# Who won Vietnam?!?



## abhiginimav (Jan 2, 2007)

Disregarding what history says, be honest in this one, not patriotic, who do you think won the vietnam war?


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 2, 2007)

Still too early to tell. 

Ask the same question in a decade.


----------



## abhiginimav (Jan 2, 2007)

personally, i think the NVA were just too cunning for the USA , Quote from film platoon "we been kicking everyones asses for so long, maybe its time we got ours kicked" - american soldier whos name i forgot lol good film though...although the plane shots from the F-5 doing there bombing runs were a bit crap...it was a model on a string by the looks of it.....


----------



## mkloby (Jan 2, 2007)

abhiginimav said:


> personally, i think the NVA were just too cunning for the USA , Quote from film platoon "we been kicking everyones asses for so long, maybe its time we got ours kicked" - american soldier whos name i forgot lol good film though...although the plane shots from the F-5 doing there bombing runs were a bit crap...it was a model on a string by the looks of it.....



We never got our asses kicked militarily, on the contrary US military crushed the vietnamese in virtually ever engagement. However, to forego the Clauswitz cliche, it was ultimately a political defeat.


----------



## abhiginimav (Jan 2, 2007)

good reply, however i feel that the NVA put up a big fight, although they didnt win, they were a formidable foe. i think that the mistake was underestimating the vietcong. Yes they won the battles, but do you think america lost the war?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2007)

Militarily the US beat the crap out of the NVA - Politically the whole campaign was a failure, plain and simple...

The NVA launched 2 major campaigns against South Vietnam and the American forces serving there. The US fought like it had one arm tied behind it's back and still easily defeated both offensives.

BTW on the Poll you should have "none of the above"


----------



## Erich (Jan 2, 2007)

I could make numerous comments that would make your blood chill but I will refrain for personal reasons...........

think about it, we were in their backyard, their playground, did we ever really stand a chance when our own govt was not behind our existance there 100 % ?

We kicked the NVA just like we put a bullet in the forehead of nearly every Chinese we engaged at any range.

had we not pulled out and we able to bring in some big heavy firepower which we had, Hanoi would of been creamed off the face of the earth. Also to remember we were still not on very good terms with the Soviets during those shaking and world changing times

in essence nobody won, that is why the killing fields are mentioned in literature, a complete waste of humanity


----------



## davparlr (Jan 2, 2007)

Initially, an idiotic, cowardly administration wanting to run the war from the White House, then a traitorous American news media, succeded in turning a proud and victorious military into demoralized, population hating draft military and handed the war to the NVA.


----------



## Crow (Jan 3, 2007)

The North Vietnamese obviously. 

wars are not won by adding up who was victorious in the most battles but by which state withdraws from the conflict. German soldiers killed Soviet soldiers in their millions yet they still ended up buried in the ruins of Berlin 1945. 

Their was never the slightest chance of 'our' side winning, and if I`m going to get flamed by someone, at least let it be by someone who was there as well and has a different opinion, not just what you`ve read about. some of the stuff done their would give you sickening nightmares for the rest of your life. 

like it has to me.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 3, 2007)

If the americans had of stayed in even after Tet, the Veitnam war would have been a stalemate, the americans would never have won or even stabilized the region but the NVA or the VC never would have militarily been able to beat the Americans


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2007)

You seem to forget that the South opposed the North as well, and since the military victories in Vietnam were much more substantial than those in Korea it seems likely that the Communist insurgency couldn't have been defeated soundly. 

The British did it in their "Vietnam" - so there's no reason that the U.S couldn't have done it in Vietnam. Given the proper political support, of course.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 3, 2007)

Agreed pD, if the American media and politicians had been 100% behind the war in Vietnam then the outcome could of been different than it was (similar situation as exists in Korea today?). The NVA couldn't defeat the USA militarily (but with the help of the American media could politically). Overall the war was a stalemate (and would of continued that way with the NVA being more of an insurgency than anything else). Had the support been their the US would of probably won (as they were doing before the pullout)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2007)

South Vietnam initially stood as a nation, it took nearly 2 years for the NVA to eventually overrun the south and they did this at a time when they know the US would not come back to stop the onslaught. When the US pulled out there was a cease fire and the mission was in tact.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2007)

I meant the Communist insurgency _could_ have been beaten soundly. Sorry!


----------



## mkloby (Jan 3, 2007)

Crow said:


> The North Vietnamese obviously.
> 
> wars are not won by adding up who was victorious in the most battles but by which state withdraws from the conflict. German soldiers killed Soviet soldiers in their millions yet they still ended up buried in the ruins of Berlin 1945.
> 
> ...



Crow - you're definitely right in the fact that war must lead to a political victory. The only shot for victory was to establish an independent and secure South Vietnam that would be able to sustain and defend itself against a hostile North. I believe it's the latter part of that, which may have been impossible - and that's the aspect that many people are paralleling to Iraq (although not vice North Vietnam!)

On the 2nd part - things done in every war are going to be sickening. Not to diminish the reality of it, but I think that's one thing that will always remain constant in warfare. I'll find that out firsthand soon enough...


