Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Opinion Question

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Opinion Question

    Hello,

    I personally believe that we've could of won Vietnam, but obviously due to political reasons in Washington D.C. prohibited us from seeing the job through.

    I also think the United States wanted a pro longed war as well. I am not making any thing of it. But yah here is my other point of view.

    In World War 2 their was an estimated 350,000 American casualties. Now compare that to Vietnam the total US casualties was estimated at: 58000.

    Now this was a ten year war. So in reality was Vietnam all that bad, if you take a look at how many service men lost their lives in World War 2. Not saying anything against it or what not. My point is that it wasn't as bad as it was made out to be. 58000 over a ten year war compared to the 300,000 service men in the years we were involved with World War 2. Do the math.

    Whats your take on this?
    Last edited by xllhawksllx; 16 Apr 10, 19:26.
    Sincerely,

    xllhawksllx

  • #2
    Originally posted by xllhawksllx View Post
    Hello,

    I personally believe that we've could of won Vietnam, but obviously due to political reasons in Washington D.C. prohibited us from seeing the job through.

    I also think the United States wanted a pro longed war as well. I am not making any thing of it. But yah here is my other point of view.

    In World War 2 their was an estimated 350,000 American casualties. Now compare that to Vietnam the total US casualties was estimated at: 58000.

    Now this was a ten year war. So in reality was Vietnam all that bad, if you take a look at how many service men lost their lives in World War 2. Not saying anything against it or what not. My point is that it wasn't as bad as it was made out to be. 58000 over a ten year war compared to the 300,000 service men in the years we were involved with World War 2. Do the math.

    Whats your take on this?
    Gamer Dude -- Once you get away from sims and into real life, you may come to realize that the goodness or badness of conflict is not measured by body counts, but by the justness of the cause and and, some would say, by victory in that cause. If the number of live's lost is your metric, the American Civil War is downright "bad", while Iraq/Afghanistan is awesomingly "good". I think there are a few too many considerations in play than to make this simplistic analysis. My view: The loss of one soldier's life is "bad" in the absence of justness.

    -- RR

    Last edited by RadioResearcher; 16 Apr 10, 21:16.
    www.RadioVietnam.net

    Comment


    • #3
      xllhawksllx...

      Everything is relative young man...

      In WWII the enemy (during much of the war) controlled the air. Soldiers more or less stayed in trenches, unless on the attack. Enemy Armor and Arty was much more fearsome and effective....I could go on, but will finish with folks at home supported the effort.

      In Vietnam - about the only way we were going to find and kill the enemy was through patrols (much worse than sitting on one's arzes in a trench). We controlled the air and our Armor and Atry was much more effective than the enemies...Again I could go on but will finish with most folks at home didn't support the effort after about 3 years.


      Summary - in Vietnam we fought a "constrained" war; if we would have invaded the North, we would have had many many more deaths. Whereas WWII was "all out". Your trying to compare "Apples to Oranges".


      Who had it worse? Those that died! Numbers of American dead is not the proper measure to use. One dead soldier in either war was as bad as the other, and one dead soldier is one to many.

      P.S. The soldiers in both wars fought for FREEDOM and LIBERTY. In Vietnam we fought against Communism (supposedly a Socialist type of Gov't, restricting FREEDOM and LIBERTY). Now it's your turn - I wonder, what are you willing to fight for, if anything! No need to answer (don't want to change the theme of this thread), just think about it. Hey, go sign up in the Military an put on a Uniform and learn what's worth fighting for.



      Last edited by KEN JENSEN; 16 Apr 10, 22:53.
      1st ID, 1/28th '67/'68 Phouc Vinh & Quan Loi
      Skirmishes Bu Dop Dec-67, An My, Thu Duc Feb-68
      Plt. Ldr - CIB, Purple Hearts, Silver Star
      What we write can be considered to be a reflection of our SOUL providing others to know our CHARACTER.

      Comment


      • #4
        There is much more to winning a war than a military victory on the battlefield. We whipped the Afghanistan militarily in about two months. Does that mean we won the war? There was far more to Viet Nam than the military implications. If only war, and life in general, were that simple.
        The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated ~ Mark Twain

        Comment


        • #5
          Vietnam was a shitty war. You lived in miserable conditions. You put your life on the line. Many times you were restricted from doing what needed to be by political BS. When you got back if your family was glad to see you then you should consider yourself lucky because no one else was.
          "If you are right, then you are right even if everyone says you are wrong. If you are wrong then you are wrong even if everyone says you are right." William Penn.

          Comment


          • #6
            How in H can you compare Nam to WWII.

            You do know what the WW stands for?

            Your comparing a little spot in SEA with "only" 58,000 killed to our fighting World War II across the intire globe. Using any logic then we lost more for less in Nam.

            Oh, yea. Before I forget. Welcome to the forums. I'm sure we'll enjoy your post
            "Ask not what your country can do for you"

            Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

            youre entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by xllhawksllx View Post
              Hello,

              I personally believe that we've could of won Vietnam, but obviously due to political reasons in Washington D.C. prohibited us from seeing the job through.

