U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-21-2011, 07:44 PM
 
41,332 posts, read 44,292,172 times
Reputation: 12588
Tyhe mai problem started with JFK and his woze kids. They bascially want a war without knowing what was a win and no objectives. They then allowed Beeer and othet hngs on the battlefild. They alos came up with crazy ideas because they did tursut the generals;like introduction of the poorl;y tested m16. They did this because they catully thought that X numbers of bullet expended meant X number of enemy killed. They even had body couts to test their theory placin GIs in danger. Even with this the GIs diod not lose a battle except for having clear leadership with a definte plan for vistory. They i fact did not ever plan o winning. They would ahve been satisfied with another Korea which we still are not clear of. JFK :IMO and Johson who inhert the war just failed in leadership. The of sourse mnay made it worse by actully basically spitting on our troops returning. John Kerry in hppir fashion actaully testified to cogress that our trops were a bunch of rapist and murders which he came to regret later because it got hom in congress and hurt him when he ran for president.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-21-2011, 10:00 PM
 
16,448 posts, read 10,098,726 times
Reputation: 9167
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
Tyhe mai problem started with JFK and his woze kids.
Under Kennedy the focus was on special ops and training. The Special Forces were Kennedy's creation and under tacit civilian control. It was Johnson's "whiz kid" McNamarra and others that put Special Forces under MACV military control, and pushed escalation to a conventional war with a large commitment of US combat forces. McNamara economically and strategically justified our bulid-up on the presence of bauxite, rubber, offshore oil, the denial of a year round Pacific port for the Soviet fleet, and, of course, the "Domino Theory".
It's impossible to know how things would have gone in the long run under Kennedy, with special ops running the show.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2011, 10:07 PM
 
16,448 posts, read 10,098,726 times
Reputation: 9167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf View Post
Actually, it`s Afghanistan = Vietnam. And another liberal President up to his armpits in a quagmire.
I agree that now Afghanistan has become similar to Vietnam. It wasn't in the beginning, and the US wasted the opportunity to consolidate the gains of the intial intervention. It looks un-winable at this point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2011, 10:14 PM
 
16,448 posts, read 10,098,726 times
Reputation: 9167
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
introduction of the poorl;y tested m16. They did this because they catully thought that X numbers of bullet expended meant X number of enemy killed.
The M16 was used because the soldier can carry more rounds of the smaller 5.56mm cartridge. Part of the justification was that it is a less lethal round and likely to wound more than kill, thus tying up two or more other enemy soldiers tending to the wounded one. Likewise the pineapple frag grenade was replaced with the M26 and M28 grenades which are designed to cause maximum wounds instead of max fatalities. And yes, the Vietnam M16A1 was responsible for the deaths of many American soldiers due to jamming, even after the bolt was "fixed" (hard chromed).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2011, 10:25 PM
 
16,448 posts, read 10,098,726 times
Reputation: 9167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nighteyes View Post
I REALLY don't agree.


Gulf War I -- 184 Combat Deaths

Gulf War II -- 3,510 Combat Deaths, and still counting...
I see it more as the increased involvement of foreign combatants in GW II, the IED tactic and the length of time we have been there. Most of those GW I casualties were caused by a single deflected missle that was shot down by a Patriot and landed on a warehouse filled with our troops. It was an incredible odds buster, about like getting struck by lightning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2011, 04:02 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,023 posts, read 9,375,933 times
Reputation: 7388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nighteyes View Post
I REALLY don't agree.

The major differences between Gulf Wars I and II came from the fact that Gulf War I was led by Generals Colin Powell and Norman Schwartzkopf. Both were multi-tour infantry officers in Vietnam. Both had first-hand experience with the clusterf**k that was Vietnam, and both swore not to have anyone under their commands repeat that experience. In fact, the extremely effective Powell Doctrine came about as a direct result of Powell's Vietnam experience.

Gulf War II, on the other hand, was largely led by people who had little to no real experience in major combat operations, with distressingly predictable results.

Gulf War I -- 184 Combat Deaths

Gulf War II -- 3,510 Combat Deaths, and still counting...

When I speak of the guy on the ground, I'm not talking about the general's; I'm talking about the men and women who actually do the fighting. General's don't fight wars: they manage resources and if he is actively engaged in combat on a regular basis, he's stepped outside his area of responsibility and should be canned. Wars are actually fought from Brigade or Regimental level on down and the closer you get to the bottom, the more of the fighting you do.

Consequently, at squad or platoon or company or even battalion level, wars don't change for the participants. The circumstances are different, but the job is still to close with and kill the enemy at eyeball range.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2011, 05:30 AM
 
5 posts, read 3,040 times
Reputation: 10
USA needs the new war.
The Society was too weakened.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2011, 09:07 AM
 
Location: FROM Dixie, but IN SoCal
3,047 posts, read 2,232,437 times
Reputation: 3004
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
When I speak of the guy on the ground, I'm not talking about the general's; I'm talking about the men and women who actually do the fighting. General's don't fight wars: they manage resources and if he is actively engaged in combat on a regular basis, he's stepped outside his area of responsibility and should be canned. Wars are actually fought from Brigade or Regimental level on down and the closer you get to the bottom, the more of the fighting you do.

Consequently, at squad or platoon or company or even battalion level, wars don't change for the participants. The circumstances are different, but the job is still to close with and kill the enemy at eyeball range.
I wasn't talking about the generals either, except by way of illustrating that the "war experience" (I can't think of a better term, though I don't like this one) for the a**-in-the-grass soldier varies greatly depending on the leadership, rules of engagement, etc. Both Powell and Schwartzkopf were low-level infantry officers in Vietnam, so they had quite a lot of direct combat experience at what you called "eyeball range". As a result they directly experienced, at the a**-in-the-grass level, the consequences of all of the mistakes, errors and general FUBARs. As they continued to advance in rank, they came to know and understand the causes of their experiences.

As a direct result of their eyeball-level combat experiences in Vietnam, Operation Desert Storm was a textbook example of how wars should be fought at every level. As a direct result, the Desert Storm grunt's combat experience was much less worse than that of the Vietnam grunt.

I think perhaps you're confusing the never-changing mission (close with and kill the enemy) with the circumstances (again for the lack of a better word) under which said mission is planned and prosecuted, and the resulting consequences and experience of the front-line combat soldier.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2011, 09:26 AM
 
Location: FROM Dixie, but IN SoCal
3,047 posts, read 2,232,437 times
Reputation: 3004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf View Post
Actually, it`s Afghanistan = Vietnam. And another liberal President up to his armpits in a quagmire.
Oh, PU-LEEZE! With all due respect this is a HISTORY thread, not Fantasyland.

Operation Enduring Freedom (aka Afghanistan) began in October 2001 which, according to every calendar I can consult, was ten months into the Bush II administration. It was still going on when Obama took office in 2009.

Bush II ordered it, and to be sure it was initially very well-executed. Then, for whatever reason, Bush and his administration got distracted by Iraq. Resources and assets that could have been put to far better use in Afghanistan were diverted to the Iraq "sinkhole", which meant that Operation Enduring Freedom got put on Hold for 7+ years. It this neglect and "asset starvation" that created the current situation.

So, unless you intend to claim that George W. Bush is a liberal, what you wrote is pure political male bovine excretia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2011, 07:05 PM
 
Location: On a hill near a river
14,367 posts, read 11,825,446 times
Reputation: 5713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nighteyes View Post
Oh, PU-LEEZE! With all due respect this is a HISTORY thread, not Fantasyland.

Operation Enduring Freedom (aka Afghanistan) began in October 2001 which, according to every calendar I can consult, was ten months into the Bush II administration. It was still going on when Obama took office in 2009.

Bush II ordered it, and to be sure it was initially very well-executed. Then, for whatever reason, Bush and his administration got distracted by Iraq. Resources and assets that could have been put to far better use in Afghanistan were diverted to the Iraq "sinkhole", which meant that Operation Enduring Freedom got put on Hold for 7+ years. It this neglect and "asset starvation" that created the current situation.

So, unless you intend to claim that George W. Bush is a liberal, what you wrote is pure political male bovine excretia.
Bush is history. Obama is the CIC. Obama promised to end the Afghan war. Instead, he has escalated it, and has no idea -- I repeat, NO IDEA (beyond blaming the military if things continue to deteriorate and takng credit for himself if they ever improve)-- what to do next.

Since it's the History forum, Let's review:

Lyndon Johnson's apparently boneheaded decision to escalate US involvement in Vietnam in 1965, after first promising voers in 1964 elections that he wouldn't do this, is a classic example of a liberal Democrat plunging the US into a dubious war under false pretenses.

Vietnam, for example, was a political and military debacle that was started by Truman's refusal to honor the pledges made to Ho Chi Minh to free Vietnam form French colonial control, revived and escalated by Johnson and finally ended by Nixon.

US meddling in Afghanistan started under Carter, got worse under Reagan and George HW Bush, took a new form under Clinton, was escalated again under Bush, and now is being revived and escalated under Obama.

Are you seriously disputing these facts?

Would you prefer to argue that Nixon, not LBJ, had to use Vietnam to prove that liberal Democrats could be macho men? It's a fruitful strategy to do so, after all. Thanks to the MSM, people tend to associate Nixon with Vietnam and forget all about the Texas clown who started the whole mess.

Funny how progressives can continue to blame Bush for Afghanistan while exonerating Obama and his lies about getting out of the quagmire, then turn around and do the opposite with discussions of Vietnam. Wonder if it's about whose ox is being gored (speaking of male bovid ruminants)?

Last edited by Yeledaf; 02-22-2011 at 07:38 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top