Call Of Duty 7... VIETNAM!?!?!
- Thread starter Tomany2
- Start date
Recommended Videos
While the war sucked, I wrote a paper about how we kicked everyones asses to them. I was really pissed when the ignorant fucks in my class were going over their paper and saying how we lost such and such battle, etc. They couldn't even read the casualty reports correctly.Telperion said:
why would they do that?Karnith said:All right, in order (I suppose):brucelee13245 said:It all depends on how you look at things. Militarily speaking, the NVA and the Vietcong suffered FAR more casualties than the Americans did. Yes it was hard for American troops to dislodge any north Vietnamese resistance due the guerrilla tactics and the MASSIVE underground networks of tunnels used to transport personal, weapons and supplies from north Vietnam into south Vietnam. But I personally do believe that many reasons leading to American withdrawal from Vietnam are political. All perspective.Kathinka said:a common variant of the "dagger thrust legend" originally invented by the germans to make it appear the "victorious" forces in the field of world war one only lost because they were betrayed by the peaceloving dirty communists back home. the u.s. got defeated decisively by a bunch of ricefarmers with half a century old equipment, on a military level. of course the opposition to the war helped, but still, the vietnamese dominated the military side.Karnith said:Where did you get your history lesson? The My Lai massacre ended up with between three and five hundred dead Vietnamese citizens, none of whom were actual combatants.Floppertje said:yeah we do, america got it's ass kicked... where did you get history lessons?Kathinka said:would suck to get autoteambalanced in the vietnamese team though...fighting off bloodthirsty amiercans with assault rifles with nothing but your evil looks...we all know how it endedFurburt said:
And, also for the record, the U.S. didn't get "it's [sic] ass kicked" in the war; a huge domestic opposition to the war caused American support to dry up and forced the military to withdraw. Under President Nixon's plans, the South Vietnamese people had a fair shot at lasting long enough to get their own, independent army up and running. But Democrats in Congress blocked all military aid to the South Vietnamese, and the Viet Cong inevitably captured Saigon.
I'm not entirely sure (this being directed at Kathinka) what you're talking about when you mention the U.S. being decisively defeated by the Viet Cong, especially since the most famous and well known of all Viet Cong campaigns, the Tet Offensive, was actually an enormous (military) success for the United States, only to be played as a defeat by the media, which led to an abandonment of the cause in Vietnam. Next, while the Americans were most definitely better equipped than the Viet Cong (faulty design of the M16a1 not included), the story of a Viet Cong army being comprised solely of Vietnamese citizens using old equipment is also misleading. The Viet Cong (as well as the NVA) were being aided by both the Soviets and Communist China in their fight, and had access to numerous modern weapons (interestingly, I have heard anecdotes of Viet Cong soldiers refusing to take American guns because they had better weapons). And, lastly, the United States could have probably gotten to a Korea-esque compromise had not the Democrats in America refused to support/authorize funds for attacks (especially air strikes and bombings) on Northern Vietnamese targets early in the war - President Johnson could have won the war had he chosen to initiate targeted strikes early in the campaign and pushed north to Hanoi.
Sorry for misunderstanding your sarcasm, by the by. These things are difficult to convey on the Internet.
Oh, and for the record, I need to echo this:
JWAN said:
also, wasn't part of the american military superiority (equipment-wise) their air force? you know, huey's, napalm, stuff like that...
and am I wrong when I deduce from your post that you're a republican?
The Vietnam War was very unpopular, as you can probably tell. The United States was telling people the war was going well, so when the North Vietnamese and the VC launched the Tet Offensive, a lot of people, including the media, thought that this meant that the war was going badly.Floppertje said:
When ironically the Tet Offensive was probably the largest American Victory and North Vietnamese defeat in the entire war.
What makes you deduce that?Floppertje said:
I don't think THAT is a common sight, even during wartime. I agree, wars are gruesome, but this takes the cake.m.zajac said:
in 'normal' wars, people don't shoot babies while their mates stand around laughing...
oh, propaganda. crap, I forgot about that. okay, it makes sense I guess... But if the war was censored... why did they let this get through?ThaMahstah said:
and Karnith blames the loss of the war on that there was no political support and he repeatedly blames the democrats for refusing to fund the war... I could be wrong, I wasn't there, but it seems he doesn't like them... though maybe they deserve it, I don't know.
I think this could be a bit of a clone of other games set in Korea. Its a similar situation: Communist northerners VS native southerners with US backing, etc. This aside, I would like to see the game, particularly if you can play as both sides.
Well, WWII has been done to death, so it would be nice to see them branch out and try other things, but I wonder about the presentation. I mean, how will they make the gameplay work? Are they going to set us in shooting everything like always, but then constantly tell us how we shouldn't be there and how evil we are and we should stop shooting the poor, defenseless Vietnamese?
I mean, it could go very good, but with such a hot topic in the area of politics, it has the possibility of getting bogged down in PC bullshit and propaganda (or possibly even the truth, as hard as that is to believe) that it will get in the way of our enjoyment of the game.
Not that I ever really enjoyed Call of Duty all that much anyway. I'm not a big fan of shooters in general (Half Life and Deus Ex being notable exceptions).
I mean, it could go very good, but with such a hot topic in the area of politics, it has the possibility of getting bogged down in PC bullshit and propaganda (or possibly even the truth, as hard as that is to believe) that it will get in the way of our enjoyment of the game.
Not that I ever really enjoyed Call of Duty all that much anyway. I'm not a big fan of shooters in general (Half Life and Deus Ex being notable exceptions).
As for placing the whole failure on the democrats I don't know, but certainly it was the politicians and hippies who pulled the plug on the whole thing and left South Vietnam to its fate.Floppertje said:
That's just it: it wasn't censored. Oh, people certainly said it was at the time, but it really wasn't. They said that the government inflated the numbers of VC and North Vietnamese killed when after the war it was discovered that the government's statistics were actually conservative and we killed more than they said we did.Floppertje said:
In addition, in World War II there was censorship. There were things the government wouldn't allow to be shown the American public. No such thing existed in the Vietnam War, so when Americans were exposed to the ugliness of war for the first time their naive little minds snapped and sent them running to the peace table.
We were not losing the war. We were, in fact, winning it but the hippies and pacifists at home didn't think so and put enormous pressure on the government to pull out. And we did. Not only that, but we even cut funding to South Vietnam and their supply of weapons and ammo dried up.
North Vietnam, by contrast, was under no such pressure and received ample support from the Soviet Union and China all throughout.
South Vietnam felt betrayed and of course we know how it ends.
It is really a tragedy in US history, but not for the reasons that most people think it was.
Simple, make the SAS aussies.Daystar Clarion said:
My thoughts on this are mixed. If done well, this could be a really good game, but my worry is that it'll either be boring or too preachy. You could use a game like this to say that the war was wrong, or that the war was right and honestly I don't know which one I'd prefer.
Guess what I was just playing right after I posted that postThe Unskilled78 said:
I guess that's grounds to start my own playlist.