• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Vietnam's General Vo Nguyen Giap dies

iguanaman said:
No but I am still mourning 58,000 Americans who died in a pointless war for a non-existent threat. Vietnam was a war between the super powers played out in SE Asia so the Generals both could stay safe at home. The people of Vietnam and our own young men were the pawns in murderous chess game that we played until we could stomach it no more.
On the bright side I am amazed a the resilience of the Vietnamese people and there willingness to forgive and forget the horrible injustice we and the USSR inflicted on their people. If only the people of the Mideast could bury the hatchet so easily.
Click to expand...

The Vietnamese people have shown unbelievable resilience. We have many American soldiers who spent a tour in that hell hole and are still dealing with it. I can't imagine how it must be for the people who lived their lives there. But you don't see resentment towards us. You don't see Vietamese terrorists trying to kill as many Americans as they can. I don't hear about Vietamese people having PTSD but I don't see how they can't.
 
Grand Mal said:
Yeahbut APACHERAT surfs. Sir Charles don't, according to Robert Duvall.
Click to expand...

But then again.....Robert Duval wasn't in the **** nor like most other sheep without their shepherd.
 
APACHERAT said:
I doubt it, I was up in I Corps. Wasn't the 129th operating in ll Corps ?

But the Army crew chief I was refering to was in ll Corps.
Click to expand...

They were. Very impressive that you know that.
 
APACHERAT said:
The Vietnamese and Chinese are natural born enemies with each other. Gook hates gook.

The war clouds are already forming over the South China Sea. The objective are the oil rich Paracel and Spratly islands that Vietnam, the Philippines and China all claim.

While our navy is being dumbed down and rusting in port unable to put to sea and fight, a naval war is brewing in the South China Sea.
Click to expand...

Throwing out racial slurs, classic Apacherat.
 
apdst said:
You Leftists need to SERIOUSLY become more informed.





My Lai was the act of one rogue platoon. Dak Son and Hue were the result of official Communist policy.
Click to expand...

I said I'm not getting involved in the massacres or the gas.

Thing is that villages and farms in the way of major strategic operations had potential ties to VC forces, with the result often being that soldiers often found themselves outflanked or surrounded. Since there was no realistic way to ascertain whether the villages and farms were loyal to one side or the other, maybe they disappear under a hail of gunfire and the problem doesn't present itself. At the very least, villages perceived to be "in the way" of operations are all collateral. Pentagon papers estimates put civilian losses due to such at 10,000, third-party estimates like Germany in the tens of thousands.

Similar to the practice of fragging, where new, inexperienced, or otherwise incompetent officers suddenly found themselves a victim of friendly fire from veteran troops. Loose ends in Vietnam had a way of disappearing.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Throwing out racial slurs, classic Apacherat.
Click to expand...

when I was in country I rarely used the term gook.. but most everybody else did... it was simply common lingo.
I preferred the term "slope".. it just sounds better rolling off the tongue to me.

when i'm talking about our previous enemies, I still use epithets .. I don't think i've ever met a Nam Vet that doesn't.
no real need to be nice and sensitive to the very folks who were trying to kill you .. and whom you were trying to kill.


as for Giap and my opinion on his death.. well,he's the person most responsible for the death of my older brother...I'll leave it at that.
 
APACHERAT said:
The Vietnamese and Chinese are natural born enemies with each other. Gook hates gook.

The war clouds are already forming over the South China Sea. The objective are the oil rich Paracel and Spratly islands that Vietnam, the Philippines and China all claim.

While our navy is being dumbed down and rusting in port unable to put to sea and fight, a naval war is brewing in the South China Sea.
Click to expand...
Even if there is truth to this, try not being a racist ass. K?
 
Morality Games said:
I said I'm not getting involved in the massacres or the gas.

Thing is that villages and farms in the way of major strategic operations had potential ties to VC forces, with the result often being that soldiers often found themselves outflanked or surrounded. Since there was no realistic way to ascertain whether the villages and farms were loyal to one side or the other, maybe they disappear under a hail of gunfire and the problem doesn't present itself. At the very least, villages perceived to be "in the way" of operations are all collateral. Pentagon papers estimates put civilian losses due to such at 10,000, third-party estimates like Germany in the tens of thousands.

