English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

the american soldier loses in vietnam cause i think american have no experince in fighting in the jungle where the vietcong has the advantage using the jungle as their hideout i mean they can easily hide and ambush us marine easily and it has cost many american soldier where stealth as there main objective they can easily put booby trap or mine in fields wheres its almost impossible to detect and fighting in the jungle is the worst place to be u can easily die in the jungle of malaria, snake bite,poison plant etc. and the most important no smart bomb can be used in the jungle its useless how many smart bomb u use u cannot hit accurately cause of the heavy dense jungle where in iraq american marine can easily destroy iraq cause of the dessert where the iraqi cannot hide cause of the dessert thats why i think iraq is easily defeated by american but if american invade north korea do u think they will used the jungle as their advantage .

2006-08-12 02:23:26 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

19 answers

the French have failed to occupy Vietnam do you think the American do better u cannot defeat the people of Vietnam cause they have a fighting spirit than any American soldier their people u cannot fight a population most of them would like to be a communist than be a democratic country if u remember many American back home would rather be imprisoned than go to Vietnam cause they know Vietnam is the worst place to die and casualties have risen to 40 to 70 percent if u remember the tom cruise movie born on the fourth of July the vets would march to Washington just to stop the war so politics has stop the Vietnam war cause the people insist on it so the American have really lost the war in Vietnam cause many soldiers are dying in there and if they will invade north Korea i think they will failed again they have failed before to get rid of the communist in there in 1950{ Korean war .}

2006-08-13 02:16:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

#1. We won't invade Korea without a ton of backup. And a lot of political BS from the UN, etc, and other countries.

We might step up the persence in South Korea though. I can see the drawdown there stopping, and troops getting transferred back to S. Korea.

#2. Technology has come a long way since Vietnam, and the fighting skills have grown with it. The American Soldier has learned urban fighting as well as jungle fighting. Iraq isn't all desert. There's oasis' and tons of vegetation there to mask people.

#3. You can die anywhere from just about anything, up to and including breathing. War isn't the biggest killer of people....Heart attacks, smoking, and cancer is.

#4. While i hope and pray we do get involved with the Korea situation, ifwe do, it would be in a very smart, tactical way. That's the way the army fightsthesedays. Smart, and seriously tactical...

Yea, I do think they would use the jungle as their advantage. They'd be stupid not to. And while they still blindly follow communisim, I don't think they are dumb.

2006-08-12 09:35:52 · answer #2 · answered by Lynne 3 · 2 0

Jungle warfare is war fought in the most difficult terrain. However, even in Vietnam we killed far more of the enemy than we lost, but that really doesn't matter now anyway. I only say that because Americans fought hard in Vietnam and in the end it was politics that ended the war they way it did, not losses on the battlefield.

As for Korea, we have already fought their once and it ended in a cease fire that is still in effect today, thus you have North and South Korea. If we invaded North Korea it would be totally different from Vietnam, because we never really invaded North Vietnam, the strategy was to defend South Vietnam and keep it free. If we had invaded we would have won. What operations we did do in the North, such as the Son Tay Raid, were successful in the sense that we were able to penetrate into the North and with little and even no losses. The strategy and politics of Vietnam were stupid, an attack on North Korea would be a completely different situation, and the outcome would most likely be in our favor.

2006-08-12 09:34:11 · answer #3 · answered by mike_one_zero 2 · 4 0

Where do you get the idea that Korea consists of jungles? I'd suggest you consider a law suit against your geography teacher. That being said here's a few facts to consider:
1. In the Korean war we virtually leveled all of North Korea all the way to the Chinese border.
2. We are no strangers to jungle fighting....ever hear of the Philippines, Guadlcanal, Tarawa, Saipan, and dozens of other Pacific Islands.
3. We were anything but defeated in Viet Nam. We adapted quite well to the jungle there and all of it's inhabitants. That the end result was not what most of us hoped for is not a matter of our lack of skill at jungle fighting.

Any change of theater requires adapting. We adapt well. We have been fighting in deserts and cities for awhile now. There were lessons learned in the beginning of those campaigns, but it sure seems to me that we haven't had much trouble learning how to master that. Todays IED's ( yesterdays booby traps )can present a problem anywhere, in any kind of climate and terrain....we deal with them as we find them. If you feel we lack the ability to use stealth, tell it to a Marine Force Recon.

Vinnie ...You would be well advised to spend less time in Q&A and more time in a library.

2006-08-12 11:04:16 · answer #4 · answered by RunningOnMT 5 · 2 0

What happened in Vietnam is public opinion. Public opinion made Washington D.C. control the fighting in Vietnam. All the peacenicks at home influenced the way the war was fought. Much like in Iraq. If Washington had let the soldiers on the ground do their job, Vietnam would have turned out very different. When the media doesn't report the whole story and American's have no stomache for what peace costs, then we lose.
War sucks. It's horrible and terrible. But sometimes necessary. What would happen to Israel if they had a bunch of Cindy Sheehans talking about how their soldiers are dying and bring the troops home to Israel where they belong? "They have no business in Lebanon." "Our soldiers are dying."
Israel would be gone by now.

2006-08-12 11:35:54 · answer #5 · answered by asterisk_dot_asterisk 3 · 2 0

Political thirst for power lost the war in Vietnam. It was dragged out due to opposition from the left. Support was not there to get the job done. The same is happening today. As the left bashes and criminalizes this administration it weakens the countries resolve and support of following through and getting the job done. We will make North Korea china's problem. China is on the verge of one of the strongest economies the wold has ever seen. Yet there economy cannot be self sufficient. They will deal with Kim Jong IL when the time is right for them. They import everything into that country from food to weapons. They are standing back for the moment before they act so that they can see how world events unfold and figure out how to use the outcome to benefit them the most. Eventually they will pull the plug on North Korea.
If we wage war with North Korea millions of North Koreans will flood into china in search of food and shelter. This is the last thing China wants. It is in their economic interest to handle the problem yet chances are they will simply let thousands die first so they can merely get the most out of the situation as they can.

2006-08-12 09:51:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

The US military never lost a single battle in Vietnam and the war was lost through the media and public opinion.

However it is true to say that many of US troops in Vietnam were draftees and they were far from expert in the skills of both jungle fighting and the cultural considerations of the region.

Clearly there were very good specialised units who did have those skills but the average draftee did not.

This led to an overdependance on technology and firepower rather than developing subtelty and fighting the enemy with the enemys own methods.

2006-08-12 10:18:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Speaking from experience, Iraq is not all desert. Most of the fighting done there is in urban terrain, much like "Black Hawk Down" if you've seen it. War is obviously fought differently today than it was 40 years ago, so we would most likely bomb the hell out of the area, then send ground troops in. To answer your question bluntly, we are always ready!

2006-08-12 09:30:51 · answer #8 · answered by combatfilm 2 · 2 0

The military is trained in ever terrain possible (desert, jungle, mountain, arctic). The reason we ran into problems in Vietnam is because they were hiding underground.

They were like prairie dogs that we couldn't get rid of. They would just pop out take a couple shots and then go back into hiding. It had nothing to do with the terrain.

2006-08-12 09:48:52 · answer #9 · answered by JB 4 · 0 2

Jungle in Korea? Wake up nitwit! I personally spent two years in the bush & no, it's not an easy place to run opps. We learned to play by Charlies rules & had some nasty suprises for him. It's like anything else. You learn to adapt or die. You read this while I go look for the Korean jungle.

2006-08-12 14:49:57 · answer #10 · answered by preacher55 6 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers