If you had so called 'foreign invaders' in your country and and you were at war with them they left THEIR flag on your country, would you really leave it there? In all reality they would have removed it. It basically suggests conquered lands. This scene is totally unrealistic
Uh...South Vietnam did not belong to the North Vietnamese. In any case, 'back in the day', the Vietnamese kingdoms usually fought among themselves-or tried to gobble up Cambodian territory.
And...that is how the French got their 'in' into Indochina: by assisting Cambodia which was being 'carved up' between the Southern Vietnamese Kingdom & The Kingdom of Siam.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
Everything about this film (or about 98%) is totally accurate. The little flag he left was out of respect after they lost that battle when they had every advantage. I'm sure that wasn't left up the entire time. That was actually a famous picture of that flag on the exploded tree.
The little flag he left was out of respect after they lost that battle when they had every advantage.
They did not have every advantage. They certainly did not have a whole artillery corp, naval and air force close air support and helicopter gunships backing them up.
reply share
And you miss the point, namely that the NVA came back after the battle anyway. The USA "won" the battle, but had no political strategy to win the ultimate war.
"And the end will be same...except for the numbers of people who will die to get there...."
The USA "won" the battle, but had no political strategy to win the ultimate war.
Like you know anything. Too bad the US military didn't have this IMDb board to consult so they could benefit from your superior military opinions!! All would have been different. It couldn't have had anything to do with the fact that the American public didn't support the war after personalities like Walter Cronkite spoke out against it and the will to fund it dried up, could it.
620,000 whites died to free black slaves and not a single thank you yet.
reply share
Uh, again, I don't disagree. Walter Cronkite, and other liberal media figures, were *beep* But that just proves the point. If you don't win a war politically today, then *you don't win*.
this argument is fallacious for the simple reason the "domino" theory of other nations galling to communist rule would happen if we turned on Vietnam.... Gen Westmorland and McNamara later accepted the invasion was wrong...my dad served 2 tours so it's personal. wtf were we doing there Anyway? Preserving democracy....OK I got some waterfront property for sale in the Mohave on the cheap.
There was no support at home because, as they other guy said, it was a wholly untenable position. We get it, you think that by being critical of one's country is treasonous and that any position the USA takes is the right one; Vietnam was wrong and never winnable in a strategic sense. You confuse tactics with strategy. And you're simple. So there's that, as well.
Your clumsy statement about the Civil War exposes your profound ignorance about history, so pardon me if I place absolutely no credence in your amateur assessment of Vietnam.
That being said, I feel if JFK found a way to contain the North Viet forces that were in Laos (they committed a division's worth of troops in Laos to support their proxies during the Laos Crisis.) and cut the budding Ho Chi Minh trail AND not destabilize Diem things would have gone differently. MUCH of what happened had to do with North Vietnam being able to rest, reinforce & resupply their forces in Laos & parts of Cambodia....perhaps Kennedy could have also 'sweet talked' Prince Sihanouk into not allowing supplies to North Vietnam to be routed thru Sihanoukville port?
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?