Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: MrLars on April 27, 2003, 02:27:24 PM
-
Would public reaction have been the same if we had fought an enemy that was coordinated and capable?
Here's a bit of info why I started this thread....
I participate in a therapy group at a nearby VA hospital. The make-up is mostly Vietnam era vets with 2 Korean vets and two Gulf war vets.
The question came up when one related a field report from the recent hostilities where a seasoned soldier stated that if the ambush their convoy encountered was done by an enemy with the skills and tenacity of those encountered in Vietnam they would have been in serious trouble.
So the discussion, which took many different paths, finaly centered on "What would have happened if the Iraqi's had been an effective fighting force"?
The ones that said it would have made no difference in the outcome and public support were the two Gulf war vets. The others strongly dissagreed with them. The part that all were in agreement with was about the outcome, but public support was where they were in total disagreement.
I would like to get some peoples input into this for our next session.
One last thing, some of the guys felt that the reports of a 'stunning victory' should have been a given because of the uncohesive nature of the enemy, the fact that everyones patting themselves on the back totaly dismisses our troops great fortune that the enemy wasn't capable nor had the incentive to fight effectivly...after some discussion the general feeling, which seems to crop up at most of these sessions, was that, from the Viet era vets, of slight jealousy because of the technoligical edge and the vast support that todays US and British troops have.
Please don't let this become more than what it is, a request for some public input to help some Vets who are still adversly affected by their combat experience.
-
NO/YES?
The opinon would probebly been the same.
It all depends how long time it would have taken and how many US soldiers where killed.
We will never know, now will we?
-
Originally posted by crabofix
NO/YES?
wow, what fascinating reply.
How do I get one of those "on Probation" titles anyway?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
wow, what fascinating reply.
How do I get one of those "on Probation" titles anyway?
Just stick to the Ugly truth and you be given one to.
-
Originally posted by crabofix
Just stick to the Ugly truth and you be given one to.
In other words, just become an bellybutton and wait till you need to be scolded for childish antics?
I hope the next step finds you gone , but that's just my personal opinion.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
In other words, just become an bellybutton and wait till you need to be scolded for childish antics?
I hope the next step finds you gone , but that's just my personal opinion.
Good opinon, NUKE, I dont like people that are telling fairytales either
-
Originally posted by crabofix
Good opinon, NUKE, I dont like people that are telling fairytales either
It's obvious why guys like you and Blitz are on probation. I just can't wait till you are gone, but hey....that's "just paying customer" 'ol me.
-
Thought this post was about something totally diffrent
-
Originally posted by crabofix
Thought this post was about something totally diffrent
oh, sorry...you thought the post was about fairy tales?
LOL
Get banned why don't you
-
i saw the bit on air. they stupidly lost a main tank to a bridge and were traped. in a defensless position. no enemy one even attacked. in that particular incident they were right. they screwed up and would problably be gone if the enemy had their **** together. bet the officer responsible gets a promotion and a metal.
the viet cong had years of struggle to prepare before americans were on the scene. and lots of hitech stuff was used to little or no useful effect. a smart motivated stone age warrior on a cup of rice a day is more effective in the long run than over confident patriotic button pusher in the long run.
motivation and smarts always wins. tech is just a initial advantage. side with most resolve will win.
-
Shouldn't be too long before you get yours Nuke.;)
-
Originally posted by aztec
Shouldn't be too long before you get yours Nuke.;)
for what?
-
For trolling like a little girl.
-
Originally posted by aztec
For trolling like a little girl.
I'm not trolling...just responding
-
MrLars was requesting opinions to help his therapy group understand the varying opinions of the public on this subject. Once again it has turned into a pissing contest even with his legitimate request to keep it civil.
Come on guys! Have a heart... Please?
MrLars,
I think if the Iraqi's were an effective fighting force, the public opinion WOULD have been different in some cases. There are those who after Vietnam would rather tuck tail and run than encounter something of that magnitude again. Even though this conflict related to Vietnam in no way with it's goals and objectives, there are still those who are haunted by the memories of what happened in Southeast Asia.
Personally, if the Iraqi's were an effective fighting force, it wouldn't have changed my mind that Saddam had to go one little bit. I would have supported our troops and our government the same way I do now. I would, however, have been even more saddened at the greater loss of American lives. I wouldn't like that part one little bit, but I would still vehemently support our troops.
