posted
That's mainly because the troops thought that Vietnam would be like the stories that WWII and Korean war vets told them. It was a whole different type of war. I'd much rather have fought in WWII, where most of the time, you knew who was what, where the enemy were, and you knew that the Germans and Japaneese would stand and fight. Vietnam, you weren't sure whether you would be impaled by a pungee stick, or dissappear in the explosion of a grenade whose trip whire you just stepped on, or ripped apart by a blast of AK-47 rounds during an ambush. The NVC and Viet Cong didn't stay and fight. THey would pop out of nowhere, and dissappear as soon as possible. Not knowing where your enemy is can be a huge bust to morale. That might make a soldier jumpy. It's similar to the conditions faced in Iraq.
-------------------- "Kosh, I'd like to introduce you to our Resident schmuck and his side kick Kick Me."-Ritten
"Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity". -George Carlin
Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
posted
Don't lets get into war. We badly bungled Vietnam. Stop me if this sounds familiar, but "we never should have gone in there..." However, we muffed it in two key points.
We were actually accomplishing somethign when it was just special forces slipping in, assimilating the native dress, lingo, and habits, and using the VC's tactics against them. It was when they were pulled out and the regular Army was sent in that everything went to shit.
And second, we tried to fight a limited war there. Any student of military history knows that that's a one-way ticket to moral defeat and eventual quagmire. Total war or GTFO.
I would agree with the police issues raised -- not enough training, too many action movies, and limited (if any) early education in respect for and handling of a firearm and/or warrior ethic.
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
quote:Originally posted by Sean: I think a jumpy cop is actually good, as they are so paranoid that they notice everything. I have no problem with the NYPD employing such people, my only complaint is that they shouldn't give them Glocks. The ONLY physical saftey is built into the trigger. If I ever do decide to become a cop, I refuse to carry a Glock. I prefer Sig Sauer pistols. I think the BPD lets you choose your firearm though.
NO, no, no, no.
A jumpy cop is NOT good. The last time I got pulled over on my bike the damn cop pointed his gun at me. He claimed he thought I'd run on him, but c'mon, he had a fucking gun on me for a traffic stop. That might sound a little crazy but it's actually quite common in some parts of the country that have problems with bikers running. Not saying it doesn't happen, but I would not want to go through that again. Jumpy, paranoid people and guns do not mix, are you off your fucking rocker dude?
-------------------- Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I cannot accept. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of all the people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
posted
Even if you did run, what was he going to do? Shoot you? I'm pretty sure that's a murder charge right there.
And, I don't mean to defend the cops in the New York case in any way, but, to those who are saying it only takes one bullet to put someone down : Remember that it was 4 a.m., and the victims were inside a car. You could fire one shot, but you'd have, I think, quite a bit of trouble seeing whether you'd hit anyone or not.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
Yeah, I doubt he actually would have shot me if I did try. But the fact that I actually pulled over and turned the bike off should have given him the notion that I wasn't going to run.
Cop or not it's still pretty unnerving to have a gun pointed at you.
-------------------- Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I cannot accept. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of all the people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Even if you did run, what was he going to do? Shoot you? I'm pretty sure that's a murder charge right there.
Yeah, but would you be willing to bet your life the prat is clever enough to know that? I mean, he was stupid enough to pull his gun on a traffic offence in the first place.
quote:Originally posted by Sean: That's mainly because the troops thought that Vietnam would be like the stories that WWII and Korean war vets told them. It was a whole different type of war. I'd much rather have fought in WWII, where most of the time, you knew who was what, where the enemy were, and you knew that the Germans and Japaneese would stand and fight. Vietnam, you weren't sure whether you would be impaled by a pungee stick, or dissappear in the explosion of a grenade whose trip whire you just stepped on, or ripped apart by a blast of AK-47 rounds during an ambush. The NVC and Viet Cong didn't stay and fight. THey would pop out of nowhere, and dissappear as soon as possible. Not knowing where your enemy is can be a huge bust to morale. That might make a soldier jumpy. It's similar to the conditions faced in Iraq.
Ok, that's hysterical coming from a Yank. You do know that half the reason you won your revolutionary war against us is precisely because your militias resorted to guerilla tactics, yes? Our (admittedly slightly thick) generals were stuck in a mindset of "civilised warfare". That's pre-arranged battles, agreements between gentlemen and all that, then all of a sudden the smelly colonials start doing hit and runs, sniping officers and all sorts of unsporting behaviour instead of "standing and fighting". So belive it or not, your founding fathers were terrorists of a kind. You can't expect an enemy to behave as if you're on equal footing when you have them out numbered and/or out gunned. They are going to fight any way they can and if they means planting roadside bombs, taking pot shot from behind the bushes or stoning the enemy to death then that's what they're going to do. Doubly so if you happen to be invaliding their homes. As far as the continuing problems in Iraq goes, half the problem is that American soldiers like to live in a kevlar lined bubble and their idea of public relations is handing out pixie sticks and plastic flip flops to children. They need to loose the helmets and start doing two man patrols on foot rather than tearing around en mass in humvees in full armour, heavy machine guns and mirrored sunglasses.
As for how things were different in WWII, according to my grandmother (who was a nurse at the time) they were an bunch of arrogant swaggering aresholes then too. Though I'm sure most of the ones that fit that description were new recruits and replacements. That kind of war has a way of weeding out the idiots. I think I also remember something about having to restrict which pubs the yanks could go in in Southampton. Mostly to separate the white Americans from the black ones as otherwise (so I'm told) they'd actually start knifing each other.
posted
Yeah, that occasionally happened when alcohol was involved. And some people were pissed when the army was integrated back in the early fifties.
I remember my great uncle telling me something that he overheard a british soldier saying at a fancy dinner once. "They're over sexed, over paid, and over here", but he was a bit senile when he told me of it, so I am questioning whether the guy actually said that. My uncle was an aide to general Patton, so he got to accompany him to some of the more high class functions of war, like fancy dinners.
-------------------- "Kosh, I'd like to introduce you to our Resident schmuck and his side kick Kick Me."-Ritten
"Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity". -George Carlin
Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
posted
I fully note that our founding fathers *were* terrorists. No "of a kind" added. They were British citizens who overthrew the government with guerrilla tactics. What else would you call that? Still, I don't *think* the British resorted to the slaughter of civilians, did they? I mean, in Iraq, we tended to "oops, bombed another grade school" or "crap, that was a hospital, not a military target."
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: Ok, that's hysterical coming from a Yank. You do know that half the reason you won your revolutionary war against us is precisely because your militias resorted to guerilla tactics, yes? Our (admittedly slightly thick) generals were stuck in a mindset of "civilised warfare". That's pre-arranged battles, agreements between gentlemen and all that, then all of a sudden the smelly colonials start doing hit and runs, sniping officers and all sorts of unsporting behaviour instead of "standing and fighting". So belive it or not, your founding fathers were terrorists of a kind.[/QB]
For years, I've been noting the irony ("The ironing...it is DELICIOUS!") of the VC doing to to American troops what American troops did to the British regulars. It's hard to win a war when you wear nice bright red coats, walk in a straight line chanting "SHOOT ME!", & stop for tea & biscuits every day at 1630. What that happens and your enemy likes to pop out of forests at all hours, knows the local terrain better than you, & has a diet of hardtack & squirrel meat...well.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I had some hardtack once, during a civil war demonstration at my school. Not something I'm sure I want to repeat.
-------------------- "Kosh, I'd like to introduce you to our Resident schmuck and his side kick Kick Me."-Ritten
"Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity". -George Carlin
Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
posted
We did something similar at our school. But we had hardtack, black coffee with molasses (made in a percolator no less), and grits. Eeewrrugh. Although the hardtack of the civil war was so hard I hear they had to smash it with the butts of their guns to crack it into bite-sized pieces.
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
You guys should try bannock, it's actually pretty good.
-------------------- Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I cannot accept. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of all the people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
quote:Originally posted by Sean: Yeah, that occasionally happened when alcohol was involved. And some people were pissed when the army was integrated back in the early fifties.
I remember my great uncle telling me something that he overheard a british soldier saying at a fancy dinner once. "They're over sexed, over paid, and over here", but he was a bit senile when he told me of it, so I am questioning whether the guy actually said that. My uncle was an aide to general Patton, so he got to accompany him to some of the more high class functions of war, like fancy dinners.
Uh, Sean, I think you'll find that was Chicken Run. Mind you I think it was a known phrase of the day. Believe it or not, you lot weren't seen to be coming to out rescue (as I'm you've been taught) but just turning up late as usual.
Oh and did your great-uncle tell you if Patton was as big a prat as he looked?
quote:Originally posted by Daniel Butler: I fully note that our founding fathers *were* terrorists. No "of a kind" added. They were British citizens who overthrew the government with guerrilla tactics. What else would you call that? Still, I don't *think* the British resorted to the slaughter of civilians, did they? I mean, in Iraq, we tended to "oops, bombed another grade school" or "crap, that was a hospital, not a military target."
I'd call them revolutionaries. You're only a terrorist if you loose. As for any collateral damage back then, if there were any I'm sure it was quite intentional, given it would have been rather difficult to accidentally blow up a school with the weapons they had back then. At most you're going to get the odd stray cannon ball, but for the most part so long as the civilians stayed away from the battle they'd be ok. Of course if that battle was in the middle of their own town they might have to stay away for a while and may or may not have a home left when they came back.
I have to say though, collateral damage isn't the main thing the American armed forces are known for in terms of military whoopsies. It's friendly fire. I've heard the same thing from British, Canadian and Australian soldiers that they'd much rather have the enemy in front of them than have the Americans behind them. Case in point a few years back we lost a couple of local lads because their (clearly marked) tank column was bombed by an American A-10...and after he made eye contact with the tank commander, he apparantly circled around and bombed them again. Arsehole. I mean it's not like he was skimming the upper atmosphere (where I'm told most USAF pilots like to hide) and misidentified a target with a heat seeker or something. A-10s are low altitude, slow and bloody noisy things. How you can mistake a British tank column for an Iraqi one I'll never know. You can imagine what that dose for troop moral. Better to have a clever enemy than a stupid ally.
quote:Originally posted by Sean: I had some hardtack once, during a civil war demonstration at my school. Not something I'm sure I want to repeat.
Wash it down with home-stilled whiskey. It make all brain cells go lie down.
Hereabouts, the courts (finally after three years litigation) have setteled lawsuits over the Fort Lauderdale Police Department's policy of strip searching anyone arrested (even for traffic violations) or even held for questioning. Often several strip searches were required of women in an eight hour incarceration. Thousands of people are entitled to $1000 in settlement money. The sheriff that made the policy (Ken Jenne) had to testify from his prison cell (he's away for a few on unrelated charges of extortion, coercion and kickbacks).
Also newsworthy, one of Mirimar's county commisioners goes to trial next month- he pulled a .45 on someone for not having used the self-service checkout at the supermarket (thus making him late on tahnksgiving eve last year). You can YouTube that video of Fitzroy salesman. Hi-Larious.
Seriously guys, can law enforcment and government in general sink any lower?
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
