Polititians...we could have stomped them...
BILL CLINTON that freak! weakend our military TOOOO much
BILL CLINTON that freak! weakend our military TOOOO much
By the way. I wasn't "in country" when I was in the Corps. So I can't really speak from personal experience. However my Ex-brother-in-law was. He was a door gunner on a USMC 46. He was shot down twice during the Tet offensive. Then he was grounded and "attached" to the ROK Marines (republic of Korea) and did "Black Ops". He is by the way currently my room mate and believe me I've heard enough first hand stories to be fairly well versed as to what when down there! I don't think he thinks we should have been there. But I do know he thinks since we were there. We should have been able to get the job done. And the powers that be wouldn't let them!
One of the main reasons was the lack of support from the South Vietnamese. Hell, half the people the US was fighting, the VC were south vietnamese themselves. How are you supposed to defeat an enemy when they are constantly walking around you and you don't even know they are the enemy and not the people you are trying to help? the US didn't have a chance to win this war- not when the enemy could be anyone. Plus how did we find the enemy? mostly walk around the jungle waiting to get shot at. good plan, huh? 
<< How are you supposed to defeat an enemy when they are constantly walking around you and you don't even know they are the enemy and not the people you are trying to help? the US didn't have a chance to win this war- not when the enemy could be anyone. Plus how did we find the enemy? >>
Yicks..does that sound like what?s going on right now with the current situation or what? That doesn't bode well at all! I sure HOPE we have better luck (and support) this time!!!!! (though I don't think support will be in short supply NOW)
we didn't want to be there, we didn't have the backing of the people, we never declared war on Vietnam, and we didn't keep our soldiers, we recycled them.
we did NOT lose in nam goddamn!
we went there to keep comunists out. when we left, they were not there... so we left.
AFTER we left, the came back in and took it over.
we didn't lose
if i tell you to keep that book on the table. and, for 2 hours, you keep it there. then, we both give up and go home, but, i come back in a lil bit, and move it. you didn't really loose, cuz you weren't there... when you were there the book stayed on the table.
it's a bad symally, but, it's close enough
we went there to keep comunists out. when we left, they were not there... so we left.
AFTER we left, the came back in and took it over.
we didn't lose
if i tell you to keep that book on the table. and, for 2 hours, you keep it there. then, we both give up and go home, but, i come back in a lil bit, and move it. you didn't really loose, cuz you weren't there... when you were there the book stayed on the table.
it's a bad symally, but, it's close enough
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,504
- 20,110
- 146
<< we did NOT lose in nam goddamn!
we went there to keep comunists out. when we left, they were not there... so we left.
AFTER we left, the came back in and took it over.
we didn't lose
if i tell you to keep that book on the table. and, for 2 hours, you keep it there. then, we both give up and go home, but, i come back in a lil bit, and move it. you didn't really loose, cuz you weren't there... when you were there the book stayed on the table.
it's a bad symally, but, it's close enough >>
That's pretty bad. When you pull your armies out of a region knowing your enemy will take it, it is a loss. It's call a "retreat."
Pliablemoose
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 25,195
- 0
- 56
There was a fundamental difference in the soliders we sent ot Vietnam too, average age was much younger than WWII & Korean War, these guys really didn't know what they were fighting for, they weren't old enough to value the rights & liberties valued by our country. Shey were also socioeconomically disenfranchised, anyone with money or a family with political clout got out of active duty, look @ our last 2 presidential candidates, one war photographer/journalist , one in the National Guard.
The all volunteer military is a little different animal. They want to be there for one reason or another.
There were many factors involved in why we withdrew, largely, the American public just didn't have the stomache for it, and they were probably right.
What we'll be doing in the Middle East @ first a show for the American public, then the real work will begin, rebuilding the CIA, NSA, & FBI's human part of the spy business. What good are all those cool satellites etc, without our very own James Bond? I think we need to make Tom Clancy an offer he can't refuse to be a spymaster...