-
the troops didnt decide to invade, our government didnt decide to invade. one man did, i do not support him or the assertion anyone but he caused this war. and its repercussions.
-
Yes, in our system of government one man decided to act against Hussein.
However, he COULD NOT act until the Representatives of All the People AUTHORIZED him to act against Iraq.
And they did. By a substantial majority in both houses.
US, Congress, "Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq," New York Times, 11 October 2002 (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/resolution.htm)
...Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,...
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to --
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
The system worked exactly the way the system is supposed to work.
Our governement DID INDEED decide to invade.
Let's keep that truth out front in the discussions, eh?
-
Toad,
There you go adding facts to pop his perfectly timed rant. How dare you bring reality to the discussion!!!:mad:
:p ;) :D
-
And if the congress had said no.
-
Then it wouldn't have happened.
It's real simple.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The system worked exactly the way the system is supposed to work.
Our governement DID INDEED decide to invade.
Let's keep that truth out front in the discussions, eh?
Well, maybe the Congress agreed to attack Iraq, but the beautiful people in Hollywood, along with The Dixie Chicks and the French, thought it was a bad idea, and they're the people whose opinion counts most.
Oh, Crabofix and Nuke, I know you are, but what am I?
-
Hiya MrLars,
Speaking as one who did a lot of convoy escort work, I was amazed at the long ranges involved in most of the "thunder runs" shown on the tube. Most of the ambushes I recall were a lot closer. I think the difference in terrain is a big factor. The desert doesn't provide the cover that would allow the Iraqis to get off effective fire without drawing HEAVY fire from multiple sources. In Nam Charlie would usually set up in a location where it was tough for more than a couple vehicles to return fire. With the old M48a3's ya gotta stop to hit anything with the main gun. To be able to shoot accurately on the move is an incredible advantage over the old days. My .02 is that the terrain allowed the US to bring overwhelming force to the point of contact by using accurate close air support and flanking moves that weren't possible to do in Nam. Nam just wasn't good tank country in general. Most of the time you were confined to the roads by heavy jungle or rice paddies. The Iraqis were scared and didn't seem to want to do more than fire a couple shots then run like hell. Charlie didn't seem that scared, Charlie would usually fight till grunts like MrLars would drive em off. :) I don't think you can really compare Nam to Iraq. Different terrain, different equipment, VERY different enemy
cars
-
Originally posted by cars
Hiya MrLars,
My .02 is that the terrain allowed the US to bring overwhelming force to the point of contact by using accurate close air support and flanking moves that weren't possible to do in Nam. Nam just wasn't good tank country in general. Most of the time you were confined to the roads by heavy jungle or rice paddies. The Iraqis were scared and didn't seem to want to do more than fire a couple shots then run like hell. Charlie didn't seem that scared, Charlie would usually fight till grunts like MrLars would drive em off. :) I don't think you can really compare Nam to Iraq. Different terrain, different equipment, VERY different enemy
cars
HiYa cars..
Those thoughts came up from a few of the Nam Vets, the fact that Charlie could get within spitting distance unseen is something that the Iraqi's couldn't do easily but even if they could I don't think they had anything close to the fighting spirit we encountered.
Sometimes during our sessions we'll playback taped news reports and discuss the parallels we see, but most times when the high-tech weapons are shown what you hear from most is "damn, wish we had those/that"....hell, even things like MRE's seem to be a wonder to some of these gents...the mention of Ham and Lima beans always gets a funny reaction :)
-
Originally posted by GrimCO
Come on guys! Have a heart... Please?
Personally, if the Iraqi's were an effective fighting force, it wouldn't have changed my mind that Saddam had to go one little bit. I would have supported our troops and our government the same way I do now. I would, however, have been even more saddened at the greater loss of American lives. I wouldn't like that part one little bit, but I would still vehemently support our troops.
Thanks Grim...I expected some to use this thread to spout off on some sort of agenda, signal to noise and all that.
Some of the guys in the group are still dealing with the crappy reception they recieved when they got back to the world. They ALL are very glad that that attitude hasn't happened to todays soldiers but at the same time they still feel slighted...that's what we are trying to deal with.
Thanks for the input!
-
I never could understand how so recently troops could be so badly treated at home.
-
Originally posted by crabofix
Just stick to the Ugly truth and you be given one to.
Oh please....stop that right now....nothin worse than a grown mans self-rightous whinin.
Sheesh!
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
the troops didnt decide to invade, our government didnt decide to invade. one man did, i do not support him or the assertion anyone but he caused this war. and its repercussions.
As it should be....Bush is our President...he should be held accountable. What he did is what a leader is supposed to do, not cowtow to every special interest on both sides of the isle, but lead.
If you don't like it, then vote him out....just stop the incessant crying about Bush this and Bush that....it makes you come off as a sore loser.
Btw....who's your man in 04?
-
Being a Gulf War vet, the support we recieved from the people back home made it a heck of alot easier. That, we learned from Vietnam.
You can't compare Vietnam to the Gulf at all. Totally different.
Iraqis as a fighting force, the US and UK troops are "Light Years" ahead in training and technology. It appears like the Iraqis were not a effective fighting force.
MrLars, tell your Vietnam Vet guys that because of them, alot less soldiers are dying today. I mean that in good way.
Oh ya, Tell them THANKS too.
-
Originally posted by GrimCO
MrLars was requesting opinions to help his therapy group understand the varying opinions of the public on this subject. Once again it has turned into a pissing contest even with his legitimate request to keep it civil.
Come on guys! Have a heart... Please?
MrLars,
I think if the Iraqi's were an effective fighting force, the public opinion WOULD have been different in some cases. There are those who after Vietnam would rather tuck tail and run than encounter something of that magnitude again. Even though this conflict related to Vietnam in no way with it's goals and objectives, there are still those who are haunted by the memories of what happened in Southeast Asia.
Personally, if the Iraqi's were an effective fighting force, it wouldn't have changed my mind that Saddam had to go one little bit. I would have supported our troops and our government the same way I do now. I would, however, have been even more saddened at the greater loss of American lives. I wouldn't like that part one little bit, but I would still vehemently support our troops.
even though I'm not American.....and had no special relations to Vietnam.....
well said grim...sounds about right
-
We've learned how to wage war at the expense of past lives and resources...it's been a natural learning process.
Vietnam is no longer a mystery to the American public...our troops were poorly managed, the American public was lied to on a daily basis and politicians ran the war instead of qualified military leaders.
The only thing that still makes me angry about Vietnam is the loss of American life....we wasted life in an effort not to win the war, but rather to insure the survival of the American politic. Makes me sick to my stomach.
For those who would discredit in some way our current military effort in Iraq as being less than what it should have been, just because the Iraqi military was second rate, should not kid yourselves like that. We have learned to adapt our tactics accordingly....and thank God for that...handled incorrectly, we could have lost 100 times the lives we did inspite of a third rate Iraqi military.
Our Armed services along with the Defense department did a good job.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
the troops didnt decide to invade, our government didnt decide to invade. one man did, i do not support him or the assertion anyone but he caused this war. and its repercussions.
You're totally blind, aren't you?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
You're totally blind, aren't you?
Nah Rip, He can see. He just can't think.
-
MrLars, I cant speak intelligently regarding your question as I wasnt in Vietnam or the Gulf, but its a good thing youre doing, working with these individuals.
Crabs, Dolf - you should know better than to bring your riot inciting garbage into a thread of this nature... not an ounce of humility in either one of you - both worthless human beings.
-
MrLars,
I was too young at the time to contemplate the war in Vietnam much while it was underway. I just remember seeing it on television, knowing that my uncle was over there fighting, and hearing my dad complain about the way it was being handled. The one thing I remember most is that my uncle was different when he came home. I didn't understand what was different about him at the time, I just knew he wasn't the same uncle I had before he left for Vietnam. I suppose in it's own way, that left an impression on me.
However, Monk made a VERY important point that might be of some help to the Vietnam Vets in your group. I'm not saying this just to try to make you feel better, or dig for some way to look at the bright side of the Vietnam war. But because of the sacrifices you made over there, and the nonsense you had to endure, wars are fought differently today by America. A lesson was learned at your expense, but it paved the way for your children not to have to endure the same things you did if they're called upon to serve their country.
