MHO Home   Forum Home   Help   Register   Login
 
 
Welcome to MilitaryHistoryOnline.com.
You are not signed in.
The current time is: 11/19/2017 5:26:30 AM
 (1946-1999) Other 20th Century Battles
AuthorMessage
BWilson
, Posts: 3444
50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 9/30/2017 5:19:08 AM
Photo: Stars and Stripes


 Looks like an 8-inch SP howitzer in the background. Monsoon Season, 1967.

Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/12/2017 1:54:33 PM
BWilsin,

Part of McNamara's Line. The camps with names, Con Thein the Rockpile, Camp Carroll, get all the press but the majority of Marine artillery support camps had letter and number designations like E-8 and consisted of one or two batteries and a squad or platoon of infantry. A friend who did two tours as a Jr Marine officer in one of those E Camps said it truly was "life in a bullseye" and one of the most idiot ideas he's ever seen.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 5517
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/12/2017 4:50:13 PM
John and Bill,

The documentary film by Ken Burns, The Vietnam War, did a good job of explaining how these outposts were not only ineffective but dangerous places to be.

The photo that BW included was used in the film and I remember thinking of just how forlorn and miserable that soldier looked.

I enjoyed the Burns production immensely. It explained a lot of things that I didn't understand about the war and brought back a lot of memories too.

Cheers,

George

BWilson
, Posts: 3444
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/13/2017 2:12:34 AM
John,

 The "E" camps sound like what the Army called a fire support base.

Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/13/2017 3:22:36 AM
BW,

A FSB exactly but in effect that is what all of the "camps" set up on McNamara's Line were because all except the Special Forces Camp at Lang Vei contained artillery positions.

Have you read the book "Con Thein?"
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


BWilson
, Posts: 3444
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/13/2017 3:35:46 AM
John,

 I have not.

Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/13/2017 10:30:41 AM
BW,

Translated it means "Hill of Angels" and its story goes back to the beginnings of French colonization. Good book worth the read.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/13/2017 10:35:03 AM
George without starting a major discussion I was disappointed with what I watched of the Burns show but then I feel the same about most historical based TV.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 5517
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/13/2017 11:52:05 AM
John R., I don't mind if you tell me what bothered you about it.

It was quick hit history but if any was incorrect, we should know.

My overall impression was that US Marines and Army were not well served by their government and they suffered for it.


Cheers,

George

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/13/2017 11:56:37 AM
BW,

I'm reading the relatively new "Hue 1968" and for like the third or fourth book in a row that I've read on Vietnam I've come across reference to a reporter making a point that to defend or liberate we, the US and/or the ARVN, are destroying property and how crazy or hypocritical that is. The thing is couldn't the same have been said of the hundreds of villages, towns and cities in WWII but the press didn't make it a point of contention and dissent? Hasn't that been a part of war basically throughout history? Plus why no real blame on the attackers of the villages, towns and cities as a major cause of the destruction? I mean in the spring of 75 they were still finding some of the mass graves from the NVA/VC occupation of Hue in 68 but that was a blip on the radar of US media. Over 5,000 men, women and children executed with very little press coverage but we are the barbarians for destroying property?
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/13/2017 12:06:57 PM
George maybe that isn't the whole story. To me what I watched lacked balance. And with respect no matter the strategy or tactics the servicemen suffer, suffering is the major product of war.

Let me ask you a question is a strategy of attrition working or failing when the other side starts drafting 13 and 14 year olds?
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


BWilson
, Posts: 3444
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/13/2017 12:14:28 PM
John,

 The press coverage was a mixed bag. Yes, their style of reporting in RVN went very far toward highlighting how disconnected some of the Washington hierarchy was re: the situation on the ground. Less noted is that the efforts of the reporters were also a power play that culminated in the Watergate scandal. All that may be in the realm of politics (although not what I would call "politics as usual"), but by taking the positions they did on the topics you mention, they "taught" DoD that in subsequent wars, the press would be much more tightly controlled.

 My take is that the effects of the war and the communist victory were, 1- terrible for the people of the RVN who had not actively collaborated with the VC or other communist cadres; and 2- far reaching for the USA. And IMO, neither of these outcomes have been well examined by journalists or those who produce history shows for television. Just as an example of (2), the cessation of conscription in the USA was hailed as a "victory of the people", but in truth, this turn of events led to more poor people serving in the most dangerous positions in the military. It was a "victory" only for those who could afford, by virtue of their economic status, to go to university and not have to be concerned with a call from the government for military service. DoD's response was to make military service more financially rewarding, and thus, many of the enlisted personnel in the combat arms are from the lower economic strata of society. That is a piss-poor sharing of a dangerous burden IMO. And that doesn't even consider that, by making the military completely volunteer-manned, national leadership feels more comfortable with putting our military in harm's way for decades on end without a declaration of war. Deployment policies such as those we see today would not have been tolerated with a conscripted force (again IMO). Again, far too little public discussion of what went on and what the consequences have been.

Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/13/2017 12:50:28 PM
BW,

I've wondered, even more-so recently, who was more disconnected with the situation on the ground the reporters or the Washington hierarchy?

Just wondering but do you think "Tailgunner Joe" McCarrthy and his witch hunt had anything to do with the media's attitude shift? Or was it Korea?

It wasn't just the RVN but Cambodia and Laos because the Kmer Rouge and Pathet Lao were creations of the Viet Minh and patrons of the NVA. Plus I have to add that many of the non communist members of the NLF ended up fleeing or in the camps or both.

A point I hadn't really considered about the draft.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


BWilson
, Posts: 3444
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/13/2017 1:09:06 PM
Just wondering but do you think "Tailgunner Joe" McCarrthy and his witch hunt had anything to do with the media's attitude shift? Or was it Korea?

John,

 This is a very good question. I won't pretend to an authoritative reply, but will make a guess that some of the shift may have been rooted in technology: television.

 Was this the beginning of the transformation of journalists from being reporters to being entertainers ? Certainly, Cronkite could deliver the news, but he was also a media celebrity, and I believe the supporting technology of TV played a significant role in that. Trying to depict the brutality of war via a radio broadcast would have been a harder sell than the impact of dramatic imagery delivered right into the public's living rooms.

Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/13/2017 2:32:09 PM
BW,

Funny that you bring up Cronkite as I just finished reading about a dinner he hosted in the Caravele(sp?) Hotel on one pf his last nights in Vietnam investigating Tet. It was for all the CBS reporters in Vietnam and was also a open discussion of their views on the war that devolved into a very heated argument between two of them one for and one against. Seems the man on the anti-war side based his argument as much on the fact that he hated the other guys guts as much or more than he was against the war and admitted so long after Cronkite made his famous broadcast and after Cronkite said that discussion made his mind up.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


BWilson
, Posts: 3444
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/14/2017 2:08:22 AM
John,

 Well, they're humans. The glitz and glam that made 20th century (and beyond) celebrities look quasi-royal has very successfully distracted the public from recalling the celebs (of any kind) are as flawed and opinionated as "regular people". Too much of their opining is taken as ground truth without any serious consideration of what they're saying, and more importantly, what their qualifications are to act as seeming experts on any given topic. And that goes for celebrity journalists in spades.

Cheers,

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 5517
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/14/2017 6:56:23 AM
Was Vietnam the first war in which journalists were not propagandists for the government or the military?

Look at WW2. Journalists were restricted as to what they could say. Photos and film were screened before release.

Our military had its own film unit and they produced some outstanding stuff. But it was not designed to give succor to the enemy or to create morale problems at home.

Rather the films and photos were designed to raise the spirits of the people at home and the fighting soldiers.

The Vietnam coverage brought the horrors of war into our living rooms and as the years went by, the photojournalists and the TV people did not hold back. They reported on the negative attitudes of some of the troops and of the atrocities committed.

Cheers,

George

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/14/2017 11:40:53 AM
George the Tarawa short film done by the Marine Corps showed all the horrors of war.

I would also say that the "atrocities committed" didn't get balanced coverage. The Hue massacre gets little press even as more and more mass graves are found and even NVA and Front witness's admit they saw babies killed by smashing their skulls against walls. We still don't know exactly how many were murdered. But My Lai is front page news and lead TV news for weeks if not months. Or Loan's picture executing a single VC prisoner in the streets of Saigon is universally condemned but the context of that prisoners actions in the prior hours is never given. Like the fact that he executed a ARVN Col and his whole family by cutting off heads, or had just been using women and children as human shields to try and avoid capture or that he was the commander of a execution squad and had personally murdered hundreds of military, governmental and innocent civilians.

Edit No answer to the question I asked?
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/14/2017 11:49:03 AM
BW,

I hear what your saying and agree. Also I wasn't trying to say that was the only thing that influenced his opinion but that it was the point that made up his mind. Abrams had a lot to do with it also as the two were friends going back to WWII and Abrams' and Westy's opinions differed greatly on Tet. It was taken as the "party line" vs the unvarnished truth when the actuality was someplace in the middle.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 5517
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/14/2017 11:52:32 AM
John the difference is clear to me. America and Americans hold themselves to higher standards of behaviour.

I recall the shock expressed in the US when the My Lai murders were exposed.

It was, "our boys did what?"

Same with the little naked girl running away from a napalm strike.

It doesn't matter if the other guys are doing it. These were Americans who did these things.

For a war weary nation, hell, a war weary world, it was tough to watch the realities of war.


But to my point, I don't think that that sort of thing was reported in WW2. Atrocities by the other guys, for sure, but did the Tarawa Marine film show any atrocities committed by US Marines?

Cheers,

George

BWilson
, Posts: 3444
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/14/2017 11:57:24 AM
John,

 Coming back to the topic of "artillery bases", I read the same concept (more or less) is being used in Afghanistan. I don't recall reading of set-ups like this World War II. I suppose the very existence of such bases is a give-away that the countryside is hostile.

Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/14/2017 12:49:45 PM
George I wasn't asking you the difference I was pointing out the lack of balance in reporting the facts. That how and how much a fact/event is reported matters in how it is perceived. I wasn't saying they did it so we can too.

As for the little girl running from the napalm strike what about all the non-German European cities, towns and villages bombed by air or artillery in WWII? Do you think US citizens stupid or naive enough to not know civilians were killed in each and every one of them? Why wasn't it tough for the North Vietnamese or their Russian, Chinese and Eastern Bloc backers to watch? If the North Vietnamese weren't attacking just like the Germans and Japanese did in WWII it wouldn't have been happening.

And I'm still waiting for you to answer one simple question.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/14/2017 1:05:33 PM
BW,

I don't know that I agree that similar wasn't used in WWII. In Europe each division had its organic artillery set up behind its line supporting it and each regiment, bat and company had its organic artillery supporting its operations plus there was artillery attached to corps and army and in the Pacific you had Naval gunfire both before and after the invading units organic artillery could be landed. The FSB concept is so no unit conduct operations without supporting artillery so the basic idea is the same just implementing it in a different manner.

Is the entire countryside hostile or is the enemy mobile and ruthless against the civilian population? We don't have enough troops to occupy all territory or have a contiuos line anywhere so what other concept is there?
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


BWilson
, Posts: 3444
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/14/2017 2:11:19 PM
Is the entire countryside hostile or is the enemy mobile and ruthless against the civilian population? We don't have enough troops to occupy all territory or have a contiuos line anywhere so what other concept is there?

John,

 Hmm, I think the situation was different in the Second World War. For example, in Europe. Artillery support was provided in lands that were liberated from Nazi occupation (and therefore friendly), or, at worst, in conquered German territory (which was more or less orderly with the exception of active Werwulf organizations like that around Aachen.) The situations in the RVN and Afghanistan are different, because there were/are organized cadres in the countryside capable of initiating infantry assaults pretty much anywhere: thus, the need for "firebases" or "E-bases".

Cheers,

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 5517
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/14/2017 3:30:27 PM

Quote:
And I'm still waiting for you to answer one simple question.


Which question was that John? The one on McCarthyism?

Cheers,

George

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/14/2017 4:52:39 PM
BW,

That wasn't really a comparison to WWII, the question of if the entire countryside was hostile. In Vietnam you did have villages and areas friendly and loyal to the South Vietnamese but that doesn't mean the VC or NVA wouldn't operate there. In many ways that would have been where they wanted to operate most but not have their base areas. I guess my point was that although the situation is different the US doctrine of overwhelming firepower is still a guiding principle and security blanket. We aren't recreating the wheel just tweeking the design.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/14/2017 4:54:25 PM
George at copy and paste for you.

George maybe that isn't the whole story. To me what I watched lacked balance. And with respect no matter the strategy or tactics the servicemen suffer, suffering is the major product of war.

Let me ask you a question is a strategy of attrition working or failing when the other side starts drafting 13 and 14 year olds?
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 5517
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/14/2017 8:17:06 PM
Well I would say that it worked because the Vietnamese have their own country now. It isn't a democracy in our image but they are independent.

Do I approve of child soldiers? Of course not.

And I also don't feel that we have any business in telling other countries how to live or trying to change their political structure and leadership because it suits our interests.

And I believe that the Vietnamese were tired of being dominated by imperialist nations. When you think about it, they had been fighting foreign invaders for decades.

They wanted the French out and succeeded in that goal.

And in the end, the US left and they were free to pursue their own goals but not without much internal strife as South Vietnamese people were "reeducated" or killed or imprisoned.

And thousands tried to leave to avoid both a communist government and the retribution by the new regime. We all know the story of the boat people.



John, I know that you want to paint the north Vietnamese as evil. I am aware of the bad things that they did.

But they were fighting a civil war in the end and the South Vietnamese government was corrupt and propped up by the US.

This was a horrific war and I am just sorry that so many young Americans and a few of my own people lost their lives in a misguided war.

Cheers,

George


BWilson
, Posts: 3444
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/15/2017 3:00:42 AM
But they were fighting a civil war in the end and the South Vietnamese government was corrupt and propped up by the US.

This was a horrific war and I am just sorry that so many young Americans and a few of my own people lost their lives in a misguided war.


 Too pat, George. The same thing could have been said about the Korean War and the ROK government at the time. Given time, and PEACE, the ROK government significantly evolved. The RVN government never had that opportunity.

 And your comment,


Quote:
and propped up by the US


ignores the massive support provided Hanoi by the PRC and the USSR. "Civil War" ... sort of, but handsomely supported by major communist powers. So let us frame the situation more accurately: Hanoi was able to destroy the RVN, but only with the aforementioned massive support: weapons, other equipment, training, etc.; therefore it is much more accurate to state it was a proxy war between the large communist powers and the USA as well as a handful of allied nations. Without the support of external powers, a genuine north-south civil war may have lasted much longer without any particularly decisive result. And when Hanoi won, it was because they still had that massive external support while the RVN had been practically abandoned by the USA as a political measure to placate a very privileged upper-middle-class youth at home.

Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 5517
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/15/2017 7:55:50 AM
BW, when I think on it, the overarching issue is whether nations have the right to interfere in the internal politics of another nation.

I understand the fear of communism. We were convinced at one time that this failed ideology was going to take over the world and that its proponents, the USSR and the Chinese were leading the charge.

A paranoia surrounded that whole anti-communist era and it led to interference in many nations that the US, bolstered by allies, considered to be within its sphere of influence.

Should we accept that the fall of Vietnam to the communists was just one of the dominos falling?

After all, dominos did not continue to fall but the US continued to interfere in the affairs of many nations to encourage regime change. Some of the characters who received US support in Central and South America were pretty sketchy but they agreed to oppose the communists so they received support.

Was the fear of an international communist movement in the Stalinist mold as much of a threat as we once thought?

I am not so sure that Papa Joe and the Chinese were so much interested in exporting communism as they were in creating a level of security around their countries.

So should the US have been in Vietnam for as long as it was? It's a serious question for me and I must say that the Burns film seemed to indicate that many of the troops on the ground especially in the later years, felt that they were hated not just by the north but by the civilians in the south.




Cheers,

George

BWilson
, Posts: 3444
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/15/2017 8:05:23 AM
George,

 How do you feel about Canada "propping up" Seoul during the "Korean civil war" ? Same scenario, just less guerilla warfare on the part of the communists.

Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

BWilson
, Posts: 3444
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/15/2017 8:21:17 AM

Quote:
BW,

That wasn't really a comparison to WWII, the question of if the entire countryside was hostile. In Vietnam you did have villages and areas friendly and loyal to the South Vietnamese but that doesn't mean the VC or NVA wouldn't operate there. In many ways that would have been where they wanted to operate most but not have their base areas. I guess my point was that although the situation is different the US doctrine of overwhelming firepower is still a guiding principle and security blanket. We aren't recreating the wheel just tweeking the design.
--John R. Price


John,

 I understand what you're writing. I was only pointing out that in countries like France, the security threats for an artillery battery in the field typically did not include attack by locals who were guerillas fighting for the Germans. It seems there has to be, with this "artillery base" concept, a cost somewhere, in terms of increased operational friction, or frittering away of infantry troops to provide a defensive screen for the artillerymen ... what do you think?

Cheers,

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 5517
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/15/2017 9:29:43 AM

Quote:
George,

 How do you feel about Canada "propping up" Seoul during the "Korean civil war" ? Same scenario, just less guerilla warfare on the part of the communists.

Cheers

BW
--BWilson


It is clear that the intervention primarily by the US and assisted by allies including Canada was effective in creating a dynamic free state to the south.

Difficult not to be proud of that. It worked. Canadian troops were praised for their work in some key battles.

But there are a lot of troubled places in the world and they don't receive assistance or they receive assistance that makes things worse.

The question then is why do we go into some places and not to others. I am cynical about these interventions because I don't believe that we intervene for altruistic reasons, all the time.

The US didn't go into Korea for any love of the Koreans did they? There was great fear of communist expansion.

Canada didn't send troops to Korea because they loved Koreans either. There was fear of communism here too though the reaction to the word was never as virulent as in the US.

But if communism had to be fought and if our strongest ally wanted that support and if the UN, an institution that Canada pushed for and helped to broker the creation, felt that it was necessary to stop the communists, then it was time to send troops.

These are political decisions, foreign policy decisions and the military sometimes is asked to be the instrument to effect foreign policy.




BWilson
, Posts: 3444
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/15/2017 9:41:03 AM
George,

 Yeah. So 15 years later, UN politics had changed (and the USSR would have made damned sure there would be a security council veto on any joint action in the RVN anyway), but the situation was essentially the same: an armed assault by a communist country in a situation involving people of essentially the same ethnicity. So the USA went in because, once again, we didn't want to see communism rewarded by launching aggressive wars. Canada sat it out -- whatever. But if you cannot see those two situations have more similarities than not, you're not looking very hard. Frankly, if I were a North Korean, my question to you would be what the Hell were Canadians doing in northeast Asia for three years in the 1950s? All of the "well ... the UN ... we felt obligations etc." doesn't do much to distinguish that intervention from that of the USA in the RVN. You guys were just lucky enough you got to fight an overwhelmingly conventional war that didn't involve a lot of guerilla warfare.

Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 5517
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/15/2017 11:10:30 AM
From time to time, Canada does make foreign policy decisions that piss the US off. I look forward to getting back to the days when we had a spine.

Avoiding the 1st Iraq war put us on the bad books. Going to Afghanistan made the US happy.

It is true that our government decided not to send combat troops to Vietnam It is debatable whether we could have sent any assets of significance at that period.

But Canada was involved in the Vietnam conflict both as part of the UN and as a non so secret supporter of the US.

Canada was a member of the International Control Commission that oversaw the separation of Vietnam into two states, north and south, with the hope that eventually elections would lead to a united country. That would be 1954 and the Paris Peace Accords.

In those days Canada often pursued an independent foreign policy and often acted as an honest broker. Our diplomats were trying to stop France and the US from ramping things up in Vietnam. Canada did not view the conflict as anything more than regional and not a concern for us.

Canada did lay down conditions if it was going to send troops.

It was insistent that this be a UN operation. We had a great belief in the institution of the UN in those days. That is why the police action in Korea could be justified and the Vietnam operations, could not.

As well, Canada wanted assurances that they were welcome in the region by other Asian countries. There was anti-imperialist sentiment in the country and an awareness that Asian countries were fed up with incursions by European people or their descendants.

And any intervention had to include civilian assistance in the form of humanitarian aid.

With no guarantees to those and other demands, Canada opted out.


You should know that Canada was providing military assistance to the Americans including allowing them to practice carpet bombing techniques at our military bases in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Agent Orange was tested in New Brunswick and too many of our soldiers wound up with the same afflictions that US soldiers and Vietnamese did because of the 2-4 5T.

Officially neutral, the Canadians were part of the International Control Commission until 1973. Those troops were in country and frustrated by the politics of it all.

All that while, the government was assisting the US in a clandestine manner.

Top secret ICC information was passed to the US by Canadians.

Whenever the US or the south complained of human rights violations, the Canadians on the ICC always took the side of the Americans.

Canada frequently stopped humanitarian aid to the north in response to human rights violations by the north.

The Pentagon Papers indicated the depth of involvement of this neutral nation.

As well, we were making products for the US military. $2.5 billion in napalm, ammunition and other explosives. $10 billion in food, clothing and raw materials assisted the war effort. I see the hypocrisy here BTW.

I know that the subject of the Vietnam war is contentious. The US lost close to 60,000 people in the conflict. And I am always quick to praise the soldier who only does the bidding of his government.



But I remember the protests, both here and in the US. Many people had no idea of why those men and women had to be there.

They did not think that it was worth the sacrifices being made.

Cheers,

George

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/15/2017 11:52:46 AM
BW,

I agree there is both operational friction and a frittering away of infantry but its either that or a change in doctrine away from overwhelming firepower. Isn't it a "catch-22" in that if we drop the artillery screen we risk a higher casualty rate in the infantry which isn't going to play well with political will at home? Or is it possible to have a whole army of trained up to spec ops standards?
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/15/2017 12:00:48 PM
George it wasn't the ARVN drafting 13 and 14 year olds in was the NVA.

I don't want to paint anybody as evil I let the actions tell the story and if you would just look at the actions of the Viet Minh when they took over the North after the Paris Accords as reported by the Canadian representatives on the control committee you might agree.

But all this is why I didn't want to start this discussion with you, this and the thing you said to end the last which was something like you might be the most well read on the subject but that really doesn't matter your not changing my mind.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 5517
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/15/2017 12:28:06 PM

Quote:
George it wasn't the ARVN drafting 13 and 14 year olds in was the NVA.


Yes, I know that John. The NVA sustained huge losses to the US and ARVN forces even if they engaged in irregular warfare.

When they chose to engage in major attacks in several places at once, they took heavy casualties.

And yet they still continued to fight.

I don't believe that that large army could have been maintained had there not been a will to continue the fight.

Child soldiers? Never but I find it curious that the north did not throw in the towel.

The Burns movie indicated that Vietnamese people, north and south, hated war as much as the Americans. After all, no matter which political side they supported, it was their country that was the battle ground.


Quote:
I don't want to paint anybody as evil I let the actions tell the story and if you would just look at the actions of the Viet Minh when they took over the North after the Paris Accords as reported by the Canadian representatives on the control committee you might agree.


I said that the Canadians on the ICC always supported the US and South Vietnamese reports of atrocities by the north.

Canadians have learned of the complicity of their government in the support of this war.


Quote:
But all this is why I didn't want to start this discussion with you, this and the thing you said to end the last which was something like you might be the most well read on the subject but that really doesn't matter your not changing my mind.


Okay John. I am perplexed. I don't really know what you are talking about right now.

Nor do I know what sort of position you have taken and which views you will not change.

kp
Belle Vernon, PA, USA
Posts: 7
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/15/2017 1:36:07 PM

Quote:
John the difference is clear to me. America and Americans hold themselves to higher standards of behaviour.

I recall the shock expressed in the US when the My Lai murders were exposed.

It was, "our boys did what?"

Same with the little naked girl running away from a napalm strike.

It doesn't matter if the other guys are doing it. These were Americans who did these things.

For a war weary nation, hell, a war weary world, it was tough to watch the realities of war.


But to my point, I don't think that that sort of thing was reported in WW2. Atrocities by the other guys, for sure, but did the Tarawa Marine film show any atrocities committed by US Marines?

Cheers,

George
--George

---------------
With respect,
KP

kp
Belle Vernon, PA, USA
Posts: 7
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/15/2017 1:41:04 PM
"Same with the little naked girl running away from a napalm strike."
I recently discovered (nearly 50 years later) that the aircraft delivering the napalm was a South Vietnamese Skyraider, not a US aircraft.
---------------
With respect,
KP

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/15/2017 2:04:44 PM
In our last discussion on Vietnam you said that while I might be the most well read person on the forum on this war it wasn't going to change your views because it was US cities that was protesting the war.

Like North Vietnamese civilians would be allowed to protest or their press would have been allowed to report it if some had tried.

Like the people of the North had any choice in the choice to continue the war. "Born in the North to die in the South," that was the slogan of the draftee to the NVA,

I remember in a discussion on Hitler and Germany in the past you ask why the world didn't know and didn't act to stop the persecution of the Jews in the 30's but you call Canadians "complicit" in supporting the US from stopping what the NVA did in Vietnam? Do you understand what Ho's program against the Montenyards was in the 50's?
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 5517
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/15/2017 2:48:38 PM
John, surely you cannot compare the military might of Ho Chi Minh to that of Hitler and Nazi Germany.

As well, Germany was about to upset the balance of power in Europe.

The world did not go to war against the Nazi regime to defend the Jews or any of the others on Hitler's hit list.

You may be too close to this war John, to attempt an objective analysis. I understand that.

But your rationale for the US continuation of this war and entry into cannot be based on your view of Ho or of the excesses of his regime.

The US didn't go in there to stop that.

The US didn't provide the French with huge amounts of financial support as they continued their war in Indo-China, to put a stop to atrocities.

I wish you would not try to paint this war as a noble effort to stop a tyrant from committing atrocities.

We could probably come up with a short list of countries who oppress minorities within their borders but I don't see the US or anyone else sending troops into Myanmar for example, to protect the Rohingya minority from the ethnic cleansing that is going on.

And why? Because Myanmar's future and the future of the Rohingya are not that important to our countries. There are other more pressing interests for our foreign affairs departments to deal with.