Similar to the practice of fragging, where new, inexperienced, or otherwise incompetent officers suddenly found themselves a victim of friendly fire from veteran troops. Loose ends in Vietnam had a way of disappearing.
Click to expand...

You've been listening to too many myths.
 
PeteEU said:
It won them the war.. so hardly a giant failure.
Click to expand...

Militairly it was massive defeat and the Americans would have been able to actually win the war if the Tet Offensive was used to support the war effort.
 
APACHERAT said:
The Vietnamese and Chinese are natural born enemies with each other. Gook hates gook.

The war clouds are already forming over the South China Sea. The objective are the oil rich Paracel and Spratly islands that Vietnam, the Philippines and China all claim.

While our navy is being dumbed down and rusting in port unable to put to sea and fight, a naval war is brewing in the South China Sea.
Click to expand...

Don't worry the navy has lasers now.
 
apdst said:
You've been listening to too many myths.
Click to expand...

? It's in the Pentagon papers.

Also, more or less consistent with human behavior throughout history in tough survival situations. Either the potential link to the enemy dies or you potentially die: make a choice.
 
Morality Games said:
? It's in the Pentagon papers.

Also, more or less consistent with human behavior throughout history in tough survival situations. Either the potential link to the enemy dies or you potentially die: make a choice.
Click to expand...

The Pentagon Papers say that American forces intetionally whiped entire hamlets?

What's next? Winter Soldier?
 
Carjosse said:
Militairly it was massive defeat and the Americans would have been able to actually win the war if the Tet Offensive was used to support the war effort.
Click to expand...

And wars are not won on the battlefield.. hence it was a massive victory for the Vietnamese since the support of US military action evaporated and the propaganda victory was massive.. that the US embassy was occupied and that they could hit the US where it hurt, across the country at the same time.. priceless propaganda victory no matter how you slice or dice it.
 
PeteEU said:
And wars are not won on the battlefield.. hence it was a massive victory for the Vietnamese since the support of US military action evaporated and the propaganda victory was massive.. that the US embassy was occupied and that they could hit the US where it hurt, across the country at the same time.. priceless propaganda victory no matter how you slice or dice it.
Click to expand...

Where do you get the idea that wars arent won on the battlefield? Did the allies lose WW1?
 
apdst said:
The Pentagon Papers say that American forces intetionally whiped entire hamlets?

What's next? Winter Soldier?
Click to expand...

I don't know about "entire" hamlets.

It says 10,000 or so civilians got caught in American crossfire of large scale operations "intentionally or accidentally." Third-parties put the number higher, in the tens of thousands. For even the smaller estimation to work out, farms and villages would have to be targets.

The essential point is that we didn't play nice in our Asian theaters of war. "Nicer" than our enemies by a wide margin, but nothing like in France.
 
Morality Games said:
I don't know about "entire" hamlets.

It says 10,000 or so civilians got caught in American crossfire of large scale operations "intentionally or accidentally." Third-parties put the number higher, in the tens of thousands. For even the smaller estimation to work out, farms and villages would have to be targets.

The essential point is that we didn't play nice in our Asian theaters of war. "Nicer" than our enemies by a wide margin, but nothing like in France.
Click to expand...

So, you ARE saying that American forces intetionally exterminated Vietnamese civilians? You should really expand your research and stop looking at history through a knot hole.
 
apdst said:
Where do you get the idea that wars arent won on the battlefield? Did the allies lose WW1?
Click to expand...

buy a clue
the USA won most of the battles fought during the vietnam war
and we still lost
so much for your battlefield theory
native opposition to an intruder army trumped it
 
justabubba said:
buy a clue
the USA won most of the battles fought during the vietnam war
and we still lost
so much for your battlefield theory
native opposition to an intruder army trumped it
Click to expand...

Would you be so kind to post the surrender document?
 
apdst said:
So, you ARE saying that American forces intetionally exterminated Vietnamese civilians? You should really expand your research and stop looking at history through a knot hole.
Click to expand...

If you say so. I look at history in terms of broad patterns and logistical realities, and broad patterns and logistical realities say they would have had to.
 
apdst said:
Would you be so kind to post the surrender document?
Click to expand...

i sponsored vietnamese refugees who left their native land to live in the USA upon the loss of the war
had we won, that would not have been necessary
 
justabubba said:
i sponsored vietnamese refugees who left their native land to live in the USA upon the loss of the war
had we won, that would not have been necessary
Click to expand...

