Vietnam in HD

[Trajan]

My opinion differs:
(0) We lost the war for the reasons I gave: we were not able to deploy tac nukes, invade NV, or end the sanctuaries.
(1) You contradict your comments on hearts and minds. If we had concentrated more on the average Vietnamese and family, less on the wealthy, we could have turned them away from the VC and NV.
(2) We won every engagement but that was not enough in a war for peoples' allegiance.
(3&4) "We" means the policy and strategy makers. No, we could not do the things you imply without risking WWIII.
(5) Our government lied, not because of our media, but rather it was protecting its own interests.
(6) Final comment: to imply the media was treasonour reflects a lack of understanding of American in war time. Go back and read the Constitution, then look up Declaration of War, then look up the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, then figure out why our media was not traitorous.

who are you speaking to?

 

[The Infidel]

My sympathy to you, kiwiman.

X2

We lost some of the best America had to offer.

 

[Sunshine]

WWI and WWII were fought against countries which were western civilizations. We won't win a war in the middle or far east because we don't understand those civilizations. We will always walk away the loser there. I've been and I've seen.

 

[The Infidel]

WWI and WWII were fought against countries which were western civilizations. We won't win a war in the middle or far east because we don't understand those civilizations. We will always walk away the loser there. I've been and I've seen.

If I remember correctly, we kicked the crap out of Japan.

Well, I guess we had to use extreme measures, but we won none the less.

It is difficult to win against an enemy that does'nt mind committing suicide for their emperor, or for religious reasons.

Maybe your right Sunshine

 

[Sunshine]

WWI and WWII were fought against countries which were western civilizations. We won't win a war in the middle or far east because we don't understand those civilizations. We will always walk away the loser there. I've been and I've seen.

If I remember correctly, we kicked the crap out of Japan.

Well, I guess we had to use extreme measures, but we won none the less.

It is difficult to win against an enemy that does'nt mind committing suicide for their emperor, or for religious reasons.

Maybe your right Sunshine

Yes, we did kick ass in Japan, and we also fought the Japs off of China, but overall Japan had largely adopted the western way of combat. Planes, bombs, etc. Japan DID have its share of suicide bombers - kamakaz- though. I do recall, years later, my uncle talking about having to clean guts off his tent when one struck where he was.
But I think that was in their losing days of the war. I don't recall hearing about them using children. I could be wrong, I wasn't around then.

I don't think we have the stomach to kick the ass of a country in the east or middle east. Killing children goes against our grain, even if that child's life has so little value where it was conceived. And we sure as hell won't nuke anyone again!

 

[The Infidel]

WWI and WWII were fought against countries which were western civilizations. We won't win a war in the middle or far east because we don't understand those civilizations. We will always walk away the loser there. I've been and I've seen.

If I remember correctly, we kicked the crap out of Japan.

Well, I guess we had to use extreme measures, but we won none the less.

It is difficult to win against an enemy that does'nt mind committing suicide for their emperor, or for religious reasons.

Maybe your right Sunshine

Yes, we did kick ass in Japan, and we also fought the Japs off of China, but overall Japan had largely adopted the western way of combat. Planes, bombs, etc. Japan DID have its share of suicide bombers - kamakaz- though. I do recall, years later, my uncle talking about having to clean guts off his tent when one struck where he was.
But I think that was in their losing days of the war. I don't recall hearing about them using children. I could be wrong, I wasn't around then.

I don't think we have the stomach to kick the ass of a country in the east or middle east. Killing children goes against our grain, even if that child's life has so little value where it was conceived. And we sure as hell won't nuke anyone again!

I think it was the island of Saipan that civilians committed suicide by jumping off of the cliffs with their children, and the soldiers used grenades in the caves rather than be taken alive. This was the catalyst to use "the bomb"... bc we knew it was going to be brutal to win on the mainland of Japan if they used those tactics. Their leaders lied to them about our soldiers.

Our soldiers and top generals didnt see that one coming... that had to be awful to witness, the women and the elderly so scared of you they would commit such an act.

In N. Vietnam their leaders were willing to lose 10 or more soldiers to every one of our men in order to win. They cared nothing about human life. Its hard to beat an enemy with that mindset.
Im willing to die for my country and family, but not the way those bastards did it. They were evil in my opinion.

 

[Sunshine]

If I remember correctly, we kicked the crap out of Japan.

Well, I guess we had to use extreme measures, but we won none the less.

It is difficult to win against an enemy that does'nt mind committing suicide for their emperor, or for religious reasons.

Maybe your right Sunshine

Yes, we did kick ass in Japan, and we also fought the Japs off of China, but overall Japan had largely adopted the western way of combat. Planes, bombs, etc. Japan DID have its share of suicide bombers - kamakaz- though. I do recall, years later, my uncle talking about having to clean guts off his tent when one struck where he was.
But I think that was in their losing days of the war. I don't recall hearing about them using children. I could be wrong, I wasn't around then.

I don't think we have the stomach to kick the ass of a country in the east or middle east. Killing children goes against our grain, even if that child's life has so little value where it was conceived. And we sure as hell won't nuke anyone again!

I think it was the island of Saipan that civilians committed suicide by jumping off of the cliffs with their children, and the soldiers used grenades in the caves rather than be taken alive. This was the catalyst to use "the bomb"... bc we knew it was going to be brutal to win on the mainland of Japan if they used those tactics. Their leaders lied to them about our soldiers.

Our soldiers and top generals didnt see that one coming... that had to be awful to witness, the women and the elderly so scared of you they would commit such an act.

In N. Vietnam their leaders were willing to lose 10 or more soldiers to every one of our men in order to win. They cared nothing about human life. Its hard to beat an enemy with that mindset.
Im willing to die for my country and family, but not the way those bastards did it. They were evil in my opinion.

China supplied them with all the men they were willing to lose in Vietnam. Many people don't know that. We did cut the war short with the use of the nuke even though some argue that point. But, I don't think we will EVER nuke anyone again. We do use depleted uranium in our weapons and many of our own soldiers are sickened because of it. But we will never go beyond that. Our current mind set forbids it.

 

[The Infidel]

I sure hope we never use it again... that would be catastrophic for our image.
(that is if no one uses it on us 1st)

 

[Sunshine]

I sure hope we never use it again... that would be catastrophic for our image.
(that is if no one uses it on us 1st)

Oh we will get it used on us. I'm pretty sure some Iranian nut case will make sure of that.

 

[Trajan]

My opinion differs:
(0) We lost the war for the reasons I gave: we were not able to deploy tac nukes, invade NV, or end the sanctuaries.
(1) You contradict your comments on hearts and minds. If we had concentrated more on the average Vietnamese and family, less on the wealthy, we could have turned them away from the VC and NV.
(2) We won every engagement but that was not enough in a war for peoples' allegiance.
(3&4) "We" means the policy and strategy makers. No, we could not do the things you imply without risking WWIII.
(5) Our government lied, not because of our media, but rather it was protecting its own interests.
(6) Final comment: to imply the media was treasonour reflects a lack of understanding of American in war time. Go back and read the Constitution, then look up Declaration of War, then look up the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, then figure out why our media was not traitorous.

You contradict your comments on hearts and minds. If we had concentrated more on the average Vietnamese and family, less on the wealthy, we could have turned them away from the VC and NV.

I have to ask, what on earth does this mean, exactly?

 

[9thIDdoc]

We thought we could fight and win a war against an enemy basing their fight on ideals and nationalism, if we could just get the body count high enough.

I don't know whether we really didn't understand the depth of committment the Viet Namese had to take back their nation, or we just didn't care and thought our military power could defeat an IDEA.

We ought to never have been involved in any war fought against Ho.

In fact we ought to have allied to him when he asked for our aid during WWII.

Instead, because of our need for the FRENCH to bolster NATO, post WWII, we backed the WRONG HORSE.

And I do not just mean wrong because the French couldn't hold VN, I mean MORALLY wrong because we were backing colonialism looooooooooooooooong past the time when that kind of colonialism just wouldn't wash.

FWIW, I think we're making a very similar mistake in Afghanistan today

==============

We thought we could fight and win a war against an enemy basing their fight on ideals and nationalism, if we could just get the body count high enough.

You don't think the South Vietnamese were fighting for their own ideals and nationalism?

I don't know whether we really didn't understand the depth of committment the Viet Namese had to take back their nation...

"Take back their nation" from whom? Themselves? Or weren't they Vietnamese also?

...or we just didn't care and thought our military power could defeat an IDEA.

Their "IDEA" was to conquer another country by force and subjegate it's people. I don't see that as an IDEA to brag about.

...I mean MORALLY wrong because we were backing colonialism looooooooooooooooong past the time when that kind of colonialism just wouldn't wash.

"Backing"? Nope. Helping to defend against North Vietnamese colonialism.

 

[JakeStarkey]

My opinion differs:
(0) We lost the war for the reasons I gave: we were not able to deploy tac nukes, invade NV, or end the sanctuaries.
(1) You contradict your comments on hearts and minds. If we had concentrated more on the average Vietnamese and family, less on the wealthy, we could have turned them away from the VC and NV.
(2) We won every engagement but that was not enough in a war for peoples' allegiance.
(3&4) "We" means the policy and strategy makers. No, we could not do the things you imply without risking WWIII.
(5) Our government lied, not because of our media, but rather it was protecting its own interests.
(6) Final comment: to imply the media was treasonour reflects a lack of understanding of American in war time. Go back and read the Constitution, then look up Declaration of War, then look up the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, then figure out why our media was not traitorous.

You contradict your comments on hearts and minds. If we had concentrated more on the average Vietnamese and family, less on the wealthy, we could have turned them away from the VC and NV.

I have to ask, what on earth does this mean, exactly?

It's quite clear to those who know history of the war, our American history, and our Constitution.

What are you not understanding, Trajan.

 

[The Gadfly]

(0) We lost the war for the reasons I gave: we were not able to deploy tac nukes, invade NV, or end the sanctuaries.

"Not able"? No, we just chose not to, and-except for the nukes-that was exactly what needed to be done.

1) You contradict your comments on hearts and minds. If we had concentrated more on the average Vietnamese and family, less on the wealthy, we could have turned them away from the VC and NV.

Not at all. The vast majority of the cooperation the VC got from the S. Vietnamese was a direct result of coersion. Torture, murder, and rape were their SOP for dealing with the SVN. I'd have to say that the average SVN may not have liked us or their own government all that well but they HATED the VC with good reason.

"We" means the policy and strategy makers.
That's who I was refering to also.

No, we could not do the things you imply without risking WWIII.
There is risk to every option. Small risk in this case. China probably learned better in Korea

(5) Our government lied, not because of our media, but rather it was protecting its own interests.
Disinformation and propaganda have always been a part of warfare and always will be. Get used to it. Alot of folks beieved the blatant communist popaganda.

(6) Final comment: to imply the media was treasonour reflects a lack of understanding of American in war time.

I only implied that our enemies can also read newspapers and watch TV. And I have a far better understanding of America in wartime than I wish I had.

Jake,
I'd like to add a few observations to Doc's comments above (most of which I agree with) and once again, I'd like to point out that unlike some of the critics here, Doc and I were actually THERE, on the ground, and saw the situation first hand.

(1) Tac nukes, IMO, would have not done us any significant good, if we HAD employed them. A "daisy-cutter" (fuel/air explosive) will accomplish essentially the same thing , for clearing an LZ, or an entrenched enemy position. We could have deprived the enemy of their "sanctuaries"; likewise, we COULD have taken the war to North Vietnam. Our civilian commanders chose otherwise, for reasons which subsequently proved to have been UNSOUND.

(2) We DID go a long way toward winning the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese in the countryside. The problem was that while the people may have LIKED us, they FEARED the VC (and for damn good reason-the sort of atrocity that was standard VC procedure). They had no similar fear of us, and ultimately fear won out.

(3) Ou government routinely lies in wartime-it did so in WW II and Korea, so it was no surprise it did the same in Vietnam. Doc is correct here; propaganda and disinformation are a routine part of ANY war.

(4) Our civilian commanders feared Chinese intervention, largely for two reasons: (a) they were fighting the last war again (Korea), which is a common mistake, and (b) the mostly faulty intelligence they did have on Chinese intentions was viewed through that lens. Accordingly they were inclined to discount or ignore "ground truth" when they did get it. The longstanding ethnic and cultural tension between China and Vietnam was totally discounted; had it not been our superiors in Washington would have realized how low the chance of Chinese intervention really was. HAD the Chinese intervened, we would have had precisely the sort of conventional war the American military was designed and equipped to fight at the time, and we would have prevailed.

(5) The American media was not so much treasonous, as it was more interested in self-aggrandizement and self-promotion, rather than simply reporting the truth. Too many reporters were more concerned with making a name for themselves, through airtime and ratings back home, or winning a Pulitzer, than with the facts, and they were not about to let the facts get in the way of those ambitions, even if that cost American lives. They weren't traitors; they were just selfish, careerist bastards without a shred of honor or conscience. Comparison of that selfishness, which also too often characterized the attitude of both the politicians and the people back home, and the completely UNSELFISH devotion to duty honor and country I witnessed daily from the American troops who fought in Vietnam is both irresistible, and revealing as to the real reason the war was ultimately lost, not on the battlefield, but at home and at the negotiating table. Ultimately the burden of shame for failure in Vietnam should rightly be placed where it belongs; I can only hope a few of us veterans of the conflict live long enough to see that happen; of all our burdens, that is the one we should NOT have to carry. Our war can be characterized with a slight modification of an old proverb:

"We, the willing, led by the unknowing, did the impossible, for the ungrateful. We did so much, for so long, with so little, that we were eventually expected to do everything, with NOTHING!"

