The Military History Thread

[palo5]

Originally Posted by Mal Hombre

The Afgantsy have similar problems to Vietnam Veterans.

You're right, but not much is said about it

Same everywhere, I suppose

[Brecht]

Well, I guess upcoming generations never learn the lessions just like ours. Before you decide to join a war you know nothing about, ask yourself if it's worth it leaving your family, your (pregnant) girlfriend and your friends in order to slaughter people who did you no harm 10.000 miles abroad. It's always working class kids who die in wars that are not theirs. Look at that warmonger Mitt Romney who has 5 sons (all grown men) and who never served in the military. The primal drive behind any modern war are economic interests of elites who fuel people with jingoism. And if you manage to survive, you come back and are left on your own.

[mrcat]

I saw some footage not long ago, these Russian soldiers being beheaded by chechen rebels in Dagestan. I don't want to get into the politics of the issue but it was the most brutal, horrific film I have seen. I wish I had not seen it. curiosity got the better of me I suppose. it has changed me. I feel more aware of what is happening around us. 911 was the turning point for me. we are so lucky, when you see the dreadful horrors going on in some parts of the world, it makes me so angry and frustrated. I don't take thing's for granted anymore.

[bombermouse]

Originally Posted by mrcat

I saw some footage not long ago, these Russian soldiers being beheaded by chechen rebels in Dagestan. I don't want to get into the politics of the issue but it was the most brutal, horrific film I have seen. I wish I had not seen it. curiosity got the better of me I suppose. it has changed me. I feel more aware of what is happening around us. 911 was the turning point for me. we are so lucky, when you see the dreadful horrors going on in some parts of the world, it makes me so angry and frustrated. I don't take thing's for granted anymore.

Things are ever so. Politicians make bad decisions, send young, innocent men men to enforce those decisions and the young men pay a terrible price.

[mizlaplan]

Originally Posted by Norbert84

Well, I guess upcoming generations never learn the lessions just like ours. Before you decide to join a war you know nothing about, ask yourself if it's worth it leaving your family, your (pregnant) girlfriend and your friends in order to slaughter people who did you no harm 10.000 miles abroad. It's always working class kids who die in wars that are not theirs. Look at that warmonger Mitt Romney who has 5 sons (all grown men) and who never served in the military. The primal drive behind any modern war are economic interests of elites who fuel people with jingoism. And if you manage to survive, you come back and are left on your own.

5 sons?
That's not environmentally sustainable.
War is usually about the have-nots wanting stuff they haven't got.
Here's food for thought. Analysts are saying that the "Arab Spring" unrest/uprising was probably caused by food price hikes caused by a bad Russian grain harvest.
Now we have projected food price hikes caused by drought in the US.
Where's the next flashpoint?
Don't look at me for answers.
I'm in the majority, I don't have any.
I'm resigned to watching Nature cull the herd.

[blueballsdc]

I had posted this in the Worst US President thread:

Originally Posted by blueballsdc

Maximum US troop strength (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, Coast Guard) in Vietnam was in 1968 at 536,100. Of course this doesn't include all the allied troops (ANZACs, Korea, etc...) which added up to about 100,000 or the South Vietnamese army which was about 800,000. Not all of the US troops saw combat. Only about 40% saw combat or were in combat situations (coming under fire). All total some 3.5 million saw service in the whole SE Asia theatre during the period. This includes Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, etc...
When you consider that there were about 10 million active duty service members during the whole Vietnam era the numbers become even more staggering. At the time of Kennedy's death (by whatever person or persons) there were only 163,000 troops in Vietnam. It steadily grew until 1968 and then dropped after that.

and a couple of people had asked me for my sources. I thought it would be best to answer here (nice new thread btw Palo).

My info comes from a number of history books that I have but the information can also be found online here:
http://www.americanwarlibrary.com/vietnam/vwatl.htm
http://www.mrfa.org/vnstats.htm

Both of which get their info from the DOD. They are fairly reputable. From one DOD document I saw, technically, US forces peaked in one week in January of 1969 when we had some 549,000 troops in country. However that includes several thousand that were transitioning out of the country. So I tend to use the other numbers as I don't consider troops that have been disarmed and sitting at a base well outside of the combat zones waiting for a plane or boat back home as being involved. Of course it is always difficult to determine exact numbers as we could argue all day and night about who was involved. (Do pilots flying from carriers in the South China Sea count? How about B-52s that launched from another country?)

I have a great interest in the Vietnam War as I have a couple of cousins whose names are on the wall in DC. Also my father, both his brothers, one of his sisters, and her husband all served in and around Vietnam. Funny how nobody had any problems sending them there despite all being married and having children. I guess we didn't have the right connections. Either that or we actually believe in serving our country (or we are all mighty stupid).

[neo_addict]

That revolt of the Ciompi, now that was really something, wasn't it? lol

[mizlaplan]

Originally Posted by neo_addict

That revolt of the Ciompi, now that was really something, wasn't it? lol

Please stop.
Some of us have brain cells we want to exercise.
Cut and paste?
Elevating "people" to a status they don't understand or deserve.

[9876543210]

blueballsdc,

Originally Posted by blueballsdc

Both of which get their info from the DOD. They are fairly reputable.

I think the keyword here is "fairly". DOD reputable? That could easily be argued.

However that includes several thousand that were transitioning out of the country. So I tend to use the other numbers as I don't consider troops that have been disarmed and sitting at a base well outside of the combat zones waiting for a plane or boat back home as being involved.

Having known quite a few people who were in Viet Nam I think they would say that there were really no areas in the country that were completely safe. Not even the airport in Saigon which was mortared quite often. So you never knew where the "combat zone" really was. You could be sitting in downtown Saigon at noon having a coffee and, all of a sudden, the restauraunt across the street blew up. That is the nature of insurgencies.

Of course it is always difficult to determine exact numbers as we could argue all day and night about who was involved. (Do pilots flying from carriers in the South China Sea count? How about B-52s that launched from another country?)

Of course they should be counted. Pilots were flying all kinds of missions all over N and S Viet Nam. The carriers they were based on wouldn't have been there if there wasn't a war. Of course you now have to count all the people on the boats protecting the carrier.

And the b-52's? Certainly they and their support crews have to be counted. Later on in the war the N. Vietnamese were given missiles which could knock them out of the air. So there were a lot of pilots and crews that spent time in the "Hanoi Hilton".

I have a great interest in the Vietnam War as I have a couple of cousins whose names are on the wall in DC. Also my father, both his brothers, one of his sisters, and her husband all served in and around Vietnam. Funny how nobody had any problems sending them there despite all being married and having children.

I'm glad to hear that some of the younger generations do have an interest in this subject because it was an important time in American history. The population was just as divided as today (maybe more-so) but the difference was that people then were more willing to stand up to authority. People went to jail or died for their beliefs then. You don't seem much of that today.

I guess we didn't have the right connections. Either that or we actually believe in serving our country (or we are all mighty stupid).

Well, knowing nothing about your family my guess is that they probably didn't have the connections. Everybody knew back then that if you were a connected family and your kid was drafted that you sent them to the Air National Guard. That was no secret.

I was lucky and had a 300+ draft number. So I had few worries. But sub 100 and you either volunteered, were drafted, left the country or were well connected. I'd really like to know GWB's draft number. That would tell alot.

Stupid? No. Just didn't have a lot of options. Viet Nam wasn't WW II. There was very little honor there.

[Puhbear69]

Originally Posted by palo5

Comments, anecdotes, facts about Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, elsewhere?

Here is a place to post them, VEF-friends

I really don't know where to start and where to end at this topic.

1941? 1955? 1961? 1969(1980)? 1973 ? 1979? ...ect, ect, ect.