The all volunteer military is a little different animal. They want to be there for one reason or another.
There were many factors involved in why we withdrew, largely, the American public just didn't have the stomache for it, and they were probably right.
What we'll be doing in the Middle East @ first a show for the American public, then the real work will begin, rebuilding the CIA, NSA, & FBI's human part of the spy business. What good are all those cool satellites etc, without our very own James Bond? I think we need to make Tom Clancy an offer he can't refuse to be a spymaster...
<< 1-3 is correct but i'd say you're wildly off on #4... the south viet ppl strongly cared about who was in charge...for some it meant life and death.. why do you think so many came to america when the VC took over? >>
The Viet Cong virtually ceased to exist due to the Tet Offensive. It was the North Vietnamese Army that fought the majority of remainder of the war.
Humm, seems I recall that people were being SHOT at while they were leaving. I would call that loosing and retreating.
The US didn't have any real vested interest in Vietnam except the political issue like "Stop the commies!" France before the US also struggled because unlike India to the Great Briton, Vietnam didn't produce anything valuable for them. Actually, they were losing money to keep Vietnam. After Dien Bien Phu rout, the French were effectively out of the picture and the US had to make choice about Vietnam: let them live as they like, or make it a showcase to demonstrate American determination to stop the communists. Other than that, I don't see any value in Vietnam, maybe except strategic pressure point against China.
Truman doctrine dictates that the US support any governments as long as they fight against communists. Corrupt, oppressive, or incompetant, whatever. South Vietnamese government was simply overmatched in all aspects by North Vietnamese one led by legendary freedom fighter Ho Chi Min. Communists or not, North Vietnamese were fully motivated because that was their independance war, the noblest cause of them all. Cannot say the same thing about the US troops. It was a political war in the first place, and with the diminishing political support from the homeland, it is only natural that the US had to bow out.
Truman doctrine dictates that the US support any governments as long as they fight against communists. Corrupt, oppressive, or incompetant, whatever. South Vietnamese government was simply overmatched in all aspects by North Vietnamese one led by legendary freedom fighter Ho Chi Min. Communists or not, North Vietnamese were fully motivated because that was their independance war, the noblest cause of them all. Cannot say the same thing about the US troops. It was a political war in the first place, and with the diminishing political support from the homeland, it is only natural that the US had to bow out.
Pliablemoose
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 25,195
- 0
- 56
Best thing for our country was the brain drain caused by the exodus, we picked up some very motivated & capable citizens for the U.S.
My analysis of the Vietnam war, and I was around back then, but i was just a youngster...
We didn't lose the war, but we did pay too high a price for what we achieved. With better tactics and quicker ramping up, rather than the slow build-up, we could have lessened our casualties. Or perhaps a better alternative, put much greater emphasis on training South Vietnamese and reducing corruption and mistrust in South Vietnamese government through diplomacy and aid. The South Vietnamese were a great people with a lousy government, unfortunately we tended to help the lousy government more than the people.
Our goals were.
1. keep N.Vietnam from taking over S.Vietnam. (ultimately failed)
2. prevent spread of Communism in SE Asia(largely succeeded)
3. Vietnam was a battle in the larger Cold War.(which we appear to have won at this point and our efforts in Vietnam were a big part of the victory IMHO)
We didn't lose the war, but we did pay too high a price for what we achieved. With better tactics and quicker ramping up, rather than the slow build-up, we could have lessened our casualties. Or perhaps a better alternative, put much greater emphasis on training South Vietnamese and reducing corruption and mistrust in South Vietnamese government through diplomacy and aid. The South Vietnamese were a great people with a lousy government, unfortunately we tended to help the lousy government more than the people.
Our goals were.
1. keep N.Vietnam from taking over S.Vietnam. (ultimately failed)
2. prevent spread of Communism in SE Asia(largely succeeded)
3. Vietnam was a battle in the larger Cold War.(which we appear to have won at this point and our efforts in Vietnam were a big part of the victory IMHO)
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter