Myths of the Vietnam War exposed

[Liebling:-)))]

oh wow interesting. That is funny... I imagine you and your hubby have to deal with left-right side issue. I still think driving on left side is silly and uncool :P

I prefer left side over right side driving ..werid... My hubby can drive left and right side driving when we visited to other countries who have right side car.

yes yes..... we did it again :topic:

Yes, I got your link over Clinton... It's long pages... I will read later.

 

[Reba]

Yes I can understand but why tooo long?

Because there was no cable History Channel back then.

Okay and

You're welcome.

 

[Reba]

my father were serve in vietnam..

I'm grateful for his service.

 

[Reba]

Is it nice word to label John Plummer as a low level staff officer? I do not see after which position he had but just himself. If anyone see after which position he had than see him as human being then is their loss and ignorant.

There is nothing bad or wrong about referring to someone in the military as "low level staff officer." That only describes the person's position in the hierarchy of command. "Low level" means that person doesn't have much authority or command power or responsibility. It has nothing to do with a person's character or ability. It's just their job position. It usually means he has a lot more people above him than below him in authority.

 

[Reba]

for link. Yes I awared that Kim never use the word "American pilot" but just a pilot... until John Plummer admitted to her and then forgave him...

Yes, well the bottom line and most important point is:

It was a South Vietnamese pilot in the South Vietnamese air force that dropped the napalm--NOT an American pilot, NOT the American Air Force.

 

[Reba]

I assumed you was a Navy Journalist. Correct?

Correct. Chief Petty Officer was my rate, and Journalist was my rating.

I'm sorry to hear about your cousin, school classmates and friends.

Thank you.

I would like to ask you question accord one of Jiro123's posts. "We did not attack Vietnam for defense purpose. Vietnam did not attack us either." What do he mean?

I don't want to guess what Jiro means; let Jiro answer that. But I can answer the history question. North Vietnam did not attack the United States.

If you really want to know how each country became involved, you need to look at a time line of Vietnam. The Americans were not the first non-Asian country to fight the war. Also, each side was not in the war alone.

Myth: The United States lost the war in Vietnam and Fact: The American military was not defeated in Vietnam. I see no difference...

Politicians forced the Americans to leave. The American military was not defeated by the North Vietnamese. The Americans left because they were ordered by their own country to leave. The North Vietnamese did not force the Americans to leave.

Example: Is it consider as a myth if I said that Germany lost the war in WWII but the fact is German military was not defeated in WWII... ?

The fact is the German military was defeated by the Allied military force.

 

[Jiro]

Yes, I know it was Timberlake's word but I only want to know your answer to my question about Timberlake's word "low level"... He should say: Plummer was a staff officer... This is a simple word instead of say "Plummer was a low level staff officer...

Well - don't take it wrong. Timberlake was not diminishing Plummer to janitor level. It is how it works in any organization with hierarchy system - both corporations and military... and even society. When it comes to credibility issue - we do have to analyze the source's role in this matter. For example - who carries the most weight when it comes to investigation/testimony? a high-ranking official or low-level official?

Ah I got it. I was confused over your comment because I remember from learn at school that US went to Vietnam to defense against communsim which mean they helped people to prevent communsim to take over country. That's how I was taught to know that it's defense. They fought for prevent Vietnameses for try to take country over as communsim.

I have no problem when troops went to other countries to defense to help victims to against something for political reasons. I switched into anti-war soon after Saddam's execution because I lost my respect on Bush for mislead us to beleive something what they did not have and lead soliders and inncoent people to death... which is not right.

Are you sure you have no problem about troops helping other country to defend itself against something for political reasons? Political reasons are usually special interests because we are capitalists. Communism is against the way of capitalism so it's nothing related to "defense" issue. If you do support Vietnam War... then you'd have no problem supporting Iraq War.

British and French controlled Vietnam for its rich natural resources such as sugar cane. They came under attack by Vietnamese communist party to retake its land back from "white" people exploiting their country for their greed. USA joined in to help them - maybe really to protect its special interests in Vietnam and to help its allies. Communism is a threat to capitalism.

the price of Vietnam War -
2 million Vietnamese civilians
~700,000 Cambodian civilians
~50,000 Laotian civilians

~1,490,000 dead allies soldiers
~604,000 dead communist soldiers

Total: about 4,844,000 dead

and now look at Vietnam - a communist country and it's doing fine. It's a beautiful country with great food and very rich culture. was it worth 4,844,000 dead?

 

[Liebling:-)))]

I don't want to guess what Jiro means; let Jiro answer that.

Yes, Jiro123 did answered it.

But I can answer the history question. North Vietnam did not attack the United States.

What I answered Jiro123 about defense to prevent from communsion to try to take Vietnam country over is correct?

If you really want to know how each country became involved, you need to look at a time line of Vietnam. The Americans were not the first non-Asian country to fight the war. Also, each side was not in the war alone.

Yes I was taught at school but I like to learn from someone who experienced Vietnam war.

Politicians forced the Americans to leave. The American military was not defeated by the North Vietnamese. The Americans left because they were ordered by their own country to leave. The North Vietnamese did not force the Americans to leave.

The fact is the German military was defeated by the Allied military force.

Oh, I get it. Yes, it make sense. for answer to my question. I only remember something: "Give up" ...

 

[jenni-m]

I see no comparison on your post over hockey game/war because hockey game and war is not the same thing. I compared the question of Myth and Fact between US/Vietnam War and Germany/WWII because it referring to war.

I repeat my question:

Myth: The United States lost the war in Vietnam.
Fact: The American military was not defeated in Vietnam.

Myth: Germany lost the war in WWII.
Fact: German military was not defeated in WWII...

Is it consider the same thing if I said Germany lost the war in WWII as myth and fact: Germany military was not defeated in WWII?

Please do not compare other thing with war because they are not the same thing. I want this answer to my question either it's correct or not?

I don't get you. As far as I know, the German military WAS DEFEATED in combat and attrition.

The article was saying that the US didn't 'lose' anything. The war itself may have been lost, and it may have been due to the US leaving, but that is an entirely different issue. Leaving there wasn't a 'loss' to the US military, or a defeat, because it had nothing to do with us. The United States wasn't the one having to deal with a country split in half.

 

[jenni-m]

Yeah u can call our dead friend a myth more now ever since he is dead and he can not tell the world truth. U choose not to believe in him, I am just his a messenger to remind people our government did alot of hidden agend (mispelling) to damage our men. Enough of bs on those facts which it is not always 100 percent reiable just much alike Iraq now these days. Pattern is repeat itself, our government still screw our younger newest Iraq veterans just alike our friend back in 70's and 80's.

Here we go again.
I'm sorry I can't get you to see my point.
I regret even bringing it up at all, but I am not going to rehash what I already said again.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

I don't get you. As far as I know, the German military WAS DEFEATED in combat and attrition.

The article was saying that the US didn't 'lose' anything. The war itself may have been lost, and it may have been due to the US leaving, but that is an entirely different issue. Leaving there wasn't a 'loss' to the US military, or a defeat, because it had nothing to do with us. The United States wasn't the one having to deal with a country split in half.

Reba answered is an exactly what I want, not your post because you compared orange and apple.

 

[jenni-m]

Reba answered is an exactly what I want, not your post because you compared orange and apple.

No. I made an analogy which is accurate, AND SAYS THE SAME THING REBA DID.

Do you get me now?

 

[Liebling:-)))]

No. I made an analogy which is accurate, AND SAYS THE SAME THING REBA DID.

Do you get me now?

Calm down, Reba do not compare things but answered my question what I want to ask, not ask for comparsion.

No, you compared apple and orange because you tried to use jockey games as an analogy which is inaccurate because jockey game is not war.

Get it?

 

[jenni-m]

Calm down, Reba do not compare things but answered my question what I want to ask, not ask for comparsion.

No, you compared apple and orange because you tried to use jockey games as an analogy which is inaccurate because jockey game is not war.

Get it?

You are dismissing a perfectly functional analogy simply because they don't involve the same things. I am sorry for getting frustrated.

"Comparing apples and oranges" is a completely different idiom.

You can say that the size difference between the Sun and Earth is like the difference between a basket ball and a pea. You are not comparing the Earth with a pea, you are comparing the relative size difference. You CAN use different things to make comparisons (we wouldn't have all the science and technology that we have right now, if we could not).

I was explaining it in a way I thought people would understand, but I guess I was wrong. Excuse me for trying.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Well - don't take it wrong. Timberlake was not diminishing Plummer to janitor level. It is how it works in any organization with hierarchy system - both corporations and military... and even society. When it comes to credibility issue - we do have to analyze the source's role in this matter. For example - who carries the most weight when it comes to investigation/testimony? a high-ranking official or low-level official?

To my eyes, this is an inappropriate (maybe sort of discrimination) to use those word "He is a low level staff officer" which you and Reba see nothing wrong. To me, use those word "He is a staff officer" is an approipate word. Example: I said the use the word "coward" is an insult word but other American ADer see different and said that it´s normal word to call "coward" in different way... I guess that we have different mentality to view differently.

Are you sure you have no problem about troops helping other country to defend itself against something for political reasons? Political reasons are usually special interests because we are capitalists. Communism is against the way of capitalism so it's nothing related to "defense" issue.

If there´re REAL reason, then I have no problem with that. I have been experience for seen many soliders went other countries for defend and help victims for good reasons... They agreed to go them then I support them because I know they defend against enemies for victims...

If you do support Vietnam War... then you'd have no problem supporting Iraq War.

No Vietnam War and Iraq War are not same thing. I was being taught that they went to Vietnam to defend against enemies and help victims... Yes many innocents and soliders killed... It´s just happen... like what I said at other thread.

Iraq War for what???? nothing... They use WMD as an excuse when they know Saddam do not have WMD... We know the oil is the mainly reason why Bush ordered troops to attack on Iraq War. Yes, I call it as attack on Iraq, not defense... poor soliders and inncoents have to killed because they beleive Bush´s lies. Like what I agreed with you that Bush is a warwonger!!!

I support troops, not Iraq War itself.

British and French controlled Vietnam for its rich natural resources such as sugar cane. They came under attack by Vietnamese communist party to retake its land back from "white" people exploiting their country for their greed. USA joined in to help them - maybe really to protect its special interests in Vietnam and to help its allies. Communism is a threat to capitalism.

the price of Vietnam War -
2 million Vietnamese civilians
~700,000 Cambodian civilians
~50,000 Laotian civilians

~1,490,000 dead allies soldiers
~604,000 dead communist soldiers

Total: about 4,844,000 dead

and now look at Vietnam - a communist country and it's doing fine. It's a beautiful country with great food and very rich culture. was it worth 4,844,000 dead?

for explain me about Vietnam war... It´s good to learn about Vietnam War more...

Yes, it´s really sad that soliders and innocents people including children killed. I know it´s happened...

Yes Vietnam is a beautiful country. My brother in law visited there for month vacation at few years ago.

 

[Foxrac]

Bush's just oil man, also want war against Iraq to got Saddam for his dad.

THere's no cheap oil price after invaded Iraq war. :roll:

 

[Reba]

To my eyes, this is an inappropriate (maybe sort of discrimination) to use those word "He is a low level staff officer" which you and Reba see nothing wrong. To me, use those word "He is a staff officer" is an approipate word. Example: I said the use the word "coward" is an insult word but other American ADer see different and said that it´s normal word to call "coward" in different way... I guess that we have different mentality to view differently.

There is nothing at all insulting about referring to a military person as "low level staff officer." It's an accurate way to describe a person's position.

Since you have worked for the military for many years, I'm really surprised that you don't yet know the ranking hierarchy and jargon of the military.

Just saying that someone is "a staff officer" is too broad a statement when trying to explain that person's position in the chain of command.

It has nothing to do with "mentality"; it's all about accuracy.

It's not insulting to call an enlisted person an enlisted person, and call an officer and officer. It's not insulting to say that a private is a junior enlisted, and a general is a senior officer. It's not insulting to say that the captain is subordinate to the general.

"Lower level staff members" report to "mid level staff members" who report to "senior level staff members" who report to "The Man". So what? That's not demeaning in any way.

It in no way compares to calling someone a "coward." "Low level staff member" is a job position, not a character judgment. "Coward" is a character judgment. See the difference?

 

[Liebling:-)))]

There is nothing at all insulting about referring to a military person as "low level staff officer." It's an accurate way to describe a person's position.

This is your opinion. My opinion is use those word as "low level" staff officer as an inappropriate word. I prefer to use the word as staff officer because it´s an appropriate word.

Since you have worked for the military for many years, I'm really surprised that you don't yet know the ranking hierarchy and jargon of the military.

Just saying that someone is "a staff officer" is too broad a statement when trying to explain that person's position in the chain of command.

Surprised, we view differently because we don´t use our soliders as low level staff officer like that... We use those word to respect soliders... something like that "SGT surname" (Sergeant), "Command Sergeant", LTC, MAJ, E1 to E9, COL, CW2 to...4 or 5.... GEN, LTG, CPT, ..... They use SGT to soliders mostly.

It has nothing to do with "mentality"; it's all about accuracy.

Yes, I think it has do with our mentality. I will ask my co-worker about this tomorrow because we don´t use those word "low level" staff officer here.

It's not insulting to call an enlisted person an enlisted person, and call an officer and officer. It's not insulting to say that a private is a junior enlisted, and a general is a senior officer. It's not insulting to say that the captain is subordinate to the general.

I pointed "low level", not officer, captain (CPT), General (GEN), Sergeant (SGT), SGT officer, Major (MAJ)...............................

"Lower level staff members" report to "mid level staff members" who report to "senior level staff members" who report to "The Man". So what? That's not demeaning in any way.

We don´t use those word here. I am surprised that you use those word in America. I will ask my co-worker about this tomorrow.

It in no way compares to calling someone a "coward." "Low level staff member" is a job position, not a character judgment. "Coward" is a character judgment. See the difference?

To me, use those word "low level" and "coward" is not nice word.

 

[Reba]

This is your opinion.

No, it's not an opinion.

When you were a kid in elementary school, did you expect people would say that you were in high school? Of course not. If you are a GS-5 Civil Service, do expect people to call you a GS-9? Of course not. They would not be accurate. There is nothing offensive about it at all.

If a soldier is a private should he be called a general? Of course not. That wouldn't be accurate.

If a son is a "junior" should he be called "senior"? Of course not. That wouldn't be accurate.

If you drive a subcompact car should we call it a bus? Of course not. That wouldn't be accurate.

It has nothing to do with offensiveness. It has all to do with accuracy.

My opinion is use those word as "low level" staff officer as an inappropriate word. I prefer to use the word as staff officer because it´s an appropriate word.

No, it's not appropriate. Are you sure that you've worked many years for the American military?

Surprised, we view differently because we don´t use our soliders as low level staff officer like that...

Of course you don't address individuals by their position; you use their names and titles. "Low level staff member" is a position, not part of a name.

We use those word to respect soliders... something like that "SGT surname" (Sergeant), "Command Sergeant", LTC, MAJ, E1 to E9, COL, CW2 to...4 or 5.... GEN, LTG, CPT, ..... They use SGT to soliders mostly.

"E1 to E9" are enlisted paygrades, not personal titles. "LTC, MAJ" and "COL", "GEN, LTG, CPT" are commissioned officer ranks. "CW2, 4 or 5" is warrant officer (former enlisted). "SGT" is and enlisted rate. "Command Sergeant" is a specific kind of sergeant within that command.

You've mixed up their paygrades and titles. I hope that you actually know the difference.

BTW, I hope you don't mean that you call all enlisted people "sergeant." That would be offensive. Military people are proud of their rank distinctions.

Yes, I think it has do with our mentality. I will ask my co-worker about this tomorrow because we don´t use those word "low level" staff officer here.

It's not an everyday phrase that gets tossed around except when it's appropriate. In the context that it was used, it was appropriate. On a daily job, most people don't refer to each other by their job positions. You wouldn't say, "Hi GS-3/step 2 accountant in payroll division 402." You would say, "Hi Mary." But if you had to describe Mary's position you could say, "Mary is the GS-3/step 2 accountant in payroll division 402." Accurate and non-offensive.

We don´t use those word here. I am surprised that you use those word in America. I will ask my co-worker about this tomorrow.

Are you sure you work for the American military?

Of course, sometimes we call him "The Old Man".

To me, use those word "low level" and "coward" is not nice word.

We don't use the words "low level staff" and "coward" together. They have nothing to do with each other. Those words are in no way related.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

No, it's not an opinion.

Did Plummer said that he was a low level staff officer? No, he said that he was a staff officer. If he said that I respect him but you agreed with Timberlake for say "Plummer is a low level staff officer" and ignored Plummer.

Yes, it´s your opinoin to use those word "low level" is okay, not for me.

When you were a kid in elementary school, did you expect people would say that you were in high school? Of course not. If you are a GS-5 Civil Service, do expect people to call you a GS-9? Of course not. They would not be accurate. There is nothing offensive about it at all.

you compared school with army? Huh? We called each other our first name and call our teacher Mr., Mrs. or Miss., not LTC., MAJ., SGT., COL.

If a soldier is a private should he be called a general? Of course not. That wouldn't be accurate.

Duty and private is separate. I thought you know it?

If a son is a "junior" should he be called "senior"? Of course not. That wouldn't be accurate.

If you drive a subcompact car should we call it a bus? Of course not. That wouldn't be accurate.

I noticed you compared different things in your post. It make no sense. My point is "low level", not compare with different things. We use George Bush Jr. because his father was a president. It´s accurate.

It has nothing to do with offensiveness. It has all to do with accuracy.

This is your opinion over those word "low level".

No, it's not appropriate. Are you sure that you've worked many years for the American military?

Yes, I am. If you doubt then is your choice.

Of course you don't address individuals by their position; you use their names and titles. "Low level staff member" is a position, not part of a name.

The fact is we do not use those word "Low level staff officer" but SGT Officer.

"E1 to E9" are enlisted paygrades, not personal titles.

We know their paygrade and which title thru insignia on their uniforms. So?

"LTC, MAJ" and "COL", "GEN, LTG, CPT" are commissioned officer ranks. "CW2, 4 or 5" is warrant officer (former enlisted). "SGT" is and enlisted rate. "Command Sergeant" is a specific kind of sergeant within that command.

Yes, I know... so?

You've mixed up their paygrades and titles. I hope that you actually know the difference.

Yes, I know.. so? I only tell you what I know their titles thru insignia on their uniforms and don´t use those word "low level" to them but use those word to them is SGT, LTC, MAJ, COL, ...

BTW, I hope you don't mean that you call all enlisted people "sergeant." That would be offensive. Military people are proud of their rank distinctions.

I think you twist my word. We call them SGT what it written on them office desk. :roll: I never see any word on their desk. "Low Level Staff Officer surname" but SGT surname, LTC surname, COL surname, ......


I find interesting that you see "SGT Officer or surname " as an offensive which we doesn´t but we see "low level Staff Officer" as an offensive, you doesn´t. SGT is on their desk or office door...

It's not an everyday phrase that gets tossed around except when it's appropriate. In the context that it was used, it was appropriate. On a daily job, most people don't refer to each other by their job positions. You wouldn't say, "Hi GS-3/step 2 accountant in payroll division 402." You would say, "Hi Mary." But if you had to describe Mary's position you could say, "Mary is the GS-3/step 2 accountant in payroll division 402." Accurate and non-offensive.

Sorry to say that your post make no sense. What I stand what I think of those word "Low Level", period. We use each other our first names in office without see what position they have. We know what title they have thru their uniform with their name... and insignia.

Are you sure you work for the American military?

See? You think you know everything... Okay, I am a liar and do not work for US Army and know nothing about soliders. Satisfy?

We don't use the words "low level staff" and "coward" together. They have nothing to do with each other. Those words are in no way related.

Of course I know. So? I only explain about our difference view on coward and low level because I see them as an offensive which you doesn´t. (You do not see "low level" as an offensive and other ADer (re-read my post to Jiro123) do not see "coward" as an offensive).


The problem is you can´t get it. Is Plummer a liar if he said that he was a Staff Officer, not low level staff officer?