SUBSIM Radio Room Forums
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)
-   -   Vietnam's General Vo Nguyen Giap dies (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=208023)

TorpX 10-06-13 01:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feuer Frei! (Post 2123693)
North Korean troops were hard as nails.
I'm guessing you meant North Vietnamese troops?





Quote:
...and remember how bad President Johnson and President Nixon were as leaders...
and more recently, President Carter, President Clinton, and President Obama... The Bushes only look good because the bar is set so low. :nope:

No wonder the country is in trouble.

Platapus 10-06-13 07:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorpX (Post 2124137)
and more recently, President Carter, President Clinton, and President Obama...

Good point, I remember studying in college about the decisions that Presidents Carter, Clinton, and Obama made during the Vietnam War.:shifty:

u crank 10-06-13 08:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Platapus (Post 2124236)
Good point, I remember studying in college about the decisions that Presidents Carter, Clinton, and Obama made during the Vietnam War.:shifty:
You forgot Mr. Lincoln. After all it was a north/south disagreement. :O:

RickC Sniper 10-06-13 01:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TarJak (Post 2123691)
The French and US generals were culpable in their failure to understand the situation and their enemies. Giap and the other Vietnamese generals studied their enemies and their behaviour and using low cost tactics made a mockery of the modern armies they faced. They also understood that if they kept going they would eventually force their opponents to leave the field. If you can't accept the fact that your army navy airforce and marines eere beaten through better tactics and sheer persistence then there's not much hope for you. My father and an uncle were also involved in the conflict and they both accepted the fact we were outsmarted by the Vietnamese.
All true, but lets not forget the fact that Washington D.C established the ROE (rules of engagement), effectively castrating our commanders in the field. If our military had been given the same ability to "take what you need and do what you need to do" backing that they had in other wars the outcome may have been different.

I said "may" because deep down I agree with your post here, but it would have been interesting to see how it would have played out if we had not fought that war in such a limited manner.

Sailor Steve 10-06-13 01:37 PM
I think we could easily have "won" the war, if there were no restrictions, and done it in a few months' time. That is, after all, exactly what we did in Iraq, except there it only took a few weeks.

I also believe that we would have had exactly the same result - a populace who would have to be perpetually controlled, and who would have come to hate us no matter what their original feelings were. This was the same problem faced by the British in America in 1814, and we should have learned the same lesson we taught them.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
-George Santayana

Tribesman 10-06-13 02:37 PM
Quote:
All true, but lets not forget the fact that Washington D.C established the ROE (rules of engagement), effectively castrating our commanders in the field. If our military had been given the same ability to "take what you need and do what you need to do" backing that they had in other wars the outcome may have been different.
Didn't work for the French did it.

TarJak 10-06-13 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman (Post 2124429)
Didn't work for the French did it.
You beat me to it. The key is that it was not a war of Nth Vietnam vs Sth Vietnam, it was also NOT a war of communist vs capitalist countries. It was a war of independence for the Vietnamese. They wanted self determination and they were very determined to get it no matter how long it took.

With China providing supply and all the time in the world, the US and Australian forces were faces with an unending war that even if we'd "won" on a territorial basis, the occupation of that territory was untenable in the long term without a far more significant commitment than either country would have been prepared to make rules of engagement or no.

Stealhead 10-06-13 04:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Steve (Post 2124400)
I think we could easily have "won" the war, if there were no restrictions, and done it in a few months' time. That is, after all, exactly what we did in Iraq, except there it only took a few weeks.

I also believe that we would have had exactly the same result - a populace who would have to be perpetually controlled, and who would have come to hate us no matter what their original feelings were. This was the same problem faced by the British in America in 1814, and we should have learned the same lesson we taught them.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
-George Santayana

You forget though that in Iraq in 2003 that the Iraqi military was fairly weak and had never fully recovered from the damage it suffered back in 1991.That war very effectively destroyed the capacity of Iraq to be a threat as a conventional military force.

Seems to me that the US government has learned nothing about fighting a counter-insurgency and even if our military had good strategy the population and government do not have the will to commit to the length of time such a war can take which could be decades.

There is not a war that can be won without the will of the people (the majority of the people).

TarJak 10-06-13 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealhead (Post 2124465)
You forget though that in Iraq in 2003 that the Iraqi military was fairly weak and had never fully recovered from the damage it suffered back in 1991.That war very effectively destroyed the capacity of Iraq to be a threat as a conventional military force.

Seems to me that the US government has learned nothing about fighting a counter-insurgency and even if our military had good strategy the population and government do not have the will to commit to the length of time such a war can take which could be decades.

There is not a war that can be won without the will of the people (the majority of the people).
Doing Hearts and Minds is much harder than saying it.

Tribesman 10-06-13 04:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TarJak (Post 2124460)
You beat me to it.
Or to put it another way if I may.
If it was a totalitarian regime able to conduct its operations with no restrictions whatsoever to their fullest logical end, in total and absolute isolation from both its own population and the all rest of the world it may possibly have been different.
But such conditions are simply not achievable, and certainly not desirable.

soopaman2 10-07-13 11:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TarJak (Post 2124471)
Doing Hearts and Minds is much harder than saying it.

Hearts and minds is a catchphrase to make people (lower class) die for it, so when we are attending funerals, we family members are honored and not angry. The folded up flag thing was cute....How is that Iraq and afghani thing doing for us?

Hearts and minds is something Josef Goebbels woulda came up with if extermination was off the table.

Government doublespeak, who really won the wars, any war?

Not the ones who fought it, but the ones who perpetuated it.

Sailor Steve 10-07-13 11:21 AM
"But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations."
-John Adams, letter to H. Niles, February 13, 1818

soopaman2 10-07-13 11:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Steve (Post 2124790)
"But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations."
-John Adams, letter to H. Niles, February 13, 1818

So in other words, an outside force trying to force the will of the people is an invader, and not a saviour, as so happily painted by the aggressors government.

There is always a theory that a foreign war, or terr'ists, or any kind of domestic scare, or bi partisan politics is a great way to distract the "rubes" (general public) from the tyranny your own government is enacting on you.

(Yeah I said it NSA, go screw, get a real job)

Aktungbby 10-07-13 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TarJak (Post 2124471)
Doing Hearts and Minds is much harder than saying it.
Especially when you don't have the heart to begin with and sure don't have the mind. Gen Giap said it best: Americans are good troops, but they didn't like to fight 'close to the belt' and that was the edge he had. I read his book some 20 years ago...just to get the winner's perspective.Loved being # 17 on the draft list too!:nope::dead::stare:

Aktungbby 10-07-13 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by soopaman2 (Post 2124794)



(Yeah I said it NSA, go screw, get a real job)
Just read 'the Shadow Factory'. They got your post at NSA but don't worry, there aren't enough analysts to review it all... very scary book though.:up:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:42 PM.
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.