              I also think the United States wanted a pro longed war as well. I am not making any thing of it. But yah here is my other point of view.

              In World War 2 their was an estimated 350,000 American casualties. Now compare that to Vietnam the total US casualties was estimated at: 58000.

              Now this was a ten year war. So in reality was Vietnam all that bad, if you take a look at how many service men lost their lives in World War 2. Not saying anything against it or what not. My point is that it wasn't as bad as it was made out to be. 58000 over a ten year war compared to the 300,000 service men in the years we were involved with World War 2. Do the math.

              Whats your take on this?
              Dude you can't "boil" people into numbers even if WW2 was more bloody than Vietnam. Think that every soldier lost in combat was a father, a brother, a lover for somebody back in the U.S.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by trailboss49 View Post
                Vietnam was a shitty war. You lived in miserable conditions. You put your life on the line. Many times you were restricted from doing what needed to be by political BS. When you got back if your family was glad to see you then you should consider yourself lucky because no one else was.
                My Dad was recently telling me about my Grandad being MIA, when my Gran got the letter the whole family was mortified, they hoped and prayed that he was alive and would come home, (he was captured by the Japs). He did come home, but many people didn't. Their only thought was of his safety, and it sickens me that a society, couldn't have cared less about their own men, surely getting your men back is more important than the politics of war.
                Last edited by cecilia; 17 Apr 10, 07:22.
                "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is spongy and bruised"
                Zap Brannigan. Futurama

                Comment


                • #9
                  hawk...It wasn't as bad as it was made out to be? I guess you had to be there.
                  "If we don't know history, then we are ready meat for carnivorous politicians and the intellectuals and journalists who supply the carving knives." Zell

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    (he was captured by the Japs)
                    Cecilia, your granddad was a lucky man indeed. Captured by the Japanese was probably the worst fate suffered by westerners in the past 100 years of warfare. I believe 'Bridge on the River Kwai' and the heroine's experience in 'A Town like Alice' capture something of why so many of those captured died in captivity.

                    Here's just one, captured in 1942, who died in captivity a few weeks before WWII ended.

                    http://cas.awm.gov.au/photograph/P02467.878
                    dit: Lirelou

                    Phong trần mi một lưỡi gươm, Những loi gi o ti cơm s g!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      He was catured twice, and escaped both times.
                      "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is spongy and bruised"
                      Zap Brannigan. Futurama

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Ok. Well I did not obviously look into every detail. I was just commenting on individuals who said the casualties were so bad. I was just trying to compare it to the years in World War 2 as opposed to our duration in Vietnam. I was just implying the different year to year / causality ratio.
                        Sincerely,

                        xllhawksllx

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by xllhawksllx View Post
                          Ok. Well I did not obviously look into every detail. I was just commenting on individuals who said the casualties were so bad. I was just trying to compare it to the years in World War 2 as opposed to our duration in Vietnam. I was just implying the different year to year / causality ratio.
                          Different enemies, different tactics, different types of warfare, different terrain, different weather, different weapons, different goals, different ideologies, different alliances, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. The same can be said about the current global unpleasant events. But they all have one thing in common: WAR IS HELL!
                          The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated ~ Mark Twain

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I agree with you 100 percent. However, sometimes it is necessary, pending upon the situation at hand. But declaration of war is a very serious decision and has to be analysed on how it will effect the country involved diplomatically.

                            But I get fed up with politicians just pulling us out or sending us in, just for their own political gain. I can't imagine how the soldiers must feel when its just for political reasons. If that is what the circumstance is.
                            Last edited by xllhawksllx; 17 Apr 10, 12:46.
                            Sincerely,

                            xllhawksllx

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by xllhawksllx View Post
                              ...But I get fed up with politicians just pulling us out or sending us in, just for their own political gain. I can't imagine how the soldiers must feel when its just for political reasons. If that is what the circumstance is.
                              heeheehee, you haven't been around long enough to REALLY get fed up.

                              I do not believe that any U.S. President ever entered any of the wars (declared or not), that our country has been involved in, was for the purpose of their "Political Gain".

                              In regard to Vietnam - remember, since Truman, our U.S. Policy was to stop Communism - how many presidents were involved in the Vietnam issue - Do you know? Which one or more of these was because of their own Political Gain? heeheehee, Starting with Johnson and his approach, it became a friggin nightmare.


                              I do believe that a few Presidents (and Congressman) have attempted or have succeeded to hold office on the "promise" of ending a war or war like situation. But that is just politics.


                              I do believe that you are changing the whole theme of your own thread youngster; think we should stick to it, or start a new thread. Remember this is a Vietnam forum.


                              Last edited by KEN JENSEN; 17 Apr 10, 13:34.
                              1st ID, 1/28th '67/'68 Phouc Vinh & Quan Loi
                              Skirmishes Bu Dop Dec-67, An My, Thu Duc Feb-68
                              Plt. Ldr - CIB, Purple Hearts, Silver Star
                              What we write can be considered to be a reflection of our SOUL providing others to know our CHARACTER.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X