Ken Burns series on Vietnam started tonight

[seminole97]

ROE.

I know they didn't destroy ground control radars because they were afraid of killing Russian or Chinese operators, but I don't know the reasoning behind not taking out planes on the ground.

It's like something out of Catch-22.

 

[F4Gary]

We have to play by the rules, out enemies don't. I'm wondering it this series is going to show the atrocities the Cong committed. They were way worse than anything we did. Also wondering if they are gonna show Hanoi Jane. I still hate her.

 

[FSUTribe76]

I'm wondering it this series is going to show the atrocities the Cong committed. They were way worse than anything we did.

Worse than setting up rape and execution squads for reprisals on civilians? Worse than decapitating a baby to take its necklace or raping, murdering and scalping a young female nurse and then using the scalp as a decoration on the rifle? Cause we did that.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/oct/26/pressandpublishing.usnews

Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure it wasn’t true of the ordinary GI but Tiger Force was a heavily decorated unit and their horrific actions were sanctioned by higher ups. One of the few Tiger Force soldiers to attempt to stop the civilian slaughter was himself turned on by his officers and forced into psychiatric counselling.

 

[FSUTribe76]

The Vietnam war is really an interesting study in how the US changed our philosophy in fighting wars and also showed how politicians and the media can really screw things up. In past wars we had no issue with literally destroying cities and areas in order to win the war; Vietnam saw that change. Why we did not bomb the North into the stone age is beyond me and their treatment of American POWs was criminal. The use of a body count to determine success was another major fail; as anyone with a brain had to realize if you tied enemy KIA to your success and didn't require measurable proof then you would get false info. Obviously hind site is 20/20; but if you are willing to send men and women to war then you should not be afraid to literally destroy your opponent. I could go on and on, but one thing that the majority of Americans don't know is we never lost a decisive engagement; even TET was a major loss for NV, but if you read history books all you hear about is how the US lost all the time over there.

I’m a giant history buff but I “specialize” in the Revolutionary War and all of the colonial and civil wars that occurred before and shortly after it, the Civil War (which was not our first by any stretch just the bloodiest) and WW2. So I’m not a Vietnam expert and I always took away it was the textbook definition of how you lose a war despite winning the majority of the battles. That was also true of the Revolutionary War. The American Rebels lost almost every single large battle unless 1) the French and/or Spanish Army had more soldiers involved than the Americans, 2) it was exclusively against American Loyalists or 3) it was basically a small skirmish. Yet we went on to win independence (thanks to the Spanish and French really).

 

[seminole97]

Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure it wasn’t true of the ordinary GI but Tiger Force was a heavily decorated unit and their horrific actions were sanctioned by higher ups.

From your link:
"Tiger Force operated out of control in the Vietnamese highlands for seven months in 1967.
...
The killing spree was either ignored or encouraged by army top brass, but when an inquiry did take place it lasted for four years. No one was charged. Details were not released to the public, and are still classified. Bill Carpenter, a former special infantryman with Tiger Force, believes the self-styled death squad's former commander, Lt James Hawkins, should be held accountable. He 'thoroughly enjoyed killing' and, now retired to Florida, still defiantly defends his platoon's wartime activities. 'I don't regret nothing,' Hawkins has said."

There's no problem charging 90+ year old death camp guards. I don't understand why there should be a problem charging those responsible in this case either.

 

[billanole]

I think comparing atrocities on both sides is a fool's game. There were inhumane activities on both sides. I was struck by at least one of the NVA troops interviewed who described the terror proceeding random, horrific, death from above as the US ramped up bombing at various stages of the conflict.

 

[RangerNole]

I’m a giant history buff but I “specialize” in the Revolutionary War and all of the colonial and civil wars that occurred before and shortly after it, the Civil War (which was not our first by any stretch just the bloodiest) and WW2. So I’m not a Vietnam expert and I always took away it was the textbook definition of how you lose a war despite winning the majority of the battles. That was also true of the Revolutionary War. The American Rebels lost almost every single large battle unless 1) the French and/or Spanish Army had more soldiers involved than the Americans, 2) it was exclusively against American Loyalists or 3) it was basically a small skirmish. Yet we went on to win independence (thanks to the Spanish and French really).

That is great and all but you get your facts from people who wrote about it and likely had a bias 1 way or another. I get my facts from people that were actually there. Nothing personal but your post about atoricities shows me a bias as well. There are bad people in every profession in the world; so it is really easy to take a few really bad things and condemn a profession. I believe you are a lawyer, pretty sure I could find a few things with a quick google search that would portray your profession of nothing but a bunch of heartless jerks that are nothing but a well educated mafia. You should probably talk to a relative of mine or his friends who spent over 7 years in a NV prison about who did what in Vietnam; you would likely have a very different opinion on how things happened over there.