TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Big boys of iraq putting the hurting on the marines
Pages (5): « 1 2 3 4 [5]

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX And you are??? Dude let me say this, I just ran your posting and your so called "parallels" by two of my co-workers and they told me to tell you that the school or college you go to needs to refund your mom and dad's money. one of the 2 served 2 tours in Nam, and the other returned from duty from Iraq just a month ago. Its apparent that you have been lied to.

it's obvious this kid NEVER met or talked to ANY military man, so it's also obvious that he is just full of shit, and therefore unable to participate in this debate.

LOL @ your bullshit.

quote:

Originally posted by Nou Tell me what I am lying about with facts and I will admit that I was wrong. Till then please do me the favorr of not insulting me on baseless accusations and assumptions.

quote:

Originally posted by Nou If we knew how to adapt we wouldn't be were we are in Iraq now. It's obvious we learned nothing from Vietnam in terms of tactics and training! As soon as Vietnam was over we went back to the whole Cold War, defend the Fulda Gap, protect west Germany scenario and didn't give a second thought about another war were we would have to fight an insurgency.

Wrong after Vietnam the US military began training for urban combat in the middle 1970's, initially only DELTA, SEALs and SF teams underwent the training but later Ranger units, Marine units, Airborne followed

UC and MOUNT training has been required for all infantry units for over 25 years now.

I dont have time right now to sit here pick apart how blantly ignorant most of your post are in this thread but needless to say its painfully obvious you lack any intelligence when it comes to military tactics, strategy and history.

If you live in Houston let me know me and some green berets can take you out for a few beers and get indepth about this.

quote:

Originally posted by juzfugen If you live in Houston let me know me and some green berets can take you out for a few beers and get indepth about this.

You have some green beret friends? Are you one yourself? Anyways, just wanted to say that you are suppose to remain lowkey

quote:

Originally posted by Nou And Lepanto, seriously, facts or STFU, please, make me eat my hat.

Neo already made that decision for him - http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...2&pagenumber=6, last post.

Lepanto for President!!

No, if that is Alban's girl than you should be prez.

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid No, if that is Alban's girl than you should be prez.

no!!! shes a democrat! lol, well, she says she is..but i can see some conservatism with her..but she will learn and become a republican.

edit: i read it wrong..but nah, I wouldnt want to be a president. appologies.

quote:

Originally posted by Nou Yes... they trained for urban combat, but they trained to fight organized MILITARY forces, not illegal combatant rebel insurgencies. And if I am wrong about that then its an even sadder state of affairs if we have had 30 years to develop and train to fight against insurgencies and WE STILL CAN'T HANDLE IT! The US military is an invading fighting force, they were never meant to stick around and hold cities and do peacekeeping/humanitarian work. Thats just not what they are trained for. Look at the first Gulf War, it was a major success because it was a WAR, hell look at the first month of combat in Iraq in 2003, we were kicking ass, but as soon as we stopped moving and had to hold our ground the shit hit the fan. I mean... this is not stuff just being made up, no one will deny that there is a massive insurgency in Iraq that the US at this point is not even near controlling. And Lepanto, seriously, facts or STFU, please, make me eat my hat.

Im so glad people like you dont serve

It means that when you use "WE" you are calling yourself an american, but yet an american that seems to relish the fact that, yes, the insurgents have been able to distrubt and take American lives....

thats what it seems like,

my 2cents

quote:

Originally posted by Nou ... well if we weren't over there in the first place that wouldn't be happening.

Oh, so now that makes the fact that you seem to relish that some troops are getting killed, alright??


Its sad that some American's feel that way, but I might not agree with your stance, but I defended and will defend your right to say what you feel. Just be prepared for people to see you as an ignorant, arrogant and ungratefull P.O.S.

quote:

Originally posted by Nou Someday it won't be hopefully and I won't have to rely on you fucking nut balls ruining us.

Oh yeah, you are the guy that wants the west coast to break away from the union, right??

quote:

Originally posted by Nou Yea, we won a lot of the battles, but guess what, as soon as we won, and moved on to another fight VC forces would take over again.

You constantly call for facts to show that the US marines and military were not "defeated" in the Vietnam War. However you provide none at all to show that they were, except for the fact that we pulled out.

Before I begin my rebuttal of your statement:

quote:

Originally posted by Nou they (marines) were beat, and beat hard in vietnam

I will specificy that I consider a "defeat" of the military/marines to be a tactical or strategic victory on the Battlefield. America did lose the Vietnam War, however I shall contend that the defeat was not of the military but of the American Public and Politicians.

