Any similarities?....
I think there is....at least back at home.
I hate to be blunt, and i am very uneducated in these matters, but it looks to me like the US hung(and are still hanging) around far too long in both, and severely underestimated their opponents tactics and resolve
Last edited by fatherted13 (2007-07-27 17:42:58)
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Yeah....anything the supposed MSM can do to defeat and slander our troops while in combat...brings back memories.usmarine2005 wrote:
I think there is....at least back at home.
Yes Sir!!...Can you imagine the current media and "peace zombies" covering WW2...usmarine2005 wrote:
I think there is....at least back at home.
No invitations?Comrade Ogilvy wrote:
Any similarities?....
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Actually the terrorist realize America has no resolve anymore to win anything but a 6 month Nintendo War...thanks to the MSM. Less than 4000 KIA to liberate two countries would be a great victory in another time (although any death or injury is a great tragedy).fatherted13 wrote:
I hate to be blunt, and i am very uneducated in these matters, but it looks to me like the US hung(and are still hanging) around far too long in both, and severely underestimated their opponents tactics and resolve
INC anyone?m3thod wrote:
No invitations?Comrade Ogilvy wrote:
Any similarities?....
Well it's availableusmarine2005 wrote:
INC anyone?m3thod wrote:
No invitations?Comrade Ogilvy wrote:
Any similarities?....
http://www.inc.co.uk/
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Thought so.....m3thod wrote:
Well it's availableusmarine2005 wrote:
INC anyone?m3thod wrote:
No invitations?
http://www.inc.co.uk/
Describe the situation when your men took down the American forces in Somalia.
After our victory in Afghanistan and the defeat of the oppressors who had killed millions of Muslims, the legend about the invincibility of the superpowers vanished. Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. ... As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families. Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim. ...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline … rview.html
After our victory in Afghanistan and the defeat of the oppressors who had killed millions of Muslims, the legend about the invincibility of the superpowers vanished. Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. ... As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families. Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim. ...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline … rview.html
Last edited by Comrade Ogilvy (2007-07-27 18:17:32)
Iraq is nothing like Vietnam.
The Vietnam War started in the 1950's as an insurgency from the Communist North against the (then) French controlled South... Yes France controlled South Vietnam (then known as French Indochina.) When the battle of Dien Bien Phu started in 1954, France sent in the Foreign Legion to fight and quell the troublespot, and were subsequently defeated. France then retreated and left the South to manage on its own. South Vietnam then called in the US to help, and the US then called on the ANZACs to pitch in too. The rest of the Vietnam Conflict is pretty much well known.
So I guess you COULD call Vietnam as a civil war. The US and the ANZACs only got involved thru the fear of the Communist Domino Effect (that being if North Vietnam won then, Communism could spread to Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and finally Australia and NZL.
Iraq on the other hand is nothing more than an unsanctioned invasion in an illegal war.
The Vietnam War started in the 1950's as an insurgency from the Communist North against the (then) French controlled South... Yes France controlled South Vietnam (then known as French Indochina.) When the battle of Dien Bien Phu started in 1954, France sent in the Foreign Legion to fight and quell the troublespot, and were subsequently defeated. France then retreated and left the South to manage on its own. South Vietnam then called in the US to help, and the US then called on the ANZACs to pitch in too. The rest of the Vietnam Conflict is pretty much well known.
So I guess you COULD call Vietnam as a civil war. The US and the ANZACs only got involved thru the fear of the Communist Domino Effect (that being if North Vietnam won then, Communism could spread to Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and finally Australia and NZL.
Iraq on the other hand is nothing more than an unsanctioned invasion in an illegal war.
Uh.........actually, no. All of Vietnam was French Indochina. You'll note that Dien Bien Phu is in the north. Further, the US called on Australia to help, as the ANZAC didn't exist (it was a term for the combined deployment in WWI and WWII(?), which AFAIK hasn't existed since). Finally, it wasn't a civil war. After the French left, Vietnam was divided into North and South, with the intention that they would re-unify within about a decade. America blocked all attempts at re-unification through a puppet government in the South.
Having said that, I don't think any of that is relevant to the question at hand. The detail of any war are going to be different. The fact is both Iraq and Vietnam are characterised by determined guerrilla forces facing off against a well equipped modernised forces.
Having said that, I don't think any of that is relevant to the question at hand. The detail of any war are going to be different. The fact is both Iraq and Vietnam are characterised by determined guerrilla forces facing off against a well equipped modernised forces.
Uh actually Bubbalo, the ANZACS DID exist in Vietnam. The Aussies and Kiwis fought together and worked together, rather than as separate countries.
And the term still applies today.
And the term still applies today.
Last edited by -101-InvaderZim (2007-07-28 22:26:00)
No, it doesn't. The only thing close to resembling an ANZAC formation in Vietnam were the two NZ battalions who used ANZAC as a suffix. But it wasn't an ANZAC formation: it was two NZ units working under the Australian command. The Corps hasn't exist since WWII at the latest (and I'm not even sure about that).
ya. i was called a baby killer by complete strangers while waiting for the bus....and I am not even a soldier....fuck I am canadian who likes airsoft and wears camoflage where every he goes.Comrade Ogilvy wrote:
Any similarities?....
yes and no
yes because there isn't much support from the home front
no because there are nowhere near as many casualties as in Vietnam and we are not fighting local guerrillas, they are foreign taliban.......
yes because there isn't much support from the home front
no because there are nowhere near as many casualties as in Vietnam and we are not fighting local guerrillas, they are foreign taliban.......
The only similarities I see between the two conflicts is there unpopularity with the American people both then and now.
I dunno Comrade Ogilvy, you claim you were in the 101st Air Cav in Vietnam.
Why don't you enlighten us as to the difference.
Why don't you enlighten us as to the difference.
A huge portion of the forces in Vietnam were actually North Vietnamese.Smitty5613 wrote:
no because there are nowhere near as many casualties as in Vietnam and we are not fighting local guerrillas, they are foreign taliban.......
That's better.Bubbalo wrote:
A huge portion of the forces in South Vietnam were actually North Vietnamese.Smitty5613 wrote:
no because there are nowhere near as many casualties as in Vietnam and we are not fighting local guerrillas, they are foreign taliban.......
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Whereas North Vietnam was full of Southerners?Spark wrote:
That's better.Bubbalo wrote:
A huge portion of the forces in South Vietnam were actually North Vietnamese.Smitty5613 wrote:
no because there are nowhere near as many casualties as in Vietnam and we are not fighting local guerrillas, they are foreign taliban.......
Huh? Just clarifying.Bubbalo wrote:
Whereas North Vietnam was full of Southerners?Spark wrote:
That's better.Bubbalo wrote:
A huge portion of the forces in South Vietnam were actually North Vietnamese.
At first it said a huge portion of forces in Vietnam were north vietnamese... well duh.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
yeah, America gets its ass kicked in a war, they never should have started. cause there were no reasons! I feel sry 4 ur soldiers, stupid politicians make them die 4 nothing...........
Last edited by rub (2007-07-29 03:30:54)
Yes, because:Spark wrote:
At first it said a huge portion of forces in Vietnam were north vietnamese... well duh.[/b]
a) The war encompassed most of Vietnam, even if the focus was the south
b) I was using the word Vietnam to refer to the Vietnam war. I've been doing it all thread.