Vietnam Newport Bridge

neoconsnightmare3 Says:

Feb 15, 2012 - sure, NOW you're saying you've been around u.s. soldiers. i keep saying (and you seem to ignore) that:1) there were individual soldiers/officers/units that were great, BUT;2) the vast majority of ARVN soldiers/officers/units were shit.this is what EVERY SINGLE SOLDIER who went to vietnam i know said. i knew these men PROFESSIONALLY (not as some ARVN guy's son). they had little good to say about ARVN. when they did, they let you KNOW the 'good' was an exception.

neoconsnightmare3 Says:

Feb 15, 2012 - why would i be 'biased'? my wife's family was kicked out of northern vietnam in 1979. neither they nor i have love for the north vietnamese.but history shows the n. vietnamese played their cards right. they got on the side of the peasants. they played the chinese and russians well (and then kicked the chinese out, like my wife's family, when china tried to invade vietnam).i have nothing against the ARVN. they just, AS A WHOLE, weren't any good.

neoconsnightmare3 Says:

Feb 15, 2012 - amazing, each and every soldier/officer who i knew that served in vietnam (professor of military science, the one master sergeant in the 173rd airborne, all but ONE of my drill sergeants in infantry basic training, guys in my units, etc.) said:1) ARVN SUCKED for the most part;2) a few good soldiers/officers/units;3) the ROK (republic of korea or s. koreans) were EXCELLENT soldiers. in fact, they said the ROK soldiers did a better job of clearing a village than americans.

neoconsnightmare3 Says:

Feb 15, 2012 - 3 cont:they said that koreans scared the SHIT out of vc and n vietnamese. koreans were vicious and thorough fighters. amazingly, during the korean war, s koreans learned how to fight, and showed the spirit of wanting to be free of the north. this is why the ROK soldiers were there as long as the americans.in fact, they had the second highest number of troops behind the u.s.why would u.s. soldiers praise ROK soldiers and dog out ARVN? because it was FACT, that's why.

baberaider18 Says:

Feb 15, 2012 - NoonONOno, The first best fighting force was America, Then China, then Russia, Then ARVN! Yes, the ROK were good soldiers, I agree with you, but during MANY MANY MANY battles, the ARVN had great spirit and were ready to fight. Like at An Loc, the ARVN withstood 5 massive human and tank wave attacks when they had only 5,000 men. It was the Airborne and Army there, and my uncle was there too.

neoconsnightmare3 Says:

Feb 15, 2012 - i'm not ranking 'best fighters'. i'm talking about the order in which the vietnamese fought outsiders. china dominated vietnam (annam, tonkin, etc.) for 1,000 years. then came the french. then came chinese influence (competing with russian influence), then the americans.you can keep claiming the ARVN had great spirit, but overall they didn't. i've said repeatedly that certain units, the rangers and marines DID have the spirt. there were individual officers/soldiers that did.

baberaider18 Says:

Feb 15, 2012 - Your 100% wrong. The majority of the Army had good spirit. Why do you think it took the NVA and VC 40 days to TRY to overun a small force of arvn? Because, the arvn knew they were fighting to keep Vietnam free. Its not just the Rangers and the Marines, its the overall military of South Vietnam that had spirit. Dont think your smarter than me just because your a 50 year old pedophile. I would whoop your ass anytime.

neoconsnightmare3 Says:

Feb 15, 2012 - from a 'INTELLIGENCE MEMORANDUM --THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE ARMY TODAY' (the title was in all caps), 1966:The inclusion of major ARVN elements in the planning and execution of combined operations with American forces has, to some degree, improved the morale and aggressiveness of certain ARVN units,two of the three divisions based in the western half of III Corps. continuted

neoconsnightmare3 Says:

Feb 15, 2012 - INTELLIGENCE REPORT cont:In much of the rest of the country, however, ARVN combat performance has been generally unsatisfactory or, at best, marginal, with the result that US and third-countryhave been required to counter major Communist thrusts in most critical areas.

neoconsnightmare3 Says:

Feb 15, 2012 - i've also read that, as i stated before, MANY ARVN soldiers/leaders were great, fantastic.also, most american soldiers dealt with militia ('puff puffs') not regular ARVN. however, what I gave you was an intelligence memorandum dated 12/12/ 1966.when the u.s better supplied the ARVN, their morale overall DID rise; however, most u.s. soldiers, even those that worked with regular ARVN troops, simply didn't think of them being overall good, only 'certain units'.

baberaider18 Says:

Feb 15, 2012 - No. If America did all of the fighting, then why did 300,000 ARVN soldiers die? And only 58,000 American?

neoconsnightmare3 Says:

Feb 15, 2012 - never said america did all the fighting. in fact, 58,000 americans died versus 224,000 ARVN.overall the ARVN sucked, and for a variety of reasons:1) americans didn't trust them;2) gave them bullshit equipment for a couple of years;3) those in the south simply weren't at the fighting game as long as those in the north (chinese aid as early as 1949);4) those in the north really BELIEVED in their mission; the south, not as much;5) corruption of officers/government

neoconsnightmare3 Says:

Feb 15, 2012 - as one lady said in an article i found online (vietnamese woman): if the americans were paying the bill, and were such 'know it alls' why shouldn't we let them go out and do the fighting.but the mistrust came from the american soldier/lower ranking officer not being let in on everything; the u.s. government killed /orchestrated the killings of s.vietnamese presidents (who were often pretty useless anyway).

neoconsnightmare3 Says:

Feb 15, 2012 - ironically, out of NECESSITY, they did do a great job (given the circumstances) as fewer americans were there to do the fighting and when the americans left.why? because at THAT POINT they knew the communists would come in and do a clean sweep, kill leaders and send others to concentration camps. amazing what the human spirit can do when faced with a choice: fight as hard as you can OR suffer.i'm NOT being mean to the ARVN, but they gave too little too late.

baberaider18 Says:

Feb 16, 2012 - Yeah south vietnam had an inexperienced army back then. but only until around 1968, did the military do better. The ARVN still wanted their country to be free. If you had to choose whether to be an ARVN soldier or NVA soldier, which would you be?

neoconsnightmare3 Says:

Feb 16, 2012 - you're asking a rhetorical question based on events that happened 37 years ago.with that in mind, i'd say an NVA for one reason...they won.wouldn't want to be vc because they were destroyed for the most part during the tet offensive. again, the nva drank more of the kool-aid than the ARVN. this is why their morale was generally higher than that of the ARVN.

baberaider18 Says:

Feb 16, 2012 - But if you didnt know the result of the war back then, than which side would you be on?

neoconsnightmare3 Says:

Feb 16, 2012 - since i wasn't living back then, it's hard to tell.if i was living in the north, i'd be more likely to want to be in the nva. if i was living in the south, i could just as easily been a member of the vc, the ARVN or not wanting to be a part of any group.if the "ARVN", if i was connected with the government, i could be a very corrupted officer; if not, i may be a dedicated officer or soldier, fighting to the end.

baberaider18 Says:

Feb 16, 2012 - I have never wanted anything bad for my country, and i know corruption is something bad. So i would go with the ARVN and be a good leader. Even if i dont get paid, I would do my job well for the good of the country.

neoconsnightmare3 Says:

Feb 16, 2012 - you're saying that as a person of vietnamese descent, who likely wasn't even born during the war; certainly, you didn't grow up there at the age where you'd have to make that decision.this is NOT a put down of you, but an acknowledgement of what conditions you live in versus what conditions your dad lived in. your dad went the route of fighting for his country because he grew up in different circumstances than you, and was man enough to make the 'right' decision. others didn't.

baberaider18 Says:

Feb 17, 2012 - I get you. And your right. But I know that communism will never be the right track. When the ARVN fought the NVA, the NVA fought not for north vietnam, but for the whole communist party.

neoconsnightmare3 Says:

Feb 17, 2012 - that's all i'm saying. and history shows that communism was a failure (great idea in theory, but 'theory' leaves out the human element which screwed it up). vietnam now is pretty much communist in name only (still lacking freedom of speech, etc, but now aggressively capitalistic).remember, though, ho chi minh asked for u.s. help after world war 2, and even had a 'declaration of independence' like the u.s. france said if the u.s helped, they'd not join nato. truman was stuck.

saigonboi26 Says:

Mar 23, 2012 - i would choose to be an ARVN. even though i knew the south would fall.

saigonboi26 Says:

Mar 23, 2012 - ARVN soldier

baberaider18 Says:

Apr 6, 2012 - Hell yeah motherfuka!