Flashermac Posted April 29, 2010 Report Share Posted April 29, 2010 One of my buddies told me he was stationed in Japan right after the surrender and ran into a Filipino former guerrilla then serving in the army of occupation. The Flip sergeant said he had enlisted in the US Army to come to Japan because he wanted to "kill every one of the bastards he saw". My friend asked what changed his mind. The Filipino shrugged, grinned and said ... "the women". p.s. Gobble, I remember a graphic and realistic war movie about the Froggies at Dien Bien Phu. It was an old film in black and white. The French really screwed up by basing themselves at DBP, where the Viet artillery plastered them constantly. Even during the VN War, we learned to respect the NVA artillery. The little buggers knew how to use their cannons. B Battery of whatever 155mm battalion was at my Fire Base and exchanged direct fire with the NVA artillery on several occasions. They lost some people, but they finally knocked out 3 or 4 of the NVA guns. Sort of wild being at an artillery "firefight". The battery was a couple of hundred meters to our right, close enough that NVA rounds were landing near around us too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted April 29, 2010 Report Share Posted April 29, 2010 Flash, A few Vietnam vets I know told me they actually respected the NVA and VC more than the Southern troops...as they actually were willing to fight for what they believed in...your thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted April 29, 2010 Report Share Posted April 29, 2010 I guess its relative. The north has the whole country now including the half we fought to defend so in the end they 'won', despite suffering heavier casualties. Using numbers, the British could claim they weren't 'beaten' in the Revolutionary War as well. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wars18c.htm American War of Independence (1775-83) [Listed roughly in order of completeness.] Louis Duncan, Medical Men in the American Revolution (1931) US: KIA and mortally wounded: 7,000 Disease: 63,000 TOTAL: 70,000 UK: KIA and mortally wounded: 4,000 Disease: 27,000 TOTAL: 31,000 Hessians: KIA and mortally wounded: 1,800 Disease: 6,000 TOTAL: 7,800 TOTAL: 108,800 Same for Germany if they compared their deaths to USSR deaths as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavanami Posted April 29, 2010 Report Share Posted April 29, 2010 Seems that the US has always made friends with their "enemies"... Germany Italy UK Canada Mexico Japan etc... Cuba? still waiting on that one...etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobbledonk Posted April 29, 2010 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2010 I guess its relative. The north has the whole country now including the half we fought to defend so in the end they 'won', despite suffering heavier casualties. Flawed thinking, IMO - they won because they would have fought to the last man for their cause. I'm not badmouthing the efforts of the Americans and their allies in Vietnam (350 Australian soldiers died there), but you can only wage war in another country for as long as someone is willing to pay for that war. Even if the US military had secured victory over the North, would the US have been willing to maintain a South Korea-style presence in the country for decades ? I dont know what that costs American taxpayers, but it must be somewhere in the billions of dollars. If I harbour anger toward various US administrations of the last 50 years, its for carpet bombing Laos and sanctioning the Khmer Rouge. I wasnt prepared for the emotions I felt when I finally arrived in PP, but shame was very high on that list. How the fuck did the rest of the world sit idly by while Pol Pot's henchmen systematically butchered innocent men, women and children ? Those photos at the musuem haunt me - this was 1975, not 1945, and most of us will be able to recall exactly what we were doing during that period, but our governments certainly werent doing anything about the genocide. Whether the KR would still be running Cambodia today is debatable, but the US continued to work against the Vietnamese after they invaded in 1979, allowing the KR to regroup and continue to attack the Vietnamese troops. This entry from the Wikipedia page on Pol Pot is mind-numbing, IMO: In December 1985, the Vietnamese launched a major offensive and overran most of the Khmer Rouge and other insurgent positions. The Khmer Rouge headquarters at Phnom Malai and its base near Pailin were completely destroyed; the Vietnamese attackers suffered substantial losses during the attack Pol Pot fled to Thailand where he lived for the next six years. His headquarters were a plantation villa near Trat. He was guarded by Thai Special Unit 838. I knew Thailand was very chummy with the regime in Burma, but this takes the cake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot#Leader_of_Kampuchea_.281975-1979.29 20/20 hindisght is a wonderful thing, but we were all sold a massive turkey with that 'domino' theory in SE Asia. Ironic that a Communist country now has a vice-like grip on many 'free world' economies in terms of our national debt, our export markets and our insatiable demand for cheap manufactured goodies. I appreciate that soldiers have to do as their political masters dictate, but the Vietnam war was a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted April 30, 2010 Report Share Posted April 30, 2010 Possibly. There are a lot of factors. If what I've heard is true, the south vietnamese were not as motivated as the north. Also and I am not advocating its use but the U.S. didn't use all its might. What would have happened if a nuke was dropped on Hanoi? Would the populace have been hardened by it to go on to the last man or think 'Holy F**k! Its not worth it!? I'm not so sure about the 'fighting to the last man' theory. It was the bombing of Hanoi an the terror that the populace had and their government saw that brought them back to the bargaining table. The residents thought they were removed from the war physically. The B52 bombing was successful from what I've read so imagine a nuke? As well as taking off the contstraints to the military and letting them fight the war militarily instead of worrying about politics and what looks good back home. The U.S. army was constrained by its own government in how to fight the war and the will of the people to fight a prolonged war that that did not directly threaten the country. So, there are many factors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted April 30, 2010 Report Share Posted April 30, 2010 Seems that the US has always made friends with their "enemies"...Germany Italy UK Canada Mexico Japan etc... Cuba? still waiting on that one...etc Also, within a decade of fighting the French in the French and Indian war (7 years war to Brits), we were allied with them. Have to note that its easier to become friends for the winner. It took a long time for us to normalize relations with Vietnam. Many countries (French and others) beat us to their market because we were still sore about 'losing'. Cuba is political. As long as Cuban Americans in Florida say no, we'll say no add in the fact that Florida is crucial to becoming President and the Cubans there have a big say in the vote and we'll always be at odds with Cuba and specifically Castro and probably his brother when he takes over although my guess it will be a bit warmer after Fidel dies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted April 30, 2010 Report Share Posted April 30, 2010 The governmen played on the fears of the people. Communism was seen as evil incarnate and the mood at the propaganda at the time was to fight it anytime and anywhere. The defense budget got bloated because of the government playing on that fear. That same fear led us into Iraq so it still goes on. Some of the wars we were successful in may not have been necessary to some (Grenada, Panama, 1st Gulf War). The first gulf war was foght to protect the free flow of oil and we didn't even kick Hussein out. We had the love of the shi'its at that time as well. In hindsight was it necessary to fight that war? There are what may be 'just' wars or military action that are not taken. Darfur for one. Rwanda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobbledonk Posted April 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2010 Yep, no oil in Darfur/Rwanda/Bosnia. The Bush dynasty should be tried for crimes against humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous God Posted April 30, 2010 Report Share Posted April 30, 2010 I always laugh at USA fear of Cube, what did they do? Get rid of the Mafia, and survive. How many USA soldiers died? Vietnam killed how many USA Soldiers - oops - see above, and are on best friends list. Odd in the extreme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.