not entirely accurate but you have the general outline. btw this thread is gonna get locked faster than you can say "Dien Bien Phu"

This one is too hot a topic to survive.

Dien Bien Phu
you're wrong Taw

alright faster than you can say "n-n-n-n-nineteen, nineteen.." (rep.)

sw you don't even know what Dien Bien Phu is!

Edited by - Tawakalna on 9/12/2004 7:01:59 AM

my dad was in the war...

Vietnam? do tell, kimk.

@Taw so?

i dont see why this would get lock it's not modern politics and its not politics at all! its simply my study on Vietnam, and don't get me wrong i have the highest respect for any soilder from any side.

this will only get locked if people spam and flame.

@kimk
can you tell me about your dad fighting in the war?

@Taw: classic lyric man, almost didnt get the reference.
@thread: spell much? jeez, my damned eyes hurt.

This thread has serious lock potential due to the inclusion of our current "war" so maybe its best to keep thigns purely factual as opposed to mudslinging and "america cant win wars" talk. Im in do doubt in my mind that this thread was created to rub salt into a few american wounds, but regardless of my opinions of american mainstream or their foreign policy, im not going to add to this little fire.

What's interesting is how different each war seems to be. World War 1 was fought like it was the Boer War to start with, WW2 fought with the lessons from WW1, Vietnam fought like it was WW2. In fact every war since seems to be fought like WW2. Which, i suppose, is an alright way to fight a war. The thing is what to do when the enemy ISNT wearing their national colours, rolling out in tanks in fields and sticking to conventional tactics. The age of figting wars troops on troops is over and hasnt been around for some time. We've entered the age of the geurilla soldier, the hit-and-run, the plain-clothed warrior and like in vietnam, you cant just throw troops at a situation like that.

The rules of combat need to change and adapt to each war. Wars today are fought in the cities, in the towns, the soldiers pass themselves off as civillians because the "etiquette of war" doesnt mean a damn when these people are trying to fight you out of their country, the only way out is victory or death so they'll fight 'dirty' if they have to, and dirty seems to work very well. As such, the soldiers are recruited from the civillians, they join up to fight because they see the opposing enemy come in and throw their weight around. Soon the civillians support the enemy and you're no longer fighting the geurilla army to restore a political ideal, you're fighting the whole country, who now sees you as bullies. The thing is, the more you fight them with guns, the more you alienate them and the more they turn against you.

The only way to win is to not fight them, to get the people on your side, the "hearts and minds" campaign is so crucially important that if you neglect it, if you dont understand how the people are feeling, then you're going to loose.

American GIs tear-assing around 'nam with little or no respect for the people, considering them all the enemy and treating them all as such means that the people are going to turn against them. The propaganda of the enemy now seems spot on. You can fight an idea, you can win a geurilla war, you can win any war, you just have to adapt, to understand what makes the enemy tick, what makes them fight you. Its Sun-Tzu's most famous quote and its never been more true. Fighting a gurilla war like its conventional troop-vs-troop isnt going to work. Sure, when Marines went up against Vietcong, the deathtoll for the vietnamese was massive. The US was victorious all the time with the troops, but thats not what the war was about, it wasnt WW2, the population wasnt against the fighters.

This was not to "rub salt in american wounds" i have heard alot of bull**** and propaganda about Vietnam. also most of you dont know but i AM american. i live in canada yes but i was born in the U.S and no i didn't make the war seem like a final battle for the U.S like in a LOTR movie but the truth is the only bad guys were the head of goverments. like i said befor ei have the utermost highest respect for all the soilders there. but what the goverments did was evil and it was the american and Vietnamese soilders who suffered.

still playing BF:Vietnam, Will?

i want that game... looks good fun! of course FL beats the pants of it...

ah me, platitudes platitudes platitudes.

it was an evil and unjust war that never needed to be fought, did vast amounts of damage to Vietnam itself (and is still doing so, eg unexploded ordnance) and deeply scarred America. Where to start on just how bad it was? for most of you it exists in history books, tv progs, films and games, but I remember it happening.

nah, find out for yourselves, i can't be @rsed to get into this.

hey BTW did any of you watch that TV show that tried to tell Vietnam from a soilders view it was... Tour of Duty, they had China beach but it was not as good....