In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Iraq=another Vietnam

7.62x397.62x39 Member Posts: 1,994 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited July 2006 in General Discussion
Not saying it will turn out that way but, I think Iraq will turn into another Vietnam...

We will never be able to change those peoples minds, they hate us and they always will. Yes, we can kill them all but that wont do much.

Second, look at our country, we are 9 trillon in debt and still going down.[:(][:(]


So I predict that we will just have to pull out and accept the consequnses, because when we do, there will be killing like there is no tommorow.
«13

Comments

  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,460 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The comparision of Iraq to Vietnam is more ignorant than Athiesm.

    Iraq has been and will be a soverniegn nation, and the vast majority of Iraqis believe that Iraq will be so again. There is not an identifiable external threat like North Vietnam hell-bent on the overthrow of the new government. There is an extreme (ist) minority of less-than-human animals that will refuse any government other than a strict Islamist one, but these people are and will continue to be hunted down and either converted or buried.

    I cannot make much sense of your last point, but then again, I am ignorant. We will have to pull out because there will be killing like there is no tomorrow?? My thinking suggests that would be a good reason NOT to pull out.

    Not saying there is a cause and effect situation, but I think all internet connected computers should be equipped with a breathalyser.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Red223Red223 Member Posts: 7,946
    edited November -1
    There is one way you can say Iraq is like Vietnam.

    Both War's Veterans will get hosed.
  • 7.62x397.62x39 Member Posts: 1,994 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Like onnce we get out, the suni and poope will kill each other more than ever
  • warriorsfanwarriorsfan Member Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    There is not an identifiable external threat like North Vietnam hell-bent on the overthrow of the new government.

    WRONG! Have you heard of Iran? Military spokesmen have stated that the majority of explosives used in IEDs are now coming from Iran. Iran is supplying weapons and explosives to its Shiite allies in Iraq. The Shiite dominated government of Iraq is very cosy with Iran, and Iran is seeking to turn Iraq into a puppet state like Syria did with Lebanon during the Lebanese Civil War.

    And what about Syria? Most of the foreign fighers are coming in through Syria.
  • TxsTxs Member Posts: 18,801
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    The comparision of Iraq to Vietnam is more ignorant than Athiesm.
    The problem is people who have only a sound bite understanding of the war in Iraq and even less about the Vietnam war.
  • MercuryMercury Member Posts: 7,806 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I find it very funny that the dumbest person on GB can figure this out, but others can't. [}:)]

    Merc
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,460 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    warriorsfan:
    quote:Originally posted by warriorsfan
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    There is not an identifiable external threat like North Vietnam hell-bent on the overthrow of the new government.

    WRONG! Have you heard of Iran? Military spokesmen have stated that the majority of explosives used in IEDs are now coming from Iran. Iran is supplying weapons and explosives to its Shiite allies in Iraq. The Shiite dominated government of Iraq is very cosy with Iran, and Iran is seeking to turn Iraq into a puppet state like Syria did with Lebanon during the Lebanese Civil War.

    And what about Syria? Most of the foreign fighers are coming in through Syria.


    The creation of a new government is fraught with peril. If the Iraqi Government chooses to be cosy with Iran and/or Syria that is their choice. We have chosen the path toward the creation of a new government from whole cloth. We must also accept what that government becomes. When France supported us during our revolution, they never dreamed that we would turn our backs on them in their wars with Britain, but we did. If, down the road, Iraq turns its back on us, we will then have to accept that as well. For now, however, we must do what we can to leave the country in a position whereby they can protect themselves with the strength necessary to resist any local puppeteer, if they so choose. If they choose not to resist, there is nothing we can or should do.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • JamesRKJamesRK Member Posts: 25,670 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    warriorsfan, you are partly right, but not enough to say Don McManus is "WRONG!". Iran and every other country in the region except Israel and Turkey are supporting the bad guys to some extent, but nothing like North Vietnam and China supported the North Vietnamese. The difference between covert and overt is "There is not an identifiable external threat like North Vietnam hell-bent on the overthrow of the new government."
    The road to hell is paved with COMPROMISE.
  • HAIRYHAIRY Member Posts: 23,606
    edited November -1
    Don McManus: quote: Iraq has been and will be a sovereign nation,... Only since 1920 when Great Britain slammed it together.

    The tribal units remain strong and loyalty to the tribe is greater than any loyalty to a government of occupier-imposed exiles.

    Consider the P?tain government in France under the Nazis. Stayed in power with Nazi bayonets until the Allies came in and out it went. IMO, Bush admits an eerie corollary with his "We will stand down as the Iraqi forces stand up."

    From what I've read, Iraq has always needed a strong dictator to cobble the tribes into cooperating.

    IMO, the scenario will end up as: we pull out, the struggle for control takes over, a dictator takes charge; peace reigns. Until such time as some foreign fool with money, imperialist ideas and military force thinks "democracy" will take hold.
  • lazeruslazerus Member Posts: 1,950 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Iran is not a threat.
    Iran is a nuisance. there is a difference.

    Vietnam is a swamp, Iraq is a desert.
    The only similarity between Iraq and Vietnam, is John Kerry.
  • RembrandtRembrandt Member Posts: 4,486 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39
    Not saying it will turn out that way but, I think Iraq will turn into another Vietnam...

    We will never be able to change those peoples minds, they hate us and they always will. Yes, we can kill them all but that wont do much.

    Second, look at our country, we are 9 trillon in debt and still going down.[:(][:(]


    So I predict that we will just have to pull out and accept the consequnses, because when we do, there will be killing like there is no tommorow.


    So much wrong with the premise and logic of this post, hardly know where to begin....appears the above words have been plagerized from a speech made by either John Kerry, John Murtha, Nancy Polosi, Harry Reed, or Cindy Sheehan. (The Cut & Run Crowd)
  • HAIRYHAIRY Member Posts: 23,606
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by lazerus
    Iran is not a threat.
    Iran is a nuisance. there is a difference.

    Vietnam is a swamp, Iraq is a desert.
    The only similarity between Iraq and Vietnam, is John Kerry.
    And Bush remains the same--way, way far away from any danger, unlike Kerry who was in combat.
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,460 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Hairy:
    quote:Originally posted by HAIRY
    The tribal units remain strong and loyalty to the tribe is greater than any loyalty to a government of occupier-imposed exiles.

    Consider the P?tain government in France under the Nazis. Stayed in power with Nazi bayonets until the Allies came in and out it went. IMO, Bush admits an eerie corollary with his "We will stand down as the Iraqi forces stand up."

    From what I've read, Iraq has always needed a strong dictator to cobble the tribes into cooperating.

    IMO, the scenario will end up as: we pull out, the struggle for control takes over, a dictator takes charge; peace reigns. Until such time as some foreign fool with money, imperialist ideas and military force thinks "democracy" will take hold.


    I believe that the correct and globally inevitable condition of the Human Race is living in freedom and democratic self-determination. Your scenario may well be correct for the short term, though I hope not. If today is not the day that Iraqis can live free, then I will support the foreign fool that attempts to free them in the future. Hopefully this future fool is not required, but if he is, perhaps he will learn from our mistakes. No one has ever said that nation building was easy. (Well, Messers Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld said it would be easy, but they seem to have been incorrect.)

    (Spelling edit)
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • 11BravoCrunchie11BravoCrunchie Member Posts: 33,423 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39
    Not saying it will turn out that way but, I think Iraq will turn into another Vietnam...

    We will never be able to change those peoples minds, they hate us and they always will. Yes, we can kill them all but that wont do much.

    Second, look at our country, we are 9 trillon in debt and still going down.[:(][:(]


    So I predict that we will just have to pull out and accept the consequnses, because when we do, there will be killing like there is no tommorow.


    I agree 100%...I see it heading that way already.
  • CA sucksCA sucks Member Posts: 4,310
    edited November -1
    Don McManus wrote:
    quote:When France supported us during our revolution, they never dreamed that we would turn our backs on them in their wars with Britain, but we did

    Um, we didnt turn our backs on france in their wars with britain.
    Or don't you remember the war of 1812.
    France never woulda dreamed our revolution against the british monarchy would have resulted in the french peasants revolting against the french monarchy. So in a way we kind of screwed them over there. Then Napoleon came to power (once again, like "falling dominos", our revolution resulted in napoleon's rise to power). Then with the trade embargos imposed by the british against the french, american buisness was hurt(and also american sailors were impressed into the british fleet to bolster their navy, which was the only thing keeping the french at bay).
    We bought the Louisiana territory from Napoleon, in essence, we helped finance his war in this way.
    Then we went to war with britain in 1812, unfotunatly our minor distraction did not draw enough british troops from europe, or pin down enough british naval power to save Napoleon after he lost almost his entire army in his failed russian campaign.
    When Napoleon fell, the brits came down on us here in america pretty hard, but we held our own, and both sides wanted to end the essentially pointless war, and nothing changed.

    We did not turn our back on france, we were just weak(at that point in history). We did fight britain, but there was no way we would be able to cross an ocean and defend france, and keep out country safe at the same time. We supplied them with money(France gave us all of lousiana when all we wanted was new Orleans, they probably did not want to defend the territory, with British Columbia looming above the territory, and no naval power to be able to send troops to New Orleans and up the missisipi).

    And we did save their arses twice more in WWI and WWII.
    Id say it was in France's best interest that they helped us out in the revolution, all things considered.

    Anyway (even though I beleive your historical example is flawed), I do beleive we will have to accept whatever government the Iraqi's set up, even if its not what we want, and is not always on our side.
  • bpostbpost Member Posts: 32,664 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Can't we just kill them all and send our illgal immigrants there to re-populate the land?

    They all "work very hard."
  • gclmemgclmem Member Posts: 346 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    In Iran, the Shah had the only secular government but they were thrown out. Turkey is the only muslem country with a secular government and not so democratic either. A democratic Iraq would be a short lived novelty. I doubt we could do better there than in Iran.
  • allen griggsallen griggs Member Posts: 35,183 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The Iraq War is just like the Vietnam War was in 1969.
    In both cases, the government mislead the people into going into the war.
    Many casualties had been taken. The government assured the American people that if the war were just continued for a while longer, the US would prevail.
    We are not now winning the Iraq war. General Casey just announced a plan for troop withdrawals.
    Just as in Vietnam, when you are not winning, and you begin to withdraw troops, you will lose.
    It is time to get out of Iraq, and let those people sort out their own affairs.
    The only reason AlQuaeda terrorism exists in Iraq is because Hussein is no longer there to keep a lid on them.
    Our presence there makes the situation worse, not better.

    Just as Vietnam is Johnson's legacy, Bush will be primarily known, 30 years from now, as the fool who led us into Iraq.
  • PATBUZZARDPATBUZZARD Member Posts: 3,556
    edited November -1
    The only real comparison I see is the media and the liberal democrats doing the best they can to undermine our national position, and screw the military as hard as possible.
  • The TinmanThe Tinman Member Posts: 928 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I see some striking similarities:
    The United States entered the conflict in Southeast Asia because of an alleged attack by the North Vietnamese on the USS Maddox on 4 August 1964. In 2001, the New York Times released a 1995 recording of retired Vietnamese General Nguyen Giap meeting with former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. General Giap categorically denied that Vietnamese gunboats had attacked American destroyers. Just last year, another New York Times article revealed that Robert Hanyok, a historian for the NSA, reported that the NSA deliberately distorted intelligence reports passed on to policy-makers regarding the 4 August incident. (See Wikipedia article The Gulf of Tonkin Incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident )

    So, I gotta ask---gee, where have I heard this before???
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    I quote: believe that the correct and globally inevitable condition of the Human Race is living in freedom and democratic self-determination
    This may be what you romantically believe to be a given. You may even believe that you live in a country affording you the above condition.

    The facts are somewhat different, however.

    Nice thought, tho.
  • Ray BRay B Member Posts: 11,822
    edited November -1
    It would be nice if one could use the machine from Back to the Future and see how things would have turned out had there not been a Vietnam war and Saddam allowed to stay in power and continue with his plans. I suspect we wouldn't like the direction things would have gone.
  • TxsTxs Member Posts: 18,801
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by allen griggs
    The Iraq War is just like the Vietnam War was in 1969.

    The government assured the American people that if the war were just continued for a while longer, the US would prevail.


    The NV leaders publicly stated that the only way they prevailed was by influencing our public sentiment. They admit that following Tet '68 they were militarily decimated and wouldn't have been able to continue fighting at the same level if we hadn't begun to scale back our efforts.
  • HAIRYHAIRY Member Posts: 23,606
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by gclmem
    In Iran, the Shah had the only secular government but they were thrown out. Turkey is the only muslem country with a secular government and not so democratic either. A democratic Iraq would be a short lived novelty. I doubt we could do better there than in Iran.
    You don't consider Egypt a secular democratic country? Or Palestine as a secular democratic country? Or Syria?
  • kimikimi Member Posts: 44,723 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    There may be a lot of similarities between these two wars, just as there is in all wars. However, there is one hugh difference between the the NAM and Iraq, and that is the small number of rabid left wingers in our country today as compared to then. The rabid-left during the turblent 60s had a hugh following, but today, that is not the case, for whatever reasons. I have my own beliefs as to why the hardcore Anti-American bunch has dwindled so. It deals with Reganism, the religious right, special interest groups, to include, the rise of socialism-communism, and the downsides of secularism, plus the raping of individual and states rights by educators and judges to name just a few. Plus, a big portion of an entire generation of people that grew up ashamed of their past, who were determined that their children would be more responsible citizens. Today, America's youth, on the whole, have a greater sense of patriotism that is reminiscent of the 1940s and early 1950s. We have to be real proud of these young folks, to include, everyone who fought then and today to help develope a sense of national pride in our youth against what seemed to have been insurmountable odds. We've done good gang, so continue to march with a full-thirty for tomorrow's leaders as they will be challenged to take America back for good. And, with a certifiable illegal alien invasion going on 24/7 at our borders, they will need all the fight and character we have to offer them. It's time to, as some say, Cowboy-Up for what we know to be morally right.
    What's next?
  • interstatepawnllcinterstatepawnllc Member Posts: 9,390
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Mercury
    I find it very funny that the dumbest person on GB can figure this out, but others can't. [}:)]

    Merc
    Great minds think alike eh Merc?[;)]
  • interstatepawnllcinterstatepawnllc Member Posts: 9,390
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by HAIRY
    quote:Originally posted by lazerus
    Iran is not a threat.
    Iran is a nuisance. there is a difference.

    Vietnam is a swamp, Iraq is a desert.
    The only similarity between Iraq and Vietnam, is John Kerry.
    And Bush remains the same--way, way far away from any danger, unlike Kerry who was in combat.
    Oh yeah, ol johnny was the ultimate 3 month wonderwarrior, gave them band aids quite a workout with his self inflicted wounds too!
  • allen griggsallen griggs Member Posts: 35,183 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    "However, there is one hugh difference between the the NAM and Iraq, and that is the small number of rabid left wingers in our country today as compared to then."

    There is one reason why there was a huge anti war movement during 'Nam, and a small anti war movement today. Today there is no draft.
    Bush and Cheney have done this war on the cheap, by stretching the Guard and Reserves to the breaking point, and by only sending half the forces necessary to Iraq. The only way they could have fought the war properly would have been to reinstate the draft. Reinstating the draft would be even a greater political disaster for Republicans than the current Iraq war is.
  • SGSG Member Posts: 7,548
    edited November -1
    Not saying it will turn out that way but, I think Iraq will turn into another Vietnam...
    If that isnt the dumbest most contradicting comment I've ever heard.

    So I predict that we will just have to pull out and accept the consequnses, because when we do, there will be killing like there is no tommorow.

    Yes,if we pull out there will be killing like there is no tommorrow.More than likely in your backyard.
  • HAIRYHAIRY Member Posts: 23,606
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by interstatepawnllc
    quote:Originally posted by HAIRY
    quote:Originally posted by lazerus
    Iran is not a threat.
    Iran is a nuisance. there is a difference.

    Vietnam is a swamp, Iraq is a desert.
    The only similarity between Iraq and Vietnam, is John Kerry.
    And Bush remains the same--way, way far away from any danger, unlike Kerry who was in combat.
    Oh yeah, ol johnny was the ultimate 3 month wonderwarrior, gave them band aids quite a workout with his self inflicted wounds too!
    Did you serve in 'Nam? Are you a member of the Swift Boat Republicans?

    You are not only wrong, you don't even know what your are talking about.

    Besides being wrong, your hero wouldn't dare show up for a mandatory drug test--the coke in his system would kick him out faster than his generating excuses why he went AWOL.
  • JgreenJgreen Member Posts: 2,579 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    It's already a Vietnam. We will eventually pull out, and it will be a long, slow process guaranteed to give the GOP some purchase on an argument that it didn't "cut and run", just like it took years to exit Vietnam. But we will leave, and more of our troops will die over this shi-hole country in the middle of the fing desert that doesn't want or deserve our help.

    Nothing will change for the better (like in Vietnam) and we will have harmed our credibility and military (just like in Vietnam). We didn't learn the lesson of fighting a war to win, i.e., the Powell doctrine, that was ignored in Iraq (and should have been learned from Vietnam).

    Just pathetic....
  • tallcharlietallcharlie Member Posts: 673 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:The United States entered the conflict in Southeast Asia because of an alleged attack by the North Vietnamese on the USS Maddox on 4 August 1964.

    John Kennedy was long dead by August 1964. He sent the first US forces into Vietnam.
    Lyndon Johnson expanded the commitment, using the Golf of Tonkin incident as an excuse, while handicapping the military by limiting their actions against NV.
    Richard Nixon had the right idea, off and on, but by then the press had done the job, and victory was no longer an option.

    "Vietnam is the left's favorite war because AMerica lost. Liberals never tire of citing it.Enragingly, liberals talk about Vietnam as if it proves aomething about the use of force generally rather than the Democrats' own bungling incompetence in military affairs...The only important lesson from the Vietnam War is this: Democrats lose wars." Ann Coulter, Treason, Three Rivers Press, 2003.

    In Vietnam, there were two basic US military groups: the combat pukes and the REMFs. Almost to a man, the combat guys I knew believed the US could win if Robert Strange McNamara died.

    I went to school with a couple of US NAvy pilots who liked to have slime when it came out that Lyndon and Robert were personally reviewing and approving every air target in North Vietnam.

    That's just one example of political incompetence and arrogance; the readers of this forum could probably come up with a thousand more.

    The basic formula is this: you must fight to defeat the enemy, not merely contain him or win a truce. Defeat.

    Harry Truman started the non-communist world on a nearly fatal course of "containment" and "mutual coexistence" after WWII. Ronald Reagan corrected it by changing the goal to victory over communism. And he won.

    In Iraq and with the Islamic terrorists, there can be no containment, or peaceful coexistence, or peace with honor. They must simply be killed, as many as necessary to convince them that suicide bombing, kidnapping, and murder are not going to be allowed.

    There are actually people in this United States who foolishly believe that the terrorists are in some way justified in their actions. Hard to believe, but true.
  • HAIRYHAIRY Member Posts: 23,606
    edited November -1
    quote:John Kennedy was long dead by August 1964. He sent the first US forces into Vietnam. Would be helpful if your facts were right. [:(]

    The truth about US Forces in 'Nam: November 1, 1955 - Eisenhower deploys Military Assistance Advisory Group to train the South Vietnam Army. This marks the official beginning of American involvement in the war as recognized by the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.
  • warriorsfanwarriorsfan Member Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Ray B
    It would be nice if one could use the machine from Back to the Future and see how things would have turned out had there not been a Vietnam war and Saddam allowed to stay in power and continue with his plans. I suspect we wouldn't like the direction things would have gone.


    And what plans did Saddam have that "we wouldn't have liked?" Would that be his plans to build nuclear weapons that actually turned out to be lies fabricated by our own government? Remember the "yellow cake from Africa" justification, or the "aluminum tubes" that Bush told us about? And it was all PROVEN to be untrue after we had gone in.

    Face it, Saddam was just another Third World despot. They are a dime a dozen. He was no threat to the United States, and he certainly wasn't worth spending $300 BILLION and counting to get rid of. Not to mention the 2500 dead Americans and counting that this war has cost us. Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people aren't worth the life of ONE American, let alone 2500.

    The War on Terror would have been better served by invading Syria or Iran. The only thing the Iraq War has done, other than to bleed this country dry of money and military manpower, is to make the Middle East MORE dangerous and allow the terrorists to gain a foothold in country that they previously had not been able to operate in, all thanks to George Bush.
  • HAIRYHAIRY Member Posts: 23,606
    edited November -1
  • tallcharlietallcharlie Member Posts: 673 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:John Kennedy was long dead by August 1964. He sent the first US forces into Vietnam.

    Hairy wrote: quote:Would be helpful if your facts were right.

    The truth about US Forces in 'Nam: November 1, 1955 - Eisenhower deploys Military Assistance Advisory Group to train the South Vietnam Army. This marks the official beginning of American involvement in the war as recognized by the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.
    Hairy is right. I should have said, Kennedy sent the first combat troops into Vietnam. Now, Hairy, you used the plural, facts, what others are wrong?

    By the way, the first recorded US involvement in Vietnam came in 1845 when Captain John Percival, USS Constitution, intervened to secure the release of a young French missionary named Lefebvre, who was being held prisoner in Hue. A century later, in 1945, LTC Peter Dewey, OSS, was killed by the Vietminh, thus becoming the first American to die in Vietnam. Harry Truman spent something like $2 billion to aid French forces in Vietnam while he was in office. Eisenhower had commended to JFK that Laos was the key to SEA, not Vietnam. Kennedy ignored him and rejected neutrality for South Vietnam even though North Vietnam was prepared to accept it.
    After having been told by Degaulle that Vietnam would trap him in "a bottomless military and political swamp", and receivng word from one of his advisors that Vietnam could demand as many as 300,000 US troops, Kennedy commited US troops to combat. That was the instant of real involvement. That's when the "war" began.
    Democrats started the Vietnam War, Democrats lost the Vietnam War, and now Democrats are trying to force President Bush into a position where the US will lose the Iraq War after winning it.

    Are there any other "facts" that you would care to correct?
  • kimikimi Member Posts: 44,723 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    As regards combat elements in the NAM. The Third Battalions of the 4th and 9th Marine Regiments of the Third Marine Division began debarkation ops in South Vietnam on March 8, 1965. Not by accident, though, these same two units prepared for this invasion in the largets SEATO ops ever, dubbed Operation Tulangan, during the months of February, March, and April of 1962 on Mamburao, an Island just south of Luzon in the Phillipines. 3/4 Marines were the guerrillas, and 3/9 Marines, straight out of cold weather training in Japan were the aggressors. Quite an operation, one in which 3/9 lost one Marine to a sea snake's bite, and eleven more, mostly from heatstroke, on a hot, humid day wearing full transport packs while being hit by 3/4 guerrillas.
    What's next?
  • DancesWithSheepDancesWithSheep Member Posts: 12,938 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by kimi
    As regards combat elements in the NAM. The Third Battalions of the 4th and 9th Marine Regiments of the Third Marine Division began debarkation ops in South Vietnam on March 8, 1965. Not by accident, though, these same two units prepared for this invasion in the largets SEATO ops ever, dubbed Operation Tulangan, during the months of February, March, and April of 1962 on Mamburao, an Island just south of Luzon in the Phillipines. 3/4 Marines were the guerrillas, and 3/9 Marines, straight out of cold weather training in Japan were the aggressors. Quite an operation, one in which 3/9 lost one Marine to a sea snake's bite, and eleven more, mostly from heatstroke, on a hot, humid day wearing full transport packs while being hit by 3/4 guerrillas.

    I was in 9th Marines. First off, nobody who underwent "preparation" in Operation Tulangan was part of the 9th MEB. Second, the Danang landing was the most * loser *-grab that ever was. The last thing to get off the ship was ammution, so had there been any resistence the brigade would likely have been annihilated. Instead, on the beach were about 150 photographers and reporters, about fifty hookers and little kids selling dirty pictures and Cokes. Not exactly Iwo or the 'canal.
  • kimikimi Member Posts: 44,723 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
    quote:Originally posted by kimi
    As regards combat elements in the NAM. The Third Battalions of the 4th and 9th Marine Regiments of the Third Marine Division began debarkation ops in South Vietnam on March 8, 1965. Not by accident, though, these same two units prepared for this invasion in the largets SEATO ops ever, dubbed Operation Tulangan, during the months of February, March, and April of 1962 on Mamburao, an Island just south of Luzon in the Phillipines. 3/4 Marines were the guerrillas, and 3/9 Marines, straight out of cold weather training in Japan were the aggressors. Quite an operation, one in which 3/9 lost one Marine to a sea snake's bite, and eleven more, mostly from heatstroke, on a hot, humid day wearing full transport packs while being hit by 3/4 guerrillas.

    I was in 9th Marines. First off, nobody who underwent "preparation" in Operation Tulangan was part of the 9th MEB. Second, the Danang landing was the most * loser *-grab that ever was. The last thing to get off the ship was ammution, so had there been any resistence the brigade would likely have been annihilated. Instead, on the beach were about 150 photographers and reporters, about fifty hookers and little kids selling dirty pictures and Cokes. Not exactly Iwo or the 'canal.


    Which unit were you with? I would think that some of te 9th MEB personnel might have participated in Tulangan, I don't know. My buds from Mike 3/4 had mostly left the Corps. Those who were there, were in many different units. My former CO had Charlie 1/9, until they relieved him from duty for doing a number on a ville from which his unit had been receiving sniper fire. Months later, stateside, they honored him with the Silver Star for his service! That was when the Corps took care of its own...hopefully, they still do. That CO was one hell of a Marine! The beach scene you described is right, and you should know! It was like the the Marine landing at Lebanon in 1958 in some respects. However, unlike Lebanon, the party was just beginning in the NAM.
    What's next?
  • DancesWithSheepDancesWithSheep Member Posts: 12,938 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by kimi
    Which unit were you with? I would think that some of te 9th MEB personnel might have participated in Tulangan, I don't know. My buds from Mike 3/4 had mostly left the Corps. Those who were there, were in many different units. My former CO had Charlie 1/9, until they relieved him from duty for doing a number on a ville from which his unit had been receiving sniper fire. Months later, stateside, they honored him with the Silver Star for his service! That was when the Corps took care of its own...hopefully, they still do. That CO was one hell of a Marine! The beach scene you described is right, and you should know! It was like the the Marine landing at Lebanon in 1958 in some respects. However, unlike Lebanon, the party was just beginning in the NAM.

    I was in 1/9 for about two weeks and then 2/9. We were all Schwab pukes and new rotations in from Pendleton. Highly unlikely a guy in the 9th in early '62 would still be there in '65, unless it was some lifer who shipped-over for Okinawa or a guy with such bad luck as to step in the same river twice within a three year period. Our first defensive position at Danang was in front of an Esso refinery. Go figure.
Sign In or Register to comment.