That's your evidence?...lmao!
 
Morality Games said:
If you say so. I look at history in terms of broad patterns and logistical realities, and broad patterns and logistical realities say they would have had to.
Click to expand...

You've only referenced one piece of documentation. That's not very broad. It takes an appearance of repeating the same lies that have been told for the past 3 decades.
 
apdst said:
Where do you get the idea that wars arent won on the battlefield? Did the allies lose WW1?
Click to expand...

Fact is most wars are won in the minds of the people.. not on the actual battlefield, especially these days. Vietnam is such a war. Another is WW1. You should have chosen WW2,.. since there battles had more to do with winning than anything else, but even here the moral of populations and their willingness to go on despite the hardships were key to victory.

When the Americans entered WW1 both sides were on the brink of collapse. Especially the Allies were very bad off (historical documents clearly show this), with food shortages and resource shortages. The last ditch German offensive almost broke the back of the Allies and had the troops and population not known that many more US troops were on the way, then that back would have been broken. The populations in France and UK were very tired of war and the shortages were massive. The political elite had for a while fought against defeatist attitudes among the population but also among the military. There was several mass revolts in the Allied armies.

As it turned out the effect of the German offensive in 1918 was the following. It was the last ditch attempt to break the allies, it failed, and combined with the knowledge of hundreds of thousands of fresh troops and new resources coming to their enemy while they and their families were starving finally drove the German army to basically revolt and that ultimately ended the war... not a massive battle. The allies never really entered Germany proper, and only occupied bits of Germany. They never took Berlin, but the Germans almost took Paris..

Basically the moral of the armies and populations had far more to do with who won and lost in WW1 than any actual battle or battles. The only thing the battles did was contribute.

The Vietnam war was no different. The US won all battles basically, but lost the war because the willingness of the population to continue the war was gone and that happened after the Tet offensive that showed on national TV that the US was not invincible and even US soil could be occupied by the North Vietnamese (yes the Embassy).
 
notquiteright said:
Incorrect as always. Used by US Soldiers in Korea after they didn't understand a word the Koreans used for American- they thought the Koreans were saying 'me-gook'. Hangook is the term for the Korean country in their language as well.

Used in the Philippines as well. Always stood as a racial term for Asians, not Berbers... :roll: The Marines stationed at manila used the word to refer to prostitutes. As far as i can tell it never was a 'neutral' word. Not used outside of the Pacific region.

If you ever set foot in SE Asia with US personnel you should know the term, 'Luke the Gook' when referring to the VC. 'Gook' was not a complement- Sir Charles was.

You are good at revisionist history.
Click to expand...

As Dean Vernon Wormer would say, "Being fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son."

The word was in use by U.S. Marines by the 1820's.

America's first Korean War didn't happen until 1871. -> http://www.debatepolitics.com/history/173330-first-korean-war-1871-a.html

The use of the word being used by U.S. Marines during the Mexican American War can be found in naval documents at the Washington Navy Yard and the California State Military Museum and also if you read either Joseph Walker's personal journals or by reading this book. -> Westering Man: The Life of Joseph Walker: Bil Gilbert: 9780806119342: Amazon.com: Books

The U.S. Army didn't pick up on the term until soldiers were fighting alongside of U.S. Marines during the Philippine Insurrection.

U.S. soldiers used the term in southern Europe during WW ll and they weren't referring to Asians.

The term was used in the Southwest Pacific to describe the Solomon Islands not people. The term fell out of use by 1943 until the Vietnam War.

Knew a Marine Sergeant who spotted NGF for the Australians in Vietnam and he referred to the Aussies using the same word.

The term is a frickin U.S. Marine slang word, a frickin noun, a person, place or thing. It wasn't until the 1970's when the PC left started to change the definition of words to further their political agenda did the loony left decide it was a derogatory term. It's called liberal revisionism.


BTW: Just a couple of years ago the liberal revisionist changed the names of one of America's wars. That's right, the Philippine Insurrection is no more. In the name of political correctness, it's now the Philippine-American War. I #### you not. Go to the liberal Wikipedia and type in Philippine Insurrection.

I wonder what the next word that is on the PC hit list ? "Hold Down the Fort" ? That's right the Obama administration already has that one taken care of, it's now a derogatory term.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom