3000-facts
- Thread starter DOGS THAT BARK
- Start date
DTB - you are so full of it. Those numbers are directly in proprtion to how many troops were in Vietnam. It's not like casualties magically went down. Why do you continually pull this garbage?
Year - Troops - Deaths - %
1966 - 385,300 - 6,845 - 1.8
1967 - 485,600 - 11,058 - 2.3
1968 - 536,100 - 16,508 - 3.1
1969 - 475,200 - 11,527 - 2.4
1970 - 334,600 - 6,065 - 1.8
1971 - 156,800 - 2,349 - 1.5
1972 - 24,200 - 551 - 2.3
http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/USPersonnelInSouthVietnamChart .html
As you can see, the % of casualties remained somewhat constant, spiking when we had the highest numbers of troops in Vietnam.
Unlike you, I prefer to look at the entire picture. By your logic, 1972 was a sign of pending victory because we only lost 551 people that year. But - oh by the way - we had about 95% fewer troops fighting at that point.
Thanks for your continued, ridiculous spinning of facts though. You never dissappoint.
Year - Troops - Deaths - %
1966 - 385,300 - 6,845 - 1.8
1967 - 485,600 - 11,058 - 2.3
1968 - 536,100 - 16,508 - 3.1
1969 - 475,200 - 11,527 - 2.4
1970 - 334,600 - 6,065 - 1.8
1971 - 156,800 - 2,349 - 1.5
1972 - 24,200 - 551 - 2.3
http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/USPersonnelInSouthVietnamChart .html
As you can see, the % of casualties remained somewhat constant, spiking when we had the highest numbers of troops in Vietnam.
Unlike you, I prefer to look at the entire picture. By your logic, 1972 was a sign of pending victory because we only lost 551 people that year. But - oh by the way - we had about 95% fewer troops fighting at that point.
Thanks for your continued, ridiculous spinning of facts though. You never dissappoint.
Dogs,
The "laughable joke" is the idea that some of you think that the media has any ability to affect the outcomes in a Viet Nam or an Iraq.
Love the not so subtle dig at my lack of military service. Are you 100% certain I didn't serve? Can you prove that I did or didn't? Is that how you convince yourself that you have won an arguement?
Why the hell would I read a book of fiction from a commie loser?
I can play that game, too. You refuse to acknowledge time and time again how wrong you are about most things you post here; continue to deny you are wrong when proven wrong without a shadow of a doubt--yet you expect me to read some drivel and magically see things your way?
I'll pass, thanks.
The "laughable joke" is the idea that some of you think that the media has any ability to affect the outcomes in a Viet Nam or an Iraq.
Love the not so subtle dig at my lack of military service. Are you 100% certain I didn't serve? Can you prove that I did or didn't? Is that how you convince yourself that you have won an arguement?
Why the hell would I read a book of fiction from a commie loser?
I can play that game, too. You refuse to acknowledge time and time again how wrong you are about most things you post here; continue to deny you are wrong when proven wrong without a shadow of a doubt--yet you expect me to read some drivel and magically see things your way?
I'll pass, thanks.
Last edited:
a few takes on that book of fiction you told me to read...not saying I agree with them, but you can get a feel for the work when reading them.
I have read General Giap's work both in the original Vietnamese and in English. There is little to no valuable insight contained within the political dogma and Party rhetoric that fills this puffed-up praise of General Giap. The reader should keep in mind this work was not originally published to discuss the strategy and tactics of the final push to capture the Republic of Vietnam. Instead, it was published to praise General Giap and portray him to the Vietnamese people as a hero of the Communist Party who outwitted and defeated the foreign invaders, thus placing Giap in a class with other heroes of Vietnamese history such as Le Loi and the 2 Trung Sisters. This is NOT a serious analysis of the final events of the Vietnam war, and offers little promise other than to satisfy a curiosity for how the Communist Party interprets history for the people of Vietnam.
This book is mostly filled with self-congratulatory propaganda. It is written for an audience that is decidedly non-military, and it is therefore very light on substance that is useful to professional warfighters. Although it does have a few useful nuggets, Che Gueverra's book is much more enlightening if you want to learn about guerilla warfare. The title is even misleading. "How we Won the War" implies a discussion of the entire conlfict, but this book only deals with the final 1975 offensive. The two commentaries in the front are both by unabashed communist sympathizers who don't even understand the book well enough to see it for what it is, a 25 page pep-talk, and see it instead as a "how to" guide for revolutions everywhere, which it is not. It is on the Commandant's reading list, so every Marine should read it, but don't expect to get too much out of it. Of the 20-odd books I have read from the reading list, this is by far the most disappointing, and least useful.
The objective of this book was the description, in broad terms, of the strategies employed by North Vietnam in 1975 well after withdrawal of U.S. troops. If you are looking for details in tactics employed throughout the campaign, you will not find them here. Nor is this the book in which Gen. Giap supposedly stated that groups such at the Vietnam Veterans Against the War gave the North the resolve to carry on. This book is for the reader already familiar with the course of the war after the Paris Agreement, who is interested in hearing in the words of the victors how they envisioned the means of bringing down the South Vietnamese government.