I wouldn't be jealous, I'd be proud.
-
Originally posted by GrimCO
MrLars,
A lesson was learned at your expense, but it paved the way for your children not to have to endure the same things you did if they're called upon to serve their country.
This feeling isn't lost to these guys, their extreemly glad that this war was planned and executed by the military and not by the politicians as has been done in the past. The fact that emphasis wasn't placed on bodycount by the military < but IMO was in the media > proves to them that this war was prosecuted properly and with excelent planning.
I wouldn't be jealous, I'd be proud.
We've examined if it realy is jealousy or something else, self pity has been examined too but dismissed. We'll go into this deeper in our next session since most of us feel it's not the proper term to use to describe these feelings.
Regarding your Uncle and how he had changed....damn near everyone of us did change, the feeling of not caring about lifes little problems or the attitude of "it don't mean nothin'" is just a way that they had delt with the fear that today or tomorrow may be the last day of your life, this and availibility was the root cause of most of the drug use in Nam.....some brought that attitude back to the world, the lucky ones got over it quickly.
-
Originally posted by Monk
MrLars, tell your Vietnam Vet guys that because of them, alot less soldiers are dying today. I mean that in good way.
Oh ya, Tell them THANKS too.
Roger that Monk, your response and ones like it are what I was fishing for. Some of the guys are in dire need of this kind of feedback...Thanks!
-
One major difference between the war in Vietnam and the more recent wars in Iraq is the quality of equipment. During Vietnam, our enemy was the USSR in the form of Charlie. We were fighting an army equipped with weapons very much comparable to our own, if not better. As an example, the AK47 was far and away a much better suited weapon than the poorly designed M16A1.
Furthermore, the terrain in both scenarios played a very significant role in their outcomes. In Vietnam, we were trying to establish air superiority and were still relying on tactics that had been effective in World War II. Think here of Operation Linebacker. It was our position that we could simply carpet bomb the Vietnamese into submission. Unfortunately there weren't any real targets of opportunity. There were no centralized production facilities, no major industry that needed to be shut down. As stated earlier, the Vietnamese were being supplied by the Soviets, so carpet bombing wasn't the answer (unless of course that bombing had been directed at Soviet resources, but that's a whole different can of worms).
Now take a look at the Iraqi terrain. Wide open desert and a self-contained infrastructure. This leads to the perfect use of the type of tactics we attempted in Vietnam. However, technology has progressed and there is no longer the need to carpet bomb. We can use satellite guided weapons to accurately pinpoint and destroy targets. Cruise missiles with ground following systems can fly hundreds of miles and hit a particular point in a castle. We can surgically remove the enemy's capability to make war.
Our ability to own the skies, and grind the war-making machine to a halt very quickly de-moralizes a fighting force. The Iraqis are now fighting with sub-standard equipment against an enemy that owns their skies, has destroyed their ability to continue to wage war and has them surrounded.
If we assume that the Iraqis were indeed an effective fighting force, how would we have fared? Our strategy would have been the same: destroy their ability to wage war. A fighting force can be the most effective force in the world, however if they cannot wage war they are rendered useless. Our casualties would have been considerably greater than they were due to the more effective fighting abilities of the Iraqis; however, the outcome would have eventually been the same simply because we could outlast them.
-
To the original question, would the public opinion of the war change if the Iraquis were a better opponent, which I take you to mean:
Would public opinion be as positive towards the war if we took more significant casualties?
My answer would be a definate no.
To see the truth of this, I don't think you have to look any further than North Korea. While I don't wish to argue the merrits of the most recent Gulf War, the factors that sent us in there are present in NK but in a much more obvious fassion.
You want "weapons of mass destruction" these guys are on the brink of having nuclear capabilities and have stated they are willing to sell it when they get it.
You want oppression and human rights violations, North Korea is #1 at this point for both.
So why don't we hit NK? WWIII. China wants to be the main power in South East Asia. When you're supposed to be the big boy on the block, you don't let someone else pee in your back yard. Even if China stayed out, which they wouldn't, NK is no pushover. They have over a million under arms and have good equipment. We could easily take of 200,000 casualties fighting in a place like North Korea.
Bottom line, you won't see us there.