It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Vietnam

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Don't you kind of have to be in the Army to go to West Point academy. That or be some nerd who got recommended by a senator. And in that case doesn't that automatically place you in the army. But I agree West Point doesn't exactly act like a war hero. More like a textbook veteran.


No you don't have to be in the army to go to west point here are some requirements that you have to meet.

General Requirements

1)Be 17 but not yet 23 years of age by July 1 of year admitted. (The increase in maximum age is a result of a recent change to Title X, U.S. Code.)
2)Be a U.S. citizen at time of enrollment (exception: foreign students nominated by agreement between U.S. and another country).
3)Be unmarried.
4)Not be pregnant or have a legal obligation to support a child or children

Academic Qualifications

1)An above-average high school or college academic record.
strong performance on the standardized American College Testing (ACT)
2)Assessment Program Exam or the College Board Admissions Testing Program Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT).

Medical Qualifications

1)Be in good physical and mental health.
2)Pass a Medical Exam

Physical Qualifications

1)Above-average strength, endurance and agility.
2)Adequate performance on USMA Physical Aptitude Exam




posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Looks like I was wrong. Nice info
Doesn't going the academy pretty much put you in service though?



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Looks like I was wrong. Nice info
Doesn't going the academy pretty much put you in service though?


Technically it does but you don't start active duty or service till you graduate then you have to stay in the military a mandatory 5 years before you can have the option to leave.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 01:05 PM
link   
WP23's point seems like US lose the vietnam war simply because US is
too kind to kill all vietnam people, but unfortunately I'd like to say this
is only in Hollywood films and in American's imagnation.

Before I met a man in california, he told me he once served in special
force in vietnam war, he executed some secret missions and once
even captured by vietcoms. What kind of secret mission, he did not
specify too much but only said it is chemical warfare. He said the US
governement has deleted all his mission document because it is ugly
and apparently violented the international law.

Although US government don't admit, but it is well-known facts. One tactic
US used is sprayer chemicals in forest, force the trees to drop all the leafs
so that the vietcoms can not hide in the forest. Till now a lot of vietnams
are still suffering the health damage caused by the chemical warfare.

Recently vietnam government asked US for compensation of the damage
of both people's health and environment caused by the chemical warfare,
but US denied the facts and refuse to give any compensation.

WP23 and other American friends, if you let your goernment do so, what
is the difference between US and terrorists ?



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 01:12 PM
link   
There are lots of US vietnam vets who are suffering from agent orange damage. We did lots of terrible things over there: Dropping napalm on villages of innocent people, killing all the innocent people in villages, just killing everything in sight. I won't even mention some of the gruesome stories about Navy SEAL and Special Forces units...



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Yeah I had heard of that stuff. Agent Orange I think it was called. I've heard one side effect may include birth defects and such. Pretty scary stuff. Supposedly it was pretty much just hopped up herbicide. Then I think napalm was used extensivly to burn forests. Of course another tactic for clearing jungle was this one huge conventional bomb. The thing held the record until MOABs came into service. That cleared jungle for helicopter landing zones. And it eliminated the Vietcongs cover. But the south vietnamese were also ruthless. Supposedly two civilian aircraft landed in South Vietname to evecuate women and children. This was after the US pulled out. What happened was they let it land then blocked the runway. And a whole bunch of South Vietnamese soldiers filled the plane. Very few women and children made it on. But the soldiers kept trying to pile in. The pilots then went and decided to just leave so they went and took off on the taxiway they were so desperate to leave.

[edit on 7/22/2004 by cyberdude78]



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by xbin

Although US government don't admit, but it is well-known facts. One tactic
US used is sprayer chemicals in forest, force the trees to drop all the leafs
so that the vietcoms can not hide in the forest. Till now a lot of vietnams
are still suffering the health damage caused by the chemical warfare.

Recently vietnam government asked US for compensation of the damage
of both people's health and environment caused by the chemical warfare,
but US denied the facts and refuse to give any compensation.

WP23 and other American friends, if you let your goernment do so, what
is the difference between US and terrorists ?



Any one in america that knows more than alittle about Vietnam knows about this stuff and that it was used. It is called Agent Orange

Agent Orange was a herbicide developed for military use. Chemically, the product was a 50/50 mix of two herbicides, 2,4,-D (2,4, dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) and 2,4,5-T (2,4,5 trichlorophenoxyacetic acid). These herbicides were both developed as weed killers in the 1940's, and were effective against broad leaf plants and several crops.

Can I sue the government or the chemical companies?
No. Title 38 of the United States Code prohibits veterans from suing the government for injuries suffered while in the military. A class action suit was filed in behalf of veterans in 1979 against the chemical companies and settled out of court. The final funds in this legal action were distributed by 1992. Additional attempts to sue the manufacturers have been attempted, and have been prohibited by the courts. The most strongly fought of these legal battles, Ivy vs. Diamond Shamrock was supported in behalf of the plaintiff by attorney generals in all fifty states, the Supreme Court, however, refused to hear the arguments and that case ended in 1992. In the parlance of the court, the issue is "res judicata" or "the matter is settled".

Even american vets that were exposed to this stuff cannot sue the goverment or companies that made it anymore



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Of course another tactic for clearing jungle was this one huge conventional bomb. The thing held the record until MOABs came into service. That cleared jungle for helicopter landing zones. And it eliminated the Vietcongs cover.


The DAISY cutter was the bomb in question. It was used to create a helo landing pad in the middle of the jungle





posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Any one in america that knows more than alittle about Vietnam knows about this stuff and that it was used. It is called Agent Orange

Agent Orange was a herbicide developed for military use. Chemically, the product was a 50/50 mix of two herbicides, 2,4,-D (2,4, dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) and 2,4,5-T (2,4,5 trichlorophenoxyacetic acid). These herbicides were both developed as weed killers in the 1940's, and were effective against broad leaf plants and several crops.

Can I sue the government or the chemical companies?
No. Title 38 of the United States Code prohibits veterans from suing the government for injuries suffered while in the military. A class action suit was filed in behalf of veterans in 1979 against the chemical companies and settled out of court. The final funds in this legal action were distributed by 1992. Additional attempts to sue the manufacturers have been attempted, and have been prohibited by the courts. The most strongly fought of these legal battles, Ivy vs. Diamond Shamrock was supported in behalf of the plaintiff by attorney generals in all fifty states, the Supreme Court, however, refused to hear the arguments and that case ended in 1992. In the parlance of the court, the issue is "res judicata" or "the matter is settled".

Even american vets that were exposed to this stuff cannot sue the goverment or companies that made it anymore


This is I don't know, thanks for information. So I think this will finally buried
in history and later only some scholars will use it as theme to write their
paper.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by xbin

Although US government don't admit, but it is well-known facts. One tactic
US used is sprayer chemicals in forest, force the trees to drop all the leafs
so that the vietcoms can not hide in the forest. Till now a lot of vietnams
are still suffering the health damage caused by the chemical warfare.

Recently vietnam government asked US for compensation of the damage
of both people's health and environment caused by the chemical warfare,
but US denied the facts and refuse to give any compensation.

WP23 and other American friends, if you let your goernment do so, what
is the difference between US and terrorists ?



Any one in america that knows more than alittle about Vietnam knows about this stuff and that it was used. It is called Agent Orange

Agent Orange was a herbicide developed for military use. Chemically, the product was a 50/50 mix of two herbicides, 2,4,-D (2,4, dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) and 2,4,5-T (2,4,5 trichlorophenoxyacetic acid). These herbicides were both developed as weed killers in the 1940's, and were effective against broad leaf plants and several crops.

Can I sue the government or the chemical companies?
No. Title 38 of the United States Code prohibits veterans from suing the government for injuries suffered while in the military. A class action suit was filed in behalf of veterans in 1979 against the chemical companies and settled out of court. The final funds in this legal action were distributed by 1992. Additional attempts to sue the manufacturers have been attempted, and have been prohibited by the courts. The most strongly fought of these legal battles, Ivy vs. Diamond Shamrock was supported in behalf of the plaintiff by attorney generals in all fifty states, the Supreme Court, however, refused to hear the arguments and that case ended in 1992. In the parlance of the court, the issue is "res judicata" or "the matter is settled".

Even american vets that were exposed to this stuff cannot sue the goverment or companies that made it anymore


It was infact "Agent Orange." Admiral Elmo Zoomwalt, Commander US Naval Forces Viet Nam is the one who ordered it employed... interesting note: His son, LT Zoomwalt (a Swift Boat Skipper in Viet Nam) died of cancer, as a result of exposure to A. O....

