualify you from service depending upon how badly they need people. I don't think it's something you're ever going to have to worry about though, since the draft is a thing of the past. If we're ever forced into reinstating the draft, we're all in big, big trouble.
So, as a military man who understands how the military works, you don't think it's setting up for a war with Iran? And if it does, it won't overstretch the military? (Questions of curiosity and for verification, not as in doubting what you are saying.)

Wouldn't you be unnerved if some small skinny guy, weighed down by pots and pans tried to assault you with a fork... Actually, don't answer, please.
:D

1. Understanding the culture of the enemy is as important as understanding their weapons.

2. Not every people thrive under the "American" culture.

3. It takes more than a majority to rule. It takes a vast majority. Even a small group willing to fight can make a government impossible.

4. Puppet governments cannot rule.

5. It's better to make life better for a people than to force them to agree with your thoughts, beliefs and ideals.

6. All people have the same feelings on the basics--love of family, love of where they live, love of friends, need for food, clothing, shelter, safety.

7. In the end, war is just a way to reset negotiations. Regardless of what happens, words are the final weapon. Maybe we should try them first instead of last.

1. So, as a military man who understands how the military works, you don't think it's setting up for a war with Iran?

2. And if it does, it won't overstretch the military? (Questions of curiosity and for verification, not as in doubting what you are saying.)
1. No. I see and hear no indications that we're preparing for that eventuality.

2. Probably. Iran would, IMHO, be a nightmare to invade, and would also destabilize even further an already unstable Middle East ( and perhaps Pakistan as well ). The most likely scenario is that Israel will act long before Iran possesses a viable nuclear missle.

1. No. I see and hear no indications that we're preparing for that eventuality.

2. Probably. Iran would, IMHO, be a nightmare to invade, and would also destabilize even further an already unstable Middle East ( and perhaps Pakistan as well ). The most likely scenario is that Israel will act long before Iran possesses a viable nuclear missle.
Alright then. Thanks.

Alright then. Thanks.
Welcome. Right now, it's all a "war of words" and reminds me more of the US and USSR rattling their missles at each other than anything else. Let's hope and pray that it remains that way.

1. No. I see and hear no indications that we're preparing for that eventuality.
I would disagree. I can't really tell you exactly seeing as ur not in the know anymore, but i am at least seeing moves to improve our position in negotiations.
2. Probably. Iran would, IMHO, be a nightmare to invade, and would also destabilize even further an already unstable Middle East ( and perhaps Pakistan as well ). The most likely scenario is that Israel will act long before Iran possesses a viable nuclear missle.
Coulnd't agree more


You have an urgent telegram if you can help.

Maybe they should just compare dick sizes, and boil it all down to the most basic level.

Maybe they should just compare dick sizes, and boil it all down to the most basic level.
If you really want to boil it down to instinctual desires, I think dick size doesn't cut it.

I'm not so sure you can say that the allied commanders in Nam were stuck in the WWII mentality. Why do I say this? Because in WWII we had a policy of unrestricted, round-the-clock bombing, as did the British. It worked.
More than a few enemy cities were turned into flaming ruins thanks to the B-17s, and two into glowing rubble thanks to Enola Gay and Boxcar. You may say it was immoral, but we still won.

In Viet-Nam the USAF operations were crippled by regulations and restrictions. Our pilots couldn't take out SAM or AAA sites untill they were set up, out of fear of harming the Soviet and Chinese advisors working on them. The Communists were free to set up all the flak traps they wished, and shot our planes down like flies.

As for the number of bombs we dropped, yes, we dropped ten times the amount that we did over Japan in WWII. However, 90% of those bombs were dropped on empty jungle, in SOUTH VIET-NAM, in the hopes of hindering enemy guerillas. Stratofortress pilots gained the nickname "coconut knockers" because of this. Many of these bombs wound up falling on the land of innocent Vietnamese farmers as well, making them juicy targets for commie recruitment.

All the material, and a good number of the men used to fight that war (on the Communist side) came from the USSR and PRC, through Haifong port and Hanoi, the latter of which was a major planning center for them. the USAF only got the green light to hit the city 3 times: Operation Rolling Thunder, and Operations Linebacker I and II. All three saw numerous planes shot down thanks to well-developed AA systems. One can only imagine the outcome of that conflict had we consistently hammered the head of the snake.

If you really want to boil it down to instinctual desires, I think dick size doesn't cut it.
It's the most basic level in this case.

Iran wants to get enlargement surgery but the US doesn't want the competition :D

I'm not so sure you can say that the allied commanders in Nam were stuck in the WWII mentality. Why do I say this? Because in WWII we had a policy of unrestricted, round-the-clock bombing, as did the British. It worked.
By WWII mentality, i think that he meant that we were stuck in conventional fighting mode. When we found a large enemy presence, we opened up an offensive w/ bombers included. He thinks (myself included) that we should have fought more by helping the innocent vietnamese, thus taking away the vietcong base of support instead to isolating the innocent with bombing.

By WWII mentality, i think that he meant that we were stuck in conventional fighting mode. When we found a large enemy presence, we opened up an offensive w/ bombers included. He thinks (myself included) that we should have fought more by helping the innocent vietnamese, thus taking away the vietcong base of support instead to isolating the innocent with bombing.
That's pretty much what I meant, yeah.

BTW ... you have a TG. Hope it helps! :)

I would disagree. I can't really tell you exactly seeing as ur not in the know anymore, but i am at least seeing moves to improve our position in negotiations.
I'm aware of some of the movements, yes. But they're not exactly what I would call "mass" yet. :)

I try to keep my contacts open, but most of them are in Special Forces, so I get a slightly different view of things.

I'm aware of some of the movements, yes. But they're not exactly what I would call "mass" yet. :)

I try to keep my contacts open, but most of them are in Special Forces, so I get a slightly different view of things.

What's your view on the war on iraq if you don't mind expressing your opinion.

Because in WWII we had a policy of unrestricted, round-the-clock bombing, as did the British. It worked.
I'd just like to note that this is not clear at all. It did kill a lot of innocent people, yes, but many people (both Allied and non-Allied) came to the conclusion that it did not serve to shorten the war by any significant amount of time.

What's your view on the war on iraq if you don't mind expressing your opinion.
It wasn't the best of ideas to begin with, that much is now generally accepted, but until it devolved into basically a civil war between rival Muslim factions, it could still be justified on the basis of taking out a brutal dictator.

Now, it's time to tell the Iraqis to put up or shut up. Americans, by and large, are sick of it, and it goes almost without saying that the longer it goes on, the bigger the black eye the US gets internationally.

If we haven't done so yet ( and there is some indication that we may have ), the US should tell the various Iraqi factions a date certain by which almost all American forces will be pulled out ( I favor the end of this year ), and that if they're not ready to take over the entire country by then, tough ... they'll have to live with it. Not an easy option, but far better, IMHO, than the alternative of staying until hell freezes over.

How's that? :)

I'd just like to note that this is not clear at all. It did kill a lot of innocent people, yes, but many people (both Allied and non-Allied) came to the conclusion that it did not serve to shorten the war by any significant amount of time.
I ... can't ... really ... believe ... I'm ... saying ... this!

I agree! :eek:

I ... can't ... really ... believe ... I'm ... saying ... this!

I agree! :eek:
*RECORD STOP SOUND*

Neu Leonstein and Eutrusca...AGREEING ON SOMETHING?!

...the end of the world is nigh! NIGH I TELL YOU! NIGH!

If we haven't done so yet ( and there is some indication that we may have ), the US should tell the various Iraqi factions a date certain by which almost all American forces will be pulled out ( I favor the end of this year ), and that if they're not ready to take over the entire country by then, tough ... they'll have to live with it. Not an easy option, but far better, IMHO, than the alternative of staying until hell freezes over.
I would like to agree, and do somewhat. But rather than a date, I would like to see specific goals, after all, we broke it we own it.

I heard a suggestion that we commit to withdraw one allied soldier for every Iraqui soldier or policeman trained. "If you want us out, volunteer. We will withdraw one for you."