----------



## Emac44 (Jan 3, 2007)

I have to agree with most of the comments from our allies in the US. The allies won the military engagements in Vietnam. However like Korea it was lost by politicans giving by default the war to North Vietnam. Its easy to say that given hindsight of over 30 years ago Vietnam was won by the NVA. it wasn't and if one looks clinically at Vietnam it was battles won on the field which should have decided Vietnam right from the word go. Politicans lost Vietnam not the Allied grunts airmen and sailors serving in Vietnam at the time. Me thinks i smell some anti feelings over the lead Ally in Vietnam surfacing in this poll. perhaps i maybe wrong. Australians served in Vietnam as well and some were family members of mine. to them it was a war they feel we should never have been involved in in retrospect but they like other members of my family are treated with respect and honour due to them. they served because they were in the military and it was expected of them to serve. a better poll would be one which large scale battle had significant effects in Vietnam over all. one i would suggest Tet offensive compared to Battle of Long Tan or the effect of the Air war campaign over North Vietnam and Hanio etc


----------



## Glider (Jan 3, 2007)

Personally I feel that the war was won by the North Vietnamese. That isn't an anti American statement, its a statement of fact given the end result. 

However I also agree that the USA won the battles but lost the war, and that the blame for the loss was with the politicans not the men on the ground. They were lions led by lambs who almost without exception ensured that their nearest and dearest were kept well out of harms way.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2007)

All good stuff, I blame these two idiots for getting the US in there to begin with.







And don't believe in a minute that kennedy was planning a pullout....


----------



## Erich (Jan 3, 2007)

don't forget all the presidents involved including Herr Truman

it wasn't even a declared war another idiotic police action like Korea. Nobody won, we just pulled out .........-] \ ~ s ♀


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2007)

Yep...


----------



## abhiginimav (Jan 3, 2007)

Thanks for your comments and votes gouys...its been god to have my first post filled with mixed opinions. it has been very interesting reading them.

Rip all thoose who served in Vietnam- on both sides


----------



## Erich (Jan 3, 2007)

let's face it, no-one here will fully understand nor should pass any judgement unless you were there .......... all I will say is that when the word Vietnam is pressed close to me, I close up, it was a frickin hell hole and I still hate the tropics to this bloody day


----------



## abhiginimav (Jan 3, 2007)

No offence to any americans, but i think the USA should just not have got involved, i think the world police thing is getting to far, that goes for Britain and more economically developed european countries too. we should let countries sort it out between them. this is why were loosing men fighting for lost causes. Vietnam was just a waste of time, money, military, vehicles and lives. thoose who came back, havent got a life, because it had been stolen from fear and horrible experiences.
Sorry to hear that you went to Nam' Erich
i jus hope if i ever join the RAF when im old enough, i wont see any thing like that.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2007)

abhiginimav said:


> No offence to any americans, but i think the USA should just not have got involved, i think the world police thing is getting to far, that goes for Britain and more economically developed european countries too. we should let countries sort it out between them. this is why were loosing men fighting for lost causes. Vietnam was just a waste of time, money, military, vehicles and lives. thoose who came back, havent got a life, because it had been stolen from fear and horrible experiences.
> Sorry to hear that you went to Nam' Erich
> i jus hope if i ever join the RAF when im old enough, i wont see any thing like that.


Very correct but here's the beef - While the world would demonize someone like Bush, Regan or even Nixon - JFK was the largest perpetrator of US intervention of any president in the post war years. I know he revered through out the world as one of the greatest US presidents, in reality he was a big scumbag, and I'm being very kind here. Johnson just carried on the same failed policy that Kennedy started and Nixon politicised the situation to ensure his second term. My brother fought there was was actually spat on when he returned home (BTW the couple who spat on them probably never disrespected another Vietnam vet after that fateful encounter)...


----------



## Erich (Jan 3, 2007)

well Joe I hope your brother had the nerve to kickem in the nutz and the puss

you are so correct about JFK and Johnson and couple of D**ks. funny isn't it how the forum members have been brought up to believe otherwise through the great source of twisted school text books and the media


----------



## abhiginimav (Jan 3, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> My brother fought there was was actually spat on when he returned home (BTW the couple who spat on them probably never disrespected another Vietnam vet after that fateful encounter)...



LOL good on ur bro flyboyj.....dont think anyone deserves that kind of disrespect after going into a bloody battle. thats the last thing i would want from my own country after returning from service.


----------



## abhiginimav (Jan 3, 2007)

Erich said:


> funny isn't it how the forum members have been brought up to believe otherwise through the great source of twisted school text books and the media



Thats why i hate history lessons....its a load of Bull*hit that you cant tell if is tru or false. You just have to peice together the jigsaw to get the facts from the whole picture


----------



## abhiginimav (Jan 3, 2007)

WOW! this is the most intelectual conversation i have had about war!! kids my age are ignorant D*cks. glad to finnaly find my place. Thanks everyone, especially Erich and Flyboyj for the facts.

______________________________________________


***woo! 16 in 6 days***


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2007)

Erich said:


> well Joe I hope your brother had the nerve to kickem in the nutz and the puss
> 
> you are so correct about JFK and Johnson and couple of D**ks. funny isn't it how the forum members have been brought up to believe otherwise through the great source of twisted school text books and the media



Couldn't agree more!



abhiginimav said:


> LOL good on ur bro flyboyj.....dont think anyone deserves that kind of disrespect after going into a bloody battle. thats the last thing i would want from my own country after returning from service.



The incident with my brother happened in Cleveland in the spring of 1969. A couple spat on him as he was walking through the airport - My brother threw both of them through a store front window. A cop grabbed my brother and when he sorted out what happened he had my brother go on his way - you see the cop was a Vietnam Vet...


----------



## abhiginimav (Jan 3, 2007)

LOL! even better!


----------



## abhiginimav (Jan 3, 2007)

just outa question, what aircraft do you fly FLYBOYJ


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2007)

abhiginimav said:


> just outa question, what aircraft do you fly FLYBOYJ


Mainly Cessna 172. I've flown almost all Cessna singles up to a Turbo 210 and some Piper. I also have time in several jets.