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, we could have but did not win. We did not deny the enemy their sanctuaries for whatever reason, guaranteeing our loss. As long as we supported the corrupt regime in Saigon, the SV were going to side with the communists, fear tactics or not. This was not about ideology, it was about Vietnam for the Vietnamese, and the SV elites cared nothing for the average SV man and woman, and they knew it. That propaganda and disinformation is a part of war is immaterial. When our governments use it on us, We the People, however, we pull down the governments.

I agree with you that our fear of Red China’s intervention was wrong, but, nonetheless, our strategy and policy makers believed it.

You wrongly tar brush all of American news and information sources and their journalists.

General Lee was at Gettysburg, saw things first hand, and failed. I thank you for your service in Vietnam and am very glad you came home. Yes, we could have but did not win. We failed to deny sanctuaries, get rid of the corrupt elite, and win over the hearts and minds of the average Vietnamese.

 

[Trajan]

My opinion differs:
(0) We lost the war for the reasons I gave: we were not able to deploy tac nukes, invade NV, or end the sanctuaries.
(1) You contradict your comments on hearts and minds. If we had concentrated more on the average Vietnamese and family, less on the wealthy, we could have turned them away from the VC and NV.
(2) We won every engagement but that was not enough in a war for peoples' allegiance.
(3&4) "We" means the policy and strategy makers. No, we could not do the things you imply without risking WWIII.
(5) Our government lied, not because of our media, but rather it was protecting its own interests.
(6) Final comment: to imply the media was treasonour reflects a lack of understanding of American in war time. Go back and read the Constitution, then look up Declaration of War, then look up the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, then figure out why our media was not traitorous.

You contradict your comments on hearts and minds. If we had concentrated more on the average Vietnamese and family, less on the wealthy, we could have turned them away from the VC and NV.

I have to ask, what on earth does this mean, exactly?

It's quite clear to those who know history of the war, our American history, and our Constitution.

What are you not understanding, Trajan.

dude, quote the quote correctly please, I pulled out this-

Quote:YOU
You contradict your comments on hearts and minds. If we had concentrated more on the average Vietnamese and family, less on the wealthy, we could have turned them away from the VC and NV.

ME;
I have to ask, what on earth does this mean, exactly?

and asked what does that mean exactly? see it ?

what are you not understanding?

 

[Ava]

I've recorded a few episodes to watch later. Figured the wife wouldn't want to see it with her kid heading back to the 'stan soon.

Yeah... its a tough thing to watch.
I was going to let my mom know it was on, and thought... nahhh, still too painful for her.
Later lastnight I called her and mentioned it to her and I was right. She said no way could she watch it. She lost alot of friends over there.

I agree it was tough to watch. It is also educationally necessary to watch, imo. It broadens one's understanding and compassion, unless they are just haters. I think of all the men and women who sacrificed their lives and limbs and I think of their moms,. I just watched a good movie about a brave Marine. The subject of the movie came as a surprise to me and the facts at the end of the film, are now corrected.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-FPm4dgEUc]Just before the battle mother . - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Great program. Every American should watch it.

My uncle was in the war-and cannot talk about it. A few months ago he got really close, but you could tell he was very uncomfortable, and pissed off about it (still).

My grandfather was an officer, and went to meet another one in the morning (a friend of his). When he got there the man's head was on a stake for all to see in the village. He made many stories he was able to talk about Vietnam-but that one I remember the most for some reason.

edit: Vietnam was an extremely brutal war, and I hope we (as a country) have learned important lessons from it.

 

[Gadawg73]

McCarthur said we could never win a land war of attrition in Asia. We won every major battle there but lost the war. Wave after wave of 15 year old draftees from the north, as many as 450,000 one year, did us in. Yes we could have won. We could have strategically fought them in Cambodia and North Viet Nam on the ground. But that would have cost 200,000 KIA American treasure.
The Viet Nam war was a mistake from the start. A lie.

 

[whitehall]

LBJ thought he had a better idea. Instead of taking and holding real estate we would fly in and beat the shit out of the enemy and then give it back the next day and then do it all over again. It was insane. The ironic thing is that we finally finished off the VC after Tet but Walter Cronkite rushed over to Vietnam, put a helmet on and pretended he was under fire, and told Americans that the incredible Tet victory was in fact a "stalemate". LBJ gave up and threw in the towel on National TV by telling Americans he was fed up and wouldn't be running for another term and the VC had a new lease on life.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"Yes we could have won. We could have strategically fought them in Cambodia and North Viet Nam on the ground. But that would have cost 200,000 KIA American treasure."

Actually we did ideed fight them on the ground in Cambodia May and June '70. I took part in the operation. I'd say we kicked some serious ass. We lost aprox. 250 GI KIA's, 1200 ARVN KIA's while the NVA lost aprox. 11,000 KIA's + quite a few POW's. We also captured a tremendous amt. of weapons, ammo, food, and assorted supplies.