Why was Vietnam so Different?

Playing devil's advocate here, a lot of the soldiers acted without orders from high commands.

reply to post by Shugo


I disagree with this statement, its funny how things change over time, the question I have for you is, Have you ever been in a combat situation, I have......are there soldiers that act without orders from high command, what is the high command, lets start with the lowest level and go up the chain.

Squad, Platoon, Company, Battalion, Brigade, Division, Corp, Army, Pentagon, CAC

So the question that needs to be asked is did those that legitimately act without orders do so because they need to act now not ten, twenty, 60 minutes, they made a decision and they had to live with it. Information on the battle field can go up the chain, but coming back down takes forever, especially when you are being shot at. it like saying to the enemy, hold on a while, I have to wait to get the orders to shot at you first, while they are shooting at you and closing in.

Where there acts of Misconduct by soldiers, Yes there always will be its the nature of the beast but that is why we have applied the rules of war, good example of them is this, if two jets are fighting and one pilot ejects and is floating down to the ground with the aide of his parachute can you shot him? NO, since he is not capable of defending himself, by the rules of war if he lands and is not injured can you shot at him, Yes, but if he is injured just laying there NO. Can we bomb hospitals, churches, museums, NO, unless they are being used to fight from.

If you are so bent on the Vietnam war or any conflict I suggest you go down to a VFW or American Legion and talk to some of the guys and gales that have been there before you dishonor them because of what happened.

reply to post by 19KTankCommander


Nothing in that statement had anything to do with dishonesty. Please don't take things out of context. A lot, yes...there were a lot. There were many who went on killing sprees in towns, there were many who did not follow those rules of war. It's not a suspicion, it's not something that the VFW vets hide, it's a flat out fact. There are soldiers who even admit to doing some of those acts. It has nothing to do with the fact that I am dishonoring them. You jumped to that conclusion on your own.

Again, I was playing devil's advocate, because in a topic such as this it needs to be done. I'm well versed in the ranks of military, I can also recall several times where orders are being handed down by brigade generals and captains to "kill anything that moves." That's a fact too. You can't just sit there and say "well, it was okay - because we followed the rules of war most of the time, and war is hell." For starters, we didn't follow those rules and secondly, even though war is hell (another fact), when a civilian is obviously a civilian (i.e. a child or a pregnant woman) how is it humane to put a bullet through their head?

I can appreciate you having been on the battlefield before, but what I don't appreciate is the fact that someone is trying to justify pointless and purposeful manslaughter. Take that down to your VFW and see how many people deny that happened. Better yet - talk to some Vietnamese immigrants or fly on down there yourself - before you brush off the killing of innocent family members of theirs as just another necessary war statistic.


Here is the rest of that paragraph by the way:

And to be fair, one would expect nothing less. However, many of them did in fact go rogue on specific missions. Mai Lai is a prime example of such an occasion, and it was not the only time.

If you're going to quote something I've said, quote all of what I'm conveying in attachment to what I said. Don't take things out of context.

I do not believe any war was as vile as WW2 with some of the things against civilians carried out by say the Japanese (Nanking comes to mind) or some of the prisoners of war or concentration camps that were standard operating procedure for the axis.

Stalin seemed to have allot of internal problems after the war if the 20 million he killed is true.. Mao seemed to fall into the same boat.

Dad was in WW2 and said all captured SS officers were shot on the spot..

Vietnam and the after effect in Cambodia with Pol Pot who had no problem ordering his 14 and 16 year old soldiers to kill everyone with an education or even a pair of eye glasses also comes to mind.. So was Vietnam more inhumane or were there more atrocities committed by both sides? I never saw or heard of medical labs where people were dissected alive and sanctioned by some government entity like Mengele or the Japanese medical outfit called unit 731.


Nanking official body count was 269,000 but in reality with a population of well over 1.2 it was much higher than the official account.
Skip to about the 4:30 mark beware very brutal with people shot and beheaded raped.. Thousand tied together with barb wire then dowsed with gasoline and set on fire... They were doing God's work their Emperor was a God.. etc etc


Stalin and his Leninist ideas; from birth to grave... Sound familiar even today?... He (Stalin) was actually a seminary student once.


Pol Pot and his extermination of 2 million plus of his own people... Pol Pot went to school in Paris France and then returned to Cambodia to work as a college professor where he gathered and planned his takeover... He liked Mao and the little Red book.

If you do not like history skip to 27:00 for the execution of the plan when people were ordered out of the city.. Those who were to sick were shot and even his once strong supporters were executed later: absolute power drives many to paranoia and deep craziness.. He was no exception...


Plenty of vids on Hitler and Mao so for those interested take a day and see what others have to say.

Many American military are against power going to anyone who claims to be progressive, socialist, or communist simple because they have seen what happens when they take power. In truth though it does not matter what they call themselves; tyranny by any other name is still tyranny.. Funny how those in the past who thought they were in the "in crowd" were done away with just like all the others.

Those who wish to destroy the constitution or put themselves above the laws and principles it lays out cause all kinds of red flags for many in the USA.. Those who cling to self determination or reliance along with several other things are now deemed possible enemies of the state... Where have we heard "enemy of the state" before ?

If you do not think it is going on today all you have to do is look at some of the threads here at ATS or the news headlines where some touchy feely person asked a question and then shouts down the answer... Great dialog just one of hundreds we see every week; it is almost the norm now.... Why ask if you do not want an answer?

Just a quickie video but there are many more on anyone trying to answer a paid talking head on some news cast who just wants to demonize the guest anyway they can... Notice "TURN HIS MIKE OFF" !... I don't care if the guest is the devil himself don't ask unless you are prepared or want to get an answer.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


There is a really good documentary available with Macnamara setting the record straight from his perspective. Its worth spending a couple of hours with if you find this topic interesting.

www.filmsforaction.org...