----------



## abhiginimav (Jan 3, 2007)

do u fly the 172 commercially or just for leasure...and for the jets, did u need any qualifications like a university degree?

Thanks...jus need some career advice


----------



## mkloby (Jan 3, 2007)

abhiginimav said:


> do u fly the 172 commercially or just for leasure...and for the jets, did u need any qualifications like a university degree?
> 
> Thanks...jus need some career advice



You don't need a college degree to fly. I don't know if in Britain they require a college degree in order to become a commissioned officer. However, the easiest way to get to fly, unless you were born w/ a silver spoon in your mouth, is to fly and let the gov't pay for it! However, don't do that just to fly - only fly for you country if your heart's in service to your country. The guys whose hearts aren't in service of their country and just want free flight training usually wash out of flight school.

I'm halfway to my naval aviator wings with the USMC. Granted, it's US - but I would think British training has similar opportunities.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2007)

abhiginimav said:


> do u fly the 172 commercially or just for leasure...and for the jets, did u need any qualifications like a university degree?
> 
> Thanks...jus need some career advice




My background is in aircraft maintenance - After many years of procrastinating I decided to get my PPL. After that i decided to become a flight instructor, something I do "part time.

The jet time was something I got to do because of my maintenance background - I traded maintenance services for flight time. It also helps when your father in law is a pilot too and knows some folks with privately owned jets.

Listen to mkloby - he hit the nail on the head!


----------



## abhiginimav (Jan 3, 2007)

thanks guys...i shud be going solo this year in a 152...ill try and get into the RAF
thanks for the advice


----------



## Glider (Jan 3, 2007)

In the UK you don't need to have a degree to become an officer, in the RN over a third of the officers started as other ranks but to fly as a pilot I believe that you do need to get a degree.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 3, 2007)

One thing that bothered me about this thread:


abhiginimav said:


> i think the world police thing is getting to far, that goes for Britain and more economically developed european countries too. we should let countries sort it out between them. this is why were loosing men fighting for lost causes.


We should let countries just sort it out??? Like the way Iraq did with Kuwait??? Or the same way North Korea wants to with the South??? What about the way Rwanda and Cambodia handled their internal squabbles??? How many hundreds of thousands died cause the "World Police" decided to sit those ones out???

Maybe even, dare I say it, Milosivich and Saddam should have been left alone and do whatever they wanted to....

Ethnic fu*kin cleansing and genocide.....

Gimmie a break kid, the world does need help...


----------



## mkloby (Jan 3, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> One thing that bothered me about this thread:
> We should let countries just sort it out??? Like the way Iraq did with Kuwait??? Or the same way North Korea wants to with the South??? What about the way Rwanda and Cambodia handled their internal squabbles??? How many hundreds of thousands died cause the "World Police" decided to sit those ones out???
> 
> Maybe even, dare I say it, Milosivich and Saddam should have been left alone and do whatever they wanted to....
> ...



Well said Les.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2007)

mkloby said:


> On the 2nd part - things done in every war are going to be sickening. Not to diminish the reality of it, but I think that's one thing that will always remain constant in warfare. I'll find that out firsthand soon enough...



I still think about the things that I have seen. My buddy still jumps when a car backfires and on New Years he sat huddled in his house because the noises from the fire works scared him.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2007)

abhiginimav said:


> No offence to any americans, but i think the USA should just not have got involved, i think the world police thing is getting to far, that goes for Britain and more economically developed european countries too. we should let countries sort it out between them. this is why were loosing men fighting for lost causes. Vietnam was just a waste of time, money, military, vehicles and lives. thoose who came back, havent got a life, because it had been stolen from fear and horrible experiences.
> Sorry to hear that you went to Nam' Erich
> i jus hope if i ever join the RAF when im old enough, i wont see any thing like that.



I have to disagree with you. Let them sort it out themselves? 

Have you seen mass graves? Have you seen them filled with bodies that were killed because they were Albanian, or Christian, or Muslim or Kurd, or Shiite? I have seen these mass graves first hand in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Iraq.

When do you tell them what is right and what is wrong, when do you stop the killing of innocent women and children?

Someone has to and the rest of the world is too damn chicken **** to do it.


----------



## Crow (Jan 4, 2007)

I dont know about chicken, many nations like Australia are too small to offer anything other than token assistance. And its a bit disingenuous to suggest that the US is somehow solely interested in bringing freedom, all countries act according to their own interests and I have seen many graves of innocents who have been on the deliberate recieving end of the US`s efforts as well. There isnt a country on the map that cant happily justify why a particular slaughter is not there problem when its not in their interests to act. 

But as critical as I am of some of the US`s actions that doesnt mean for a second if there has to be a single 'superpower' I would rather it was another power like a China or Russia. I think too many people who have legitimate grievances with your current administration go too far into the 'US is always wrong' mode, which then does almost justify to themselves genocides in preference to the US taking unilateral action. 

As much as I know many Americans distrust the UN, perhaps we need to reframe it, as too many members are happy to see it toothless so that it doesnt interfere with their interests. remove the veto and make it a proper democratic institution, not one which reflects the power nations of 1945. The massacre at srebrenica happened because no country would give the UN troops there any mandate to do anything other than watch the slaughter.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2007)

Crow said:


> I dont know about chicken, many nations like Australia are too small to offer anything other than token assistance.



That is not what I meant by my post. What I meant was this. The US (and her allies) goes in and the world cries "Bad US, War Mongering fools!" Well the rest of the world can kiss my ass...