Before Class/Edit: I also will reserve the right to come back to this post and add to it later, I have class in a few minutes and don't have time to find all the sources I need and fully flesh out my arguements. I hope to come back to this post later.

Your post:

quote:

Originally posted by Nou Yea, we won a lot of the battles, but guess what, as soon as we won, and moved on to another fight VC forces would take over again.

hints at an ignorance of the Vietnam War. While I do not know exactly what you are referring to, after the Tet Offensive the "Viet Cong" or "VC" was no longer a viable fighting force. During the Tet Offensive the American and South Vietnamese forces had obliterated the VC.

We pulled out after and partly due to the Tet Offensive, but not due to the tactical and strategic battefield victories won by the VC and NVA. Rather we pulled out due to the loss of heart and support for the war in the American public and the lack of backbone (or the proper foresight) of the politicians. Whether or not we would have won or lost the Vietnam War if we had stayed is in no way clear cut.

Some "evidence" that North Vietnam actually "lost" the Tet offensive:

quote:

From Wiki article, important statements in bold The PLAF's(VC)(I think) operational forces were effectively crippled and the offensive failed to achieve their strategic objectives. It effectively ceased to have any role in the war. The organization was preserved for propaganda purposes and even strengthened, but in practical terms the NLF was finished. The decimated cadres of the PLAF, the military wing of the National Front for Liberation, became largely ineffective for the remaining seven years of the war. Its paper-formations were filled with North Vietnamese replacements. The civil remainder of the NLF formed itself into a so-called Provisional Revolutionary Government which while it generated much publicity and waved many flags, ruled nothing.

Source: Wiki Article

Edit: Here is another article that, in some ways, agrees with me. The author proudly proclaims that the Tet Offensive was a great campaign, yet brings up many points as to why it could be considered a battlefield loss for the North Vietnamese. I do believe he does so unintentionally and I have no idea where he got his numbers for North Vietnamese causulties and deployments. I pretty much thought that those numbers where unknown to everyone but the North Vietnamese. Anyways, the author states:

quote:

by Steve Forrest The US and South Vietnamese had lost 6,000 men while the North Vietnamese lost a staggering 50,000 and in the process had seen the destruction of their organisation's command structure in the south.

quote:

by Steve Forrest One of the most awesome battles in the offensive took place in Khesanh. ... The Vietcong suffered huge losses, as many as 10,000 dead, while only 500 US marines were killed.

Source: Marxist Site

Edit: And for the just one more article on the Tet Offensive:

quote:

by Edwin E. Mo�se The Tet Offensive was militarily a defeat for the Communists; it had weakened them very substantially. However, in public relations it was a Communist victory.

Source:Clemson Uni

quote:

From Vets with a Mission America and its ARVN ally had suffered over 4,300 killed in action, some 16,000 wounded and over 1,000 missing in action. The fact that the enemy suffered far more and had lost a major gamble mattered little, because the war looked like a never ending conflict without any definite, realistic objective.

Source:VwaM

The greatest blow of the Tet Offensive was psychological and the fact the the US forces were not able to win any decisive victories in the aftermath only served to strengthen the pervasive hopelessness that the American public was feeling.

There were no major "defeats" of the American military, let alone the Marines, after the Tet Offensive. And, if anything, we had the advantage, numbers-wise, in our favor after the Tet Offensive.

Edit: Another reason focused so much on the Tet Offensive is becuase it seen by many to be the turning point of the war. However this was not becuase the Communists started winning, but rather that America did not start to win. Public Opinion began to strongly oppose the war and only a decisive victory that never came would change it.

Edit: After some cursory searching I can't seem to find any sources that discuss the military happenings that happened after the Tet Offensive. All sources seem to discuss the worsening opinion of the war and the withdrawal of US troops. They also discuss the increasing body count of US troops but no military operations or strategies of either side. Thus in the absence of any evidence for victory or defeat of the American forces after Tet I stand by my inital statements.

Before Class/Edit: I realize I have not provided any sources that agree that the American military did not suffer major defeats,on the battlefield, after the Tet offensive. And the two sources I have provided about the Tet Offensive can be said to be biased, however I hope to come back to this post and strengthen it. After class that is.

Edit:

quote:

Originally posted by Nou please, make me eat my hat.

Would you like some ketchup?

Great Post!! @ NebulousQ

quote:

Originally posted by Nou Good post. But if you will read back aways I said that yes, the Marines often won the battles, but as soon as they took an area and moved on VC or NVA forces would retake it and it was a constant fight to regain lost territory for the US and SVA. This wore down the Marines, the US military in general, and the most important part the support of the war back home. I don't know any other way to classify the US actions at the end of the Vietnam conflict other than defeat. If you read the Paris Peace Accords then you will actually get a much clearer picture of how the US was at the end of the war. http://www.aiipowmia.com/sea/ppa1973.html I mean... they basically rolled over and let North Vietnam do as it pleases, ie:

The arrogance of ignorance...

quote:

only an idiot with no knowledge of military history would think that the insurgency have a slight chance against the marines. even when they fight like little B I T C H E S. They don't have the balls to fight like real M E N. they put up human shields of women and kids. PANSYS. and USMC > all. SEMPER FI! i'm glad my boys over there shreded these ******s like no tommorow. if you think they have a chance against the best trained, physically, metally, psychologically, most battle-ready, most fanatical, bad ass mother******s on this earth you're sadly mistaken.

Yeah... however those of us who actually have degrees in History would never actually structure our arguments around such primitive notions like "fighting like real men" or "pansys". Regardless, you seem to be a highly trained idiot.

quote:

you can't even SPELL Afghanistan, dumbass. And what about Vietnam, why don't you go pull up the troops count, retard .

I don't have to pull up the troop count, I think I can just recite it from memory, 56k-58k Americans dead if I am not mistaken. Yes, it is true that more NVAs and VCs died than US troops in Vietnam, but the troop casualties are an utterly moot point in such an argument. The real crux of the issue is that United States pulled out, packed up and retreated from Vietnam and that was a real victory for the Vietnamese Communists and Ho Chi Minh. Soviet Union lost vastly more soldiers than Nazi Germany but it still won World War II. Body count alone does not determine the victor.

quote:

No one knows how many russians died in WWII, fool.

The commonly agreed estimate runs between 25-30 million with 20 million being on the low end and some estimates going as high as 40 million on the very high end. Numbers which vastly outnumber any loss of life incurred by any other state in World War II.

quote:

So I gave him an example of how Russia failed in Afganistan after like 30 years of war.

It was nine years. 1980-1989

quote:

AND YES THE JAPANESE PEOPLE VOTED FOR A KURDISH PRESIDENT!!1

Obviously, this guy has a great grasp of World War II history.

I'm giving up just after one page of posts. It's too much.

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX quote: Originally posted by Nou But if you will read back aways I said that yes, the Marines often won the battles, but as soon as they took an area and moved on VC or NVA forces would retake it and it was a constant fight to regain lost territory for the US and SVA. This wore down the Marines, the US military in general, and the most important part the support of the war back home. I don't know any other way to classify the US actions at the end of the Vietnam conflict other than defeat. The arrogance of ignorance...

Actually there is nothing "ignorant" about his statements. We did lose the Vietnam War and we would often take an "area", more like a hill, find that it had no real tactical or strategic value and leave it. Only to have some idiot general claim they didn't like having that now enemy-occupied, yet again, hill on their platoon's left flank for some half assed operation, so we had to take it again.

However:

quote:

Originally posted by Nou If you read the Paris Peace Accords then you will actually get a much clearer picture of how the US was at the end of the war. http://www.aiipowmia.com/sea/ppa1973.html I mean... they basically rolled over and let North Vietnam do as it pleases, ie:

The Peace Accords don't really provide "a clearer picture" of the strategic and tactical position of US forces at any point in the war. Especially the end, since we had been pulling troops out of Vietnam for years by the time the Peace Accords were finalized and signed. All it shows is that America really wanted to get out of Vietnam for whatever reason. Your contention is that America wanted to get out becuase it's military was being defeated. While my contention is that America wanted to get out because of the nearly complete lack of support for the war by the American public back home, not becuase of "military" reasons.

I am a believer of the concept of "Total War" and the North Vietnamese, whether intentionally or unintentionally, did a good job of destroying America's will to fight. This gave them a victory without having to defeat America's military on the field of battle.

If Vietnam taught us anything it's that we should leave people to solve their own shit in their own countries. Here it is the French just finished getting their butts kicked in Vietnam and we march in slowly over time and take their place. The reality was the Vietnamese were fighting on their soil for their independence and why were we there, to stop communism, protect the South from the North, too weak a logic to get involved in a civil war in the end. The North were prepared to fight to the end no matter the cost.

It is clear today that the Iraqis should have been left in the hands of Saddam Hussein because sadly that region of the world only seems to understand such leaders. Now every two bit dictator the world over blames the U.S. for their problems in their country and gets applauses from the world. Welcome to the New World Order. It will be that way for a long time to come. It is why I have become ambivalent to the issues today, be it North Korea, Iran, etc. Let the neighbors of these countries deal with them respectively, but I guess the U.S. wouldn't be a worldpower if they allowed that to happen.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.