anybody has pics of american or vietamites soldiers/tanks ??
[quote=“Preatorian”]
Oh… seem like americans finally upgraded Terminator’s firmware… :lol:
I like that man. Good for Californya.[/quote]
Do not knock the Govenator 
But on the Subject. I mentioned before that we droped more bombs in Vietnam than we did in all of WW2. Here is one of the reasons why:
B-52 Strato-Fortress
Okay, i’m don’t like mess with Arnold… I like myself in one pice.
I guess reasons why in Vietam was able to drop more bombs than in WWII - weakness of North Vietnam air forces. Yep, they got soviet MiG 17, modern soviet anti-aircraft rocket systems and etc. - but not in huge quantity ant not everywhere… situation with AA forces for NV was whorse than same situation in WWII.
And US AF done great job in Vietnam - sure, better drop on enemies heads more bombs than lose there more own troops.
And
You are correct. Nobody in the US thinks of Vietnam as a war that was won. it was a war that the US fought with half-assed dedication. This was because of 2 problems I think. Firstly, a ground offensive with huge numbers of troops was difficult and would have been very costly in the largely jungle environment, and it was hard to see where the enemy was, so a lot of bombing was simply wasted resources. (hence the defolients, which did more harm than good if you ask me) Secondly, it was a war that the US tried to fight with a smaller land force and a lot of air power. And again, because of the heavily foliated landscape, this had limited effectiveness.
It was a blunder. It should have been fought with different strategies I guess.
I personally think one of the major turning points that lost the political war, or at least gave the impression that the Americans were losing the war was the Tet offensive. Even though Tet was a resounding success militarily, considering the Viet cong were virtually wiped out ant the NVA took heavy casualties, it was still portrayed as a loss mostly due to the fact that the US embassy was attacked. It was individuals such as Walter Cronkite that really turned the American people’s opinion against the war thus making it impossible to win, unpopular wars at home can have stark effects on battlefield morale. Cronkite really does have a lot to answer for.
Scally you have hit the main point. The media think, and will tell every one who will list the US was being beaten. I heard the same thing on the anniversary of the fall of Saigon 2/3 weeks ago by reporter who were there. 99% of people who know what the Tet offensive was will tell you that it was a US defeat. As you say this is totally wrong. Because it was a surprise attack and had early success they believe the VC (not many know it was an NVA attack) won.
There are little, if any engagements at large unit level (and moat small unit engagements as well) that the US did not win. The primary tactic of the US was to find, pin, and then use its vast air and artillery power to destroy the enemy. The NVA counter to this was to get in close and stay close so that the US could not use its big guns or air power. The Australians on deploying to the area were surprised by the noise the US troops made when moving around. They had recently been in Malaya and moved quietly so as to catch the CTs unawares. When asked the patrol commander said, “we want them to find us, then we blow the shit out of them”. Having had it explained the Aussy Sgt could see the logic behind it.
The bombing of Hanoi and the supply route south was effective and caused the NVA to move them out of country. The war of attrition on the north was bleeding it dry of manpower the recruiting age was going down and replacement to front line unit was very poor.
The media gave the impression that the US was loosing. Not many of the press ventured out into the field to see what was actually happening. They relied on info from the military and who they did not believe. The press say or do things to make the headlines. You may not remember this but in GW1 a US reporter gave a report live on air (CNN I think) in full IPE (NBC black) following a missile attack. Telling every one that a chemical attack had happened. It caused panic and was totally untrue. But if the TV said its true then it must be.
Maybe Cronkite should be hung along with Fonda. :twisted:
Taking your examples further, look at GW2 during the build up in Kuwait headlines such as ‘Brit troops under attack by scud missiles’ yeah right, they were missiles all right but ground-to-sea being used in the ground attack role. Showing images of Brit troops cowering in bunkers donning their NBC suits as if a real chem attack was taking place when it was actually a drill. The media have and will twist images to make a good story, although its not always malicious more about presteige and money. Did a module on war & media this year very interesting.
I agree. The press seems to always have everyone’s best interest put behind sensationalism. The press can be almost evil in their concotions and slanting of the truth. Most people do not begin to see the sheer level at which or volume of slanting of the truth put out by the media untill they are way past their 20’s. I guess when you see enough of it, and then see the real story of what they were talking about enough times, you start to read between the lines of it, and other things about life as well.
I saw some pictures of prominent politicians on CNN.com once that were a bit odd looking, so I saved them and zoomed in on them, and low and behold, someone had used a graphic program to slightly elongate this one’s chin or the size of that one’s mouth, etc. Anything to make them look like a goofball. Even if it meant tinkering with their photo. It made me sick.
I hate the media. They slant everything they can, even with carefully crafted word choices, to distort the truth, if it will make them a fast buck. To me, that is the selling of one’s soul.
No its true John Kerry has a huge chin!
and Cherie Blairs mouth is a medical marvel!
.
The media in Britain are fairly balnced as a whole. Reading the mirror and the Mail in direct comparison to one another keeps you somewhere around the middle and for balanced reporting you cant beat the Torygraph (!)
if you want ballance it must be the Sun, :lol:
they do have th ebest pictures.
tits and arse in equal proportion?
If you all get a chance you shold what a movie/documenty called “The Fog of War” Its mostly an interview with former US Secratary of Defense Robert Mcnamara. (personally i think he was a bastard) He reflects on the confusion of the time and what he and Presidents Kennedy and Johnson thought about the situation in Vietnam. I think its very informative to see the retrospective views of a man that was apart of one of the greatest messes in American History.
for balanced reporting you cant beat the Torygraph
Couldn’t agree more a fine outstanding paper that tells the tommies the truth about the war! :lol:
(Or alternatively the greatest work of fiction since vows of fidelity were included in the French marriage service)
My favourite exchange from “Yes, Prime Minister” :
Jim Hacker: [i]"Don’t tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:
* The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
* The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
* The Times is read by people who actually do run the country;
* The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
* The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
* The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
* And the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is."
[/i]
Sir Humphrey: “Prime Minister, what about the people who read the Sun?”
Bernard Woolley: “Sun readers don’t care who runs the country, as long as she’s got big tits.”
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I like that.
I would also recomend Fog of War. Its one of those films that everyone should watch.
I watched this the other day. Outstanding. McNamara, whatever his faults, was a superbly intelligent man, and to see him speak in such depth is not to be missed.
im reading the post but one thing i noteced is that canadians are not talked about but canada was there as volinter group of men i under stand 4 every 1 draft jumper 10 canadians went in his place is this true ive herd it from a few canadians that went there but they wernt sure on the number of canadians were in country then