Looks like a real scholarly tome, there, Dogs. I'll have to add it to my reading list immediately...
I have read General Giap's work both in the original Vietnamese and in English. There is little to no valuable insight contained within the political dogma and Party rhetoric that fills this puffed-up praise of General Giap. The reader should keep in mind this work was not originally published to discuss the strategy and tactics of the final push to capture the Republic of Vietnam. Instead, it was published to praise General Giap and portray him to the Vietnamese people as a hero of the Communist Party who outwitted and defeated the foreign invaders, thus placing Giap in a class with other heroes of Vietnamese history such as Le Loi and the 2 Trung Sisters. This is NOT a serious analysis of the final events of the Vietnam war, and offers little promise other than to satisfy a curiosity for how the Communist Party interprets history for the people of Vietnam.
This book is mostly filled with self-congratulatory propaganda. It is written for an audience that is decidedly non-military, and it is therefore very light on substance that is useful to professional warfighters. Although it does have a few useful nuggets, Che Gueverra's book is much more enlightening if you want to learn about guerilla warfare. The title is even misleading. "How we Won the War" implies a discussion of the entire conlfict, but this book only deals with the final 1975 offensive. The two commentaries in the front are both by unabashed communist sympathizers who don't even understand the book well enough to see it for what it is, a 25 page pep-talk, and see it instead as a "how to" guide for revolutions everywhere, which it is not. It is on the Commandant's reading list, so every Marine should read it, but don't expect to get too much out of it. Of the 20-odd books I have read from the reading list, this is by far the most disappointing, and least useful.
The objective of this book was the description, in broad terms, of the strategies employed by North Vietnam in 1975 well after withdrawal of U.S. troops. If you are looking for details in tactics employed throughout the campaign, you will not find them here. Nor is this the book in which Gen. Giap supposedly stated that groups such at the Vietnam Veterans Against the War gave the North the resolve to carry on. This book is for the reader already familiar with the course of the war after the Paris Agreement, who is interested in hearing in the words of the victors how they envisioned the means of bringing down the South Vietnamese government.
Looks like a real scholarly tome, there, Dogs. I'll have to add it to my reading list immediately...
this is kind of fun. las few of these, I promise...
If you're interested in really finding out how General Giap masterminded the military victory in Vietnam, this book isn't going to answer the question. Instead, Giap takes the opportunity simply to reinforce the stated political positions of the Vietnamese communist movement in book form in a way that's not particular original or well-written.
If you're a communist, you'll probably enjoy saying "Right on!" as he makes an endless stream of broad generalizations about the political side of the victory, but if you're interested in finding out about what Giap is truly a genius at doing, fighting a guerilla war, you won't really find this book satisfying
Winning" a war does not have anything to do with the outcome of this or that battle, rather it is connected with which opponent manages to achieve a desired condition as an end-result or final outcome. The North Vietnamese managed to do just that, the Americans did not. Therefore, the North Vietnamese WON the war and no matter how much drivel Americans like to spew out concerning their "superiority and victory" in any number of battles, the fact remains that after the dust settled, the North Vietnamese achieved what they were after and the Super Power of super powers had to put its tail between its legs and slink off home. This book tells you how the North Vietnamese emerged victorious and is worth reading.
If you're interested in really finding out how General Giap masterminded the military victory in Vietnam, this book isn't going to answer the question. Instead, Giap takes the opportunity simply to reinforce the stated political positions of the Vietnamese communist movement in book form in a way that's not particular original or well-written.
If you're a communist, you'll probably enjoy saying "Right on!" as he makes an endless stream of broad generalizations about the political side of the victory, but if you're interested in finding out about what Giap is truly a genius at doing, fighting a guerilla war, you won't really find this book satisfying
Winning" a war does not have anything to do with the outcome of this or that battle, rather it is connected with which opponent manages to achieve a desired condition as an end-result or final outcome. The North Vietnamese managed to do just that, the Americans did not. Therefore, the North Vietnamese WON the war and no matter how much drivel Americans like to spew out concerning their "superiority and victory" in any number of battles, the fact remains that after the dust settled, the North Vietnamese achieved what they were after and the Super Power of super powers had to put its tail between its legs and slink off home. This book tells you how the North Vietnamese emerged victorious and is worth reading.
Red do you have any books to reccomend to dog that Ollie North wrote? He would be an excellent source for the kind of news dog will swear by.
Sponge-
Sorry, man, I'm not in the recomending business, unless its to tell everyone to take Florida and the points next week....:mj07:
Are you sure YOU read the book, Dogs? In this link, it tells me that your commie hero Giap ACTUALLY NEVER SAID what I'm assuming you want me to find out by reading the book.
enjoy....
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/8232.html
Sorry, man, I'm not in the recomending business, unless its to tell everyone to take Florida and the points next week....:mj07:
Are you sure YOU read the book, Dogs? In this link, it tells me that your commie hero Giap ACTUALLY NEVER SAID what I'm assuming you want me to find out by reading the book.
enjoy....
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/8232.html
Nam is tough one because many Americans started to grow uncertain why we were there already in 67. We have to remember we had the draft then and many restless people were making it public no more build up. We had been their since 59. Most Americans did not even know that. But by 63 they did. And by 68 it was becoming apparent most Americans had enough. In 69 the draw down started. I just can't believe we can make same mistake in Iraq. Not if they don't want us there or care to live like human beings.
Great post Redsfann. Is there no level too low to which these neocons will stoop?
i'm not surprised that some people don't think the war coverage in the media dictates how the war is/was fought....during the nam days i didn't think so either because i was against the nam war & was in agreement with all of the negative coverage....but now that i think that the u.s should be very aggressive in this war against these terrorist thugs....i can plainly see that the media coverage is dictating how the war in iraq is fought.... if anybody doesn't think the media dictates how the recent wars are fought are sadly mistaken.....
Last edited:
just look at where the negative stories of the war are placed in newspapers vs. positive stories are placed.....or look at the the cnn piece they did on the terrorist snipers....or look at how anxious the times was about exposing the nsa surveillance stories, even after the wh told them it will hurt the nation's security (during ww2 the times would not have exposed that story).
Are those examples "dictating how the war in Iraq is fought"? I'm not quite seeing the connection. Placement of stories doesn't dictate the war, a peice on snipers is certainly nothing significant, NSA surveillance stories have nothing to do with Iraq.
I'm looking for an example that proves your statement: "media coverage is dictating how the war in iraq is fought..."
I'm looking for an example that proves your statement: "media coverage is dictating how the war in iraq is fought..."
If the media had to sit on the sidelines im sure this scum of an administration would tell us how we are over there just steam rolling the place. To not think this is borderline psychotic. They lie right to our face and if your not to stupid to believe them or over three years old, you should be able to figure out why people don't want the media involved. Only neocons want the media out of it because they can hide all kinds of things and the sheep or jackasses can believe them.
of course the news media doesn't directly tell the military how to fight the war, but how it portrays the war does indeed influence the american people. if you know something about marketing (don't know if that's the right word), & for some reason i thought you did....where a newspaper or newscast places a news item tells you volumes (at least it does for me) how that particular media outlet views the specific topic.....for example....the ny times puts negative items on iraq in the first few pages of their paper where it will get more readers, while items that reflect a positive reflection of the war (schools, roads,etc) are placed towards the back of the paper.
No arguments here. This is much different than your previous statement about dictating the way the war is being fought. Death always gets top-billing though. Anyone who expects the media (liberal or otherwise) to treat the opening of a school in Iraq on equal terms with a roadside bomb killing 4 Americans for 200th time is extremely naive.
no where did i say that stories about american soldiers dying should get equal billing then schools being built. i feel it is owed to the families of american soldiers to get top billing.....
AR182 I think American people would have backed this Iraq invasion more. If we had not gave our support to Saddam in the past. Look we new those old enough here. That in 86/87/88 Saddam was gassing Kurds by the thousand. But we were so happy with his war with Iran we looked the other way. Reagan did nothing and Bush 40 passed on it till war of 91. Saddam made mistake in thinking he had Bush's blessing to invade Kuwait.
He of course was wrong.
But none of that is because of media. It's History And so many can't understand what the heck we invade someone who had nothing to do with 9/11.
But we think is a threat to Kuwait and Saudi. I can not believe my government believe any of that.
And there reporting of how war is going is a bunch of generals that don't agree. So that leaves media to fill the void. We have to believe some one. Generals that don't agree make media look good. It's are money being spent, and kids that are dieing. We have right to know truth from someone. Even if we don't like to here it. Untill we can trust what government is telling us. We do what?
He of course was wrong.
But none of that is because of media. It's History And so many can't understand what the heck we invade someone who had nothing to do with 9/11.
But we think is a threat to Kuwait and Saudi. I can not believe my government believe any of that.
And there reporting of how war is going is a bunch of generals that don't agree. So that leaves media to fill the void. We have to believe some one. Generals that don't agree make media look good. It's are money being spent, and kids that are dieing. We have right to know truth from someone. Even if we don't like to here it. Untill we can trust what government is telling us. We do what?
djv..
i would guess that about 85-90% of americans have no idea that the u.s. supported saddam at one time.
i think the americans stopped supporting the iraq war because no wmds were found & we are an instant gratification country...we have no patience.
i would guess that about 85-90% of americans have no idea that the u.s. supported saddam at one time.
i think the americans stopped supporting the iraq war because no wmds were found & we are an instant gratification country...we have no patience.