At the same time the Iraquis get the worst duty and the allies withdraw to the easiest duty.

We have to see if they will fight. In the end in Nam, they didn't fly into battle, they flew to the carriers. If that is the soldier we are getting in Bushnam, then we better get out ASAP.

*RECORD STOP SOUND*

Neu Leonstein and Eutrusca...AGREEING ON SOMETHING?!

...the end of the world is nigh! NIGH I TELL YOU! NIGH!
Heh! Do calm down. I would hate to think that I was partially responsible for you having an acute myocardial infarction. :D

Neu Leonstein and Eutrusca...AGREEING ON SOMETHING?!
Surely that happens from time to time...

...

Doesn't it?

In the end in Nam, they didn't fly into battle, they flew to the carriers.
Um ... actually, it was only after it became obvious that the South Vietnamese Army would be unable to stop the North's advance that any significant portion of the ARVN began to panic. You have to remember that it was where they lived ... and where their families lived. Try to imagine yourself in similar circumstances.

Surely that happens from time to time...

...

Doesn't it?
LOL! Ummmm ... can you remember any others? I'm not sure I can! :D

LOL! Ummmm ... can you remember any others? I'm not sure I can! :D
*thinks........................*

Oh, yes. Remember my speech to my hypothetical kid who didn't like me, in the thread about this teenage concentration camp in the Caribbean?

I'm sure there was a hint of agreement there!

So my dad was in Vietnam 69-70. He was special ops marines, he said he was one of the two people that survived a whole year in his platoon. I believe he said he was recon. Anyway, he said they were out there for many of the days.

*thinks........................*

Oh, yes. Remember my speech to my hypothetical kid who didn't like me, in the thread about this teenage concentration camp in the Caribbean?

I'm sure there was a hint of agreement there!
Heh! Oh yeah! Then again, that was kind of a no-brainer, yes? :)

So my dad was in Vietnam 69-70. He was special ops marines, he said he was one of the two people that survived a whole year in his platoon. I believe he said he was recon. Anyway, he said they were out there for many of the days.
Force Recon, most likely. Yes, those guys are generally in the thick of it, just as are Army Rangers, Army SF, and some highly trained line units. Where the boredom comes in is largely for soldiers and Marines other than those.

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/notes/s1623768.htm
Just while we're talking about Vietnam and all that - this is the story of an Australian veteran and how he dealt with that at home and with his family. Some might find it interesting (it's an 11.8MB MP3 file).

Oh, I understand now.

Um ... actually, it was only after it became obvious that the South Vietnamese Army would be unable to stop the North's advance that any significant portion of the ARVN began to panic. You have to remember that it was where they lived ... and where their families lived. Try to imagine yourself in similar circumstances.
The point is the North advanced with little resistance against the best army that US money and training could buy. Yes, it was where they lived. So why didn't they fight even harder to defend their homes and families and villages from the advance? Why didn't they fight to the last man? Why didn't they withdraw to fight guerilla? Did they feel that the people would not support them as the people had supported enemy guerrillas? That is probably the case, but if so, if the government of the south was so wonderful, why would the people not aid their army?

The people of the South "voted" by their (non) support of the government represented by the army. By all indications, their "vote" for the army of the North has been a good one.

Who will the people of Bushnam "vote" for through their support or non-support?

The point is the North advanced with little resistance against the best army that US money and training could buy. Yes, it was where they lived. So why didn't they fight even harder to defend their homes and families and villages from the advance? Why didn't they fight to the last man? Why didn't they withdraw to fight guerilla? Did they feel that the people would not support them as the people had supported enemy guerrillas? That is probably the case, but if so, if the government of the south was so wonderful, why would the people not aid their army?

The people of the South "voted" by their (non) support of the government represented by the army. By all indications, their "vote" for the army of the North has been a good one.

Who will the people of Bushnam "vote" for through their support or non-support?
Not quite accurate, but meh. It was all a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. Sigh.

Who will the Iraqis support? Probably their local Mullas.

Sign in an Iraqi barbershop: "Support your local Mulla!" :)

Not quite accurate, but meh. It was all a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. Sigh.

Who will the Iraqis support? Probably their local Mullas.

Sign in an Iraqi barbershop: "Support your local Mulla!" :)
I totally agree with both statements.

Probably their local Mullas.

I've been reading a book called "Three Cups of Tea" by Greg Mortenson

It's about a man trying to build schools in the frontier of northern Pakistan and Afganistan. The culture of the isolated villages is almost beyond Western comprehension.

The Western mindset that their culture is the only valid one in the world has harmed the entire world..

I've been reading a book called "Three Cups of Tea" by Greg Mortenson

It's about a man trying to build schools in the frontier of northern Pakistan and Afganistan. The culture of the isolated villages is almost beyond Western comprehension.

The Western mindset that their culture is the only valid one in the world has harmed the entire world..
You would like Imperial Grunts: the American Military On the Ground, by Robert D. Kaplan. :)

You would like Imperial Grunts: the American Military On the Ground, by Robert D. Kaplan. :)
Thanks, I'll put it on order at the library. I have a hard time finding good nonfiction books. So many are so far off center.

Thanks, I'll put it on order at the library. I have a hard time finding good nonfiction books. So many are so far off center.
I've read this one and it's pretty straight-forward reporting, and really well done. I'm sure you'll find it interesting. :)

interesting discussion thanks for all your input guys!

I feel the USA could have won the war, but the political leadership to win it was not there, or the political will.

Ironically it was during the Republican Jerald Ford administration that South Vietnam fell to North Vietnam, congress had passed a law barring most military aid to South Vietnam which President Ford signed, North Vietnam broke the peace treay and attacked South Vietnam, is it any wonder, no, the US provided some economic aid, maybe some minor millitary aid, while China and Russia provided military aid, all of Vietnam fell to the North Vietnamese communists.

The real results of the Vietnam war, over 58,000 Americans dead, communist re-education camps in Vietnam, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese refugees, many who emigrated to the USA, and over two million Vietnamese boat people.

I used to work with some North Koreans and a Vietnamese lady, they understood La Habana Cuba, we used to talk about North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba, we found we had somethings in common, no freedoms.

The Vietnamese lady who still has family there, used to tell me, I understand you, Cuba and Vietnam the same, there are no freedoms, she used to tell me the best things I like about America is the freedom, in Vietnam there is no freedom, and in America if you are Cuban, Irish, Chinese, Vietnamese whatever you are, we are all Americans, in Vietnam if you are Chinese you are Chinese, if you are Vietnamese you are Vietnamese, that is the way it is.

I feel the USA could have won the war, but the political leadership to win it was not there, or the political will.


A nice theory, but its a cop out and no one outside of the United States or in even in reputable historical circles buys it.

It was unwinnable. It was only a matter of time- a war of nationalism cannot be defeated in the long term. If political will was all there was to winnig a protracted and messy war then the problems with Iraq would have been over a long time ago.

The French learned the same lesson in Indochina, the British learned the same lesson in numerous former colonies, Russia learned in Afghanistan and so on.

Unless you mean a genocidal campaign to kill every single inhabitant of the country? But then that would have gone against what the United States stood for in the Cold War.

I'm afraid that history has proven that the better equipped and trained force will prevail nine times out of ten, provided it has the will. This does not require genocide. The Romans, though by no means moral, proved this many times, such as in Judea and Brittania. Toward the end of their existence, they lost some will and faced a few defeats by the Germans.

As for the theories regarding the possibility of victory in Nam, I have heard many knowledgable folks claim we could have won. Few Europeans, but then again, they hate us to begin with. The fact is that we fought Nam as if it were crime in LA, and not a war.

As for the theories regarding the possibility of victory in Nam, I have heard many knowledgable folks claim we could have won. Few Europeans, but then again, they hate us to begin with. The fact is that we fought Nam as if it were crime in LA, and not a war.

:rolleyes: Typical.

For openers, nothing at all like any of those movies! Groan!

If you want to see a movie that accurately portrays the Vietnam War, try We Were Soldiers, or Hamburger Hill, or A Rumor of War. Those others, especially Apocalypse Now, were tripe.
I've seen Platoon, really liked it, and it does seem realistic to me. Are you sure you aren't thinking of another movie when you say this one doesn't accurately portray Vietnam? It was directed by a Vietnam vet, you know...

I've seen Platoon, really liked it, and it does seem realistic to me. Are you sure you aren't thinking of another movie when you say this one doesn't accurately portray Vietnam? It was directed by a Vietnam vet, you know...

I actually thought Bright Shining Lie was a good film, though I prefer the book.

What's your thoughts on Vietnam, probably many of you didn't live around the time of the war, but of what you learned what's your opinion on it?


My thoughts on the Vietnam war: I've known this since I could first talk: WAR IS STUPID. Why? Because it kills MILLIONS of people, is an excuse to use weapons, AND it is ALSO an excuse to invade countries and schtuff like that. 'Nuff said.

My thoughts on the Vietnam war: I've known this since I could first talk: WAR IS STUPID. Why? Because it kills MILLIONS of people, is an excuse to use weapons, AND it is ALSO an excuse to invade countries and schtuff like that. 'Nuff said.
Sure, but the world is a complicated place. Some wars are necessary.

For openers, nothing at all like any of those movies! Groan!

If you want to see a movie that accurately portrays the Vietnam War, try We Were Soldiers, or Hamburger Hill, or A Rumor of War. Those others, especially Apocalypse Now, were tripe.

That's what my buddy said too. The only thing that was close from the others was Platoon. Only one scene in particular which he had to leave. It was the short firefight in the jungle. It started with Scheen waking up. He hears a snap, all hell breaks loose, and then silence.

He said he had been in few just like that.....

It was a mess up from bureaucracy and politically vague objectives and restrictions.

First off, I'm of the increasing opinion the entire idea of how it was fought was incorrect. If a war is to be fought, it must be fought to win.

Overall agreed, hhgowever a few quibbles, correction, and a bit of info.

No stopping bombing for negotiations, or some holiday. Keep on, and fight to win.



The US should have bombed the Ho Chi Min trail,

It was bombed - quite extensively. In fact, this was one of the original missions of AC-130.

mined Haiphong,

This was also done. Several other harbors were mined as well.

and go into Laos and Cambodia to stop the flow of supplies.

Again, this was also done. However, the peoblem with doing so was that both were officially neutral.

Second, there were no stated goals that made it easy to say why and for what reason the US was there. There is no historical documentation for a sound byte that was even used to sell it to the American people.

Well, the way the US got backed into that war was just messy and didn't lend itself well to simplistic slogans. How would you turn "let's help out the French so they can backstop Germany agaiinst the USSR" into a sound byte? And "domino theory" doesn't make it very clear either.

IMHO, the right way to fight in vietnam was to support the ARVN with military supplies, civil aid, air support, and advisors.

This is supposed to have been how JFK wanted to do it. It's definately how cetain factions of the US Military wanted it done. But several things got in the way of that.

I'd have stolen book that was written by the Marines in Nicaragua in the 20's or 30's (don't remember exactly which), and the British in Mayalan Confrontasi.

That would be the Small Wars Manual. It was first done up as a report in 1921 and went through several revisions.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/swm/index.htm

And the second would be the Malayan Emergency. While it was a text book example, there are several important differences. Perhapse most important was that the RASC didn't have the full backing of both the USSR and the PRC.

Unless you mean a genocidal campaign to kill every single inhabitant of the country? But then that would have gone against what the United States stood for in the Cold War.
Probably the only solution that would work in a guerilla war. Eliminate the supplies by eliminating the suppliers. Tried somewhat (remember "free fire zones") but Not in the moral values of the US however. Remember Mi Lia (sp?)

The other area would be a loving support of the people. Tried somewhat but not nearly as much fun as giving things that go BOOM. Shimon Peres suggested this with Gaza. Build roads, water supplies, sewer, schools, a port, small low interest loans, desolinization plant, etc. Peres thought Gaza could look like HongKong in a few years, and that would take away most of the reasons for fighting. Haven't seen it tried have we. Certainly not with the President that says he is the devoted follower of the God of love. Or with the people of the nation that claims to be "Christian".

from what i have learned off the history channel, the biggest problem for the air war at least was that the pencil pushers in washington wood restrict and designate targets to be bomed. they wood bomb for a few days, then stop for a week and say "hey north vietnam! wanna give up yet?" these guys wer getting pilots shot downleft and right. they wood not let them go after main mig bases or big bridges, the few targets they would let the pilots hit, they wood have them hit for 5-6 days straight coming from the same direction at the same speed the whole time when the target was a crater after the first day. rule of thumb should be: let the generals in the combat zone do the thinking. NOT the guys an ocean away. as far as the ground war is concerned, i think we did remarkably well. 58,000 us troops for i think more than 3-4 times that number of vietnamese. we held khe-san and other outposts in the highlands near the border, and in the la drang valley 1 american died for evry 10 vietnamese. this was a definite improvement over the loss rates in the world wars, and having a little over 2000 i think dead from afghanistan and iraq shows how far we have come. i dont think that vietnam was a war we should have gotten into, but it was not a loss. far from it.

I think the Vietnam War was the worst war America has ever fought. We obviously (despite some America-beats-everyone type people insisiting we "retreated" not lost) lost the war, and it was a horrible idea to go in the first place. Vietnam has no point to us, and only America's Redaphobia pushed them to go in, which of course I have to be against the war against Communism. It was, basically, one of, if not the, greatest failure of America.

rule of thumb should be: let the generals in the combat zone do the thinking.

Ironically, that is what causes a lot more problems in the long run- failure to see the bigger picture.


i dont think that vietnam was a war we should have gotten into, but it was not a loss. far from it.

So, it was a victory then? :confused:

from what i have learned off the history channel, the biggest problem for the air war at least was that the pencil pushers in washington wood restrict and designate targets to be bomed. they wood bomb for a few days, then stop for a week and say "hey north vietnam! wanna give up yet?" these guys wer getting pilots shot downleft and right. they wood not let them go after main mig bases or big bridges, the few targets they would let the pilots hit, they wood have them hit for 5-6 days straight coming from the same direction at the same speed the whole time when the target was a crater after the first day. rule of thumb should be: let the generals in the combat zone do the thinking. NOT the guys an ocean away. as far as the ground war is concerned, i think we did remarkably well. 58,000 us troops for i think more than 3-4 times that number of vietnamese. we held khe-san and other outposts in the highlands near the border, and in the la drang valley 1 american died for evry 10 vietnamese. this was a definite improvement over the loss rates in the world wars, and having a little over 2000 i think dead from afghanistan and iraq shows how far we have come. i dont think that vietnam was a war we should have gotten into, but it was not a loss. far from it.

Wait, what? It wasn't a loss? You lost 50,000+ dead, many more wounded and missing, you lost North Vietnam and South Vietnam, failed to destroy the Communist regime in the North and had the South occupied, whilst losing massive amounts of prestige and creating rebellion at home. And you call this not a loss?

Wait, what? It wasn't a loss? You lost 50,000+ dead, many more wounded and missing, you lost North Vietnam and South Vietnam, failed to destroy the Communist regime in the North and had the South occupied, whilst losing massive amounts of prestige and creating rebellion at home. And you call this not a loss?
Technically, The US didn't lose one major battle in VN. And the country fell after they left.

Of course it was a loss. Win the battles but lose the war. What it came down to was a cultural difference. "Time" has a different meaning in other cultures. Remember the Jews spent 2000 years saying "Next year in Jerusalem" Now the Palistinians have spent 50 years fighting. (and we wonder why they just don't get over the loss of a home most of them have never seen) The Afgans spent years fighting the Russians now the Americans. The Viets the French then the Americans, covering almost 100 years (if you consider pre WW2). To Americans Viet is ancient history. 9/11 is a fading memory. Time is a whole different thing than it is to other cultures. Others (including those fighting in Bushnam) understand this because most of their leaders were educated in the west (most in the top schools of the US). Americans, however are totally clueless about other cultures. We think ours is not only the best, but the only culture.