Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Vietnam (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter jamny
- Start date
Michael Fox Fan
Footballguy
this should be good
MaddHatter
Footballguy
Can't do much in hindsight but one thing is for certain.
After fighting that hellacious war, our veterans should have received fortunes. Instead, many received psych problems, drug addictions to cope with what went on, suicide, and much much more.
The veterans of Vietnam were abandoned by our government once the war was over.
After fighting that hellacious war, our veterans should have received fortunes. Instead, many received psych problems, drug addictions to cope with what went on, suicide, and much much more.
The veterans of Vietnam were abandoned by our government once the war was over.
jamny
Footballguy
It's absolutely disgusting that our troops weren't greeted with open arms. People may not have agreed with the war, but stories about them coming home and being spit on are horrible. I can't imagine how that must have felt.
Black Label Society
Footballguy
You do realize the ENTIRE Vietnam war was based on a lie, right?
Jefferson the Caregiver
Rebel Without A Pause
Clear victory in sight?Time to start reading.Best and the Brightest- David HalberstamA Bright Shining Lie- Neil SheehanCertainly one of the most mismanaged wars of all time and the depth of understanding of Vietnam was extremely low. I don't know how anyone can say clear victory in sight, it goes against everything I have read so far.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jefferson the Caregiver
Rebel Without A Pause
Not for nothing but Westmoreland was definately part of the problem. Haven't read too many complimentary accounts of him during that period. Not all his fault but he was in over his head as was just about everyone that fought in that war.
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
A surge? The draft was already implemented.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
'The General' did not have much to say about Westmoreland. Not overly positive and not overly negative- which is actually kind of odd because 'The General' is not one to shy away from a strong opinion. I think the next time I see him I will dig in more about Westmoreland.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
I am by no means an expert on this War that ended around the time I was born. But your suggestion of a surge seems pretty strange to me. They had a draft for years to send US kids to fight in the middle of a civil war that would only be settled amoungst themselves. Again a policy of going to war without clear conditions for Victory. How do you think a "surge" would have helped under these circumstances?
Chadstroma
Footballguy
Which is certainly something that the Army decided had a negative impact on military capability. Because of the lack of unit training and lack of unit cohesion etc. It was one of the 'lessons learned'.
Jefferson the Caregiver
Rebel Without A Pause
Its not like they didn't have about 500,000 troops over there. What kind of surge are we talking about?
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Exactly.
Jefferson the Caregiver
Rebel Without A Pause
Bottom line without the support of the people of South Vietnam, it was an almost impossible war to win. They were very sympathetic to the NVA and no matter how much bombing we did in the North, it seemed to have absolutely no effect on them. The more we bombed, the stronger they became.
The South Vietnamese troops were basically useless, they didn't want to fight. The whole thing was a huge mistake and there really wasn't an attainable goal so I don't know what kind of clear victory could possibly have been in sight.
The South Vietnamese troops were basically useless, they didn't want to fight. The whole thing was a huge mistake and there really wasn't an attainable goal so I don't know what kind of clear victory could possibly have been in sight.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
From what I have read, Gen. Zinni would have told you that you were wrong with many of those statements. "Battle Ready" is a good read. It more of a biography on Zinni than it is about Vietnam but he spent a lot of time going through his experiences in Vietnam.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Why? Our soldiers are not puppets to be used for talking points in your charade.
What objectives or conditions of victory were we trying to achieve? Just like throwing money at a problem doesen't mean you will solve it the same goes for throwing more young boys into a conflict. That does not assure victory. Especialy when you have no clear objective for victory to be established. The reason for our losing in Vietnam was not because of our soldiers, or because there were not enough soldiers there to win. The reason was flawed policy.
What do you mean caved? How many Americans do you think needed to die in Vietnam and for what? Sorry this wasn't good enough for you.
How do leaders put their troops in harms way for illegitimite reasons without any clear achievable objectives? I am still trying to figure that one out. It's reprehensable.I have a personal question for you jamny. Have you ever served your country?
Last edited by a moderator:
Jefferson the Caregiver
Rebel Without A Pause
LBJ caved when he escalated the war.
Seriously time to start reading.