Crow said:


> And its a bit disingenuous to suggest that the US is somehow solely interested in bringing freedom, all countries act according to their own interests



Your right, we want to secure our freedom from those that wish to take it and hurt us because of our freedoms.



Crow said:


> and I have seen many graves of innocents who have been on the deliberate recieving end of the US`s efforts as well.



Please tell me where you have seen such a mass grave filled with innocent bodies killed by US soldiers. I was a US Soldier and served in combat and I guarantee you we have never caused mass genocide or killed innocents in mass ammounts just for the fricken hell of it.


----------



## Crow (Jan 4, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is not what I meant by my post. What I meant was this. The US (and her allies) goes in and the world cries "Bad US, War Mongering fools!" Well the rest of the world can kiss my ass...



I already said that many of those who have legitimate grievances with US foreign policy can go too far with criticising for unilateral action and end up justifying genocides rather than let the US act. 

as for the world can kiss your ass, well thats really symptomatic of the contempt the US has shown for the rest of the world, including its allies. if you are happy enough for the US to act solely in its own interests then you really have nothing to complain about when other countries do the same and try to negate your influence. 



> Your right, we want to secure our freedom from those that wish to take it and hurt us because of our freedoms.



right. what is so special about your freedoms?. There are dozens of countries that have every bit of the liberal secular democracy of the US. pretending everyone hates you just because of freedoms is just simplistic and allows you to not have to face up to the effects of your foregin policy. 'no they dont hate us because of our undermining of elected Governments that would damage our interests, its because we get public holidays and the vote'. did countries such as Guatemala wanted to hurt your 'freedoms'? or were they taught a lesson because a US corporation with strong ties to Eisenhower objected when its assets were nationalised for the good of its people?. plenty more examples if you care to look. 



> Please tell me where you have seen such a mass grave filled with innocent bodies killed by US soldiers. I was a US Soldier and served in combat and I guarantee you we have never caused mass genocide or killed innocents in mass ammounts just for the fricken hell of it.



I didnt say genocide, but believe me, I could take you on a tour of villages in vietnam where I have seen the results of US troops actions. I was a soldier too, and I`ve seen it first hand on the ground. families raped and murdered, babies smashed in, 12yo girls raped and then have flares shoved up their vaginas and lit.., boys killed one by one with a bullet in the head because a village wouldnt hand over a supposed VC member etc. I`ve seen it all. 

I didnt mean for this to turn into an attack on the US, believe me as I said earlier if there has to be a single superpower then I`m glad its the US. God knows what would happen if we got what some anti-US types want and the US was replaced by China or Russia. But some of the reasons given for the US acting as it does are naive and simplistic in the extreme, and reasons like 'they hate our freedom' really just gives your country a licence to do whatever it wants rather than weigh up the real effects of your policy. 

flame away


----------



## Erich (Jan 4, 2007)

no flame but maybe a reality check for you, the south Viets also followed up the US to perform it's mindless acts of barbarity on it's own people and cousins, the messages you proclaim are true enough, I was there. they were supplied with the same arms and ammo which you easily see whom would get the blame .....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2007)

Crow said:


> as for the world can kiss your ass, well thats really symptomatic of the contempt the US has shown for the rest of the world, including its allies. if you are happy enough for the US to act solely in its own interests then you really have nothing to complain about when other countries do the same and try to negate your influence.



No your right the world can kiss my ass. You know why I have an opinion. I have an opinion about my country and know one especially liberals from all over the world can change that opinion.

I am a very cultured man. I am an American but I was born and raised in Europe. I have seen more cultures than most people around this world. I respect other cultures and was raised to do so by my family. I have been all over Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East so dont try and explain to me how the US is regarded in other places. I have seen it first hand.

Second of all, I dont complain about other countries and the way they feel about the US because it is there right to feel the way they do. That however does not mean that I have to be a liberal and agree with them.

I am a free thinker and can believe in what I wish and think about what I wish. 




crow said:


> right. what is so special about your freedoms?.



What is so special about my freedom? Who the hell are you? You want to know why they are special to me? Because they are granted to me by my country. I have fought for what I believe in and for the rights my country has given me and my county. That is why it is special to me. 



crow said:


> pretending everyone hates you just because of freedoms is just simplistic and allows you to not have to face up to the effects of your foregin policy.



Excuse me? Again who the hell are you? When a low life piece of **** scum blow up innocent women and children it is a direct attack on my country and the freedoms of my country. 

If you do not like my countries foriegn policies, then you can attack my government and my military but if you are nothing more than a coward as to attack innocents then you are attacking my freedoms and my right to be.

Period!



crow said:


> 'no they dont hate us because of our undermining of elected Governments that would damage our interests, its because we get public holidays and the vote'.



Do not even start to put words in my mouth....



crow said:


> I didnt say genocide, but believe me, I could take you on a tour of villages in vietnam where I have seen the results of US troops actions. I was a soldier too, and I`ve seen it first hand on the ground. families raped and murdered, babies smashed in, 12yo girls raped and then have flares shoved up their vaginas and lit.., boys killed one by one with a bullet in the head because a village wouldnt hand over a supposed VC member etc. I`ve seen it all.



Do you have proof they were conducted by US Soldiers? Did you see it done with your own eyes?

Sure there are cases of US Soldiers doing what they should do. What they know is wrong. But the US never and never will commit mass murder on villages as policy.

Try another one, your arguement here does not work.... 



crow said:


> I didnt mean for this to turn into an attack on the US,



Then what is your agenda...



crow said:


> But some of the reasons given for the US acting as it does are naive and simplistic in the extreme, and reasons like 'they hate our freedom' really just gives your country a licence to do whatever it wants rather than weigh up the real effects of your policy.



When our women and children are safe from fear and worry about being killed by people who wish for us to live under the flag of Islam (and dont even tell me this is not true, I have lived among it, I have seen and heard and read what they wish) then our policy will change, but only when our people are safe.

Sorry Crow I am not a liberal....Your arguements dont work with me.

At the same time I am an adult who will not throw insults back when someone who does not know me calls me naive, watch your step Crow....


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 4, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I dont complain about other countries and the way they feel about the US because it is there right to feel the way they do.




As you said Chris you have travelled the world, how do the average people in those countries honestly feel about the USA?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2007)

Depends on where you go I guess.

For the most part in Europe they are just not fond of the US policies but have no direct problems with Americans at all (atleast not on a personal level).

There are some that have stereotypes because the young GI who is away from home for the first time tends to act like an idiot (what I like to call the "bad American") in public and give the rest of the Americans a bad name.

From my experiences in places such as Africa, S. America, and Asia it depends on what the government is feeding to the people. 

As for the Middle East (I spent about 14 months there and have also talked to many Islamic people here in Germany as well) it pretty much goes like this. They dont believe in our system and they hate us for being an ally of Isreal. They dont accept our beliefs ( we are not allowed to build a church in half of there countries but god forbid you tell them they cant build a mosque in yoru country). Basically they are only tollerant of there beliefs and hate us for ours.

There are plenty of people here who have actually spent time in the middle east like myself and they will agree with me.

Am I saying that all Islamic people are bad? No, I have met good ones too and there are Islamic countries that are pretty decent as well.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 4, 2007)

Im about to step into this bullsh!t conversation, but Ill wait till crow-boy replies...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2007)

Oh boy here it comes....


----------



## mkloby (Jan 4, 2007)

Crow said:


> As much as I know many Americans distrust the UN, perhaps we need to reframe it, as too many members are happy to see it toothless so that it doesnt interfere with their interests. remove the veto and make it a proper democratic institution, not one which reflects the power nations of 1945. The massacre at srebrenica happened because no country would give the UN troops there any mandate to do anything other than watch the slaughter.



Crow - You're right, Americans are not by and large fond of the UN. We don't want to hand over any of our sovereignty to a multi-national organization that does not have American interests at heart. The concept of the UN is essentially flawed - it's that disconnect between theory and the reality of how the world works. You're just not going to have an org like that will such radically diverse interests be a cohesive unit. I think that the UN is well on its way to proving its irrelevance in the world today.

Too many nations in the world are also perfectly as ease to stand by and watch mass genocide, because it's not "their problem." It might cost money and even lives, so they'll sit idly by and watch the thousands die.


----------



## Crow (Jan 5, 2007)

deleted . good luck to you all.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 5, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I still think about the things that I have seen. My buddy still jumps when a car backfires and on New Years he sat huddled in his house because the noises from the fire works scared him.




Yeah thats horrible to have to live that way and it never really passes either, i was stabbed in the chest when i was 19 by some random thug in downtown Toronto for no reason, so im paranoid to be outside of my house after dark, when you come inches from death you completely change


----------



## Erich (Jan 5, 2007)

Hussars that is a total crapper ............

Chris no kidding, my eldest brother inlaw was a navy corp-man on the front lines in Nam and was nearly killed in by a trip-wired bomb explosion; every morning still his bedsheets show the sign of micronized shrapnel ......... with the loss of two finger tips and scarring on his chest, he still reacts - ducks even when fireworks are popped at 4th of July.

Lets face it my generation serving in Nam we will not get over it ever ........ we were never de-briefed when we got home, just given the word go make something of yourself


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2007)

My brother left Vietnam in the spring of 1969 - he was shell shocked for at least 5 years and mentally affected by his experience for at least another 10. Had a hard time holding down a job.

Today there are so many programs for returning Iraqi soldiers, where the hell was the help when Vietnam Vets (who fought a more tenacious enemy) returned home?!?! It really pisses me off especially when I see some liberal politician who protested the Vietnam War saying "we need to help our veterans." I think you folks could name a few I'm speaking of!!!!


----------



## Emac44 (Jan 5, 2007)

Interesting comments gentlemen. Met many a Vietnam Aussie Veteran. Of course they have my respect because that is the way i was raised by my father and mother. particularly my father who was a returned veteran himself. he had a saying you don't know what it is like unless you have been shot at and in our family respect was given because these men and women deserved that respect at all times. by the way gentlemen the bad dreams the nervous palsy etc etc were also in WW2 veterans. i know because my father had nightmares for years over his war time experiences. i am not going to get into the debate was vietnam necassary or not but we in the Commonwealth must remember that we were involved not only in Vietnam but Britians Vietnam in Malaya as well. it was a different political atmosphere in those days with the domino theory in place during the cold war days. not only in Europe but in the asian region during those times. korea Vietnam and Malaya were the prime examples. atrocities did take place on both sides during Vietnam and i suspect was the same in Korea and Malaya but one must remember atroscities do occur as much as we disavow them and criminal acts do and will occur for which there is no excuse if committed by our own servicemen and allies. 2 wrongs do not make it right as the old saying goes. but if we dwell on this if innocents fill graves and war is a crime against humanity and we use Vietnam or Korea or Malay as prime examples and even Iraq and Afghanistan as further proof. then we have to also use WW1 and WW2 as further examples of war against innocents and the filling of graves. unfortuantely we often forget what war does to populations and yes we demonize either side as i suspect its part of the propaganda part of the war we wage. i have met many a muslim as well gentlemen, most just want to just live in peace and live and raise their kids as they see fit. and i have no problem with that at all. all power to them if that is what they want to do that is fine. i just have a problem with the radicals who usurp the religion of islam for their own agenda whether it be political or religious feavour. as an islamic mate of mine is fond of saying Islam is a wonderful song just some have rotten singing voices and distort it horribley. but having said that i know many a christian who sings just as bad and i am possibley one of them as i am a christian as well. but i live in peace with my neighbours and practise my faith as i see fit to do so which is guarantteed due to democratic processes in my country but before some one brings out the old cants of what christians have done in the civilized world from the crusades down the the 100 year war in europe or the spanish inquistion etc go and have a good look into what islam has done. Islam didn't come with the peace and word of the koran as some may think it came with fire and sword but again many religious ideologies did the same. the truth be to the manner came from man not from god whether that god by allah or the christian god of peace but man alone bears responsibility for war. about time we started taking responsibilities for our own actions and what our governments do in our name for the people of different countries. you may not agree with what i have said that is your choice as free thinking individuals but i live by this i may not agree with what you think but i will defend your right to say it, and to me that is what democracy is all about and that is what the radicals seem to forget. the right to choose not only just a democratic way of thinking but in whom you worship in faith or if you choose not to worship in faith etc. but unfortunately Jesus Christ did say in the New Testaments that there will always be War there will always be Famine and Natural Disasters. never a truer words said. such is the lot of mankind on this world of ours


----------



## Erich (Jan 5, 2007)

it is called the bi-product of man's sin ..........


----------



## Emac44 (Jan 6, 2007)

Erich said:


> it is called the bi-product of man's sin ..........



i know erich and more shame on us for being like that. war and the history it represents fancinates me due to the fact it is based through out history and man's efforts to either wage war or try not to wage war. more often then not we wage war we disavow it say its savage and primative. yet how many wars has mankind waged since the time man first picked up a sharpened stick etc to atomic weapons chemical and biological. complex creatures aren't we. avow for peace yet readily go to war.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 6, 2007)

A bad peace is worse than war.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 7, 2007)

plan_D said:


> A bad peace is worse than war.



Except when this bad peace leads to a larger and more horrific war... Versailles might be the best example of this. Maybe a peace that allows certain lunatics in power in specific countries that seek to acquire nuclear weapons, and would likely have no fear in using said weapons. I'll go to war over peace to stop that.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 7, 2007)

no Versailles is a good example for what pD's saying, Europe had been changing for a long time and borders were always changing, 100 years before we wouldn't have thought twice about going into and occupying Germany and that's what we should've done instead of making the peace, going into Germany would've shown the people that they had been defeated and not given Hitler the chance to say that they were stabbed in the back, so in this case the extra war of taking Germany itself would've been far better than the uneasy peace, but it's understandable that after 4 years of war they'd want the peace!


----------



## mkloby (Jan 7, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> no Versailles is a good example for what pD's saying, Europe had been changing for a long time and borders were always changing, 100 years before we wouldn't have thought twice about going into and occupying Germany and that's what we should've done instead of making the peace, going into Germany would've shown the people that they had been defeated and not given Hitler the chance to say that they were stabbed in the back, so in this case the extra war of taking Germany itself would've been far better than the uneasy peace, but it's understandable that after 4 years of war they'd want the peace!



OOPS! Chalk that one up to me not reading the post right! I read it as "a bad peace is better than war."


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 7, 2007)

oh you  don't tell your wife, a mistake of those proportions would be bad news for you


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2007)

Erich said:


> Hussars that is a total crapper ............
> 
> Chris no kidding, my eldest brother inlaw was a navy corp-man on the front lines in Nam and was nearly killed in by a trip-wired bomb explosion; every morning still his bedsheets show the sign of micronized shrapnel ......... with the loss of two finger tips and scarring on his chest, he still reacts - ducks even when fireworks are popped at 4th of July.
> 
> Lets face it my generation serving in Nam we will not get over it ever ........ we were never de-briefed when we got home, just given the word go make something of yourself



When I first came home. The backfire of a car or fire cracker made me jump or dive for cover. I could not stand being around large groups of people and did not trust people that I did not know.

I have since gotten used to it and it no longer bothers me. It was a time of adjustment though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2007)

Crow said:


> deleted . good luck to you all.





So your gonna give up because people dont agree with you?


----------



## plan_D (Jan 14, 2007)

mkloby, I'm sorry, but I have to call you a dip sh*t. At least you realised your mistake... bloody pilots.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 14, 2007)

plan_D said:


> mkloby, I'm sorry, but I have to call you a dip sh*t. At least you realised your mistake... bloody pilots.



Yeah yeah.... I disagreed with you then posted about how I agreed with you...  You should see some of the mistakes I pulled in primary flight training....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2007)




----------



## Emac44 (Jan 15, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> So your gonna give up because people dont agree with you?



Adler think Crow may have more problems with his passed Vietnam experiences then he is letting on and blames others or becomes irrational etc. It happens at times. which doesn't mean to say Crow isn't a decent person by any means. he more than likely is a good man


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2007)

I am not argueing with you on that. I never got an impression that he was a bad guy. But he could have stuck around and discussed this and maybe the people that did not agree with him would get a better understanding of his feelings.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 15, 2007)

Perhaps it was the fact he felt that several people including a Mod were siding against him and he had no reasonable chance to explain himself.