Vietnam happened during an era when it was considered critical to stop the spread of communism.

But if you care for an objective and unemotional analysis of whether that was necessary given developments in the USSR and in China, after the death of Stalin, then I would like to hear your views.

Re: the Montagnard. These tribes who speak different languages or dialects have been in conflict with the Vietnamese majority for a long time.
The resentment of the Dega tribes goes back a long way.
They were different and therefore a target. Different culture, different language, different views and at times anti-Vietnamese.
Plus many were converted to Christianity.
But they were also staunch and respected allies of the US special forces who trained them.
So they were targeted by the north.

The US didn't enter the fray to protect the Montagnard either.

Cheers,

George

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 5517
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/15/2017 4:40:48 PM

Quote:
"Same with the little naked girl running away from a napalm strike."
I recently discovered (nearly 50 years later) that the aircraft delivering the napalm was a South Vietnamese Skyraider, not a US aircraft.
--kp


Good to know kp. The narrative that I read said that the strike was ordered by the US commander. It doesn't make much difference really.

The South Vietnamese pilot apparently misidentified them ARVN soldier and civilians as the enemy.

But I don't think that that mattered to the people back home who were shocked to see little kids hurt in war and by our side.

The picture was published at a very stressful time of the war, 1972. Anti-war sentiment was at a fever pitch.

I am sure that intellectually, they knew that civilians get killed in war, but the sight of this little, naked kid running from the fire and saying, "too hot, too hot" was shocking to non-combattants.

Nixon on the other hand, disputed the authenticity of the photo or so I have read.

The little girl was treated in hospital in Saigon. Later in life she met the people who saved her and the international group of surgeons who provided specialized treatment later in life.

The little girl, Phan Ti Kim Phuc, didn't get out of Vietnam until she was allowed to go to Cuba to study. There she met her fiancé and together they flew to the USSR for a honeymoon. That was 1986.

The plane stopped at Gander, Newfoundland and the pair requested asylum in Canada. It was granted.

She has had a good life here and had a couple of kids. She lives not too far from Toronto in a town called Ajax and she took out Canadian citizenship in 1996. I'm glad that she lived and made it here.



EDIT:
The last news report that I read about her was that she had attended a special laser clinic in Florida in 2015 to help clean up scar tissue.

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/15/2017 11:09:24 PM
George it isn't the world I'm talking about its you and your views.

You stated that the world should have know what was happening to the Jews in Germany in the 30's and should have done something to stop it in a discussion over "The Night of Broken Glass" or "Krystal Nact(sp? its 30 year plus since high school German)" and the history of pograms against the Jews in Europe goes back a long way also.

Plus with respect I said what Ho was doing to the Montagnard's in the 50's in North Vietnam after the Paris Accords before they became "staunch and respected allies of US Special Forces." It was genocide only different than the Nazi version in execution. A hell of a lot of Vietnamese also converted to Christianity and they were and some ways still are persecuted.

What was one of the reason for stopping the spread of communism. Stalin's and Mao's brutality had absolutely no part right? And what happened in Cambodia was in no way related to the desire to spread communism right?

How about the stamp down on the Prauge Spring, building the Berlin Wall, the blockade of Berlin, the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Cultural Revolution in China to name a few that happened after the death of Stalin. Yep absolutely no reason to fear communism after the death of Stalin, Trump is worse right?

Edit Oh how could I forget the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan after Stalin's death.


---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/15/2017 11:13:04 PM
George why did she need to request asylum in Canada according to you Vietnam and its people were better off under the communist North that the colonialist US and their puppets?
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


BWilson
, Posts: 3444
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/16/2017 1:05:57 AM
The NVA sustained huge losses to the US and ARVN forces even if they engaged in irregular warfare.

George,

 You're wrong. NVA wasn't about "irregular warfare". You have them confused with the Viet Cong.

Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

BWilson
, Posts: 3444
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/16/2017 3:44:59 AM

Quote:
BW,

I agree there is both operational friction and a frittering away of infantry but its either that or a change in doctrine away from overwhelming firepower. Isn't it a "catch-22" in that if we drop the artillery screen we risk a higher casualty rate in the infantry which isn't going to play well with political will at home? Or is it possible to have a whole army of trained up to spec ops standards?
--John R. Price


John,

 Given the nature of recent battlefields, I think you are correct that artillery needs the security troops. I'm trying to think of previous wars in which this would have been the case, but I can't ... going back in time to the period of irregular warfare in the U.S. Army prior to Vietnam, one reaches, I believe, the Indian Wars (or the campaigns in the Philippines), and I think the artillery was in any case close to the infantry in those days. Put differently, the separation of the artillery from the infantry came about as a result of being able to fire at targets the artillery couldn't see -- World War I or thereabouts. Of course, detailing infantry to other duties is nothing new. Quite a few infantry battalions from many nations were detailed to secure the LoC in NW Europe in 1944-45.

Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 5517
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/16/2017 6:34:03 AM

Quote:
The NVA sustained huge losses to the US and ARVN forces even if they engaged in irregular warfare.

George,

 You're wrong. NVA wasn't about "irregular warfare". You have them confused with the Viet Cong.

Cheers

BW


BW I am aware that the NVA was the army of North Vietnam and was well supplied by the Chinese and I think the USSR.

But I thought that part of their strategy was to slowly infiltrate to the south using the Ho Chi Minh trail, and laying low and perhaps assisting the Viet Cong until such times as they were ordered to attack bases or towns in multiple locations.

So how did the NVA and the Viet Cong co-ordinate their strategy, if not their battle tactics?


Cheers,

George

BWilson
, Posts: 3444
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/16/2017 7:29:59 AM
George,

 Many of the VC actions were independent (tactically) of those of the NVA. The VC are the classic icon of the communist soldier in the war -- thought of as clad in black, rubber shoes cut out of tires, etc. But the VC, except for Tet, were practically background noise against the use of conventional forces, operating conventionally, and ultimately proving decisive. The VC was very much a problem, but more for route and area security, as well as their assaults on the government officials and other presence of the RVN authority.

 The NVA was a thoroughly regular force. The only thing "irregular" about engagements with them was they could use theoretically neutral territory to shelter in ... one of the absurdities of the war. But their tactics and operations were not irregular: they were conventional attacks using infantry and artillery. Against other Asian forces, they were generally victorious. Against American, South Korean, and Australian forces, they generally were not, and by "victorious", I mean in the sense of single battles. Of course, the entire war considered, they were victorious.

 Post-Tet, the VC was a shadow of what it had been, and those were the decisive years of the RVN's defeat. When Saigon fell, the VC had practically nothing to do with it -- it was NVA conventional operations that destroyed the ARVN and seized Saigon. All of the use of guerillas and chatter about "people's warfare" was nothing but softening-up for regular forces (which Hanoi well understood was the decisive arm) to effect a true invasion of the south.

 Yes, the USSR was involved as well, although not nearly as much as the PRC. Consider this quote:


Quote:
[In Laos] The following morning Quinim Pholsena, the minister of information whom Souvanna Phouma had left behind, flew to Hanoi accompanied by Phoumi Vongvichit, the chief Pathet Lao negotiator, and Lieutenant Deuane Sunnalath, Kong Le's deputy, on a mission to seek Soviet and North Vietnamese military aid, which began arriving the following day on Soviet aircraft.
[Read More]

 This was in December 1960, well before the arrival of U.S. Marines in the RVN. It is facts like these that make clear this regional conflict was anything but a simple "civil war". It was a proxy war of the communist East versus the capitalist West, mainly represented by the USA. It is facts like these that make me think the "1968 protester version of the Vietnam War" (which unfortunately has far too much acceptance) is a hugely oversimplified, and misleading, depiction of the war.

 I really don't care if one approves of what the USA did in its approximately 20 years of involvement in the southeast Asian regional war, but it would tremendously simplify discussion of the war if more of its background, geographical scope, and changing nature over time was better understood. Relying on distorted anecdote is no way to grasp any kind of history.

Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 5517
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/16/2017 8:16:52 AM
Get a grip John. You're putting words in my mouth.


Quote:
You stated that the world should have know what was happening to the Jews in Germany in the 30's and should have done something to stop it in a discussion over "The Night of Broken Glass" or "Krystal Nact(sp? its 30 year plus since high school German)" and the history of pograms against the Jews in Europe goes back a long way also.


No. I said that the world did not go to war in Europe to protect the Jews. You said yourself that pogroms against the Jews go back a long way in Russia and other European countries but the west did not intervene.

Don't forget that your country and mine refused to accept a boatload of Jews trying to escape the tyranny of Nazi Germany.

I think that you need to rethink the reasons why the British and Commonwealth went to war in 1939.

The US entered the war in full because they were attacked by the Japanese.

And again, North Vietnam was not Nazi Germany. The two regimes had very different objectives.



Quote:
Plus with respect I said what Ho was doing to the Montagnard's in the 50's in North Vietnam after the Paris Accords before they became "staunch and respected allies of US Special Forces." It was genocide only different than the Nazi version in execution. A hell of a lot of Vietnamese also converted to Christianity and they were and some ways still are persecuted.


Yes and that persecution seems to be a feature of many of the cultures in Asia. Minorities are targeted.
Please focus on the point that I was making.
The French and the US did not enter Vietnam to protect the Dega tribes.

The US and its allies, including Canada, had determined that there was a co-ordinated, world wide, communist organization that was determined to spread that ideology around the world.

Stalin, our ally, had set up a buffer zone of puppet states that separated the USSR from the western democracies and had closed the doors.

And so US foreign policy determined that it was necessary to thwart communism wherever it seemed that it was making inroads.

Remember at the Yalta Conference that Stalin had agreed to remove his troops from Indo-China and so did the US. With GB they agreed to divide the peninsula to prepare for free elections in Vietnam.

When the communists in the north of Korea attacked the south Truman sent in US troops. The UN agreed to send in troops to Korea (thanks to a USSR boycott of the UN at the time).

EDIT: As BW mentioned, even if the UN determined that an international force was needed in Vietnam, it is quite likely that the USSR would have vetoed the resolution which they could not do with Korea because they had skipped out.



John, why did the US and the west fear communism?

I mentioned before that your emotions get the better of you and so you list a litany of oppressive tactics by the USSR and China. Do you do so to prove that these were unsavoury regimes. Unnecessary. We know that. But it doesn't explain why the US went into Indo-China or more importantly why it stayed so long.

I don't recall ever denying that these repressive things happened.

But I think that it is fair to examine the reasons why the US was so anti-communist and why it spent so much political capital in raising the ire of its people against this ideology.


Quote:
What was one of the reason for stopping the spread of communism. Stalin's and Mao's brutality had absolutely no part right? And what happened in Cambodia was in no way related to the desire to spread communism right?


I am suggesting that there were other reasons why the US became so virulently anti-communist. So if you would just calm down a little, we could have a good discussion about it.

I contend that there was a clash of ideologies that spooked the west.

1. We all had elements in our cultures who, perhaps through rose coloured glasses, saw the ideology of communism to be a solution to the problems evident in our democracies. These were internal supporters of social change.
The Great Depression was a catalyst for political change and those in power feared those workers clamouring for change to a more socialist system.

2. The Russian Revolution of 1917 scared the hell out of all the western democracies and republics because the ruling class had been successfully challenged and killed off. Fear of the Soviets ensued and grew.

3. The socialists in the US may not have wanted a strict communist system but they wanted a change to the democracy that wasn't serving them well. Post war, Stalin announced that an alliance of strict communists with left leaning groups was fine because both were fighting fascism. There was a spike in membership in the US Communist Party. If communism was a step too far initially, it became more acceptable if it seemed that Stalin wasn't out to destroy other leaf leaning movements.

4. The Gouzenko Affair. Perhaps not well known in the US but in Sept. of 1945, a low level cipher clerk in the Soviet embassy, defected to Canada carrying highly classified documents. The documents proved the existence of a sophisticated Soviet spy network operating in the UK and in Canada. They had infiltrated the UK/Canada nuclear research project. They were stealing important information on nuclear bomb research.
US and British representatives came to Canada and were shocked at the boldness of the Soviets.
Canada arrested a number of British and Canadian citizens. Arrests were made in the USA and a search was on for communist spies.

The start of the "Red Scare" or "Red Menace" and indeed, the Cold War can be traced to the Gouzenko Affair.


Any positive feelings toward a former ally disappeared completely. There was anger toward the Soviets that they would dare to infiltrate the inner workings of western governments.

The response in the US, in retrospect, was over the top.

Government loyalty boards examined the beliefs and associations chosen by citizens.

Loyalty oaths were demanded. Jobs were lost because of political beliefs.

Books considered to be "leftist" were pulled off the shelves of many school and public libraries in some states.

These were repressive tactics and in a democracy. We have to acknowledge that.


My point is that the US did not send troops to these various places like Korea and Vietnam to protect minorities like the Montagnard.

With the red scare in full force, it was considered prudent to stop what appeared to be expansion by the Soviets into proxy states.

I don't think that the US sent its best into combat to protect minorities in some place that most Americans had never heard of, John.

Now whether Ho was ever going to be a leader of a Soviet or Chinese puppet state is another debate. I think that the Vietnamese are fiercely independent. They accepted aid when it suited their purpose but did not want foreign elements in control of them or their government.
Ho was an anti-colonialist, a nationalist.