Seriously time to start reading.
pettifogger
Footballguy
Sorry, but not a word of this post makes sense to me. Johnson increased troop levels from 16,000 to 550,000. If I recall correctly the South Vietnamese army had about 2 million in it. We won the Tet offensive decisively. But it was a public relations disaster because the very fact the NVs were even able to mount such an offensive contradicted the rosy reports the Pentagon had been pubishing. LBJ ordered aerial bombing of the North and stopped it only in late 1968, after the election and almost a year after the Tet offensive, in an effort to promote peace talks. The only other options LBJ might have had were to go into Cambodia, as Nixon did in May of 1970, to cut off the routes the NVs were using to go around the flank and into the South, or to stage a land invasion of North Vietnam. But a land invasion of North Vietnam would have drawn China in. I can't figure where you get the notion that LBJ "caved." He escalated our forces throughout his administration and bet his Presidency on it. In the end he had to withdraw his bid for reelection because of the war, after Eugene McCarthy made a strong showing against him in the New Hampshire primary.
glumpy
breeze
God there's so much to this damn war that was screwed up. Yes--it's another example of somewhere we had no business being; we went in under false pretenses. Yes--after the (failed) TET offensive the war was ours to win. Problem was that the heart of the country was already down on it, and the graphic news reports coming out of there (first time with photographers that up close and personal IIRC) really brought the heat on LBJ. NO way he could have continued after the execution of that VC officer was released.
And yes--the reception for the troops was criminal.
And yes--the reception for the troops was criminal.
Ozymandias
Footballguy
The war was winnable, but we lost our will to fight. There were many reasons for this (some good, some bad), including the high death toll. There were two terrible results from this. The first is that we abandoned millions who had been our allies, effectively sentencing hundreds of thousands of them to death. The second was the despicable way we treated our returning veterans.
bigfun54
Footballguy
I've had many discussions with various friends and teachers about this, but what exactly would "winning" in Vietnam have looked like. It would have been like the British "winning" the American War for Independence. We were never going to invade North Vietnam and without that action, how would victory have even been possible? Even if we had invaded the North to occupy and control, it doesn't work. One of the most interesting Vietnam War classes I ever took wasn't about the war but was just a straight up history of Vietnam. They've always been fighting occupiers. Always.
Thunderlips
Footballguy
Is he right?....Cause I know that's the popular version of what went on there. And a lot of people like to believe that. I wish I could, but I was there. I wasn't here in a class room, hoping I was right, thinking about it. I was up to my knees in rice paddies, with guns that didn't work! Going in there, looking for Charlie, slugging it out with him; While ####### like you were back here partying, putting headbands on, doing drugs, and listening to the ####### Beatle albums!
MaddHatter
Footballguy
Yes, it was declassified.
beer 30
Footballguy
First, thanks for your service in a time when it was tough to serve. Utmost respect to you and your brothers-in-arms.Second, I tend to agree with you. The Vietnam war was most certainly winnable, most especially after the TET offensive. Hell, all wars are winnable, it's just what you arewilling to sacrifice to achieve victory. TET spelled the end for the Viet Cong (think insurgents) as an effective fighting force and seriously wounded the NVA. If command had persecutited the war following this offensive I think history would most surely have written a different chapter. Ufortunately the press portrayed TET as a victory for the NVA and further demoralized the American populace against a war they increasingly did not want to be in.
As with much of the Vietnam War, the news media misreported and misinterpreted the 1968 Tet Offensive. It was reported as an overwhelming success for the Communist forces and a decided defeat for the U.S. forces. Nothing could be further from the truth. Despite initial victories by the Communists forces, the Tet Offensive resulted in a major defeat of those forces. General Vo Nguyen Giap, the designer of the Tet Offensive, is considered by some as ranking with Wellington, Grant, Lee and MacArthur as a great commander. Still, militarily, the Tet Offensive was a total defeat of the Communist forces on all fronts. It resulted in the death of some 45,000 NVA troops and the complete, if not total destruction of the Viet Cong elements in South Vietnam. The Organization of the Viet Cong Units in the South never recovered. The Tet Offensive succeeded on only one front and that was the News front and the political arena. This was another example in the Vietnam War of an inaccuracy becoming the perceived truth. However inaccurately reported, the News Media made the Tet Offensive famous. http://www.foxco-2ndbn-9thmarines.com/usmc_stats.htm
I was born in 1964 and vaguely remember the tail end of the war so I really have no opinion other than what I have formed from reading about it and talking to a few vets. I absolutely believe that a large portion of the population supported the troops, as they do today. Supporting the troops and supporting a war are two different things and it was never more evident than during this time.
