|
|
| Page 1 of 3 |
|
|
 Posted: Sat, 12th May 2007 19:25 Post subject: vietnam war |
|
 |
just read some stuff over wiki,and they mentioned that the US was defeated in this war,is that so?
I dont get it,the viet' forces had about 600,000 casulties while the us forces around 60,000,this is a significant difference,so how come the us has lost the war?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Sat, 12th May 2007 19:26 Post subject: |
|
|
Bad press 
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 12th May 2007 19:29 Post subject: |
|
|
| WaldoJ wrote: | | Bad press |
am Im missing something here?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 12th May 2007 19:32 Post subject: |
|
|
The US didn't hit their political targets, Vietnam still stayed a communist country. All in all the entire war was useless. Didn't do shit, didn't change shit, couldn't have done shit. Just alot of people died making at a lost war no matter what.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 12th May 2007 19:34 Post subject: |
|
|
| Pizda2 wrote: | | The US didn't hit their political targets, Vietnam still stayed a communist country. All in all the entire war was useless. Didn't do shit, didn't change shit, couldn't have done shit. Just alot of people died making at a lost war no matter what. |
Yep, that sums it up.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jenni
Banned
Posts: 9526
Location: England.
|
| Posted: Sat, 12th May 2007 19:37 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 12th May 2007 19:38 Post subject: |
|
|
| Clevesa wrote: | | Pizda2 wrote: | | The US didn't hit their political targets, Vietnam still stayed a communist country. All in all the entire war was useless. Didn't do shit, didn't change shit, couldn't have done shit. Just alot of people died making at a lost war no matter what. |
Yep, that sums it up. |
somehow it remined me of the last summer's war (here in israel),didnt do anything good,but could have been better,if we didnt have the current crappy leadership.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nouseforaname
Über-VIP Member
Posts: 21306
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 13th May 2007 00:15 Post subject: |
|
|
you might find some good documentaries on youtube , if you search for the right thing , if you cant find docus ( 60 mins long ones ) lemme know and ill help ya with that .
basicly during the coldwar communism was the demon , and the USA decided to fight it everywhere , cause once it infects for example Korea or Vietnam , it will come to the usa and it was decided to fight it abroad instead at home.
i was gonna type here a whole page of history .... but then i realize you already read about it in the wiki .
they lost the outcome of the war , but won most if not all battles . You know how the north was communist and the south was under US influence with in between the the DMZ ( demelitary zone ) .
At the height of the war the USA had about 570 thousand troops in south vietnam around 1967 . In the north you had the NVA ( North vietnamese army ) who US forces met in the bigger battles ( NVA infiltrated through cambodja to south vietnam ) for example the siege of Khe Sahn . And in the south you had the Vietcong support the north against US forces , they were mostly south vietnamese but also members of the regular NVA , they were a guerillia "army" hiding in the jungle , doing hit and run attacks , cause they knew once they had lost the surprise effect , they had little chance against well trained / equipped US forces . Also if you wondered why they are called Charlie , short for Vietcong is VC , Victor Charlie ( in what i believe is NATO code , might be just american its pretty late to think straight  ) , charlie for short . During 1965-1967 US military thought they could win the war , but then new year 1968 came the TET offensive where all major south vietnamese towns were overrun by the Vietcong ( after what was mostly a geurillia fight till then in the jungle ) which came as a shock to the US military cause the past 2 years seemed to have no effect at all . US military took back all the towns at a high cost , but the Vietcong suffered an even higher blow casualty wise , which they had a hard time to recover from . Thats also where US public opinion turned around ( even though not many supported it to start with ) and the morale of the US military went down , drugs in the military were used by many on a daily basis to deal with the war , violence against civilians was also getting out of hand , reason was GIs never knew for sure if town inhabitants were helping the Vietcong or not , it was really hard to tell for them , hell they could be talking to a vietcong member while going through one of those towns . fragging ( killing their superiors ) when they didnt want to fight etc .
So dealing with themself was a huge problem also , the south vietnamese had an army also , trained and equipped by the USA , but the leaders were selected ( friends ) by the south vietnamese ( puppet ) gouverment , were very incapable of leading and rather drove around in expensive cars , the soldiers itself werent jumping to go kill their own ppl .
Its not like US military didnt try , Operation linebacker was about bombing North vietnam back into the stoneage , more bombs were dropped in this operation then in all of World war 2 .
Your numbers for the casualty rate are a bit off i think , i believe it was 57000 US casualties , and 6-7 thousand missing in action . on vietnamese side millions died for sure , but no one knows an exact number .
you wonder how with all this manpower / money / equipment USA didnt win the war ?
A tour of a drafted GI was 1 year , thats when they were pulled out so they wouldnt get used to the war , a vietnamese guy wasnt pulled out unless the war was won , they had no choice but to fight , they knew if they didnt won the war themself , their kids , and their grandkids would still be fighting , that was their motivation , they wouldnt have ever given up , the USA could never keep a war going for so long .
The lesson was , its "easy" to conquer land or beat an army, but not the heart and mind of the people , unless they killed every single vietnamese , they wouldnt have won it .
USA pulled out in 1972 with a "well trained south vietnamese army" put in place , in 1975 the NVA entered south vietnam quickly uniting Vietnam , making it the communist vietnam we know today with a more open economy , and the former enemy is considered a friend now to the usa , only shows you can be different , but dont need to hate eachother for it , and many many died for nothing .
If you read this , think about iraq and you will see many mistakes are made again .
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 13th May 2007 01:16 Post subject: Re: vietnam war |
|
|
| FreeDiver wrote: | just read some stuff over wiki,and they mentioned that the US was defeated in this war,is that so?
I dont get it,the viet' forces had about 600,000 casulties while the us forces around 60,000,this is a significant difference,so how come the us has lost the war? |
Old measures of victory such as body count don't apply to modern wars. The poorly equipped opponent has several advantages on it's side.
1. It can (force) recruit from the civillian populations which are usually in the millions. Countries like the US have trouble meeting recruitment quotas because their people have other things on their minds like their mortgages, conscience, etc.
2. Modern armies have to abide [usually  ] by the rules whereas the vietcong didn't. In the middle ages and earlier if the enemy had a larger army and won a decisive battle then they would march on your capital and all sorts of nastiness (on the civillians) followed. Better to surrender and fight another day which they usually did. And besides there are no decisive battles fought nowadays. It's all hit and run.
3. Developing countries have a higher threshold for casualties. If on a day, more than 3 soldiers were to die in a skirmish/bomb explosion then there are very difficult questions to be answered back home with the withdrawal coming up on the agenda again.
4. The country invaded/occupied is fighting (in it's mind) for the survival of its way of existence. The developed country is there to restore/bring peace/democracy.
5. I could go on for pages about military errors like Abu Ghraib, My Lai, Haditha creating more support for the 'struggle'. Generals who have no idea about the 'new' wars and are still sending out 'patrols' which are nothing but targets for the enemy.
.
.
.
.
1348. Maybe the most important reason may be the fact the invaders/occupiers/peackeepers have a country to fall back to. They're not being attacked directly atleast. Where are the invaded/occupied people going to go?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 13th May 2007 01:21 Post subject: |
|
|
My dad was in that war. He did more repair and building than he actually did fighting. Love the knife he brought home. I guess a 'nade went off in front of him and the flash damaged one of his eyes so if he coveres up his fully working eye, the messed up one can only see out the bottom half
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 13th May 2007 01:22 Post subject: |
|
|
dude,thanks alot for this great relpy. you definately put some things in place in my mind now.
about the movie,already seen it,one of the best movies I have ever seen.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 13th May 2007 01:27 Post subject: |
|
|
| SpykeZ wrote: | | My dad was in that war. He did more repair and building than he actually did fighting. Love the knife he brought home. I guess a 'nade went off in front of him and the flash damaged one of his eyes so if he coveres up his fully working eye, the messed up one can only see out the bottom half |
my dad also took place in a war, YOM KIPPUR war,as a jet fighter pilot (F-4 phantom). I have alot of images he took back in those days,of aerial combat,convoy attacks etc.
and my brother fought in the last war,also as a pilot (F-16). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 23rd May 2007 19:32 Post subject: end of war |
|
|
after the fall of saigon and so south vietnam american hq sad:
| Quote: | | Let's make a statement that we won, and get the hell out of here. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ginge51
Banned
Posts: 1692
Location: England - Manchester
|
| Posted: Wed, 23rd May 2007 20:32 Post subject: |
|
|
the americans lost the war simply because they withdrew and retreated.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jenni
Banned
Posts: 9526
Location: England.
|
| Posted: Wed, 23rd May 2007 22:19 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 23rd May 2007 22:48 Post subject: |
|
|
I'm interested in Jenni's opinion. It would get an interesting conversation going.
Oh, and about the Vietnam war, I don't know what to think. We massacred the poor bastards, but we still had to withdraw, not because of military necessity, but political necessity. The way I look at it in the past, wars start with politics and end with bullets. The Vietnam war was a new breed of war where the entire war was one big political dodgeball. If the American people supported the Government in what they were doing, then we probably would have an occupation of Vietnam going to this day. While this has its bad sides, it also has its good.
Consider this: superpowers all throughout history have to fuck with other people to remain #1. All those wars the US starts, all the weapons we sell, all the genocides we arrange and dictatorships we set up, we profit off of that. We protect our spheres of influence just like any other superpower has in the past. The only difference now is the heightened media involvement, which brings the war home, every night to your TV screen. Western people can't stomach it, they're sick of it. Public opinion not only at home, but abroad too deteriorates, and thus it will be extremely difficult for any Western country to start a war and continue it if it is not of absolute necessity. And when is a War necessary? Well, obviously everybody has their own opinion.
Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mutantius
VIP Member
Posts: 18594
Location: In Elektro looking for beans
|
| Posted: Wed, 23rd May 2007 23:01 Post subject: |
|
|
| ginge51 wrote: | | the americans lost the war simply because they withdrew and retreated. |
They had already lost it from the start! Domino effect my ass.
"Why don't you zip it, Zipfero?" - fraich3
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jenni
Banned
Posts: 9526
Location: England.
|
| Posted: Wed, 23rd May 2007 23:04 Post subject: |
|
|
Where do I start. Okay during the French Indochina occu......No that's far too early.
Ho Chi Minh was America's best friend when the 2nd world war was ongoing. That stopped due to the Americans supporting the French amongst other reasons.
Hmm heads all over the place atm. So much I know about this conflict. So hard to put into words.
The American military didn't lose the war. The media and the lax censorship coupled with the average person on the street views did. Especially after the Tet offensive. Kent State didn't help either. But there was so much going on In America at the time of the war. HUGE changes to American society in general. From the Assassination of Martin King to the landing on the moon.
Vietnam wasn't as simple as people make out. It's probably the most complex war (or if you're American a Police Action, although I've never seen the Police use Artillery before  ) the world has ever seen.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 23rd May 2007 23:08 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jenni
Banned
Posts: 9526
Location: England.
|
| Posted: Wed, 23rd May 2007 23:09 Post subject: |
|
|
The Americans and Western powers in general had a real fear of the Domino Effect. I can see why when you think of what was going on behind the Iron Curtain. The cold war at it's peak. The Cuban missile crisis was happening. War was just waiting to kick off. Russian advisors in Vietnam, Russian advisors in Korea earlier. The average grunt on the ground not being abled to fathom what the hell was going on. The draft, hippies, the peace movement, black equality.
All too easy to say that the Domino Effect "my ass". 20/20 vision is great in hindsight.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mutantius
VIP Member
Posts: 18594
Location: In Elektro looking for beans
|
| Posted: Wed, 23rd May 2007 23:15 Post subject: |
|
|
Still by loosing some sort of cooperation in Indochina when the french were kicked out and some belives that helped sparked that obsessive engagement (among other things ofc) Still in my humble opinion I believe it was the military which lost the war, draft in a nuclear family america era and with the riots mixed in...
It simply made the overall military engagement insane and the morality of those 18 year olds, this is why My Lai occured and why the massive drug usage went on.
"Why don't you zip it, Zipfero?" - fraich3
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 23rd May 2007 23:20 Post subject: |
|
|
Massive drug usage in the back @ supply or in the navy maybe, but in the front lines, on patrol? I think not. You only see that in the movies.
And not every Marine is a butcher. But yeah, I'm not gonna even bother denying that the way the US handled the local population on all levels, they deserved to get their asses kicked out.
Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jenni
Banned
Posts: 9526
Location: England.
|
| Posted: Wed, 23rd May 2007 23:27 Post subject: |
|
|
Military lost the war. LOL! Come off it. When the North Vietnamese and the Americans couldn't agree on which shape table to sit at at the peace talks the Americans gave the ground commanders a free hand to use what ever they had at their disposal. That sharp got the Vietnamese back to the talks.
Drug usage in the front units was getting worse at the war progressed. The situation became hopeless.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mutantius
VIP Member
Posts: 18594
Location: In Elektro looking for beans
|
| Posted: Wed, 23rd May 2007 23:28 Post subject: |
|
|
| tainted4ever wrote: | Massive drug usage in the back @ supply or in the navy maybe, but in the front lines, on patrol? I think not. You only see that in the movies.
And not every Marine is a butcher. But yeah, I'm not gonna even bother denying that the way the US handled the local population on all levels, they deserved to get their asses kicked out. |
The whole attitude to the effort was complete different then those they witnessed in WW2, they didnt knew what they fought for which further aided the riots which were raging on in Europe and the States the doubts of norms and values collided back home and in the jungle.
"Why don't you zip it, Zipfero?" - fraich3
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mutantius
VIP Member
Posts: 18594
Location: In Elektro looking for beans
|
| Posted: Wed, 23rd May 2007 23:31 Post subject: |
|
|
| Jenni wrote: | Military lost the war. LOL! Come off it. When the North Vietnamese and the Americans couldn't agree on which shape table to sit at at the peace talks the Americans gave the ground commanders a free hand to use what ever they had at their disposal. That sharp got the Vietnamese back to the talks.
Drug usage in the front units was getting worse at the war progressed. The situation became hopeless. |
Sure they managed to kill plenty of VC and NVAs but what im talking about is the civilian casualty and such a tremendous waste of human ressources to basically achieve nothing. Thats a disaster in my humble opinion.
"Why don't you zip it, Zipfero?" - fraich3
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 23rd May 2007 23:35 Post subject: |
|
|
| Jenni wrote: | Military lost the war. LOL! Come off it. When the North Vietnamese and the Americans couldn't agree on which shape table to sit at at the peace talks the Americans gave the ground commanders a free hand to use what ever they had at their disposal. That sharp got the Vietnamese back to the talks.
Drug usage in the front units was getting worse at the war progressed. The situation became hopeless. |
I beg to differ on your opinion that drugs were a problem with front units. They weren't . I've talked with countless Vets from both Iraq and Vietnam since there is a Veteran's Hospital right next to my school and I used to work there. Every front line guy I sit down and chat with, when I ask him whats the #1 thing that bothers him with the movies, usually on the top of their list is how they're portraying half the Army as junkies. They simply weren't. Squads policed themselves; nobody wanted to go to sleep in a hostile jungle when someone stoned to hell was guarding them. Maybe when they got back to port or Saigon and had a weekend to chill out, then of course they got drunk, drugs whores etc...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 3 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