Perhaps that is my guess anyways. Too bad its always nice to hear other people ideas even if you don't always agree with them.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2007)

Then he should have said something. You have to be thick skinned around here and also realize that people dont agree with you and dont push them so hard because they dont agree with you. He did get a bit pushy but I dont think anyone really went overboard on him.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 15, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Then he should have said something. You have to be thick skinned around here and also realize that people dont agree with you and dont push them so hard because they dont agree with you. He did get a bit pushy but I dont think anyone really went overboard on him.




No no I am not saying you did or anyone else did. I am just saying I am guessing thats what made him leave but I don't really know.

Yes being thick skinned around here at times is a must. Believe me shortly after I came here I went round and round with you, Joe and Dan (for about 10 pages if I recall). It did not bother me, I sort of like that sort of thing at times. The reason why I stopped was I realized you guys were ........ right. Simply I was wrong, I am not afraid of arguing by any means but I was wrong that time and was not too proud to admit it. Believe me I don't always agree with the Mods here but I choose my words little more wisely now, not b/c I am afraid of being banned or arguing (I can change my IP address any time I want) but b/c I am just .......have respect for you guys and your experences. I might not agree now with you but perhaps in a month I will see your side a little more clearly, but until then I should not post disrepectfully or rudely just b/c I don't agree. That is what happened when I had a major arguement with you three Mods when I came here, you guys made your points and I thought about them for about a week. Then I realized you were right. Although I don't always agree with you Mods, you have taught me to be a better poster and forum user. I thank you for that.

But for most people its hard to except being pointed out for being wrong and still stick around. I think he felt the heat getting alittle too hot for him so he bailed instead. At times the heat around here can go from room temp to the gates of Hell in about 10 mins. LOL It can scare people off at times.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 16, 2007)

Disagreeing is not a bad thing. In fact that is what make forums fun. Getting different views out there. It all just comes down to presentation.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 17, 2007)

The heated debates don't make me run; I just wave my penis at traffic.


----------



## Bernhart (Jan 17, 2007)

My opinion, and (mind you I am no expert by any stretch of the imagination)
north vietnam didn't so much as win as the Americans beat themselves.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 17, 2007)

Bernhart said:


> My opinion, and (mind you I am no expert by any stretch of the imagination)
> north vietnam didn't so much as win as the Americans beat themselves.


Bingo!


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 17, 2007)

Bernhart said:


> My opinion, and (mind you I am no expert by any stretch of the imagination)
> north vietnam didn't so much as win as the Americans beat themselves.




But the other side of that is that the perception by most people (non-military types) including enemys of the States, is that NVA won that war.

That gives them hope, gives them faith that they to can beat the "evil USA", they just have to use the right tatics. Now you have ever little nut job country with its beef vs USA standing up to them.

When you are the toughest guy on the block you don't even have to throw a punch to win 99% of fights, you scare them. Now every punkazz country and dictator stands up to the USA and says FU USA....what are you going to do about it? Now USA does have the get tough in every fight (or at least alot more than ever before) before anyone listens to her. Like I always say when you are in a fight and punchs are thrown rarely does either side come out of it not being hurt.

Thats where we are now. No one fears the USA like they used to. Now everyone thinks that can take on the USA and win.

Whats does that cost USA..........American dollars and soldiers.

And if you are the President of the USA it costs you your job.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2007)

Politics is what lost Vietnam...


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 17, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Politics is what lost Vietnam...



Oh I agree. But perception is reality. Most people see USA having lost to the NVA, that inspires them to also stand up to the USA. USA is still feeling the effects of that war today b/c now every third world dictator stands up to them.

Whether you want to argue that USA lost the war or not (and why) the fact remains that she as good as lost the war. USA lost face there, USA lost respect, USA to many lost a war, USA lost her invincibility, US public lost some will to fight.

It does not matter how USA lost the war she still lost it in the minds of many people.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 17, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Politics is what lost Vietnam...


Another bingo....

As my brother put it - the US fought the Vietnam War like we had both hands tied behind out backs - the few times our forces were allowed to unleash the NVA suffered greatly. US forces fought very well in Vietnam. It was Johnson and McNamara that screwed everything up.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2007)

The same can be said for the Iraq war now.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 17, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The same can be said for the Iraq war now.



Yup. The blueprint has been written how to beat the USA (perhaps even Israel after their last war they did not look so good) and it is being passed around to every third world dictator or terror group.

Now the ball is in USA's ball court........USA has to do something new to stop this line of thought or else its going to get a hell of a lot worse before it ever gets better. No one fears USA now.


----------



## bigZ (Feb 6, 2007)

'war is a continuation of politics by other means' [ Clausewitz]

Allthough this is a well worn phrase. I feel its still valid today.

Britain and the US have been guilty on numerous ocasions of seperating these intrinsically linked agendas from WWII onwards. Maybe if the US didn't stop bombing during peace talks the result would have been different?


----------



## plan_D (Feb 15, 2007)

The only winning party in the Vietnam war is the media.


----------



## Erich (Feb 15, 2007)

I'll agree with your statement plan_

as what happened in my time is now happening in "your" time - media is in total control of what you hear and what you see


----------



## vijaykumar (Jul 14, 2007)

north vietnamese ofcourse


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 14, 2007)

vijaykumar said:


> north vietnamese ofcourse


And I'll repeat... 

Militarily the US beat the crap out of the NVA - Politically the whole campaign was a failure, plain and simple...