So I understand why the US may have felt the need to challenge the development of communism but I reject your contention that it was the repressive and violent tactics of the Soviets that caused the US to enter Korea and Vietnam.

With the Red Scare and the acceptance of the Domino effect, I think that the US felt that if Korea fell and Vietnam fell that who knows, perhaps Japan would succumb to internal unrest and socialists in that culture could scupper US designs to eliminate militarism and install a democratic system.

Lastly, there were developments in China and the USSR in the '50's and '60's that indicate that once they felt that their borders were secure, they could look internally to avoid unrest in their own countries. Both had failed economies and both faced domestic pressure to improve the lives of their people. They could not afford to be wasting money and political capital on foreign incursions.
As well, we know that the Soviets sought some sort of detente with the US and the west. The Soviets approached the US right after Stalin's death in 1953.

It was like the old SOB had been holding back the Soviets from suggesting some sort of accommodation with the west.

Many books have been written on the missed opportunities for peace in the post-Stalin era. The Soviets aren't innocent here.

They frequently scuppered any chances of detente by stepping in whenever one of their buffer states made rumblings of the introduction of reforms.

John, you mentioned a couple. Hungary in '56. Cuba in '63. Czechoslovakia in '68.

Did we in the west do enough to seek detente and stop the ridiculous arms race that plagues us to this day?

So the Cold War continued. I often wonder whether some sort of "peaceful co-existence" could have been achieved in those days.


Anyway, I am bouncing from topic to topic.

Perhaps it is too soon for you to discuss whether the US should have been there for so long. I know that you had relations who served there John and I honour those who serve whether I agree with the the necessity to send them to every place that they are asked to go.

Cheers,

George








BWilson
, Posts: 3444
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/16/2017 8:50:22 AM
George,

 Re: VC and their capabilities. I should also mention that before the US forces became conventionally engaged, the VC forces were being used aggressively and were giving the ARVN a hard time. VC effectiveness diminished over time, particularly after they gambled big in 1968 and were largely reduced to a secondary role because of their losses.

Cheers,

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/16/2017 10:18:43 AM
BW,

But even when the artillery was direct fire and with the infantry, infantry was detailed to support/screen the artillery, at least usually. Maybe we need to find a enemy that like ourselves is willing to give our artillery a ground attack proof sanctuary to fire from. Or maybe the answer is that with the technological advances the support and logistical tail has grown taking a bigger and bigger percentage of the manpower pie. I mean pre WWI how many men did it take to support a single infantryman in the field vs how many today? Wasn't it the basic fact that of the 550,000 top strength level in Vietnam only something like a quarter were actual combat troops?
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/16/2017 11:08:01 AM
George,

Yes you did say IN THIS DISCUSSION that the world did not go to war against Germany to stop the genocide against the Jews but in a PREVIOUS DISCUSSION you asked why the world didn't know the genocide was happening and why the world didn't put a stop to it in the 30's. My first response to you was the genocide didn't start until the war started and the "Final Solution" wasn't instituted until winter of 41. So how is the world supposed to stop something that isn't happening yet. Second I reminded you that the Nazi's tried to hide the fact once it did start. Your answer was that the world should have known and done something no later than "The Night of Broken Glass." I then pointed out the world knew about Stalin's purges and did nothing and the number of Jews killed and jailed on the "Night of Broken Glass" paled in comparison.

Yes and the Allies did not enter WWII to protect the Jews but would any European Jews have survived if the Allies hadn't entered the war?

The US and its allies didn't determine that there was a communist organization determined to spread communism Lenin founded one in 1915 and the Soviet Union funded and hosted that organization from 1919 to 1943 called first Zimmerwald Left then the Communist International or Comintern for short replaced in 1947 by the Cominform or Communist Information Bureau until the death of Stalin. It didn't have to be determined it was out there for all to see.

There never were any Russian troops in Indochina at the end of WWII Korea yes and they refuse to take troops from the Northern half of Korea. Indochina isn't a peninsula Korea is. You are mixing and matching the two separate situations and separate areas.

As for your edit the only reason the Soviets didn't veto the UN resolution for Korea is they were boycotting the UN at that point in time. So you are saying that if the Soviets hadn't been boycotting and had vetoed Canada would have stayed home and you would be calling Korea a illegal and unwanted intervention by the colonial US?

Stop trying to make this personal and blame my emotions. My Mother's death is emotional it just happened. Until you stop this tact I'm through

---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/16/2017 11:12:58 AM
BW,

About the VC and their capabilities especially after Tet. I'd add that Tet made about 70% of the military arm of the VC casualties and that from that point on the majority were in fact NVA. I'd also point to the fact that the Paris Accords stipulated that all military and political members of the Viet Minh move North with him and they didn't by design. That stay behind group became the nucleus of the VC and NLF and were always under orders from Hanoi.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


BWilson
, Posts: 3444
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/16/2017 1:19:21 PM

Quote:
BW,

But even when the artillery was direct fire and with the infantry, infantry was detailed to support/screen the artillery, at least usually. Maybe we need to find a enemy that like ourselves is willing to give our artillery a ground attack proof sanctuary to fire from. Or maybe the answer is that with the technological advances the support and logistical tail has grown taking a bigger and bigger percentage of the manpower pie. I mean pre WWI how many men did it take to support a single infantryman in the field vs how many today? Wasn't it the basic fact that of the 550,000 top strength level in Vietnam only something like a quarter were actual combat troops?
--John R. Price


John,

 Broadly, one aspect of the technological advances you mention is that they have overwhelmingly been adopted by our forces, to the point that practically nobody is willing to wage conventional war with us. That has led to widespread asymmetric warfare with guerilla and terrorist attacks on our military targets that are deemed (more) vulnerable -- artillery being among that. Wow, if even a quarter of that total were combat troops, that is a lot for the modern U.S. military.

Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 5517
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/16/2017 1:58:38 PM

Quote:
Yes and the Allies did not enter WWII to protect the Jews but would any European Jews have survived if the Allies hadn't entered the war?


Quite irrelevant to the discussion or your contention that the allies fought to save the Jews. If some survived it was serendipitous.

Indeed, Hitler's objectives with respect to some groups were well known. We also know that some Jews escaped before the doors were closed.

But the concern was not sufficient to bring the world to war.


Quote:
The US and its allies didn't determine that there was a communist organization determined to spread communism Lenin founded one in 1915 and the Soviet Union funded and hosted that organization from 1919 to 1943 called first Zimmerwald Left then the Communist International or Comintern for short replaced in 1947 by the Cominform or Communist Information Bureau until the death of Stalin. It didn't have to be determined it was out there for all to see.


Sorry John but what's your point here? There was universal shock at the demise of the dynasty that ruled Russia and concern for the expansion of Bolshevism.


Quote:
There never were any Russian troops in Indochina at the end of WWII Korea yes and they refuse to take troops from the Northern half of Korea. Indochina isn't a peninsula Korea is. You are mixing and matching the two separate situations and separate areas.


Indo-China is often referred to as a peninsula in many documents. As I understand it, it was meant to refer only to the French possessions to the east of Thailand.

I read my post, and it was confusing I admit. But I know where the Korean peninsula is and I choose to call Indo-China a peninsula. We may have a geography debate if you wish.

Stalin showed little interest in the Viet Minh originally. He saw them as nationalists and not die-hard communists.

And Ho, despite his visits to the USSR was a committed nationalist and not likely to bend to the wishes of the Comintern to which you referred.

When Mao's revolution won in 1949, Stalin, who had been concentrating on Europe, then threw his support behind Ho and the Viet Minh.

So I agree that there were not Soviet troops in IndoChina at the end of ww2 but at some time, the Soviets did send military advisors to the north.

The Soviets asked that the Chinese lend support to Ho.

The Chinese sent troops and some were killed in combat but I don't recall at which phase of the war that that happened.

Didn't the Soviets push Ho to sign the Peace Accords because they didn't want to get into a military conflict with the US in Vietnam?



Quote:
As for your edit the only reason the Soviets didn't veto the UN resolution for Korea is they were boycotting the UN at that point in time. So you are saying that if the Soviets hadn't been boycotting and had vetoed Canada would have stayed home and you would be calling Korea a illegal and unwanted intervention by the colonial US?


Interesting question John but it is loaded. You rarely want to consider that the US has ever taken a military step that wasn't steeped in righteousness. With Vietnam, you are particularly adamant that this war was a noble one and had to be fought.

Canada may well have stayed home as you put it if there had been no UN resolution in support of the western incursion into Vietnam.

EDIT: UN approval was one of the conditions that Canada placed upon an agreement to provide troops in Vietnam

I mentioned before that as one of the nations that pushed for the creation of the UN and as a staunch supporter, Canada may have called the US invasion, illegal. I don't know. It's a hypothetical question.

The fact that the US and four other countries can veto any UN resolution is what has rendered this institution a paper tiger. I remain more positive about the importance of the UN to prevent us from lapsing into another period of cultural nationalism. Probably being naive there.

But that was when Canada pursued an independent foreign policy and when we were less likely to follow the US into whatever military action it deemed necessary.

By "colonial US", I presume that you mean imperialist. Let me turn it back on you John. Has the US ever obtained a country or territories of other nations and ignored the wishes of the indigenous population to be independent?

Has the US ever effected regime change in any other country to assure that the government of that country would be supportive of US objectives in the region?


Quote:
Stop trying to make this personal and blame my emotions. My Mother's death is emotional it just happened. Until you stop this tact I'm through


How would I know that you had lost your mother, John? My condolences. I lost my Mom about 4 years ago. It's tough.

My reference to your emotions has to do with the Vietnam war because you will brook no criticism of US involvement in the conflict, from the reasons that the US got into it and to the fact that the US stayed in it long after the US politicians felt that the war was not winnable.

I find that your posts become progressively less objective and your anger more palpable, every time that the subject of Vietnam comes up.

And anyone, read me, who suggests that opportunities for peaceful resolution were missed, becomes your enemy. To suggest that perhaps the US should not have entered Vietnam is tantamount to a declaration of war. BTW, I am suggesting that but there are many Americans who have said the same thing. About 30,000 of those came to my country because they didn't want to fight in a war that seemed to be a waste of American lives.

I am not your enemy. Nor am I anti-American because I feel that the Vietnam war perhaps was not necessary or because I cannot abide by your current President, Donald Trump, as you suggested in an earlier post.

There was no intent to imply instability on your part because of the death of your mother. I did not know.

Anyway if you're through, you're through. It has happened before.









John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/16/2017 4:32:04 PM
George I posted in Yoder's Pub on July 21st asking people to pray for her. You post in there often. And your implying and saying Vietnam makes me emotional is because of my step father. As for objectivity on the subject of Vietnam your posts have none and just because many Americans agree with you doesn't mean you are right. Do you realize just how small a minority 30,000 is when talking about the total number of draft age Americans during the Vietnam War? Considering 2 million were drafted what does that tell you?
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 5517
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/16/2017 5:06:37 PM
It tells me that 2 million people obeyed a lawful draft order. It tells me nothing about their mindset.

It doesn't tell me anything about whether those soldiers were passionate about what they were doing or whether they wanted to be there at all.

Service does not mean that some did not find the war repugnant. They did their duty and supported their mates.

However, the Burns film is not the only source that alludes to morale problems among the US forces.

John your surely haven't forgotten that the streets of your country were full of protesters and that cities were burning because of race riots partly fueled by opposition to the war.

Regarding objectivity John, you may have to tell me which parts of my statements and beliefs are not objective. Objectivity also includes bias so I confess to a particular bias. Hopefully it is an educated one.

I do not patronize when I tell you that I believe that you are the most widely read person on the forum with respect to Vietnam. I also believe that the fear of communism and its spread, ostensibly under the direction of the Soviets is probably most widely and firmly believed in your country. It may not be so in other countries.

I have tried to understand your point of view but when your posts degrade into a litany of evils committed by the North Vietnamese as the justification for the US entry into the country, I think that view is naive.

As for your Mum, well I confess that I had forgotten about the post. I think that I remember it now. And I have some idea of what you are going through. Again, my condolences.

Cheers,

George


John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/16/2017 11:45:25 PM
George you may well believe that "bear any burden, pay any price in the defense of freedom" is naïve claptrap but it spoke to and motivated many Americans of that generation. Members of my family who served with honor and bravery believed in those words and put their lives on the line to back them up.

Let me fill you in on something 95% of people fighting in any war find war repugnant no matter the cause.



---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 5517
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/17/2017 7:27:53 AM

Quote:
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.



Let me fill you in on something. While the US and some of its citizens may believe in that slogan that you quoted, there are countries all over the world who are suspicious of US motives when she comes calling for support when it has been deemed time to bomb or send in ground troops.

There is far too much of that "fighting to defend our freedoms" when the opponent hasn't a chance in hell of ever compromising the freedoms won or that evolved in most of our countries. And the concept is not applied equally whenever oppression rears its head in different parts of the world.

Some are selected to be freed. Most are ignored. It all depends upon whether the US or any other large power has strategic interests in the place.

So colour me cynical when I read that wars are fought to defend freedom.

