PDA

View Full Version : What now?



AgentOrange_section8
25th Sep 2004, 14:09
What Now?...


How many more Nam games do you fellas think are gonna come out?...i hope they make some on Ia Drang...stuff like that...oh well...i guess i just gotta sit around and wait for the next Nam game to come out...a.k.a MOV..i dont know I've just been fascinated by the Vietnam War...or "conflict" as some of you would like to say (because we lost)...oh well i just couldn't believe all the stuff these soldiers had to go through..the war..the killing..not being supported by the public..not getting the fire support they needed (hueys,arty) and coming back to the "real" world and being spit on...and now they are old men and have "forgotten" or put the memories behind them...to have some kid like me asking them stories about Nam and having to bring them Memories back...oh well...i remember when this thing was gonna come out these forums were like...so active man..lol..now its like...*cricket chirps* lol.. oh well dudes...what do you think of Men of Valor? anyways...:rolleyes: ....


Thanks to the MODS and the others who provided great information *ahem* Ace *ahem* and jaycw2309,jebus,clumsyorchid,d-2-502-101abn the rest of you that i forgot..SORRY..lol...and to SgtSpecht1234 for being the most patient dude..lol...YEP YEP...thats all folks...im outta here...for now...hopefully..lol...see yall later man!!!

PEACE!


oh yeah what ever happend to OptikNerve04...or whatever...he was cool...till he went beserk with the "F*** Eidos" thing...did he get banned or something? oh well...



"war is a crime. Ask the infantry and ask the dead." - Ernest Hemingway.

d-2-502-101abn
25th Sep 2004, 18:52
The only way to learn from history is not to repeat it. So feel free to ask away, I'll answer what I can, when I can.

BTW, some call it a conflict because it was never a formally declared war by Congress.

Take point troop and don't get yourself waxed to the max. Geronimo. -- d2

SgtSpecht1234
26th Sep 2004, 15:51
That is 1 thing i dont understand, we had American Troops and Vietnamese troops shooting and killing and mass murders and everything, YET it was never declared a war...WHY?! Its just like the Korean War (AKA Korean Conflict) We had thousands of soldiers running around and people dieing, yet they were never declared wars...very wierd....

d-2-502-101abn
26th Sep 2004, 23:08
In Korea and Vietnam, the "Conflict" tag comes from that fact that we were fulfilling treaty obligations, and Congress -- for one political reason or another -- never formally declared war. Though in reference, both are equally referred to as "Conflict" and "War".

As for the "mass murder" allegation: to which incident are you referring? My Lai was the "largest" of such incidents (which were fewer than certain politicians and others would have you believe), and LT William Calley was indicted and sentenced in that mess. Though to be honest, it should have been CPT Ernest Medina (as company commander) and his superior, the battalion commander, who bear much of the blame -- particularly of the coverup -- who should have been likewise charged. But that is ever the Army way: doo doo flows downhill.

Not to excuse what happened, it must be understood that LT Calley's platoon was combat fatigued, had suffered numerous casualties in the vicinity of My Lai, and should have been rotated out of the field and allowed to stand down -- they were a disaster ready to happen.

Much has been made by Sen. Kerry (and other left-wing extremists) about the so-called "free-fire zones," and other atrocities, citing indiscriminate killing of people within these zones.

First, a free fire zone (or area) is a geographic area in which enemy forces were known to be operating (either NVA or VC). Secondly, and by far the most important, was that such a zone established the ROE (rules of engagement). In the case of a FFA, if you observed hostile action, or were the recipient of fire in such zones, it required no approval from higher command in order to engage. It was not, however, a "license to kill" indiscriminately.

There were also restricted fire areas (RFAs) and no fire areas (NFAs) that established ROEs for those sorts of zones. Perhaps Kerry and others interpreted such a designation in a way that was not proscribed by military doctrine ... I do not know, as I was not in their command. However, in our AO (Area of Operations: the An Khe region and the numerous upland valley systems in the Central Highlands), the ROEs were adherred to for the most part, based on my experience.

Investigations have proven most of these allegations (including Kerry's) to be false, including the producing of "witnesses" who did not even serve in RVN, speaking on events which never did transpire. However, this overwhelming message, propogated by a left-leaning press -- not to mention Hollywood movie bs -- has perpetuated the notion all these years later that such "atrocities" were commonplace. Such falsification extends to Dan Rather as well. His current "memogate" incident is not the only time he has falsified reportage to slant a story. Most notable is his Vietnam veteran atrocity piece. The only atrocity committed in his "shocking story" was the shoddy and intentionally misleading reporting of Mr. Rather.

It is such portrayals that p--s me off to the max, as it denigrates the honorable service of tens of thousands of young Americans who did their duty to the best of their ability.

Did I witness some incidents that were borderline, Geneva Convention-wise?

Certainly ... but the political and military climate in our AO was often chaotic, and the ROEs and the situations were not always crystal clear. Sporadic communications, due to the terrain or weather, were often a factor, and it was not unusual for low- to mid-level NCOs conducting patrols -- out of contact with higher HQ (either company or platoon leadership) -- to have to make immediate life-or-death decisions. Remember, these were stressed 20 to 25 year old men who were often mentally and physically fatigued.

So we did the best we could. There was one overarching guideline: as a leader, it was your responsibility to get yourself and your men home in one piece. So in those "fuzzy" gray areas that abound in war, it was always best to err on the side of keeping your men (and yourself) safe. Even if it meant "bending" the rules on occasion when the situation was not clear in the heat of combat.

There ... got out that vent without getting too bent. lol.

Take point troop and don't get yourself waxed to the max. Geronimo. -- d2

as a ps: I would heartily recommend Mel Gibson's We Were Soldiers as a Hollywood film that is noteworthy in "getting it right" (It helps that COL Moore was the technical/historical advisor on that film, and that the producer and director felt compelled to portray it accurately).

AgentOrange_section8
27th Sep 2004, 06:30
"As for the "mass murder" allegation: to which incident are you referring?"

Ia Drang,Hue,Khe Shan,Chu Lai, Operation Hastings,Da Nang i cant think of others

AgentOrange_section8
27th Sep 2004, 06:31
The Arizona...that place was a slaughter zone for our boys...

d-2-502-101abn
27th Sep 2004, 13:37
You mention places in which combat operations took place, unless by your definition you call "mass murder" combat, there were no substantiated widespread atrocities committed in any of the places you named.

Take point troop and don't get yourself waxed to the max. Geronimo. -- d2

SgtSpecht1234
27th Sep 2004, 23:46
I mean Mass Murder By like Genocide, The Vietnamese killed innocent women and Children, so did the koreans, thats what i meant, the slaughtering of innocents!

d-2-502-101abn
28th Sep 2004, 04:14
Insurgencies, no matter where they take place, gain life by terrorizing the local population into cooperating. Would you rather have Walmart or join the VC? Well, I'll take "join the VC for 200, Alec" since you have an AK47 pointed at my wife's head.

Take point troop and don't get yourself waxed to the max. Geronimo. -- d2

SgtSpecht1234
1st Oct 2004, 02:41
Vietcong bad...they killed lots of people...but so did the US...were bad people...

d-2-502-101abn
1st Oct 2004, 14:02
That's the trouble with war in general: lots of good people caught up in a bad situation.

Take point troop and don't get yourself waxed to the max. Geronimo. -- d2

RoyalMarineCommando
3rd Oct 2004, 17:39
I have a question, and by the way, im from the UK so my knowledge isnt great about the Vietnam war.

Whilst the majority of troops that served in Vietnam were from the USA, there were a number from Australia were there not?

However, this is never ever mentioned, and no reference is made regarding Australia's contribution. Everything on TV, every film, every documetnary etc focus's on the USA contribution.

The only time i can re-call any mention of Australia, is firstly in a really bad made for TV movie called 'NAM', and secondly in one episode of 'Tour of Duty' where the platoon had to rescue an Australian POW. Other than that - squat !

Incidently, the same could be said for the Korean war. There were thousands of UK soldiers there, but again its not recognised. It is always portrayed as if it was another war that the USA were involved in, whereas in reality it was actualy the UN fighting, not the USA.

SgtSpecht1234
3rd Oct 2004, 17:56
well, i think the others arent recognized because the other countries didnt put as much as the US did, in korea and Vietnam, basically the US had 95% of troops there, while the other 5% were the other countries (the allies, not vietnamese) same with korea, the US had the majority of people there, i think thats why they arent really recognized, plus there were tons of other countires in that conflict to (Both korea's, Britain, Turkey, Sweden, Austria...) but for the majority of it, it was the US, same with the vietnam war, the US had the majority

RoyalMarineCommando
3rd Oct 2004, 17:58
Originally posted by SgtSpecht1234
well, i think the others arent recognized because the other countries didnt put as much as the US did, in korea and Vietnam, basically the US had 95% of troops there, while the other 5% were the other countries (the allies, not vietnamese) same with korea, the US had the majority of people there, i think thats why they arent really recognized, plus there were tons of other countires in that conflict to (Both korea's, Britain, Turkey, Sweden, Austria...) but for the majority of it, it was the US, same with the vietnam war, the US had the majority

I realise that, and ive said that in my question.

However, as countires who contributed and sacrificed (admittedly no-where near as much as the US), surely they deserve a little recognition !?