The NVA launched 2 major campaigns against South Vietnam and the American forces serving there. The US fought like it had one arm tied behind it's back and still easily defeated both offensives.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 14, 2007)

Oh and I just want to throw in something....







































*YOU can only have 1 login!!!!!*


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 14, 2007)

Just something to ponder....

The Russians and Chinese were so preoccupied with the war in Indochina, that they never gave full attention to the other communist insurrections in Thailand, Malaysia, Burma and Indonesia.

They lost in all of those countries by the end of the sixties.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 14, 2007)

Soapbox alert! 

The winning formula against US is asymetrical/guerilla type warfare and enlist the sympathy of the left wing side of our political spectrum - at least the ones that apologise for our strength and assumed role of 'police/defender' - (unless its a cause embraced by the left like Kosovo..) - First true model = VietNam.

The left will let us stay so long as there is UN approval and support from other countries - so Afghanistan may end up in 'win' column.

We win today, and will win set piece war/battles for some time in the future but will not win Iraq/Afghanistan type conflicts requiring our troops in place against guerilla type warfare. Anytime we engage in a situation that does not have overwhelming popular and political support within the country. 

Guerilla/insurgent/terrorist cells will hit and run, inflict casualties and absorb them, knowing we don't have the national will to fight that way for very long - not any more. 

The 'war' in our face today (along with Europe, Malaysia, Pakistan and India) is fundamentalist Muslim extremists numbering in millions and organized by beliefs and network of subterranean funding - willing to kill all that oppose and willing to die for the cause. No center of gravity to strike.

If you look - whether Balkans, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Iraq, US, Lebanon, or Britain - the face of our foe, the face that seeks destruction of Western Civilization to be replaced with a Fundamentalist "Fourth Reich", is the Islamic Fundamentalist that hates all things Western. 

It is easy to get WMD if you have the money to buy - there were a lot of Soviet 'entrepreneurs' at the regimental commander level that had access to weaponized anthrax, nerve gas and smallpox (and nuc's), it is easy to cross borders, it is easy to plant explosive devices that can unleash aerosols and powder - and efficiency of weaponized materials is not as important as fear. 

You want to buy Nuc capability at a national level? see Khan or Putin.. You want weaponized WMD? break security in Russia, Ukraine, Cuba, NK, US, Syria, etc, etc.. or hire an out of work former Soviet WMD specialist - somebody always ready to risk all for fortune.

I see, in near future, a global conflict at the individual and local levels, societies and governments failing, vacuums of the rule of law being created and much conflict to regain some sense of control. In each case the primary rat will be one who sings praises to Allah (I know more than a few atrocities have been committed by those who praise God, Jehovah, etc- but the Rat today is Muslim). France is sitting on a powder keg, Britain to lesser extent but real. We are always a target. Russia also.

Some force or combinations of force will ultimately say 'F**k 'em, kill 'em (fill in 'em) all and let God (choose which God) sort it out"..depending on how badly the country is wounded - and it will make you think of a different holocast if we don't figure out a message to the average Muslim who doesn't approve of Terrorism as a means of preaching Allah's Will.

Often wrong, rarely uncertain...

Your thoughts?

- BTW - VietNam was the war that showed the way of the future for wars of 'small versus large' - so I voted NVA just because they stayed and we left... hard to declare victory when you pick up your marbles and quit playing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 14, 2007)

drgondog said:


> hard to declare victory when you pick up your marbles and quit playing.


Good one!

South Vietnam did exist for almost 2 years - that was the extent of the "success."


----------



## Stupid (Jul 16, 2007)

South Vietnam was taken over so the north won, although we (the US and allies) did take out a good %14 percent of there population.


----------



## Erich (Jul 16, 2007)

nobody won after we left with our body bags, some of us stayed behind enemy lines and shot up individuals at our discretion until we received orders to move elsewhere and all that B.S. is recorded and stored in secret underground vaults for time to tell after we have left this planet ...........funny we all thought we were doing the right thing at least at the time. We haven't gotten any smarter/wiser since then, and for one, my brother in-law carries the ugly reminders daily every time he gets up out of bed and there are miniscule shrapnel bits lying on the sheets


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 16, 2007)

Stupid said:


> South Vietnam was taken over so the north won, although we (the US and allies) did take out a good %14 percent of there population.



South Vietnam was taken over *after* we left and as you stated they lost 14% (about 1.2 million) of their population, we lost 56,000 soldiers. So who really won?


----------



## trackend (Jul 17, 2007)

Those who command the ground are the victors the Russians lost 20million but I dont think theres any doubt who were the victors in WW2


----------



## bomber (Jul 19, 2007)

drgondog said:


> - BTW - VietNam was the war that showed the way of the future for wars of 'small versus large' - so I voted NVA just because they stayed and we left... hard to declare victory when you pick up your marbles and quit playing.



Excuse me by I think the American war of independance showed the way...

Just that is was the first time it'd been used on the Americans

Simon


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 19, 2007)

bomber said:


> Excuse me by I think the American war of independance showed the way...
> 
> Just that is was the first time it'd been used on the Americans
> 
> Simon



True, we employed, many say invented, guerrilla warfare tactics, but our biggest victories were in conventional battles.

As for Viet Nam, we can debate all day long on who won, but I will never agree that the US "lost". Losing assumes a failed MILITARY effort to win, and we never made that effort. Otherwise we would have carried the war to the North. How long do you think the NVA regulars would have been operating in the South if there was an American ground offensive north of the DMZ. I'm not saying we should have done that, just trying to define victory/defeat. And every major engagement of the war was won by the US; the Viet Cong and NVA, although a formidable foe and able to inflict major damage and casualties, lost every battle.


----------

