Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
killing an adult I wont argue, but killing a child? it goes against biological instinct
How cum Barry doesn't send teh drones after their arses?
- Thread starter PICK3
- Start date
I thought you were going to bed 
go to bed!
go to bed!
javaguru
Banned
True story, Green Berets in Desert Storm, silenced sidearm...two Iraqi children approach their position...he didn't have to shoot them because they turned back before their position was discovered.
Killing a child while allowing them to live would kill your team? That's war...It's a pretty simple formula. When I was a young man I was taught how to properly conduct a raid as light infantry and you don't give "them" the opportunity to surrender unless you're on a prisoner grab mission....op orders and blah blah blah...I'm a murderous bastard and I have no moral standing to judge anyone else...
Last edited:
redsamurai
Banned
on the going back thing shirl, absolutely...if not immediately then within a few hours, some sort of operation should have been launched. There has to be some sort of pre determined protocol if you got left behind. Like make your way to this area of the island and make yourself a ghost but keep an ear out for the rescue party. I mean it was an island, you couldn't get back up to a beach with a rubber boat? I knwo the choppers were gettin cut up, that's fine i wouldn't force some pilots to go back....but something. Those guys were alive for a couple days apparently.
as for the shoot a child thing, yeah that's a tough one. Probably not. I would hesitate just a moment and if it was grenade my vehicle would get hit. Tis why in this lifetime and none after this I am not putting myself into a human shithole where you have to deal with that kind of scenario. When you're fighting children......i mean fuck....you know you're in one of dante's levels.
mrplunkey
New member
I can relate!
redsamurai
Banned
javaguru
Banned
lol @ speculating on how you would react in a hypothetical situation...Brother...You are making decisions on OTHER peoples lives and if you make the wrong one a nice decent kid that volunteered will go home with a flag on his coffin...Not volunteering, good way to avoid it but the 1% are actually the volunteers that fight wars you didn't care enough about to end....
mrplunkey
New member
Here is the deal. By the time Nixon became president the NVA knew they could not contend with Marines in hand to hand combat. Therefore, NVA had to adjust their strategy. Instead of coming down the Ho Chi Minh Trail, the NVA started pussying out by taking an alternative route through Laos and Cambodia hiding in sanctuaries. Where they would supply the VC with armaments and other stuff, and get into little skirmishes here and there on the border of SV. Usually, they would engage in hit and run tactics. The NVA resorted to this type of military strategy because the Marines literally crippled them. LBJ, who was terrified of the Chinese and Soviets was afraid to bomb Hanoi, Laos, and Cambodia. Which was absurd because at that juncture of the Cold War the U.S. and the Soviets had enough nukes to wipe out the world twenty times over. Consequently, neither party was willing to risk total annihilation. Therefore, the Soviets were pretty much no threat. However, the threat of the Chinese getting involved was quite possible because they got involved in the Korean War. But the Marines demolished them at the 38th parallel. Therefore, the Chinese were no real threat either. Nixon, who had balls of steel starting bombing the hell out of Cambodia bringing the NVA to their knees (Operation Menu). At the Paris Peace negotiations the NV dimplomats were ready to sign the surrender, However, the left-wing lunes pinned Watergate on Nixon giving the NVA life. That surrender was in ink! Make no mistake about it.. There are only three presidents in the history of the U.S. that there is exact data on their administrations. Kennedy, LBJ,and Nixon all recorded everything about their foreign policy (primary sources). The public has access to the records.. I will dig them up or see if my chair will turn me on to them considering he is an expert on the Vietnam War.
Second, to say the U.S. did not belong in Vietnam is irrelevant at this juncture. The fact remains that we were there and the topic is about who won, and why did they win? Robert McNamara, who was/is a brilliant numbers cruncher was the Secretary of Defense under Kennedy and Johnson. By 1963, McNamara knew we could beat them in a ground war. However, he knew that setting up a democratic government and sustaining it in South Vietnam was impossible.. There are many variables to why a democracy would not of worked in SV. I will give you a couple. First, there was entirely too much corruption in the SV government. Second, they did not care about the indigenous people. The south ruled by hegemony. Therefore, the south had no support from the indigenous people. Believe it or not, communism had more to offer than democracy because of the corrupt bureaucracy in the south. Hence, the indigenous supported communism. That is why McNamara started to get reluctant to go overt in Nam. Moreover, they whacked Kennedy, and LBJ became president. LBJ had his heart set on going overt in Nam because of bureaucratic pressure. Hence, he put the heat on McNamara to devise a plan to go overt in Nam. McNamara pretty much resisted. However, LBJ fired McNamara in a de facto fashion. Then eventually McNamara resigned...But he was in essence fired (the gist). Consequently, LBJ went overt in Nam. There is a good documentary about McNamara called, The Fog of War. He tells his side of the story. IMO, very good documentary..
Again, I will reiterate what I have said. I hope you people get this because I am not going to be around here forever. The U.S. won the Vietnam War militarily, but lost politically... You can thank your friendly neighborhood democrats for that (L).
Similar threads
