Vietnam 35yrs later in pictures - AMAZING

[-Cp]

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/vietnam_35_years_later.html

[darin]

dude - wow. Thank you so much for sharing that. Moved me to the brink of tears. Makes me wish I could re-enlist.

[Gaffer]

Interesting photos, Some I have seen before and others were new to me. It's all history now, but I was part of it.

[LiberalNation]

loved it, to think astan started when I was 12 years old but now I may get a chance to fight in it. Our longest war, hopefully we learned our lesson from vietnam and wont come home with our tails between our legs.

[namvet]

Interesting photos, Some I have seen before and others were new to me. It's all history now, but I was part of it.

same for me. although its history is still today in the minds of Americans and politicans when ever we go to war. so its memories will always be with us.

[KarlMarx]

loved it, to think astan started when I was 12 years old but now I may get a chance to fight in it. Our longest war, hopefully we learned our lesson from vietnam and wont come home with our tails between our legs.

Seems like since Obama has become president the anti-war Left doesn't get much press coverage, thank goodness.

We defeated ourselves in Vietnam, because the anti-war Left(which did have backing from the communists) back then was very successful in turning public sentiment against the war. It also did not help to have a president like LBJ who micromanaged his generals. In times of war, let the generals do their jobs.

[darin]

...hopefully we learned our lesson from vietnam and wont come home with our tails between our legs.

You don't even GRASP how f'ing pathetic and insulting that might be to those who fought.

I really hope you grow up through your adventures.

[Gaffer]

A few facts.

First we defeated the VC in 68. The viet cong were virtually wiped out. Then we bombed the north into coming to the negotiation table and signing a truce. Ending our involvement in the war.

In 1975 the dem controlled congress voted to cut off all aid to south Vietnam, so they could not defend themselves. This allowed the north to overrun the country in just a few short weeks.

We didn't lose and come home with our tail between our legs. We came home to a population whose heads had been filled with communist propaganda by the media. The dems (communists) and their media allies defeated south Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos along with it.

[LiberalNation]

You don't even GRASP how f'ing pathetic and insulting that might be to those who fought.

I really hope you grow up through your adventures.

I said now, we did the peace with honor thingy in vietnam that didn't work. It may be insulting but we did leave and refuse to help them again because the people had home no longer had the stomach for it.

[namvet]

A few facts.

First we defeated the VC in 68. The viet cong were virtually wiped out. Then we bombed the north into coming to the negotiation table and signing a truce. Ending our involvement in the war.

In 1975 the dem controlled congress voted to cut off all aid to south Vietnam, so they could not defend themselves. This allowed the north to overrun the country in just a few short weeks.

We didn't lose and come home with our tail between our legs. We came home to a population whose heads had been filled with communist propaganda by the media. The dems (communists) and their media allies defeated south Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos along with it.

that's true pal. I was over there in 68. we beat em to pulp, we were just sittin around playing cards and sun bathing waiting for the surrender. then this idiot LBJ orders a bombing halt. a general stop and pull back. we were stunned !!!! with no heat they re-armed and re-supplyed and started a new offensive. a whole new fuckin' war.

[revelarts]

There's are lot that I don't know about Veitnam. What I've read, heard and seen about what happen seems pretty disturbing no matter how you look at it.

But I'd like to hear some quick perspectives on why we went to war with Veitnam , what national interest it served to go and, as some have proposed here, to stay. It's my understanding that Johnson escalated the U.S. to war because of the gulf of Tonkin and that he was lying about it, or charitably, he was misinformed.
Is there more to the story? I know we'd been there with the CIA before that but I've yet to hear a compelling reason other than to stop communist expansion. Which at the time seemed compelling. In hindsight .. I just don't know enough.

I was to young to go but several of my cousins served and thankfully they all returned. Blessings to all who served and are serving.

[Gaffer]

that's true pal. I was over there in 68. we beat em to pulp, we were just sittin around playing cards and sun bathing waiting for the surrender. then this idiot LBJ orders a bombing halt. a general stop and pull back. we were stunned !!!! with no heat they re-armed and re-supplyed and started a new offensive. a whole new fuckin' war.

Exactly. And the north had to replace the VC with NVA troops. They literally had to start over. The "we lost the war" bullshit always agitates me.

[namvet]

There's are lot that I don't know about Veitnam. What I've read, heard and seen about what happen seems pretty disturbing no matter how you look at it.

But I'd like to hear some quick perspectives on why we went to war with Veitnam , what national interest it served to go and, as some have proposed here, to stay. It's my understanding that Johnson escalated the U.S. to war because of the gulf of Tonkin and that he was lying about it, or charitably, he was misinformed.
Is there more to the story? I know we'd been there with the CIA before that but I've yet to hear a compelling reason other than to stop communist expansion. Which at the time seemed compelling. In hindsight .. I just don't know enough.

I was to young to go but several of my cousins served and thankfully they all returned. Blessings to all who served and are serving.

Vietnam: an American experience. was a TV documentary that ran on PBS a long time ago:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/

[Mr. P]

There's are lot that I don't know about Veitnam. What I've read, heard and seen about what happen seems pretty disturbing no matter how you look at it.

But I'd like to hear some quick perspectives on why we went to war with Veitnam , what national interest it served to go and, as some have proposed here, to stay. It's my understanding that Johnson escalated the U.S. to war because of the gulf of Tonkin and that he was lying about it, or charitably, he was misinformed.
Is there more to the story? I know we'd been there with the CIA before that but I've yet to hear a compelling reason other than to stop communist expansion. Which at the time seemed compelling. In hindsight .. I just don't know enough.

I was to young to go but several of my cousins served and thankfully they all returned. Blessings to all who served and are serving.

Of course there's more. GW BUSH wanted to seize their rice! Just ask Hanoi Jane. Geeezzz. :poke:

[Gaffer]

There's are lot that I don't know about Veitnam. What I've read, heard and seen about what happen seems pretty disturbing no matter how you look at it.

But I'd like to hear some quick perspectives on why we went to war with Veitnam , what national interest it served to go and, as some have proposed here, to stay. It's my understanding that Johnson escalated the U.S. to war because of the gulf of Tonkin and that he was lying about it, or charitably, he was misinformed.
Is there more to the story? I know we'd been there with the CIA before that but I've yet to hear a compelling reason other than to stop communist expansion. Which at the time seemed compelling. In hindsight .. I just don't know enough.

I was to young to go but several of my cousins served and thankfully they all returned. Blessings to all who served and are serving.

Our involvement in Vietnam began about 1958, if I remember right. With just a few advisers sent there to train and advise the South Vietnamese army. Kennedy increased the numbers there. The north was supported and supplied by the Russians. North Vietnamese MIGS were flown by Russian pilots. It escalated as a proxy war.

The Gulf of Tonkin was a totally fictitious event presented to the president as fact allowing him to commit more troops to South Vietnam. And the reason was to stop the spread of communism. South Vietnam, wishing to remain free and independent asked the US for aid. It was also feared that if South Vietnam fell to the communists so would Cambodia, Laos and Thailand. This is an oil rich area that the Russians could use to great advantage. It also puts them in striking distance of allies and US territories. During that part of the Cold War it was a very strategic region.

The biggest problem was the war was being run by politicians. The military was restricted in what it could do. Bombing in the north could onlt be done in specific areas approved by the white house. for fear of hitting Russian ships and emplacements. Cambodia was off limits, even though it was used as a staging area and often attacks were launched from there against us. I can personally attest to this. My company commander almost got court martialed for sending us across the border to get some snipers. We found a base camp and a prisoner pen over there about a half mile inside Cambodia.

The most important lesson of Vietnam is to let the military do their job, keep the politicians out and don't put restrictions on the soldiers. A lesson still being ignore today.

[namvet]

LBJ learned his the hard way. the DNC canned his ass in 68.

[Gaffer]

LBJ learned his the hard way. the DNC canned his ass in 68.

He wasn't commie enough for em.

[Mr. P]

Our involvement in Vietnam began about 1958, if I remember right. With just a few advisers sent there to train and advise the South Vietnamese army. Kennedy increased the numbers there. The north was supported and supplied by the Russians. North Vietnamese MIGS were flown by Russian pilots. It escalated as a proxy war.

The Gulf of Tonkin was a totally fictitious event presented to the president as fact allowing him to commit more troops to South Vietnam. And the reason was to stop the spread of communism. South Vietnam, wishing to remain free and independent asked the US for aid. It was also feared that if South Vietnam fell to the communists so would Cambodia, Laos and Thailand. This is an oil rich area that the Russians could use to great advantage. It also puts them in striking distance of allies and US territories. During that part of the Cold War it was a very strategic region.

The biggest problem was the war was being run by politicians. The military was restricted in what it could do. Bombing in the north could onlt be done in specific areas approved by the white house. for fear of hitting Russian ships and emplacements. Cambodia was off limits, even though it was used as a staging area and often attacks were launched from there against us. I can personally attest to this. My company commander almost got court martialed for sending us across the border to get some snipers. We found a base camp and a prisoner pen over there about a half mile inside Cambodia.

The most important lesson of Vietnam is to let the military do their job, keep the politicians out and don't put restrictions on the soldiers. A lesson still being ignore today.

We just can't say that enough!!!!!!

[namvet]

He wasn't commie enough for em.

they made a flick about bombing those useless targets


tm-Fb_0CHAw

[namvet]

We just can't say that enough!!!!!!

fightn' a war with one hand tied behind your back insures defeat.

[revelarts]

How do you feel the world or the country would be different if we had finshed in veitnam?

Also this is a interesting point.

"The most important lesson of Vietnam is to let the military do their job, keep the politicians out and don't put restrictions on the soldiers. A lesson still being ignore today.
We just can't say that enough!!!!!!"

All the foolishness the politicians where doing in vietnam doesn't make sense but at the same time when your guys say "let the soldiers do the job." that makes me a bit nervous too. War supposed to be declared by the congress , by the people. And the President 'for better or worse' gets to make the calls for the military. Hopefully he's got an ear and head for military victory but peace and the nation interest should trump victory in the field shouldn't? Pulling troops out when the perceived threat is over is victory isn't it?

[Mr. P]

How do you feel the world or the country would be different if we had finshed in veitnam?

Also this is a interesting point.


All the foolishness the politicians where doing in vietnam doesn't make sense but at the same time when your guys say "let the soldiers do the job." that makes me a bit nervous too. War supposed to be declared by the congress , by the people. And the President 'for better or worse' gets to make the calls for the military. Hopefully he's got an ear and head for military victory but peace and the nation interest should trump victory in the field shouldn't? Pulling troops out when the perceived threat is over is victory isn't it?

War supposed to be declared by the congress. And when was the last time THAT happened?

[revelarts]

War supposed to be declared by the congress. And when was the last time THAT happened?

Quite a while, WWII I think. There's a problem there isn't it? BushI sent 50,000 troops to Saudi before the 1st Gulf war and said the a congressional resolution would be a "courtesy" but he didn't really need it. We've gone to war via U.N resolutions as well.
Not quite the way our constitutional republic gov't is suppose to work.

[Mr. P]

Interesting you start with Bush. Go way back and start again.

[Gaffer]

How do you feel the world or the country would be different if we had finshed in veitnam?

Also this is a interesting point.


All the foolishness the politicians where doing in vietnam doesn't make sense but at the same time when your guys say "let the soldiers do the job." that makes me a bit nervous too. War supposed to be declared by the congress , by the people. And the President 'for better or worse' gets to make the calls for the military. Hopefully he's got an ear and head for military victory but peace and the nation interest should trump victory in the field shouldn't? Pulling troops out when the perceived threat is over is victory isn't it?

We did finish the job in Vietnam, the north was decimated and agreed to cease fire. we then with drew. Russia rebuilt the north and they started a new war.

The foolishness the politicians were doing does make sense if you look at it from a socialist agenda. They allowed their masters and hero's, the soviets, to succeed in taking over Indochina.

The president has the power to use the military as he sees fit for a limited number of days. Like making preemptive strikes or stopping invasions of allies, such as in Korea. After that Congress needs to make a declaration. However, we have have had a congress full of cowards and communists since WW2. And they have, as usual, failed in their job. They have been too busy cementing their positions for themselves their children and their grandchildren. The royalty of modern times.

If we're gonna fight, we need to declare war. And there is no negotiation or cease fire. The only out come is total victory.

[revelarts]

Interesting you start with Bush. Go way back and start again.

I started with what I know. As far back as my personal political knowledge is clear is Carter. Historically I guess we could start with Tuman? or before that the Indian Wars I dunno. What's the beef with starting with Bush . Bush Gulf War1, Nicaragua, Clinton Serbia. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional no mater who sits in the White House.

[revelarts]

We did finish the job in Vietnam, the north was decimated and agreed to cease fire. we then with drew. Russia rebuilt the north and they started a new war.

The foolishness the politicians were doing does make sense if you look at it from a socialist agenda. They allowed their masters and hero's, the soviets, to succeed in taking over Indochina.

The president has the power to use the military as he sees fit for a limited number of days. Like making preemptive strikes or stopping invasions of allies, such as in Korea. After that Congress needs to make a declaration. However, we have have had a congress full of cowards and communists since WW2. And they have, as usual, failed in their job. They have been too busy cementing their positions for themselves their children and their grandchildren. The royalty of modern times.

If we're gonna fight, we need to declare war. And there is no negotiation or cease fire. The only out come is total victory.

that's interestingly put. Congress has definitely cowered out of there responsibilities and plenty are socialist no doubt. I'd add that some are bought and paid for by foreign powers, criminals or big biz or maybe all 3 at once.
I guess the only thing you've said that I'd STRONGLY Question is the "Preemptive Strike" business. Can you show that to me in the constitution?

[LiberalNation]

as long as congress funds, a formal declaration is not needed.

[Gaffer]

that's interestingly put. Congress has definitely cowered out of there responsibilities and plenty are socialist no doubt. I'd add that some are bought and paid for by foreign powers, criminals or big biz or maybe all 3 at once.
I guess the only thing you've said that I'd STRONGLY Question is the "Preemptive Strike" business. Can you show that to me in the constitution?

Preemptive strike has nothing to do with the Constitution. Except as it applies to defense of the country. A preemptive strike is purely common sense when faced with an enemy that wants to strike at you. Sitting back and waiting for them to strike first is silly and causes needless death and destruction.

[LiberalNation]

where's those wmds again, oh thats right.....