I think this quote rings as true today as it did then:
"No event in American history is more misunderstood than the Vietnam War. It was misreported then, and it is misremembered now. Rarely have so many people been so wrong about so much. Never have the consequences of their misunderstanding been so tragic."[Richard Nixon]
Thunderlips
Footballguy
I'm sorry and I respect the serious answer you gave and agree with alot of that. But my comments were from the movie Back to School with Rodney Dangerfield and Sam Kineson.
glumpy
breeze
I believe victory would have looked like the the more democratic South Korea after that war.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
I suspect that winning would mean a situation similiar to North/South Korea. The corruption and ineptitude of the SV government was extremely high and was always a huge challenge in the war effort.bigfun54 said:
bigfun54
Footballguy
I have to take some issue with those of you who would argue that victory in Vietnam would have somehow resembled Korea. First, we didn't win in Korea. It's a tie. Second, I think they're widely different conflicts from the terrain, to the type of fighting, etc. Vietnam from the get go was a guerilla style engagement and unless we were willing to not only invade and occupy North Vietnam, but also Laos and Cambodia, it would have been nearly impossibly to ever end that aspect of the conflict. It's kind of why I make the comparison to the American War for Independence. Say Yorktown doesn't happen the way it does and/or the Continental forces "lose" the war, would the fighting just have stopped or would it have been too costly and never ending for the British to stay here. I think that's a similar "what if" scenario to Vietnam.
Tirnan
Footballguy
One of the more interesting pieces I ever read on the war was a comparison with the very unknown but highly effective defeat of communist forces in Greece versus the well know loss to communist forces in Vietnam. In both cases we used a train and embed native forces initially.
Why it worked in Greece: Greece was a very christian nation at the time (just post WW II) and the Greek forces saw their civil war not as a political battle but a battle against the godless hordes of the communist invaders. American Military Advisory Group forces were small, under prepared, and usually short on the goods and supplies needed to wage a war. It didn't matter, the Greek troops would fight with poor and outdated equipment and fight well beyond reasonable expectations. They believed that to lose was to allow the collapse of their way of life.
Why it didn't work in Vietnam: Similar set up, small American MAG sent in to assist S Vietnamese forces initially. The philosophy was embed with and train the native forces to beat a communist supplied insurgency and invasion from N Vietnamese forces. The Roman catholic church was present to foster the battle of Christians against the godless communists. This time though the devoted anti-communists they were a small minority and almost every other major "group" in S Vietnamese society was more interested in personal gains than an actual defeat of the communists. To my mind the entire thing was screwed up from the moment the French (in secret meeting) asked for US troops to be placed under French command to the end due to political shackles applied to the strategic process.
There are misrepresentations in the war. Some ARVN units were exceptional and would stand and fight, but too many would fail to hold their line. Some few even played both sides. While drug use was present, it was not nearly to the degrees that popular movies make it out to be. The enemy were often poorly lead and inadequately trained, not some guerrilla super troops (EX Tet was a disaster in both planning and execution, such percentage losses would be the end of war fighting capabilities for many military units if the opponent then hounded their remnants).
In the end the war was mainly lost at home IMHO. What the media twisted and portrayed is in some cases criminal disinformation and in others tragically true, but still not stuff you should be showing folks at home mid battle.
GB the guys who came out of this one only to be reviled and abandoned once they reached the home front. I'd say it had major changes within the military mindset. Up until then we had usually had popular home front support for war efforts. After the war, the military mind set changed. I can't think of any military member I know who trusts the media to do fair and accurate reporting, not a one. Since Vietnam some military members wonder if their lives will be sacrificed in some political game to turn attention from an administration in trouble. I have only been in since the late 80's but I saw this mindset when I entered and still encounter it today.
Finally FFS, don't bring back the draft politicos. Nothing will break the back of your NCO corps faster than dealing with a bunch of kids who hate us to begin with. I can understand its needed if we are in a struggle for survival, but not for the world policing duties you have forced on us recently.
Why it worked in Greece: Greece was a very christian nation at the time (just post WW II) and the Greek forces saw their civil war not as a political battle but a battle against the godless hordes of the communist invaders. American Military Advisory Group forces were small, under prepared, and usually short on the goods and supplies needed to wage a war. It didn't matter, the Greek troops would fight with poor and outdated equipment and fight well beyond reasonable expectations. They believed that to lose was to allow the collapse of their way of life.
