Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by APACHERAT, Jan 17, 2018.
OT, but that sounds like an interesting story.
I'd like to know why he didn't say so.
Wow, are you part pit bull?
So, you do not believe that North Vietnam used their army?
Actually the other man gave the truth. We did not lose that war.
He is angry today. Might be problems at home. I dunno.
You pick fights with nearly all posters. I figured you are back at it today too. But nope, I am not stupid about military affairs. Thinking of yourself as the adult might boost your self esteem so I do not mind one bit.
So now you are changing the topic from Hitler and Tojo? Never heard of the Vietcong?
Where is the capitalist democratic Vietnam today?
If you aren’t stupid about military affairs, then why did you try to compare war against a nation-state and it’s armies to a counterinsurgency war?
I was trying to use WW2 as an example. But you got angry. I served in our Army just soon enough to not have been ordered to Vietnam. So next time, ask first. Do not assume things.
I tend to doubt Vietnam is now democratic. Maybe if you desire to, prove what you claim.
I do not submit to names you dream up. I compared only the ending of wars where you claimed bombing them turns them into recruits when that is not always the case. Seldom is it like that in fact.
And it behooves you to study Vietnam to understand they had plenty of regular troops.
Got me angry? The only thing you got me was to feel sorry for how pathetic your argument was.
Yep, Vietnam is not democratic, because we lost that war.
Yes, you ignorantly tried to compare wars with nation states with counterinsurgency warfare, which is why the argument failed on contact.
In counterinsurgency warfare, collateral damage on the civilian population leads to increased recruiting by the insurgency.
Just looked it up using google maps 3d.
Looks like its about a mile to the top.
Its possible there could be problems elsewhere.
It would help you understand that war if you understood the Mission that Johnson established. It would help you understand it was not the USA that lost a war there.
Why do you keep going back to Vietnam, when the topic of the tangeant you are commenting on is Afghanistan?
If the US did not lose in Vietnam, then why did communist North Vietnam win?
A rule to win or lose is you must be there engaged. The US was not engaged for about 2 years. North Vietnam would have to conquered the USA to have won.
Because Democrats in Congress back stabbed the Republic of Vietnam.
Last Vietnam Aid Bill Dies in House -> https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal75-1214000
How Vietnam Haunts the Democrats
Most of the Vietnam War was not fought against insurgents. And the battles that were were very lopsided, with the insurgents almost completely wiped out.
The vast majority of the Vietnam War was fought against the North Vietnamese Army.
Battle of Ia Drang, 2,500 NVA troops, no VC involvement. Khe Sanh, 100,000 NVA soldiers, no VC involvement.
The VC were never more than around 200,000, and were primarily involved in things like running supplies along the Ho Chi Minh trail, gathering and supplying intelligence, and conducting raids, sabotage, and assassinations against local leaders. Militarily, they were almost worthless.
The only major offensive that the VC took part in was the Tet Offensive. And they were almost completely destroyed in that engagement, and disbanded immediately afterwards.
That is the problem with those that learn their history from questionable or biased sources. They generally have no idea what really happened.
During the entire war, the PLAF (People's Liberation Force) never amounted to more than around 100,000 at any one time. That height was actually at the time of Tet. During the war, there were a total of around 200,000 VC in all.
And remember that 100,000 figure. At Tet almost all were engaged. After the fighting was over, over 80,000 of them were killed, wounded, or captured. Essentially the VC forces ceased to exist. And that was in 1968.
Until the end of the war in 1973 there were no more VC forces. Almost the entire war was fought conventionally by the NVA. It was simply largely confined to small unit engagements, on the Company to Battalion level. Primarily because of terrain and logistics requirements.
Not unlike many of the battles against Japan in Asia, and on Guadalcanal. Jungle environments are not conductive to large military operations.
Even the Battle of Ia Drang (We Were Soldiers) took place in an area over 100 square miles in size. Many have no idea, because their knowledge of the battle is entirely based on the movie. And that movie only concentrated on a single Battalion. But it was 1 Battalion of 3 involved in the battle, along with a short Battalion of Artillery, and a battalion of Vietnamese Paratroopers who set up a blocking action along the Cambodian border. They fought 5 NVA Battalions.
But if a person's only knowledge of the battle was the movie, then they have no idea what really happened.
Except the war goal of the Vietnam was never the conquest of the USA. It was the conquest of South Vietnam.
Interesting. The Republican president at the time had no power to order the US military to act is what you are saying?
No, what lost the war was liberals on TV saying we were losing when we were winning, and liberal politicians calling cease fires so Charlie could re-group and attack again.
The Vietnam War could have been won and brought to an end three times before 1973, in 1965, 1968 and in 1969.
What about Laos and Cambodia not forgetting Thailand ?
Both Laos and Cambodia found themselves under communism.
Even today Laos is a shithole commie country.
The war in South Vietnam gave Thailand enough time to defend itself from being over run by communist.
What is the term used for one country attacking another 2 years after agreeing to a cease fire?
But the Soviet Union agenda was the conquest of all of Southeast Asia.
The Vietnam War was just one proxy war of the 71 proxy wars that were fought during the Cold War.
Most of these proxy wars were called by the Soviets as wars of liberation.
From 1945 to 1991 AK-47's were free for anyone who wanted one as long as you met the criteria of adopting socialism and hating all Yankee imperialist.
If you are a Cold War warrior you can apply for the Cold War Medal Commemorative Medal awarded for service in the armed forces of any Allied nation between 2 September 1945 and 26 December 1991. Certificate available through U.S. Government.
The Cold War Medal
Criteria and Background:
Inspired by the Cold War Recognition Certificate created by Section 1084 of Public Law 105-85, approved on November 18, 1987. The official certificate is to recognize "members of the Armed Forces and civilian personnel of the Government who served the United States during the Cold War." While congress did not specifically authorize a medal for Federal service during the Cold War, this medal has been adopted as the de-facto official Cold War Medal, mainly by its use by State National Guards, along with military and patriotic societies, including being recognized as the official medal of the Military Order of Foreign Wars.
The Criteria for the medal is to have served honorably between the inclusive dates of September 2, 1945 and December 26, 1991.
Separate names with a comma.