There has to be a political and strategic advantage to the commitment of troops. All the powerful nations have engaged in diplomacy by force when necessary and found justification by rationalizing that it was done for freedom.

I believe that the last "good" war that made sense, the last necessary war in which the cultures of the west were threatened was WW2.

So Kennedy's instruction, "bear any burden, pay any price" rings hollow when we continue to enter places that have not attacked us. It was part of the Kennedy Doctrine to intervene wherever deemed necessary.


Quote:
To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge—to convert our good words into good deeds—in a new alliance for progress—to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.


Yes, we know. The US owns this hemisphere.

John, the cold war rhetoric was really ramping up at that time. Kennedy, whom I admired, was cementing his position as the great cold warrior. He wanted to increase the nuclear capacity of the US even though the US already had a clear advantage in nukes. Wasn't it Macnamara who kept telling you that the US was falling behind in nuclear capacity?

Kennedy increased the military budget greatly. It was Kennedy's policy to intervene wherever it looked as though a country experiencing internal strife, may embrace communism.

Interesting though, when push came to shove over the Cuban Missile Crisis that Kennedy and Khruschev did find some middle ground. Each gave a little to prevent a nuclear disaster. Two wise men, in the end.

Eisenhower came up with the Domino Theory that fully extended the Kennedy strategy to fight communism.

The US seemed to have followed Kennedy's philosophy for decades to the point that the US was holding its nose and supporting tin pot dictators in some countries whose only appeal was that they opposed communism. Was that also a burden to bear?

Every military incursion is justified as being done in the defence of freedom. And at the expense of whose freedom?

These quotes including the one you provided come from the same inaugural address made by JFK in 1961. It was a great speech especially when compared to the one that we just heard 9 months ago.

But from an outsiders view, JFK harkened back to the freedoms won in the Revolution. There was an element of self righteousness in that speech, as much as I liked it. The American way of life was the true path, the way of freedom.
Those who embraced the principles on which the US was founded were friends. The hand of God grants the fundamental rights of man.

I understand the links that Americans make to their founding. They embrace the mythology that all nations create about themselves. They reinforce it in their children perhaps more strongly than most of us.

So you all grow up believing things like, "we are the greatest country in the world" or "we are the freest country in the world" or our President is "the leader of the free world." And so it easy to believe that when the government calls for military action, it must be a just cause. It must be righteous.

And with the military power that reinforces those beliefs comes the associated belief that if anyone crosses the US, they will pay the price. The rhetoric out of the White House today indicates that. It is rather frightening to those who watch and wait from the outside. Kennedy has been maligned by some and he was a flawed man but he was also wise, I think.

And in that same inaugural address and in among the warnings to foes and promises to friends, JFK also said:


Quote:
So let us begin anew—remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.


We could use a little of the Kennedy wisdom right now, don't you think.

I heard the speech and I have provided it here. I choose to believe that JFK was making a call for peace and extending the hand of peace.
Best to read things in context.

[Read More]

George




John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/17/2017 10:20:42 AM
Hey George keep on spitting in the face of my ancestors and calling who and what they believed in self righteous crap. Absolutely no reason for me to get emotional over that.



---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 5517
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/17/2017 10:52:35 AM

Quote:
Hey George keep on spitting in the face of my ancestors and calling who and what they believed in self righteous crap. Absolutely no reason for me to get emotional over that.




--John R. Price


John, this is one of the most irresponsible statements that you have ever made and you make a lot of them when you get angry.

Do you think that I didn't have relatives who served in the major wars of the last century?

And you know what? They came home and began to question what their government was doing and whether they were doing the right things for the country. It was their right to do so and it is my right as well.

When your government or mine decides to send good people into war, you bloody well better have a reason that is more substantive then, "Oh, we're fighting for our freedoms."

You posted a snippet of a JFK speech and what a noble one it was. You conveniently forgot to remember the context of the speech. JFK said a lot of things in that inaugural address. He talked of peace and negotiation and yes he engaged in a little sabre rattling.

It's this kind of nonsense that makes me question your stability and inability to discuss rationally.

So you got me John. I'm finally ticked off with your misinterpretation of people's comments, with your rewording of statements, straw man questions and the creation of statements that were not said but attributed to me.

If all you got out of my post was that someone was spitting on your ancestors then you once again shut off your brain in the middle of a discussion.



John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/17/2017 11:51:37 AM
You were lucky not all who served came home.

Good that your ticked off now you know how I've felt since you stated posting.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 5517
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/17/2017 12:01:36 PM

Quote:
You were lucky not all who served came home.


Humour me John. Just what does this mean anyway?

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/17/2017 12:22:15 PM
Exactly what it says some families didn't have a homecoming because their loved ones were KIA.

I'll make you a deal show me 3 legitimate documents that claim Indochina a peninsula and I will never disagree with anything you ever post again. You do realize that the definition of a peninsula is "a portion of land nearly surrounded by water and connected with a larger body by a isthmus or a piece of land jutting out into the water with or without a isthmus like the Italian Peninsula which is surrounded on three sides by water." Malaya is the peninsula connected by the Isthmus of Kra to Thailand and Indochina.

Edit Indochina was specifically Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos and Laos has no boarder on water while Cambodia has one and Vietnam two. Laos has China, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam on its boarders. Cambodia has Thailand, Laos, Vietnam and the Gulf of Siam, Vietnam has Laos and Cambodia on one side, China , the South China Sea and the Gulf of Siam. Then add in that on the other side of Thailand is Burma.

I'd also add that at Yalta the deal made was that if the war in the Pacific was ongoing X number of days after the fall of Germany Russia would join in the war against Japan and Indochina was never brought up in that connection. Korea yes Indochina no because of the distance from Russian territory.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 5517
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/17/2017 12:32:25 PM
Ah, the way it was written, it sounded like a threat as in, "you were lucky that some of those men who died didn't come home".

You were lucky, as not all who served came home. I think that that better indicates what you were trying to say.

And you would be wrong. I was named after my Dad's brother who is buried in Italy, KIA as you say. Another brother was badly wounded at Dieppe and died after the war from heart complications related to shrapnel in his heart.

And I do not dishonour them by suggesting that a government must have sound reasons to make war justifiable.

And jingoistic rhetoric doesn't do it.

Do you disapprove of critics who hammer the government for its conduct of the war?


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 5517
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/17/2017 12:47:52 PM
John, your thought patterns are so disjointed that I cannot tell what you want to talk about. Now you are jumping here and everywhere.

Whether Indochina is referred to as a peninsula in some documents is not relevant to the points that I was trying to make, is it?

But go ahead, just google the term and see what comes up. Indochinese peninsula is technically incorrect because the term Indochina was coined in reference to French possessions only.

But you will find a number of references that use the term Indochinese peninsula to refer to the land mass that is south of China, and east of India.

The peninsular area is bordered by the Pacific on one side and the Indian ocean on the other. The Malaysian peninsula extends from the Indochinese peninsula.

By all means, continue with the geography lesson but it seems to be more of an attempt to prove that I gave incorrect information than to discuss the points that I made.

You can call the whole area an esker or a drumlin for all I care. What does it have to do with the discussion?

[Read More]


John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/17/2017 2:23:25 PM
What is relevant is that the points you were trying to make were as "technically" wrong as calling Indochina a peninsula. Indochina was not discussed at Yalta. There was no deal about occupation of Indochina made at Yalta. Yalta had nothing to do with Indochina. In fact the Soviets didn't even try to take a leading role in Indochina until after the death of Stalin in 53. The reality is that Soviet military advisers, troops, weren't sent until that point. Up until then the cooperation was between Chinese and Vietnamese Communist Party's and Mao didn't have a seat at Yalta and Russia's support came only in the form of extra support to China. That if China gave a battery of artillery and a supply of ammo for it they would get back a regiment of Soviet made artillery and a supply of ammo for it. In short you weren't even close to what actually happened. But instead of acknowledging that you choose to defend your calling Indochina a peninsula and saying that the way you wrote your description of events was confusing but not wrong. That's what ticks me off and gets me emotional
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 5517
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/17/2017 4:09:03 PM
Actually I believe that at Yalta, FDR proposed that Indochina be administered under a trusteeship. He was opposed to any return to colonial status.

He had proposed the idea before at Teheran and at Cairo.

He had proposed the same thing for Korea.

I believe that Stalin was in support but Churchill, still hopeful that the Empire could be saved, was not.

Chiang Kai-Chek was on board too.


The Soviet influence in Indochina was through the Chinese.

Stalin showed little interest in Indochina until the Chinese revolution and the declaration of a communist state run by Mao in 1949. Stalin had his own problems in Europe to deal with.

Stalin had turned down military support for Ho Chi Minh but after 1949, he encouraged the Chinese to help Ho.

The USSR did recognize Ho and the Viet Minh as the rulers of Vietnam. That was 1950.


I mentioned that I thought that Soviet military advisors were in Vietnam at some point in the war and I also said that I did not know at what stage.


So John, pick away at details that I may have gotten wrong. Correct them if you like. I like to learn.

But if you are going to get emotional because historical details are wrong, then why are you engaged in any discussions of issues at all.
Any errors of the sort that you wish to point out do not negate anything that I have said about Vietnam or the US involvement.

We are discussing issues related to the Vietnam war and that is what gets you emotional. You can't deal with any suggestion that is negative toward the US and its involvement or its management of the war.

Hell, John, you have even refused to accept that the Filipinos didn't want the US there and fought to get the US out. Instead you called the US domination of former Spanish colonies to be welcome and benign. No imperialism here. We're the good guys.

So why would I expect that you would say anything critical about the US position in Vietnam. You have no objectivity in this area.


Indochina, peninsula or not a peninsula??? What did you find out John? Is the area referred to as a peninsula or not?

Try to focus here John, on what is germane to the discussion. Your obsession with a geographical designation is starting to scare me.



John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/17/2017 10:28:03 PM
Wrong you are mixing up Korea again.

No it was about Korea at Cairo and it was a joint statement between the US, GB and China that Korea be freed from Japanese occupation/colonialism. At Yalta it was a secret agreement.

Wrong FDR left GB out of the three countries to "manage" Korea but Stalin added GB to the list.

Chiang was not on board about Indochina it wasn't mentioned but he was about Korea. (see "Korea, Case History of a Pawn" its online so just search) Plus I'm sorry but you just don't understand the Chinese=Vietnamese history to even say this.

But that isn't what you said or in effect are saying with mixing up Korea with Indochina.

I get "ticked off" and emotional when somebody won't accept that they are wrong and keep trying to claim they aren't exactly like you are still doing instead of doing the research and admitting their mistake.

No George I do accept that some Filipinos didn't want the US there and fought to get rid of us. I never said I disputed that fact as usual you see what you want to see and remember what you want to remember .

I can also deal with negative statements made about Vietnam I can't deal with you and your dishonesty and negativity about anything the US had done.


---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 5517
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/18/2017 6:57:11 AM
No I have not confused them John.

As I recall, FDR suggested a trusteeship for Korea and Indochina at Yalta.

FDR was criticized for some of his performance at Yalta and I believe he was accused of abandoning Indochina.

BTW if you want to address each point that I have made, don't start each retort with "Wrong". I and anyone else reading it have no idea as to which point you have referred.

But let's presume that you are correct and I am incorrect.

Does that mean that the questions surrounding US entry into Vietnam and the questions surrounding the length of time that it stayed are not valid?

While you pick away at little details and look for holes in chronology, you ignore the big questions.

Was the Vietnam war justified?

Was the Domino Theory ever proved to be true?

Why did the US stay in Vietnam long after it was clear that this war wasn't being fought to be won?

John, I think that the US and Canada for that matter reacted with a degree of paranoia to the Red Menace.



Quote:
I can also deal with negative statements made about Vietnam I can't deal with you and your dishonesty and negativity about anything the US had done.


John, are you a believer in American exceptionalism? There is a pattern to your reaction to any criticism of your country's motives and actions.

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/18/2017 9:32:08 AM
Your mixing and matching again. It was Teheran in a discussion between FDR and Stalin on colonialism and no proclimations were given nor agreements were reached. Plus the sources for this are questionable as both FDR and Stalin were long dead before it was made known by a Soviet translator. But its no secret that FDR was against a reclaiming of colonies.

The Domino Theory was partially right as Cambodia and Laos fell in quick order but then you had the Kmer Rouge madness with eventual Vietnamese intervention in Cambodia and Vietnamese-China disagreement leading to boarder clashes and the Soviet attention turning to Afghanistan.

And I don't think the Red Menace was under stated both Stalin and Mao murdered far more than Hitler without World Wars.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 5517
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/18/2017 5:40:44 PM
You know John, there is a possibility that you are wrong.

There are a number of sites and the book entitled "Yalta" by Plokhy both reference FDR's proposal at Yalta and in previous meetings regarding a trusteeship management system for Korea and Indochina.

It is a while since I read "Yalta" but I shall try to find it. I'm not home now. It could be that I found in in the library.

Again, whether correct or incorrect, it has nothing to do with the points that I am trying to make.

FDR was criticized for either abandoning or losing interest in trusteeship.

Cheers,

George

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 5517
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/18/2017 6:58:44 PM

Quote:

Franklin Roosevelt Memorandum to Cordell Hull, January 24, 1944 from Major Problems in American Foreign Policy, Volume II: Since 1914, 4th edition, edited by Thomas G. Paterson and Dennis Merrill (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 1995), p. 189.

I saw Halifax [Lord Halifax, British ambassador to the United States] last week and told him quite frankly that it was perfectly true that I had, for over a year, expressed the opinion that Indo-China should not go back to France but that it should be administered by an international trusteeship. France has had the country-thirty million inhabitants for nearly one hundred years, and the people are worse off than they were at the beginning.

As a matter of interest, I am wholeheartedly supported in this view by Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek [of China] and by Marshal Stalin. I see no reason to play in with the British Foreign Office in this matter. The only reason they seem to oppose it is that they fear the effect it would have on their own possessions and those of the Dutch. They have never liked the idea of trusteeship because it is, in some instances, aimed at future independence. This is true in the case of IndoChina.

Each case must, of course, stand on its own feet, but the case of Indo-China is perfectly clear. France has milked it for one hundred years. The people of IndoChina are entitled to something better than that.



Quote:
Franklin Roosevelt on French Rule in Indochina, Press Conference, February 23, 1945, from Major Problems in American Foreign Policy, Volume II: Since 1914, 4th edition, edited by Thomas G. Paterson and Dennis Merrill (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 1995), p. 190.

With the Indo-Chinese, there is a feeling they ought to be independent but are not ready for it. I suggested at the time [19431, to Chiang, that Indo-China be set up under a trusteeship--have a Frenchman, one or two Indo-Chinese, and a Chinese and a Russian because they are on the coast, and maybe a Filipino and an American--to educate them for self-government. It took fifty years for us to do it in the Philippines.

Stalin liked the idea. China liked the idea. The British don't like it. It might bust up their empire, because if the Indo-Chinese were to work together and eventually get their independence, the Burmese might do the same thing to England. The French have talked about how they expect to recapture Indo-China, but they haven't got any shipping to do it with. It would only get the British mad. Chiang would go along. Stalin would go along. As for the British, it would only make the British mad. Better to keep quiet just now.


Book by Robert Dallek

[Read More]

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/18/2017 10:18:43 PM
George neither supports your claim that a concrete agreement was reached at Yalta. Plus the French would have to agree and that wasn't happening.

Also if you look at FDR day to day, its a site that has his calender and appointment books, Halifax isn't in it from Jan 9 to Jan 24th. Maybe he went to a party given for a South American president visiting or maybe he joined the Canadian Ambassador who came for a meeting.

I also agreed that there was discussion at Teheran at least as reported by a Soviet translator and said that it was no secret FDR was against the reclaiming of any colonies.

Plus involving the Russians makes no sense. What coast were they on, Korean? China would be all for it because China and Vietnam were historical enemies fighting multiple wars going back centuries. You do understand that Chinese nationalist forces were part of the occupation force in Northern Vietnam at the end of WWI and just like the British occupation force in the South fought the Viet Minh then?

It these ideas of FDR weren't going to satisfy Ho and even if fully enacted there would still be a war because Ho wanted independence only if he was the government with no influence to any other country or political philosophy. You do understand what happened in the "Great Purge" of 46 to 48? And again they were just ideas and discussions that were never agreed upon by any of the parties you are trying to claim and by the time of Yalta FDR was a dying man with but a short time to live and he knew France wouldn't agree to any of it so it was dropped. He knew that going to Yalta so as I said there were no deals about Indochina independence made at Yalta, no resolutions no nothing.

And if I may remind you implied the country was partitioned and said that Soviet troops occupied the North and Stalin pulled them out because of a deal made at Yalta which is wrong. I'm done
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 5517
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/19/2017 5:40:43 AM
John, I gave 3 references. The third was an excerpt from a book written by Robert Dallek.

And in that excerpt he confirms that indeed FDR did broach the subject at Yalta.

I chose the memoranda to prove to you that Indochina was indeed on FDR's mind.

The excerpt by an historian whose work is primarily about the life of Presidents is not the only one that mentions that.

I remind you that your comment was initially that FDR never discussed Indochina and that he never raised the subject at Yalta.

That was the issue over which we debated. I believe that there are a number of reports that indicate that I may be correct.

And once again, you choose to equivocate.


Beam me up Scotty

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/19/2017 8:11:53 AM
George here is your statement that I said was wrong,

"Remember at the Yalta Conference that Stalin had agreed to remove his troops from Indo-China and so did the US. With GB they agreed to divide the peninsula to prepare for free elections in Vietnam"

"My response was there never were Russian troops in Indochina at the end of WWII" and "Indochina is not a peninsula."

How have you proven that statement right?????? Hell there weren't any major units of the US in Indochina at the end of WWII. A OSS team and a communications team that's it for the US. The Allied troops in Indochina were British and Chinese at the end of WWII.

And then you said that there was a agreement on Indochina at Yalta. Which you now claim right because Indochina was on FDR's mind.


Edit And the third does not prove the subject was discussed at Yalta. It proves that FDR was asked a question about Indochina in a stateroom press conference with a grand total of 3 reporters on board a US Navy ship on his way home from Yalta. ONE SINGLE QUESTION in a hour plus long press conference.

Lets see no Russian troops in Indochina. No US troops in Indochina. But Stalin and the US agreed at Yalta to remove their troops from Indochina. How was Indochina divided at Yalta and why only free elections in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos don't get independence and free elections? What did the French have to say about all this?

Those two sentences that I copied and pasted are the basis of disagreement and there isn't one thing in them right except the spelling.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 5517
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/19/2017 8:50:33 PM
Agreed. I was wrong about Russian troops. I do not know why I wrote it except it was from memory.

It does not mean that I do not know the difference between Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

You are wrong about Yalta and are equivocating once again. FDR did indeed discuss Indochina with Stalin. You have said that he did not. And you are incorrect if my sources are accurate.

I would like to discuss whether the US should have entered this war, whether the Domino Theory is valid, and whether the US should have stayed in Vietnam for so long.

I would like to discuss whether a level of paranoia with respect to communism exists in the US that has informed US foreign policy to this day.

Or would you like to return to some pithy and critical issue like what type of landform Indochina may be?


The basis of the disagreements that I have with you are not whether there were Soviet troops in Vietnam. It has nothing to do with chronology or minor historical details.

It has to do with your absolute refusal to consider that entry into this war may have been poorly considered and that the lives of an awful lot of good men may have been wasted, especially in the later years of the conflict when it seemed that the US had no intention of fighting to win this war.

I asked you earlier whether you believed in American Exceptionalism. Still no answer but I have no explanation other than that, that would help me to understand your hypersensitivity to any suggestion that the US has ever taken a misstep in foreign policy and military action to enforce it.


John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/19/2017 11:54:38 PM
Russian troops the only thing wrong in that statement but I'm the one equivocating?

I answered your questions but the last two.

No my Step-Father didn't feel he was wasting his life and I don't either.

To a degree I believe America is exceptional but not to the point that you must believe Canada is. You interrupt discussion after discussion that has nothing to do with Canada to point out Canada's contribution or why she wasn't involved and if she wasn't involved what a unworthy cause it was.


---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 5517
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/20/2017 6:02:39 AM
Yes I will tell the Canadian story if I think it relevant and I will give the Canadian perspective on an issue.

You will recall that way back on this thread, someone made a comment something like, "Canada sat this one out______whatever. " I felt that it was necessary to fill in a lot of blanks when I read that comment.


Specific to this issue of Vietnam and whether it was a necessary war, I don't think that we are going to get a contrary view from you or from people who were compelled to serve.

No soldier wants to think that his service was unnecessary or that deaths were unnecessary.


You in particular John seem convinced that the US intervenes in the affairs of others for reasons altruistic and noble. It is, respectfully, a most naive point of view.

Anyway, you don't want to discuss the issues that concern me and you have misidentified the evolution of the discussion in this thread.

So I will give you the last word, if you wish.

John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/20/2017 12:07:45 PM
He wasn't "compelled" to serve he volunteered for the Navy, volunteered for the SEALS and volunteered to go to Vietnam twice because he believed.

The point you refused to accept is that something like 70% of those who actually served in Vietnam volunteer to join the military and weren't drafted and that FACT is available in multiple balanced sources.


---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


BWilson
, Posts: 3444
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/20/2017 12:34:47 PM
John,

 Yes, I knew a sergeant-major in the Army who volunteered for service in Vietnam something like three or four times. I asked him why he had done so. His answer was frank: "I wanted to kill communists." And the reason for that went back to 1940, when the Soviet Army invaded and occupied his homeland. He was a good man and an outstanding instructor.

Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 5517
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/20/2017 3:03:32 PM

Quote:
He wasn't "compelled" to serve he volunteered for the Navy, volunteered for the SEALS and volunteered to go to Vietnam twice because he believed.

The point you refused to accept is that something like 70% of those who actually served in Vietnam volunteer to join the military and weren't drafted and that FACT is available in multiple balanced sources.





--John R. Price



Since the fact had never been presented before on this thread, why would you suggest that I refuse to accept it. Silly accusation.

Were the volunteers already in the service? If so did they have to declare that they would go to Vietnam or did they have any choice?

But it would interesting to read any studies that:

1. compared the differences in attitudes of draftees and volunteers toward the war.

2. indicated how the attitude of the soldiers, draftees and volunteers, changed during their rotation

3. How they felt about their service after the combat experience was finished.

4. Changes in attitude toward the Vietnamese people during the rotation.






John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/20/2017 5:55:38 PM
This isn't our first discussion on Vietnam.

Here is a copy and past from the Vietnam Veteran,

The stereotypes are wrong. Let's look at the facts, starting with who actually served in Vietnam.
The image of those who fought in Vietnam is one of poorly educated, reluctant draftees -- predominantly poor whites and minorities. But in reality, only one-third of Vietnam-era veterans entered the military through the draft, far lower than the 66 percent drafted in World War II.
It was the best-educated and most egalitarian military force in America's history -- and with the advent of the all-volunteer military, is likely to remain so. In WWII, only 45 percent of the troops had a high school diploma. During the Vietnam War, almost 80 percent of those who enlisted had high school diplomas, and the percentage was higher for draftees -- even though, at the time, only 65 percent of military-age males had a high school diploma.
Throughout the Vietnam era, the median education level of the enlisted man was about 13 years. Proportionately, three times as many college graduates served in Vietnam than in WWII.
Another common assumption: The war in Vietnam was fought by youngsters wet behind the ears, who died as teenagers barely old enough to shave. In fact, more 52-year-olds (22) died in Vietnam than 17-year-olds (12). An analysis of data from the Department of Defense shows the average age of men killed in Vietnam was 22.8 years, or almost 23 years old.
Though the notion persists that those who died in Vietnam were mostly members of a minority group, it's not true. About 5 percent of KIAs were Hispanic and 12.5 percent were black -- making both minorities slightly under-represented in their proportion of draft-age males in the national population.
A common negative image of the soldier in Vietnam is that he smoked pot and injected heroin to dull the horrors of combat. However, except for the last couple of years of the war, drug usage among GIs in Vietnam was lower than for U.S. troops stationed elsewhere.
When drug rates started to rise in 1971 and 1972, almost 90 percent of the men who served in Vietnam had already come and gone. A study after the war by the VA showed drug usage of veterans and non-veterans to be about the same. And marijuana -- not heroin -- was the drug used in 75 percent of the cases. Of those addicted, 88 percent kicked the habit within three years of returning.
Posterboy of Anti-War Movement:

The anti-war movement paraded Vietnam servicemen who had deserted their units as "proof" that it was an immoral war. But of the 5,000 men who deserted for various causes during the Vietnam War period, only 5 percent did so while attached to units in Vietnam.
Only 24 deserters attributed their action to the desire to "avoid hazardous duty." Some 97 percent of Vietnam veterans received honorable discharges, exactly the same rate for the military in the 10 years prior to the war.

After the war ended, reports began to circulate of veterans so depraved from their war experiences that they turned to crime, with estimates of the number of incarcerated Vietnam veterans as high as one-quarter of the prison population. But most of these accounts were based on self-reporting by criminals. In every major study of Vietnam veterans where military records were verified, an insignificant number of prisoners were found to be actual Vietnam veterans.
A corollary to the prison myth is the belief that substantial numbers of Vietnam veterans are unemployed. A study by the Labor Department in 1994 showed an unemployment rate of 3 percent for Vietnam veterans -- lower than that of Vietnam-era veterans who served outside the Vietnam theater (5 percent), and for all male veterans (4.9 percent).

The same is true for the nonsense that Vietnam vets have high rates of suicide, often heard as the "fact" that more veterans had died by their own hand than in combat. But that's a myth, too. A 1988 study by the Centers for Disease Control found Vietnam veterans had suicide rates well within the 1.7 percent norm of the general population.
Societal Success:

In fact, Vietnam veterans are as successful or more successful than men their own age who did not go to war. Disproportionate numbers of Vietnam veterans serve in Congress, for instance. Vice President Al Gore is a Vietnam veteran, as is enormously popular Colin Powell.
They run Fortune 500 corporations (Frederick Smith of Federal Express), write screenplays (Bill Broyles formerly of Newsweek) and report the evening news (ABC correspondent Jack Smith).
Actor Dennis Franz, who plays a detective on TV's NYPD Blue, is a Vietnam vet, as are large numbers of real law enforcement agents, prosecutors and attorneys. No facet of American life has been untouched by the positive contributions of Vietnam veterans.
While stereotypes may persist in Hollywood and the media, America's finest increasingly run the country.
Vietnam Warriors:

A Statistical Profile In Uniform and In Country Vietnam Vets: 9.7% of their generation.
9,087,000 military personnel served on active duty during the Vietnam era (Aug. 5, 1964-May 7, 1975)
8,744,000 GIs were on active duty during the war (Aug. 5, 1964-March 28, 1973).
3,403,100 (including 514,300 offshore) personnel served in the Southeast Asia Theater (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, flight crews based in Thailand, and sailors in adjacent South China Sea waters).
2,594,000 personnel served within the borders of South Vietnam (Jan. 1, 1965- March 28, 1973).
Another 50,000 men served in Vietnam between 1960 and 1964.
Of the 2.6 million, between 1-1.6 million (40-60%) either fought in combat, provided close support or were at least fairly regularly exposed to enemy attack.
7,484 women (6,250 or 83.5% were nurses) served in Vietnam.
Peak troop strength in Vietnam: 543,482 (April 30, 1969).
Casualties

Hostile deaths: 47,378
Non-hostile deaths: 10,800
Total: 58,202 (includes men formerly classified as MIA and Mayaguez casualties). Men who have subsequently died of wounds account for the changing total.

8 nurses died -- 1 was KIA.

Married men killed: 17,539

61% of the men killed were 21 or younger

Highest state death rate: West Virginia- 84.1 (national average 58.9 for every 100,000 males in 1970).

Wounded: 303,704 -- 153,329 hospitalized + 150,375 injured requiring no hospital care.

Severely disabled: 75,000 -- 23,214 100% disabled; 5,283 lost limbs; 1,081 sustained multiple amputations.

Amputation or crippling wounds to the lower extremities were 300% higher than in WWII and 70% higher than in Korea. Multiple amputations occurred at the rate of 18.4% compared to 5.7% in WWII.

Missing in Action: 2,338.

POWs: 766 (114 died in captivity).

Draftees vs. Volunteers:

25% (648,500) of total forces in country were draftees. (66% of U.S. armed forces members were drafted during WWII.)

Draftees accounted for 30.4% (17,725) of combat deaths in Vietnam.

Reservists killed: 5,977.

National Guard: 6,140 served; 101 died.

Total draftees (1965-73): 1,728,344.

Actually served in Vietnam: 38%

Marine Corps draft: 42,633.

Last man drafted: June 30, 1973.
Race and Ethnic Background

88.4% of the men who actually served in Vietnam were Caucasian; 10.6% (275,000) were black; 1% belonged to other races.

86.3% of the men who died in Vietnam were Caucasian (includes Hispanics);

12.5% (7,241) were black; 1.2% belonged to other races.

170,000 Hispanics served in Vietnam; 3,070 (5.2% of total) died there.

70% of enlisted men killed were of Northwest European descent.

86.8% of the men who were killed as a result of hostile action were Caucasian; 12.1% (5,711) were black; 1.1% belonged to other races.

14.6% (1,530) of non-combat deaths were among blacks.

34% of blacks who enlisted volunteered for the combat arms.

Overall, blacks suffered 12.5% of the deaths in Vietnam at a time when the percentage of blacks of military age was 13.5% of the total population.
Religion of Dead:

Protestant -- 64.4%; Catholic -- 28.9%; other/none --6.7%.
Socio-Economic Status

76% of the men sent to Vietnam were from lower middle/working class backgrounds.

Three-fourths had family incomes above the poverty level; 50% were from middle income backgrounds.

Some 23% of Vietnam vets had fathers with professional, managerial or technical occupations.

79% of the men who served in Vietnam had a high school education or better when they entered the military service.
(63% of Korean War vets and only 45% of WWII vets had completed high school upon separation.)

Deaths by region per 100,000 of population: South-31; West-29.9; Midwest-28.4; Northeast-23.5.
Winning & Losing

82% of veterans who saw heavy combat strongly believe the war was lost because of lack of political will.

Nearly 75% of the public agrees it was a failure of political will, not of arms.
Honorable Service

97% of Vietnam-era veterans were honorably discharged.

91% of actual Vietnam War veterans and 90% of those who saw heavy combat are proud to have served their country.

66% of Vietnam vets say they would serve again if called upon.

87% of the public now holds Vietnam veterans in high esteem.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/20/2017 6:10:37 PM
Here is another copy and paste,

No event in American history is more misunderstood than the Vietnam War. It was misreported then, and it is misremembered now. Rarely have so many people been so wrong about so much. Never have the consequences of their misunderstanding been so tragic." [Nixon]
The Vietnam War has been the subject of thousands of newspaper and magazine articles, hundreds of books, and scores of movies and television documentaries. The great majority of these efforts have erroneously portrayed many myths about the Vietnam War as being facts. [Nixon]
Myth: Most American soldiers were addicted to drugs, guilt-ridden about their role in the war, and deliberately used cruel and inhumane tactics.
The facts are:
91% of Vietnam Veterans say they are glad they served [Westmoreland]
74% said they would serve again even knowing the outcome [Westmoreland]
There is no difference in drug usage between Vietnam Veterans and non veterans of the same age group (from a Veterans Administration study) [Westmoreland]
Isolated atrocities committed by American soldiers produced torrents of outrage from antiwar critics and the news media while Communist atrocities were so common that they received hardly any attention at all. The United States sought to minimize and prevent attacks on civilians while North Vietnam made attacks on civilians a centerpiece of its strategy. Americans who deliberately killed civilians received prison sentences while Communists who did so received commendations. From 1957 to 1973, the National Liberation Front assassinated 36,725 South Vietnamese and abducted another 58,499. The death squads focused on leaders at the village level and on anyone who improved the lives of the peasants such as medical personnel, social workers, and schoolteachers. [Nixon] Atrocities - every war has atrocities. War is brutal and not fair. Innocent people get killed.
Vietnam Veterans are less likely to be in prison - only 1/2 of one percent of Vietnam Veterans have been jailed for crimes. [Westmoreland]
97% were discharged under honorable conditions; the same percentage of honorable discharges as ten years prior to Vietnam [Westmoreland]
85% of Vietnam Veterans made a successful transition to civilian life. [McCaffrey]
Vietnam veterans' personal income exceeds that of our non-veteran age group by more than 18 percent. [McCaffrey]
Vietnam veterans have a lower unemployment rate than our non-vet age group. [McCaffrey]
87% of the American people hold Vietnam Vets in high esteem. [McCaffrey]
Myth: Most Vietnam veterans were drafted.
2/3 of the men who served in Vietnam were volunteers. 2/3 of the men who served in World War II were drafted. [Westmoreland] Approximately 70% of those killed were volunteers. [McCaffrey]  Many men volunteered for the draft so even some of the draftees were actually volunteers.
Myth: The media have reported that suicides among Vietnam veterans range from 50,000 to 100,000 - 6 to 11 times the non-Vietnam veteran population.
Mortality studies show that 9,000 is a better estimate. "The CDC Vietnam Experience Study Mortality Assessment showed that during the first 5 years after discharge, deaths from suicide were 1.7 times more likely among Vietnam veterans than non-Vietnam veterans. After that initial post-service period, Vietnam veterans were no more likely to die from suicide than non-Vietnam veterans. In fact, after the 5-year post-service period, the rate of suicides is less in the Vietnam veterans' group." [Houk]
Myth: A disproportionate number of blacks were killed in the Vietnam War.
86% of the men who died in Vietnam were Caucasians, 12.5% were black, 1.2% were other races. (CACF and Westmoreland)
Sociologists Charles C. Moskos and John Sibley Butler, in their recently published book "All That We Can Be," said they analyzed the claim that blacks were used like cannon fodder during Vietnam "and can report definitely that this charge is untrue. Black fatalities amounted to 12 percent of all Americans killed in Southeast Asia - a figure proportional to the number of blacks in the U.S. population at the time and slightly lower than the proportion of blacks in the Army at the close of the war." [All That We Can Be]
Myth: The war was fought largely by the poor and uneducated.
Servicemen who went to Vietnam from well-to-do areas had a slightly elevated risk of dying because they were more likely to be pilots or infantry officers.
Vietnam Veterans were the best educated forces our nation had ever sent into combat. 79% had a high school education or better. [McCaffrey]
 
Here are statistics from the Combat Area Casualty File (CACF) as of November 1993. The CACF is the basis for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial (The Wall):
Average age of 58,148 killed in Vietnam was 23.11 years. (Although 58,169 names are in the Nov. 93 database, only 58,148 have both event date and birth date. Event date is used instead of declared dead date for some of those who were listed as missing in action) [CACF]

Deaths Number Average Age
Total 58,148 23.11 years
Enlisted 50,274 22.37 years
Officers 6,598 28.43 years
Warrants 1,276 24.73 years
E1 525 20.34 years
USMC 0351 1,122 20.46 years
11B MOS 18,465 22.55 years
One man killed in Vietnam was only 16 years old (RABER, PAUL J.)  [CACF]
The oldest man killed was 62 years old (TAYLOR, KENNA CLYDE). [CACF]
11,465 KIAs were less than 20 years old. [CACF]
Myth: The average age of an infantryman fighting in Vietnam was 19.
Assuming KIAs accurately represented age groups serving in Vietnam, the average age of an infantryman (MOS 11B) serving in Vietnam to be 19 years old is a myth, it is actually 22. None of the enlisted grades have an average age of less than 20. [CACF] The average man who fought in World War II was 26 years of age. [Westmoreland]
 
Myth: The domino theory was proved false.
The domino theory was accurate. The ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand stayed free of Communism because of the U.S. commitment to Vietnam. The Indonesians threw the Soviets out in 1966 because of America's commitment in Vietnam. Without that commitment, Communism would have swept all the way to the Malacca Straits that is south of Singapore and of great strategic importance to the free world. If you ask people who live in these countries that won the war in Vietnam, they have a different opinion from the American news media. The Vietnam War was the turning point for Communism. [Westmoreland]
Democracy Catching On - In the wake of the Cold War, democracies are flourishing, with 179 of the world's 192 sovereign states (93%) now electing their legislators, according to the Geneva-based Inter-Parliamentary Union. In the last decade, 69 nations have held multi-party elections for the first time in their histories. Three of the five newest democracies are former Soviet republics: Belarus (where elections were first held in November 1995), Armenia (July 1995) and Kyrgyzstan (February 1995). And two are in Africa: Tanzania (October 1995) and Guinea (June 1995). [Parade Magazine]
 
Myth: The fighting in Vietnam was not as intense as in World War II.
The average infantryman in the South Pacific during World War II saw about 40 days of combat in four years. The average infantryman in Vietnam saw about 240 days of combat in one year thanks to the mobility of the helicopter.
One out of every 10 Americans who served in Vietnam was a casualty. 58,169 were killed and 304,000 wounded out of 2.59 million who served. Although the percent who died is similar to other wars, amputations or crippling wounds were 300 percent higher than in World War II. 75,000 Vietnam veterans are severely disabled. [McCaffrey]
MEDEVAC helicopters flew nearly 500,000 missions. Over 900,000 patients were airlifted (nearly half were American). The average time lapse between wounding to hospitalization was less than one hour. As a result, less than one percent of all Americans wounded who survived the first 24 hours died. [VHPA 1993]
The helicopter provided unprecedented mobility. Without the helicopter it would have taken three times as many troops to secure the 800 mile border with Cambodia and Laos (the politicians thought the Geneva Conventions of 1954 and the Geneva Accords or 1962 would secure the border) [Westmoreland]
More helicopter facts:
Approximately 12,000 helicopters saw action in Vietnam (all services). [VHPA databases]
Army UH-1's totaled 9,713,762 flight hours in Vietnam between October 1966 and the end of American involvement in early 1973. [VHPA databases]
Army AH-1G's totaled 1,110,716 flight hours in Vietnam. [VHPA databases]
We believe that the Huey along with the Huey Cobra have more combat flight time than any other aircraft in the history of warfare assuming you count actual hostile fire exposure versus battle area exposure.  As an example, heavy bombers during World War II most often flew missions lasting many hours with only 10 to 20 minutes of that time exposed to hostile fire.  Helicopters in Vietnam seldom flew above 1,500 feet which is traffic pattern altitude for bombers and were always exposed to hostile fire even in their base camps.

Myth: Air America, the airline operated by the CIA in Southeast Asia, and its pilots were involved in drug trafficking.
The 1990 unsuccessful movie "Air America" helped to establish the myth of a connection between Air America, the CIA, and the Laotian drug trade. The movie and a book the movie was based on contend that the CIA condoned a drug trade conducted by a Laotian client; both agree that Air America provided the essential transportation for the trade; and both view the pilots with sympathetic understanding. American-owned airlines never knowingly transported opium in or out of Laos, nor did their American pilots ever profit from its transport. Yet undoubtedly every plane in Laos carried opium at some time, unknown to the pilot and his superiors. For more information see http://www.air-america.org
Facts about the fall of Saigon
Myth: The American military was running for their lives during the fall of Saigon in April 1975.
The picture of a Huey helicopter evacuating people from the top of what was billed as being the U.S. Embassy in Saigon during the last week of April 1975 during the fall of Saigon helped to establish this myth.

This famous picture is the property of UPI Corbus-Bettman Photo Agency. It is one of 42 pictures of this helicopter that UPI photographer, Hubert Van Es took on 29 April 1975 from UPI's offices on the top floor of the Saigon Hotel which was several blocks from the Pittman Apartments. [People]
Here are some facts to clear up that poor job of reporting by the news media.
It was a "civilian" (Air America) Huey not Army or Marines.
It was NOT the U.S. Embassy. The building is the Pittman Apartments, a 10 story building where the CIA station chief and many of his officers lived, located at 22 Ly Tu Trong St. The U.S. Embassy and its helipad were much larger. The platform is the top of the elevator shaft for the building and was not designed as a helipad.  [People]
The evacuees were Vietnamese not American military.  Two high ranking Vietnamese where among those taken that day to Tan Son Nhut airport, General Tran Van Don and the head of the secret police Tran Kim Tuyen.  Both immigrated to Europe and both have since died.  [People]
The person who can be seen aiding the refugees was CIA operations officer, Mr. O.B. Harnage, who is now retired in Arizona.  The pilots who were flying this helicopter, tail number N4 7004, were Bob Caron who lives in Florida and Jack "Pogo" Hunter who died in 1997.  [People]
Another famous picture.

Myth: Kim Phuc, the little nine year old Vietnamese girl running naked from the napalm strike near Trang Bang on 8 June 1972, was burned by Americans bombing Trang Bang.
No American had involvement in this incident near Trang Bang that burned Phan Thi Kim Phuc. The planes doing the bombing near the village were VNAF (Vietnam Air Force) and were being flown by Vietnamese pilots in support of South Vietnamese troops on the ground. The Vietnamese pilot who dropped the napalm in error is currently living in the United States. Even the AP photographer, Nick Ut, who took the picture was Vietnamese. The incident in the photo took place on the second day of a three day battle between the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) who occupied the village of Trang Bang and the ARVN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam) who were trying to force the NVA out of the village. Recent reports in the news media that an American commander ordered the air strike that burned Kim Phuc are incorrect. There were no Americans involved in any capacity. "We (Americans) had nothing to do with controlling VNAF," according to Lieutenant General (Ret) James F. Hollingsworth, the Commanding General of TRAC at that time. Also, it has been incorrectly reported that two of Kim Phuc's brothers were killed in this incident. They were Kim's cousins not her brothers.
Myth: The United States lost the war in Vietnam.
The American military was not defeated in Vietnam. The American military did not lose a battle of any consequence. From a military standpoint, it was almost an unprecedented performance. (Westmoreland quoting Douglas Pike, a professor at the University of California, Berkley a renowned expert on the Vietnam War) [Westmoreland] This included Tet 68, which was a major military defeat for the VC and NVA.

THE UNITED STATES DID NOT LOSE THE WAR IN VIETNAM, THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE DID after the U.S. Congress cut off funding.  The South Vietnamese ran out of fuel, ammunition and other supplies because of a lack of support from Congress while the North Vietnamese were very well supplied by China and the Soviet Union.
Facts about the end of the war:
The fall of Saigon happened 30 April 1975, two years AFTER the American military left Vietnam. The last American troops departed in their entirety 29 March 1973. How could we lose a war we had already stopped fighting? We fought to an agreed stalemate. The peace settlement was signed in Paris on 27 January 1973. It called for release of all U.S. prisoners, withdrawal of U.S. forces, limitation of both sides' forces inside South Vietnam and a commitment to peaceful reunification. [1996 Information Please Almanac]
The 140,000 evacuees in April 1975 during the fall of Saigon consisted almost entirely of civilians and Vietnamese military, NOT American military running for their lives. [1996 Information Please Almanac]
There were almost twice as many casualties in Southeast Asia (primarily Cambodia) the first two years after the fall of Saigon in 1975 then there were during the ten years the U.S. was involved in Vietnam. [1996 Information Please Almanac] 
POW-MIA Issue (unaccounted-for versus missing in action)
Politics & People, On Vietnam, Clinton Should Follow a Hero's Advice, contained this quote about Vietnam, there has been "the most extensive accounting in the history of human warfare" of those missing in action. While there are still officially more than 2,200 cases, there now are only 55 incidents of American servicemen who were last seen alive but aren't accounted for. By contrast, there still are 78,000 unaccounted-for Americans from World War II and 8,100 from the Korean conflict.
"The problem is that those who think the Vietnamese haven't cooperated sufficiently think there is some central repository with answers to all the lingering questions," notes Gen. John Vessey, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Reagan and Bush administration's designated representative in MIA negotiations. "In all the years we've been working on this we have found that's not the case." [The Wall Street Journal]
More realities about war: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) - it was not invented or unique to Vietnam Veterans. It was called "shell shock" and other names in previous wars. An automobile accident or other traumatic event also can cause it. It does not have to be war related. The Vietnam War helped medical progress in this area.
Myth: Agent Orange poisoned millions of Vietnam veterans.
Over the ten years of the war, Operation Ranch Hand sprayed about eleven million gallons of Agent Orange on the South Vietnamese landscape. (the herbicide was called "orange" in Vietnam, not Agent Orange. That sinister-sounding term was coined after the war) Orange was sprayed at three gallons per acre that was the equivalent of .009 of an ounce per square foot. When sprayed on dense jungle foliage, less that 6 percent ever reached the ground. Ground troops typically did not enter a sprayed area until four to six weeks after being sprayed. Most Agent Orange contained .0002 of 1 percent of dioxin. Scientific research has shown that dioxin degrades in sunlight after 48 to 72 hours; therefore, troops exposure to dioxin was infinitesimal. [Burkett]
See also The History of the Ranch Hand Epidemiologic Investigation.


Restraining the military in Vietnam in hindsight probably prevented a nuclear war with China or Russia. The Vietnam War was shortly after China got involved in the Korean war, the time of the Cuban missile crisis, Soviet aggression in Eastern Europe and the proliferation of nuclear bombs. In all, a very scary time for our country.


SOURCES
[Nixon] No More Vietnams by Richard Nixon
[Parade Magazine] August 18, 1996 page 10.
[CACF] (Combat Area Casualty File) November 1993. (The CACF is the basis for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, i.e. The Wall), Center for Electronic Records, National Archives, Washington, DC
[All That We Can Be] All That We Can Be by Charles C. Moskos and John Sibley Butler
[Westmoreland] Speech by General William C. Westmoreland before the Third Annual Reunion of the Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association (VHPA) at the Washington, DC Hilton Hotel on July 5th, 1986 (reproduced in a Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association Historical Reference Directory Volume 2A)
[McCaffrey] Speech by Lt. Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, (reproduced in the Pentagram, June 4, 1993) assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to Vietnam veterans and visitors gathered at "The Wall", Memorial Day 1993.
[Houk] Testimony by Dr. Houk, Oversight on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, 14 July 1988 page 17, Hearing before the Committee on Veterans' Affairs United States Senate one hundredth Congress second session. Also "Estimating the Number of Suicides Among Vietnam Veterans" (Am J Psychiatry 147, 6 June 1990 pages 772-776)
[The Wall Street Journal] The Wall Street Journal, 1 June 1996 page A15.
[VHPA 1993] Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association 1993 Membership Directory page 130.
[VHPA Databases] Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association Databases.
[1996 Information Please Almanac] 1995 Information Please Almanac Atlas & Yearbook 49th edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston & New York 1996, pages 117, 161 and 292.
[Burkett] Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation was Robbed of its Heroes and its History by B.G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley, Verity Press, Inc., Dallas, TX, 1998. Book review.
[People.com] Vietnam 25 Years Later, by Joe Treen, People.com, 21 April 2000.


Other references:

VC and NVA murders

Statistics Of Vietnamese Democide Estimates, Calculations, And Sources by R.J. Rummel

Updated:  2 June 2008

      Gary Roush
      242 ASHC Muleskinners
      Information by: roush@vhpa.org

Return to the VHFCN Homepage
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/20/2017 7:40:09 PM
First it was called a tour of duty.

For attitude towards Vietnamese its going to differ from time period of service to MOS to area stationed to duty performed. The most positive are going to come from those who served as advisors or Special Forces who lived and worked/fought with Vietnamese every day of their tour. The worst would most likely come from most of the ground combat units out of mistrust and fear.

As for draftee vs volunteer try "Hue 1968." Good account of a volunteer officer and his draftee radioman assigned to advise a unit attached to the 1st ARVN Division.

The change in attitude is impossible to categorize because it changed in so many different ways with each individual depending on dozens of factors. If you are asking were they looking forward to going home as the DEROS day neared I think that would be universal but that would be about the only thing.

Number 3 is answered in the 2 copy and paste but somehow I think its not going to satisfy you and you will reject it.

Advisors to the ARVN prior to the deployment of US ground troops did volunteer for duty in Vietnam. Once ground troops were deployed if you were order you went for the 1st 1 year tour of duty, 13 months if you were a Marine, any other tours you volunteered for.

Plus your questions are slanted so as to get a negative answer.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 5517
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/20/2017 8:06:19 PM
Yeah John. I found those cut and pastes on the web. It's an easy search.

There are plenty of sites that would try to disprove the narrative that some American soldiers did their duty even though they felt that the war was unjust.

You provided one site that wishes to dispel the claim that the US lost this war John.

I am looking for academic studies that may have delved into the attitude of the American soldier during the Vietnam War.

Yours don't do it.

And you aren't interested in finding out John.


John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/20/2017 10:02:11 PM
Try JSTOR, The Scholarly Journal Archive.

Just wonder but if you know so much wouldn't you have already read a few of these academic studies? Wouldn't you have read in book written by vets how they felt about their service? Or read quotes in books and papers from vets how they felt about their experiences and service? Wouldn't you have talked to a number of vets and heard with your own ears their stories?

Interested in finding out? I already have and have heard from vets on both sides of the issue first hand. I personally know at least 30 Vietnam Vets and have talked to every single one of them about the war and their service at length. How many have you? I've averaged at least 5 books read a year on the war since high school which I started 41 years ago. I've read I don't know how many articles and a fair number of academic papers. But hey you know more and your knowledge based opinions are more valid. Good luck!
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 5517
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/21/2017 5:44:41 AM
No I cannot match that John. But I too lived through the period.

Your country was on fire John. War protests and race riots by the thousands.

Were they all traitors? Do you have an appreciation for the reasons that they were out in the streets and for that matter while protests against the Vietnam war happened all over the world?

Some of the protesters were men who had served and they said that it was time to bring the men home.

With your wide advantage in reading of this era I presume then that I can conclude that you believe:

-that communism was as real a threat as your government and mine told us that it was and that there was no paranoia in your country especially.

(BTW, I think that the allied and later NATO actions, post war, in Europe to thwart the USSR in that geographical area were entirely necessary. I do not think that the USSR had expansionist plans beyond the buffer zone that they had created out of WW2)

-that the Domino Theory was proved correct and that the Vietnam war stopped the fall of the dominoes

-that this war was just and that intervention in another foreign country was also just because they were a direct threat to the USA

-that every soldier who fought in Vietnam was politically astute enough to understand why his government sent him there.


I will say it again John. Every man and woman who was sent over there deserves praise and should be honoured. Some of the treatment that they received upon return was misguided and unfair.

By 1969, a wide majority of Americans felt that entry into Vietnam had been a mistake.

Pres. Nixon, a vile man, had made a speech at one point in the war when he called upon the silent majority to rise up and combat the influence of the war protesters, whom he hated. It worked, for a while, but by 1969, most Americans had an opinion that this war was unjust and unnecessary.

By 1967, your Senate Foreign Relations Committee was urging Pres. Johnson to ask the UN security council to assist in ending the war.

Were they all traitors to a just cause?

Lastly, it is interesting that you would take the pissing contest route in a discussion to lend weight to your arguments which I find to be disjointed and poorly expressed.



John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 526
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/21/2017 10:59:27 AM
Disjointed and poorly expressed? Who said that Russia agreed to remover her troops from the Indochina peninsula per agreements reached at Yalta in preparation of free election in Vietnam? Who brought up the picture of the little girl blaming it on the US? Oh and could you show me exactly where I called anybody but Hanoi Jane and maybe Kerry a traitor, or where I've ever said a bad work about MLK or the Civil Rights Movement, which I may add is a separate issue from the war no matter how much your mind links them? STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!

P. S. Stop pissing into the wind, haven't you ruined too many of your shoes already.

EDIR You bring up Nixon being a vile man and then the majority of the people being against the war but the problem with that is the majority of the people elected that vile man President twice. Just because the majority believe one thing or act one way doesn't mean its the right thing to believe or the right action to take.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"


George
Centre Hastings, ON, Canada
Posts: 5517
Re: 50 years ago: Camp Carroll, Republic of Vietnam
Posted on: 10/23/2017 8:35:36 PM
You're rambling John. Each post is a sequence of "yeah buts". Disjointed and unrelated.