Why it didn't work in Vietnam: Similar set up, small American MAG sent in to assist S Vietnamese forces initially. The philosophy was embed with and train the native forces to beat a communist supplied insurgency and invasion from N Vietnamese forces. The Roman catholic church was present to foster the battle of Christians against the godless communists. This time though the devoted anti-communists they were a small minority and almost every other major "group" in S Vietnamese society was more interested in personal gains than an actual defeat of the communists. To my mind the entire thing was screwed up from the moment the French (in secret meeting) asked for US troops to be placed under French command to the end due to political shackles applied to the strategic process.
There are misrepresentations in the war. Some ARVN units were exceptional and would stand and fight, but too many would fail to hold their line. Some few even played both sides. While drug use was present, it was not nearly to the degrees that popular movies make it out to be. The enemy were often poorly lead and inadequately trained, not some guerrilla super troops (EX Tet was a disaster in both planning and execution, such percentage losses would be the end of war fighting capabilities for many military units if the opponent then hounded their remnants).
In the end the war was mainly lost at home IMHO. What the media twisted and portrayed is in some cases criminal disinformation and in others tragically true, but still not stuff you should be showing folks at home mid battle.
GB the guys who came out of this one only to be reviled and abandoned once they reached the home front. I'd say it had major changes within the military mindset. Up until then we had usually had popular home front support for war efforts. After the war, the military mind set changed. I can't think of any military member I know who trusts the media to do fair and accurate reporting, not a one. Since Vietnam some military members wonder if their lives will be sacrificed in some political game to turn attention from an administration in trouble. I have only been in since the late 80's but I saw this mindset when I entered and still encounter it today.
Finally FFS, don't bring back the draft politicos. Nothing will break the back of your NCO corps faster than dealing with a bunch of kids who hate us to begin with. I can understand its needed if we are in a struggle for survival, but not for the world policing duties you have forced on us recently.
Jefferson the Caregiver
Rebel Without A Pause
Agree completely with you. I have no idea what winning in Vietnam even means.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
The goal was always preservation of S. Vietnam. Simple as that. Also, to us Americans now, the thought of losing the Revolution meant that we would carry on the fight forever. I am not so sure that is the case.
Could you unpack this for us?
Ozymandias
Footballguy
A South Vietnamese government that would be self sustaining. Tet was a military disaster for the Communists. They lost approximately 80,000 troops killed, and the leadership and the ranks of the Viet Cong were decimated. From then on, it became more of a North Vietnamese vs South Vietnam battle. The North Vietnamese were stunned by their losses, but soon came to understand that the US had lost the will to fight.
Jefferson the Caregiver
Rebel Without A Pause
We were never even close to this point.
SofaKings
Footballguy
We ejected NK from SK so not so sure it was a tie. Doesn't defeating NK's attempts to overrum SK count as a win?
bigfun54
Footballguy
You'll have to take that up with the Sergeant Major from Heartbreak Ridge.
Yeah. Getting the Iraqi government to the point it will be self sustaining is going to be a walk in the park compared to what we would have had to do in South Vietnam.
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
I thought he said Nam was a tie in that movie.bigfun54 said:You'll have to take that up with the Sergeant Major from Heartbreak Ridge.SofaKings said:
Chadstroma
Footballguy
True, but that was never a war fighting problem in S. Vietnam. The government was absolutely corrupt and/or inept on almost all levels. We have already seen much more progress in Iraq in this arena than what ever happened at any point in Vietnam. Thankfully, I believe we are on the verge of significant draw down of forces in Iraq while the government of Iraq increasingly stands on it's own. The ability to leave in significant numbers with a friendly country remaining will be victory in Iraq.Christo said:
jamny
Footballguy
Unfortunately, no. My plan through high school was to continue to the Air Force Academy.I did get as far as getting a nomination from Geraldine Ferraro to attend but my poor vision, combined with my height (6'3"), made it impossible to get in.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
Why was being 6'3'' a bad thing?
Ozymandias
Footballguy
I don't know why it would be. The height limitation for USAF pilots is 77 inches.
Ron_Mexico
I Love Doggies
Absolutely not.
Similar threads
- Poll