Parhelia Out!



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 09:00 PM
link   
The US lost the war cuz of politics and a lack of will to fight from the soldiers who wants to fight a war where your own people in the US are cheering for the enemy that is why people who go out and protest against the war and cheer on the resistance really get to me.

Also Did you know that the US Air force was not allowed to bomb factories and oil reserves and key bridges and roads that were helping the Vietcong in the war effort Nixon only allowed the Air Force to bomb those targets when the US was puling its troops out and the US Air Force did more damage in that bombing that they had in 10 years of war but it came to late so politics killed us in that war.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Politics did get in the way in the vietnam war, and if that wasn't the case, we would have been more succesful. People who protesting the war aren't cheering for the other side, most protesters are protesting against the government but support our troops...who cares more, the protesters wanting troops to come home so no more die, or the "patriots" who encourage war and send kids off to be killed?

The vietnam war was a complete screw up to begin with, there was no purpose for attacking them, we didn't do anything to stop the commies, and we knew from the beginning that we couldn't win the war...yet we sent more troops to be killed, either to help our military train, war contractors, who knows...

[edit on 22-7-2004 by Shoktek]



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 11:47 AM
link   

The vietnam war was a complete screw up to begin with, there was no purpose for attacking them, we didn't do anything to stop the commies, and we knew from the beginning that we couldn't win the war...yet we sent more troops to be killed, either to help our military train, war contractors, who knows...


Wow you sure have a great mentality for war if you were in charge of America we would have never won anything. What kind of leadership is that for your country and military hey guys yeah I don't feel we can win so we will let them do whatever they want. Man you would be a good leader


Also by protesting you want the withdrawal of troops and if our government does that than that will cause us to loose the war and make American seem like a P...to the rest of the world they will think we cant take casualties cuz we are too soft



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23


Wow you sure have a great mentality for war if you were in charge of America we would have never won anything. What kind of leadership is that for your country and military hey guys yeah I don't feel we can win so we will let them do whatever they want. Man you would be a good leader


Also by protesting you want the withdrawal of troops and if our government does that than that will cause us to loose the war and make American seem like a P...to the rest of the world they will think we cant take casualties cuz we are too soft


oh yeah lets fight a pointless war ! huzzar!! quick lets all race round the flag pole.
actually if you pull out it makes them think you actually care about the lives of the men who are dieing.
i would rather have my country look soft and have all of its troops ,than looking strong and have the scraps of a good military force.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 12:16 PM
link   
The situations the same as Iraq. You have countless people protesting the war but there at least supporting their soldiers. Theres no point fighting a pointless war. My opinion is don't start a war unless there is "credible information" that they pose a threat to you. But the fact that we drafted a lot of the soldiers in Vietnam doesn't help either. Then when the soldiers relize the kids going to college were getting out of the draft that kills morale even more. One other thing was that towards the end of the war politicians tried to save their popularity by giving soldiers one year tours of duty. Now the only problem with that is as soon as a soldier starts to learn the tricks and trade of jungle warfare they replace him with a recruit fresh out of training. And this recruit has no idea what to do in jungle warfare so he ends up falling into booby trap. But the man he replaced would have recognized the trap and thats one less causalty.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Wow you sure have a great mentality for war if you were in charge of America we would have never won anything. What kind of leadership is that for your country and military hey guys yeah I don't feel we can win so we will let them do whatever they want. Man you would be a good leader



umm...have you even taken ONE US history class, dumb#? Everyone knows vietnam was a mistake, the fact that we KNEW we couldn't win was due to the PENTAGON PAPERS which I'm sure you've never heard about...the politicians KNEW it was hopeless to send any more troops over to vietnam, but they did so anyway...the pentagon papers proved our government was LYING to the american public, and that the war was worthless...56000 Americans DIED for absolutely NO REASON, and here you are, the internet commando, cheering it on because you HAVE NO #ING CLUE about what you are talking about. You are not worth discussing this with, you are just TOO #ING STUPID!

The patriots here are the ones who support our fellow men and women AGAINST unjust wars...the patriots don't support americans being killed. You, westpoint, are probably way too young and obsessed with computer first person shooters to understand an actual war...you have just proven the utter stupidity in today's American youth.


[edit on 23-7-2004 by Shoktek]



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
we cant take casualties cuz we are too soft



Wow, this is the worst # I have ever read in the history of the internet. You have no idea what casualties are, you don't know anyone killed in an illegal war...I guess you agree with Johnson and Nixon about 56,000 americans being an "acceptable loss" just to try and "preserve democracy" which never happened in vietnam. You are just too young and stupid to understand any of this...


I'd just like to add SHUT THE # UP about taking casualties, unless you are one of the people out there actually fighting in the war...which you never have, and never will...you're just a message board army poser.


[edit on 23-7-2004 by Shoktek]



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Parhelia

It was infact "Agent Orange." Admiral Elmo Zoomwalt, Commander US Naval Forces Viet Nam is the one who ordered it employed... interesting note: His son, LT Zoomwalt (a Swift Boat Skipper in Viet Nam) died of cancer, as a result of exposure to A. O....

Parhelia Out!


Wow talk about irony what a weird turn of fate for that Comander, Thanks for the info Parhelia that was new to me and very interesting
good post



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 04:16 PM
link   

umm...have you even taken ONE US history class, dumb#? Everyone knows vietnam was a mistake, the fact that we KNEW we couldn't win was due to the PENTAGON PAPERS which I'm sure you've never heard about...the politicians KNEW it was hopeless to send any more troops over to vietnam, but they did so anyway...the pentagon papers proved our government was LYING to the american public, and that the war was worthless...56000 Americans DIED for absolutely NO REASON, and here you are, the internet commando, cheering it on because you HAVE NO CLUE about what you are talking about. You are not worth discussing this with, you are just TOO STUPID!

The patriots here are the ones who support our fellow men and women AGAINST unjust wars...the patriots don't support americans being killed. You, westpoint, are probably way too young and obsessed with computer first person shooters to understand an actual war...you have just proven the utter stupidity in today's American youth.




dumb#
Wow a little sensitive are we? Vietnam might have been a mistake to go into but we could have won the war if politics and idiots with picket posters that needed to get a real job stayed out of the way. Any war can be won if you believe in it and have the hart to fight it out but again politics got in the way. Oh I support the men and women of the armed services more then you ever will I just don't like letting 56000 of them die then pulling out and their death was for nothing. Don't be so sure ill be one of tomorrows serving members and your going to call me stupid maybe instead of marching up and down the street, like an idiot with a picket sign and poster you can actually be more productive if you get a job contribute to this county.




Wow, this is the worst I have ever read in the history of the internet. You have no idea what casualties are, you don't know anyone killed in an illegal war...I guess you agree with Johnson and Nixon about 56,000 americans being an "acceptable loss" just to try and "preserve democracy" which never happened in vietnam. You are just too young and stupid to understand any of this... stupid to understand any of this...

I'd just like to add SHUT THE UP about taking casualties, unless you are one of the people out there actually fighting in the war...which you never have, and never will...you're just a message board army poser.

[edit on 23-7-2004 by Shoktek]


I don't know what casualties are well perhaps since you were out there in the field and have seen it can explain it to me...oh wait you have never served. I don't agree with Johnson because if we had kept fighting and not let politics get in the way we might have won but because we didn't those brave souls died for nothing. Cant say your too smart if you call other people stupid And are you going to make me shut up just cuz you don't agree with my ideas and point of view don't reply its that simple better yet ignore me if you don't like what i have to say. You haven't given me a chance I will enroll next year when i am 18 im not 45 like you and sit at home post on ATS im joining as soon as I am eligible and I have never said I have served in the army then I would be a poser, so to you anyone who gives military ideas is a poser. Than what does that make you?


[edit on 23-7-2004 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 04:56 PM
link   
west point YOU WONT MAKE IT INTO THE ARMY i know this i have been on bases and talked and stayed and worked with military personel from all arms of the srevices !what have you done that makes you stand above the rest? what makes you so great?
dont you talk to us about "oh im joining up and this and that bull **** ,what have you done?" frankly i ask you what role in the armed services are you going to play? with an attitude like that you aint going far!
i know this. iv seen and smelled and touched and felt stuff you havnt even dreamed up! dont preach to me about bloody patriatism you dont need to join to be patriotic all you need to do is support your men and women and frankly sending them to die in some godforsaken jugle/swamp is not the way!




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join