Comparison Between Iraq, and Vietnam

Originally posted by CTID56092
I've been reading on 'Nam for 20+ years so I do know what I'm talking about.

It's obvious you don't. You understand your opinion - that's all. The numbers are not bogus, the numbers are reality, something you care to avoid.

About your quote, I covered that, with the flower picking statement. Some people do have an axe to grind. Generally for personal reasons, and failed careers.

Did you fail to read the statement that drug use among soldiers being no different than civilian use. I suppose 10% of a population for 2 mill you have 300,000 heroin users, according to your logic.

Here again for your blind eyes:

91% of Vietnam Veterans say they are glad they served (Westmoreland papers)

74% said they would serve again even knowing the outcome (Westmoreland papers)

I suppose these men are heroin users? You do disgrace the vets who served.

I don't care what country your from. Soldiers who fight for their country ought to be given a little respect, not slandered by ficticious statistics. I'd like to hear what a Green Jacket, or a Regiment man had to say. I'm sure it would be a little more respectful than your inexperienced mouth.

You assume far too much. I'm ex-UK Army and I still contend your Army fell apart at the end of 'nam.

Your numbers were bogus and you haven't acknowledged that at all.

Aside from your dismissal of a US Army Colonel as a flower picker you seem unable to handle simple facts. I'm sorry for all these links but two obviously aren't enough for you:

The morale and discipline of U.S. troops declined in 1969 as the futility of the ground war and the beginnings of U.S. withdrawal became more obvious. After an intense ten-day battle in May, infantrymen of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Mobile) took a ridge in the A Shau Valley that they had dubbed Hamburger Hill. Having fought bravely and suffered significant losses, the soldiers were bitter when the site soon was abandoned. Such inability to see progress, and an awareness among the troops that politicians back home were giving up on the war, helped undermine military effectiveness. Simple survival of their twelve-month tour of duty became the only motivation for many soldiers. Incidents of insubordination, mutiny, fatal assaults on officers, drug use, racial tensions, and other serious problems increased.

Source: www.english.uiuc.edu... ( a US Unversity)

Despite the concerted efforts of the command, there was an alarming increase in the use of hard narcotics in 1971, when the number of offenders involved with hard drugs, mostly heroin, increased sevenfold, to 7,026. This trend was particularly disturbing in view of the continually decreasing troop strength in Vietnam. On 18 June 1,971 the Secretary of Defense sent a message to the U.S. services informing them of the presidential direction that the drug problem be given urgent and immediate attention and announcing a program to identify military personnel leaving Vietnam who were on narcotics and to give them the opportunity for drug treatment at facilities in the United States.

Source www.army.mil... (US Army Homepage - AKA flowerpickers)

THE MORALE, DISCIPLINE and battleworthiness of the U.S. Armed Forces are, with a few salient exceptions, lower and worse than at anytime in this century and possibly in the history of the United States.
By every conceivable indicator, our army that now remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having _refused_ combat, murdering their officers and non commissioned officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near mutinous.
Elsewhere than Vietnam, the situation is nearly as serious.
Source:www.chss.montclair.edu... (quoting US Army Journal)

www.sfu.ca... has a very salient point that the US Army refusals in 'Nam have been largely wiped from the memory by the 'Rambo-mythology of the 1980's' I wonder what the learned doctor can possibly mean!

Is that enough? You're probably never going to be convinced as I realise it intrudes on your protective bubble.

No slight on any individual troops' bravery was ever made, and no-doubt there were some brave men doing the right thing but by '71 very, very few of them - your military system, doctrine, tactics, strategy, assumptions, weak officers and NCO's meant the grunts never stood a chance of winning.
I've spoken to many Vietnam vets - Australians (best force in-theatre) and they thought the Yanks were ineffectual/ avoiding risk at the end too. I can't say what they actually said as it'd be censored!!

I'm sorry if you don't like historical fact


[edit on 15/8/05 by CTID56092]

Okay another thing I noticed that is a comparison between Vietnam and Iraq is. The resourcefullness of the enemy, in Vietnam when bombers dropped bombs, if they did not explode they would open them up. And use the black powder to make explosives! And in Iraq they use artillary shells, bombs, and other materials to make deadly and powerfull IEDs.

The difference between this war and Vietnam.....is the Viet Cong never flew airliners into packed office bulidings.

At least the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese army pretty much fought America out in the field, but this time we're fighting Islamic radicals and there is no "frontlines" for these folk....downtown Manhattan is as much a battlefield as is Fallujah.

This war is far worse than Vietnam because if we pull out and show weakness (Like the Navy cowards did in Jordan last week) than the Muslim extremists will take that as a sign and launch a bigger attack.

just my 2 cents.