SgtSpecht1234
3rd Oct 2004, 18:03
they do deserve recognition, but i was just telling you, the US had the majority, and the other countires DID help us out a lot, but the government just doesnt say anything, i recognize everyone that fought in every war! I thank the British, American, russians, french, and all the other allies in WWII for stopping that dumbass Hitler, from taking over the world! and my heart goes out to every man and woman who fought in Korea, and Vietnam, and Persian Gulf! I thank everyone!

d-2-502-101abn
4th Oct 2004, 02:13
Bascially, the participants were members of SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization -- the SE Asian equivalent of NATO as a communist expansionism deterent) -- the US, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea were the primary contributors of troops in that conflict, with -- obviously -- the US providing the majority of forces.

The ROKs and Australians were the only two "foreign" forces I had a chance to work with, and both were execellent in their fieldcraft -- (tongue firmly in cheek) why, they were even almost up to airborne standards. lol

Take point troop and don't get yourself waxed to the max. Geronimo. -- d2

AgentOrange_section8
9th Oct 2004, 12:39
Uh...maybe you should try reading books instead of just watching movies all the time...sometimes hollywood twists things around ya know?...

anyways in the book "We Were Soldiers Once and Young" which the movie "We were Soldiers" is based off of, the Author has another guy who was at Ia Drang with him talk about what happend to him he says that off to his right side he saw about 4 men in Khaki uniforms and one pumping his arm up and down giving hand signals. He thought obviously they were well disciplined Australian Soldiers because most of the Aussies were of course...well disciplined...anyways as you would figure out they were not aussies they were NVA and they used a captured M60 and lit a bunch of his men up.

Australians are credited but not that much well simply because...the U.S. fought most of the war. Sure they were there and they did fight, but not as much as us. I forgot the number but Sen. John Kerry mentioned it at the second debate..i think 95% of the casualties in Vietnam were American.

SgtSpecht1234
9th Oct 2004, 14:04
were you telling me to read the books?!?!?!? cause if you did....boy o boy am i angry! :p just kidding, but yeah, in all the other wars the US was the majority of people, same with right now in Iraq, were the Majority, then come Britain, (i think) then South Korea

d-2-502-101abn
9th Oct 2004, 15:58
Sen. Kerry's quote of "90% of the casualties and 90% of the cost" was in reference to Iraq ... but applies equally to RVN.

In all our conflicts (or wars when they are declared), the US has historically borne the burden financially and with the lives of troops. It is the nature of what we have become ... a super power with a self-motivated inclination to be "do-gooders" ... the world cop.

The key question to ask in evaluating our foreign policy over the years (and I will be the first to admit we've made our share of mistakes -- that's what happens when you change leadership every four to eight years) is: has the contributions of the US in the deterence of the spread of totalitarianism (communism) and the spreading of the principles of freedom and liberty been good for the world?

Obviously, I think the answer is yes, although as mentioned, the way we have gone about certain foreign policy matters has often put us at odds with foreign governments. We have freed more people than all the other governments of the world in history combined. Which, I think, is something of which to be proud.

What often also goes left unsaid is that the US is also the largest contributor of humanitarian aid in the world. Our contributions in money, personnel and material goods on an annual basis exceeds the GNP of many countries. So maybe we are the the world cop with a heart? lol. Or at least we put our money (and our lives) where our mouth is.

The book to which you refer is excellent, however, the movie was excellently done if you prefer a more visual and visceral approach.

Take point troop and don't get yourself waxed to the max. Geronimo. -- d2

SgtSpecht1234
9th Oct 2004, 17:28
Actually Totalitarianism is different from communism, totalitarianism expects TOTAL loyalty from a country, like when Stalin put the Noose on Russia, he wanted complete loyalty or else, you would basically "dissappear" from the world, never to be found again. Communism isnt as harsh. Communism runs everything in the country, like market economy, stuff like that, and considers the well being of the state more important than personal freedoms and liberties...from what i read, Communism is the perfect government, its very good on paper, but no leaders abide by it, its the perfect government, but you cant have the perfect government, without perfect people, so in real life, it doesnt work out well, but it actually does work on how Karl Marx wrote it.

d-2-502-101abn
10th Oct 2004, 02:18
Which is why I explicitly said totalitarianism ... while communism is supposed "perfect" on paper (what isn't when you only look at theory?), in essence, it puts one party in control ... of politics and of the military and secret police ... which equates to totalitarianism.

Further, Karl Marx was an economic moron: his whole mantra doesn't take into consideration the competitive nature of people and business. Which is, ultimately, why the Soviet Union fell: their economy was in a shambles. Redistribution of wealth takes away from those who are go-getters and offers them no incentive to excel, and in the long run you end up with a whole society of under-achievers.

Take point troop and don't get yourself waxed to the max. Geronimo. -- d2

SgtSpecht1234
10th Oct 2004, 05:19
yeah, but communism and totalitarianism are different types of governments, nearly the same, but they arent, Totalitarianism is just HARSH compared to communism, but both governments aren't that great anyways...