Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Guest
We "lost" in Vietnam because politicians made rules that doomed ever winning. The enemy couldn't be followed into other countries or villages to be slaughtered. Our soldiers had their hands tied behind their backs. Just like they have ever since.
Soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan...they're targets. No wonder so many come back all f@cked up in the head compared to WWII. In WWII they got to FIGHT. They got to invade and kill everything they encountered. Not so for Vietnam and on...in those "wars", they had to act like polite English bobbies...not killing death machines. Being a target messes up your head.
You DON'T EVER "win the hearts and minds", a conquered people ALL need to go or you have an enemy for life.
|
My dad was a forward observer in the Philippines-essentially a spy. Though he refused to talk about it I know he was one of 18 guys in his battalion (300-600 men) to survive the war.. His legs had been badly burned. He died long after WWII and still had a piece of Japanese sratenel too close to his spine to be removed. More than once, I recall his nightmares. More than once I saw my father turn into the animal he was in the war. I don't know but I don't think they offered aid to WWII vets as they now do.
SOLUTION-I DO NOT HAVE ONE.
If you think about it, in the American Revolution the colonists who fought that war were not much different then the fighters in the middle east. The english wanted a gentleman's war. You would line up your men in two or three lines. They were single shot smooth bore guns, The first line would shoot and move back to reload while the next line would move up to fire. The bullets were large but there was no accuracy. More like if you keep shooting you will hit something. The english were far superior in that tactic. Our people, some of whom had rifled guns had far greater accuracy but it took far longer to load. Our people would aim for officers. THAT WAS TOTALLY UNGENTLEMANLY, TERRORISTS?