Maximu§

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
(Like the Navy cowards did in Jordan last week)
Maximu§

Moving multi-million dollar equipment and hundreds of men away from static positions under attack is not cowardly - it's wise and common sense. Pity you make such comments without enjoying both,

Originally posted by vincere7

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
(Like the Navy cowards did in Jordan last week)
Maximu§

Moving multi-million dollar equipment and hundreds of men away from static positions under attack is not cowardly - it's wise and common sense. Pity you make such comments without enjoying both,

I have plenty of common sense. Here we have (2) powerful American ships armed to the teeth with weapons, Harrier Jets, attack helicoptors and Marines and when a couple of rockets miss them......they pull up anchor and run away.

Thats not a very good message to send to our enemies is it? Our Big Bad Navy turns tail and runs. Its an act of war to attack US Navy ships....so why did'nt the US Navy respond accordingly?

Anyhow thats another thread.

Maximu§

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
I have plenty of common sense. Here we have (2) powerful American ships armed to the teeth with weapons, Harrier Jets, attack helicoptors and Marines and when a couple of rockets miss them......they pull up anchor and run away.

Yeah in a port.... harriers cant take off when the ships standing still...
The attack helicotpers need time to warm up..
The marines have no duristriction in there.

PS, who do they shoot at?
The jordans?

A navy ship is meant for sea not for port.

Thats not a very good message to send to our enemies is it? Our Big Bad Navy turns tail and runs. Its an act of war to attack US Navy ships....so why did'nt the US Navy respond accordingly?

Anyhow thats another thread.

Maximu§

An act of war by who?
Terrorists? Are we not already at war with them?
The US navy captains done the smart move, getting out of there.
A navy ship can fight at sea, but in port shes a beached whale.

The US navy captains done the smart move, getting out of there.
A navy ship can fight at sea, but in port shes a beached whale.

Point taken, I retract the "Navy Coward" comment


Maximu§

The principal similarity between the US's wars in Vietnam and in Iraq is that there is a similar chance of a modest to negligible strategic outcome advantageous to the US which in any way compensates for the enormous cost, and effort and strategic disadvantages caused by the war.

This is why people are uncomfortable. That Vietnam was lost by the "will to fight" is true---because the will to fight depends on the value of what people are fighting for, and leaders can't really fool people that well about that. It sounds like people who return from service in Iraq have the same reaction as in Vietnam: "what's the point?"

That we have ended up serving the strategic interests of Iran far more than those of the US is painfully ironic.

That we are 'fighting terrorists over there' is another poor excuse. Firstly, the Iraqi population after all their convulsions never volunteered their own country to be the battleground for the US against jihadists, and they are suffering horribly, enough that any gratitude over eliminating Saddam has been dissipated. Secondly, in fact what is happening is that it is organizing training of jihadists in modern urban warfare tactics, recreating the free battle training that they lost in the invasion of Afghanistan and overthrow of the Taliban. By combining with a stronger nationalism (nobody likes being occupied) this is steeling the capabilities of the jihadist enemies of the US.

Originally posted by mbkennel
The principal similarity between the US's wars in Vietnam and in Iraq is that there is a similar chance of a modest to negligible strategic outcome advantageous to the US which in any way compensates for the enormous cost, and effort and strategic disadvantages caused by the war.

what do u mean?

This is why people are uncomfortable. That Vietnam was lost by the "will to fight" is true---because the will to fight depends on the value of what people are fighting for, and leaders can't really fool people that well about that. It sounds like people who return from service in Iraq have the same reaction as in Vietnam: "what's the point?"

does that mean we lost Afghanistan as well? because im hearing people want to give up that war as well.

That we have ended up serving the strategic interests of Iran far more than those of the US is painfully ironic.

o hows that? the Iranians may fear the the Sunni Iraqis be targeting Iran for supporting the Shiites. it may scare Iran. they too busy with themselves holding their own population.

That we are 'fighting terrorists over there' is another poor excuse. Firstly, the Iraqi population after all their convulsions never volunteered their own country to be the battleground for the US against jihadists, and they are suffering horribly, enough that any gratitude over eliminating Saddam has been dissipated. Secondly, in fact what is happening is that it is organizing training of jihadists in modern urban warfare tactics, recreating the free battle training that they lost in the invasion of Afghanistan and overthrow of the Taliban. By combining with a stronger nationalism (nobody likes being occupied) this is steeling the capabilities of the jihadist enemies of the US.

whoever says who volunteers their property to become battlefields. the Afghans sure as heck didnt say go bomb our country cause thats where the terrorists use as a base of operations for the 9/11 attacks. Iraq is the perfect place for American troops to learn many things about guerilla warfare. since because the U.S. military policy in war is to avoid guerilla warfare. i prefer we learn how to fight this war then to avoid this war. if we avoid wars that involve asymmetric war, then we lost automatically. new military technology and understanding helped us. since Vietnam helped us with the technology and tactics used in Vietnam like the first guided smart bombs, the need of stealth technology because of the North Vietnamese effective use of anti air weaponry that resulted in hundreds of fighter jets and bombers being shot down. the introductiion of the volunteer army and the end of the draft. there are many things to learn about fighting against the hardened guerillas. this is the best time to learn many from the enemy in the early 21st century. better to learn now then later.