Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/30/family-marine-attacked-florida-teenagers-seeks-action-drug-overdose/#content

I don't know what's worse, that punks attack veterans or that the people try to deny that it happens.

Contrary to popular belief, the typical veteran is not a homicidal maniac. In fact, being a homicidal maniac is a pretty good way to get kicked out of the service. The last thing the US Military wants is a repeat of the massacres that occurred in Vietnam.

Amaya wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/30/family-marine-attacked-florida-teenagers-seeks-action-drug-overdose/#content

I don't know what's worse, that punks attack veterans or that the people try to deny that it happens.

Contrary to Janet Napolitano's beliefs, the typical veteran is not a homicidal maniac. In fact, being a homicidal maniac is a pretty good way to get kicked out of the service. The last thing the US Military wants is a repeat of the massacres that occurred in Vietnam.

Fixed.

EDIT-- And HOLY CRAP what is up with the service hospitals right now? First those infants asphyxiate at Trippler, then those dudes get killed at Balboa, now this?

At least they're better than they were during Vietnam. God what a feth up those were.

Amaya wrote:At least they're better than they were during Vietnam. God what a feth up Vietnam was.

Fixed again.

Punks should either be taken out and shot. Publicly. Or they should be conscripted. Russians might have had a good idea with that one.

There but for the grace of God go I.

I scream at people for talking during movies all the time.

Happygrunt wrote:Or they should be conscripted.

We do need more bombing test targets...

Vietnam. Proving once again that only the ruthless win wars.

WarOne wrote:

Happygrunt wrote:Or they should be conscripted.

We do need more bombing test targets...

The survivors will be split into two groups. 1 group shall get an m1 garand. The other shall get the clip!

Amaya wrote:Vietnam. Proving once again that only the ruthless win wars.

NO, vietnam was won because the enemy used superior tactic, and we didn't know how to fight asymmetric warfare. Had we attacked the north with overwhelming force we could have won the war in under a year.

youbedead wrote:

Amaya wrote:Vietnam. Proving once again that only the ruthless win wars.

NO, vietnam was won because the enemy used superior tactic, and we didn't know how to fight asymmetric warfare. Had we attacked the north with overwhelming force we could have won the war in under a year.

And then fought the Soviets. And killed Dragovigh... DRAGOVICH!!!!! ALL MUST DIE!!!!!

youbedead wrote:

Amaya wrote:Vietnam. Proving once again that only the ruthless win wars.

NO, vietnam was won because the enemy used superior tactic, and we didn't know how to fight asymmetric warfare. Had we attacked the north with overwhelming force we could have won the war in under a year.

They didn't use superior tactics. They got wrecked. They suffered nearly 4 times the amount of dead that the US and allies suffered.

The key is that they didn't give up, they scared the gak out of America with their brutality and forced America to pull out of war that didn't have much support to begin with.

Amaya wrote:

youbedead wrote:

Amaya wrote:Vietnam. Proving once again that only the ruthless win wars.

NO, vietnam was won because the enemy used superior tactic, and we didn't know how to fight asymmetric warfare. Had we attacked the north with overwhelming force we could have won the war in under a year.

They didn't use superior tactics. They got wrecked. They suffered nearly 4 times the amount of dead that the US and allies suffered.

The key is that they didn't give up, they scared the gak out of America with their brutality and forced America to pull out of war that didn't have much support to begin with.

I didn't realize tactical superiority was determined by causultiy rates, ww2 russia must have been useless then, and rommel was an idiot. The viet nim out thought us, they fallowed the principles of The Art of War almost to a peg, while we hadn't the faintest idea how to fight them. The vast majority of deaths were caused by bombing runs. Ambushing a superior foe then retreating before they suffer causalities is right out of sun ztu's play-book.

youbedead wrote:

Amaya wrote:

youbedead wrote:

Amaya wrote:Vietnam. Proving once again that only the ruthless win wars.

NO, vietnam was won because the enemy used superior tactic, and we didn't know how to fight asymmetric warfare. Had we attacked the north with overwhelming force we could have won the war in under a year.

They didn't use superior tactics. They got wrecked. They suffered nearly 4 times the amount of dead that the US and allies suffered.

The key is that they didn't give up, they scared the gak out of America with their brutality and forced America to pull out of war that didn't have much support to begin with.

I didn't realize tactical superiority was determined by causultiy rates, ww2 russia must have been useless then, and rommel was an idiot. The viet nim out thought us, they fallowed the principles of The Art of War almost to a peg, while we hadn't the faintest idea how to fight them. The vast majority of deaths were caused by bombing runs. Ambushing a superior foe then retreating before they suffer causalities is right out of sun ztu's play-book.

They did not have tactical superiority. America won every major battle it fought during that war. What lost it for us was the lack of will to fight the war. N. Vietnam was on the ropes and ready to break any minute when we threw in the towel. They have admitted as much since then. Had the American people had the nerve to stick it out for another year, it's extremely likely that the North would have collapsed.

N. Vietnam used certain tactics that gave them the only edge they had. Every attempt they made to engage us in an open basis they were decimated. Only when they used subterfuge did they "accomplish" anything, but as has always been the shortcoming of gorilla warfare, you cannot take and hold the ground with small units of unsupported infantry.

Strictly speaking, we dominated N. Vietnam on the Strategic, Operational, and Tactical levels. There were plenty of things that we should have done better. Unrestricted bombing, and actually invading N. Vietnam being chief among them. But we were not in any sense out fought by the N. Vietnamese.

How is the outcome of the vietnam war at all related to what appears to be random street crime?

Yeah, it would've been so worth it to just stay there for another year or so. . . . just a couple thousand more lives lost. .

Stopping those evil communists would be worth it! Jebus Bless Amurka!

Is it wrong that I clicked on this thread in the hope of reading about how someone in power armour was attacked?

Polonius wrote:How is the outcome of the vietnam war at all related to what appears to be random street crime?

I'm sure we can find some way to make it all work.

Hmm...

Vietnam War goes bad.

Populace upset.

War goes on.

Populace gets upset-ier.

War goes on.

Populace enters hatred mode. Lazers set to kill.

War ends.

Bitter memories and long stretches of logic may allow some nut jobs to go bonkers and hurt veterans, especially those who believe Jane Fonda and are trippin' the rift.

I think I found the proppa path.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Avatar 720 wrote:Is it wrong that I clicked on this thread in the hope of reading about how someone in power armour was attacked?

A marine without a bolter is a sad marine.

A marine with a bat is an angry marine.

He should of been a happy, angry marine that day.

rubiksnoob wrote:Yeah, it would've been so worth it to just stay there for another year or so. . . . just a couple thousand more lives lost. .

Stopping those evil communists would be worth it! Jebus Bless Amurka!

We'll never know what may have happened. But I do know that the ultimate sacrifice that 56,000 service members made wouldn't have been for nothing then.

We shouldn't have been there in the first place.

The Vietnam Conflict was one battle in the Cold War. Which we won.

youbedead wrote:

Amaya wrote:Vietnam. Proving once again that only the ruthless win wars.

NO, vietnam was won because the enemy used superior tactic, and we didn't know how to fight asymmetric warfare. Had we attacked the north with overwhelming force we could have won the war in under a year.

No, actually they didn't and we wouldn't have won "using overwhelming force".

In almost any pitched battle where the Vietnamese used "superior tactics", they were thrown back and defeated by pretty bog-standard tactics.

What won the war for the Vietnamese was the lack of support from the US public. It wasn't popular to begin with, similar to Korea.

But once the Tet Offensive rolled around, and the US Embassy in Saigon was taken over for a short time...popular support pretty much vanished.

That is what lost the Vietnam War for the US. Every move we made was criticized after it was made, leading to further caution in making any moves at all.

Monster Rain wrote:The Vietnam Conflict was one battle in the Cold War. Which we won.

Was that the war on flat tasting warm beer?

That war continues, but we'll keep fighting.

And we'll win!

This guy being attacked had nothing to do with him being a Marine. The real headline is "Man gets into fight with jerks at movie" but that isn't sensational enough. Toss 'Marine' into the headline and it makes it sound like one of the reasons he was attacked was becuase he is in the military but there is zero evidence to support that.

Actually the real story is the brother who died in the hospital, not this street fight. One fifth of the article is about this fight and the rest is about the brother. One doesn't need the purposefully misleading headline to do a story about hospital neglect of our vets.

Of course this whole thread is mean to inflame rather to inform. It has been ignorance and baiting from the beginning. Or as the kiddies say, "y'all posting in a troll thread".

I still want a story about an Astartes being attacked at the cinema ¬.¬

Avatar 720 wrote:I still want a story about an Astartes being attacked at the cinema ¬.¬

Blood Angel attacked cinema succumbs to Black Rage and slays 2,000 unarmed civilians until a missile is dropped on his head.

FYI Kermit, there are a lot of minor attacks against military members, mainly in the form of bar fights. There's a reason why you're told to take a battle buddy with you everywhere.

Amaya wrote:FYI Kermit, there are a lot of minor attacks against military members, mainly in the form of bar fights.

That has nothing to do with the story you posted. Still, if you are going down that road, let's see some stats and some sources if you want to make the claim. Now these must be attacks that are motivated by the military status of a vet at home, not just an incidence of a person being attacked that ahd served or was serving in the military. Much as this story had nothing to do with the man being a Marine.

Amaya wrote:There's a reason why you're told to take a battle buddy with you everywhere.

Which of your CO's told you that while you are at home with your wife you should not go anywhere without a battle buddy? Hell, have you even had a CO? An NCO? A battle buddy? Aren't you not even old enough to be in the military?

Kanluwen wrote:

youbedead wrote:

Amaya wrote:Vietnam. Proving once again that only the ruthless win wars.

NO, vietnam was won because the enemy used superior tactic, and we didn't know how to fight asymmetric warfare. Had we attacked the north with overwhelming force we could have won the war in under a year.

No, actually they didn't and we wouldn't have won "using overwhelming force".

In almost any pitched battle where the Vietnamese used "superior tactics", they were thrown back and defeated by pretty bog-standard tactics.

What won the war for the Vietnamese was the lack of support from the US public. It wasn't popular to begin with, similar to Korea.

But once the Tet Offensive rolled around, and the US Embassy in Saigon was taken over for a short time...popular support pretty much vanished.

That is what lost the Vietnam War for the US. Every move we made was criticized after it was made, leading to further caution in making any moves at all.

Either you don't understand the strategy employed by the N Vietnamese or you think that the only battles that count are massed exchanges of force, of course they lost a pitched battle with u.s. forces. That is why they resorted to the sneak attacks and ambushes that plagued U.S. forces. Just because an enemy doesn't win in large scale battles doesn't mean they still can't win the war, as they plainly demonstrated. What i mean by overwhelming force is what the moder U.S. military has adopted, hit the enemy hard at the very onset of the war and use as much force as possible i.e. iraq. We learned this from vietnam, had we attacked the north with superior force from the get go we could have made it all the way to Hanoi.

Ahtman wrote:

Amaya wrote:FYI Kermit, there are a lot of minor attacks against military members, mainly in the form of bar fights.

That has nothing to do with the story you posted. Still, if you are going down that road, let's see some stats and some sources if you want to make the claim. Now these must be attacks that are motivated by the military status of a vet at home, not just an incidence of a person being attacked that ahd served or was serving in the military. Much as this story had nothing to do with the man being a Marine.

Amaya wrote:There's a reason why you're told to take a battle buddy with you everywhere.

Which of your CO's told you that while you are at home with your wife you should not go anywhere without a battle buddy? Hell, have you even had a CO? An NCO? A battle buddy? Aren't you not even old enough to be in the military?

You get briefed about battle butt buddies at MCT and AIT Kermit. After that, people don't really give a feth.

youbedead wrote:
Either you don't understand the strategy employed by the N Vietnamese or you think that the only battles that count are massed exchanges of force, of course they lost a pitched battle with u.s. forces. That is why they resorted to the sneak attacks and ambushes that plagued U.S. forces.

First off, if you're going to try to talk down to someone, have your facts in order.

If you're going to refer to the North Vietnamese and their "strategies", then you should also refer to things correctly.

The NVA almost never engaged in "sneak attacks and ambushes". The NVA took a very Soviet doctrine to their warfare, and threw bodies at the problem.
The sneak attacks were the province of the Viet Cong, which were a very broad mixture of North and South Vietnamese civilians who were trained up in guerilla warfare. They had no real role in the greater scheme of things, outside of those "sneak attacks and ambushes" and serving as an informant/insurgency cadre for the NVA.

Just because an enemy doesn't win in large scale battles doesn't mean they still can't win the war, as they plainly demonstrated.

Did I say anything about "they didn't win in large scale battles, so they can't win the war"?
No. I didn't, so stop trying to put words in my mouth.
The NVA and the VC lost a large amount of men and material almost anytime they launched large scale operations aimed at assaulting and occupying parts of the South when the US forces were still on the ground.
But more often than not their goals were not actually to "win" those operations, they were simply to take and hold key areas that would grant them the most publicity and favorable public opinion or have some kind of profound effect on the morale of their enemies, like the capture of the US Embassy in Saigon during the Tet Offensive or the assault on the fortress city of Hue.

What i mean by overwhelming force is what the modern U.S. military has adopted, hit the enemy hard at the very onset of the war and use as much force as possible i.e. iraq. We learned this from Vietnam, had we attacked the north with superior force from the get go we could have made it all the way to Hanoi.

We did attack the North with "superior force". 'Operation: Rolling Thunder', for example, was estimated to have caused more casualties than we suffered in the entire Vietnam War and deal millions of dollars of damage to the already weak infrastructure in the North.
However, we never sustained the attack, due to popular opinion pressuring the politicians in overall command to take a velvet gloved approach anytime they might be caught fething up.