Help in P2 mission.

Hello,

I was talking about Vietnam. US- Bullets did not only free the world, they were also used to terrorize countries. Vietnam for Example.
 
Terrorize countries? Look, I'm not going to argue the merits of Vietnam because it was a very debatable war (to put it mildly). I will say this. The methods and weapons used by the US in Vietnam was child's play compared to the cold brutality actively practiced by that of North Vietnamese. Countless American soldiers were found mutilated and beaten, tortured and murdered. War is a horrible thing but to say America was the antagonizer in the Vietnam conflict goes beyond being a gross misstatement and borders on uninformed foolishness.
 
BarFly said:
Hello,

I was talking about Vietnam. US- Bullets did not only free the world, they were also used to terrorize countries. Vietnam for Example.
Click to expand...


That depends on your definition of terrorize..... I guess if you take the side of the North Vietnamese you could see things that way. However, from the side of some South Vietnamese, the ones who supported the American forces and their efforts, the North Vietnamese and the VietCong were the terrorists. They would go into South Vietnamese villages and round up people they thought supported the south and kill them.
 
Edfilho said:
You make a law saying that everyone MUST use it. It has worked in the rest of the world.
Click to expand...


That attitude isn't very welcome in a country where each person is free to pursue their own destiny without a loutish government saying "You will do this because I know what's best for you." And the loutish government is usually wrong.
 
Maj.Striker said:
...to say America was the antagonizer in the Vietnam conflict goes beyond being a gross misstatement and borders on uninformed foolishness.
Click to expand...


gross understatement actually. The US got involved in the war when US Navy ships were fired on. What really happened is a few hours before the destroyers moved through that area, gunboats came by and shot at the North Vietnamese on shore. The North Vietnamese gathered up their troops in the area and retaliated against the US ships, this time against the afore mentioned destroyers. The US claimed it had been wrongfully attacked, declared war on the North and voila, the Vietnam War began. Interesting little tidbit, the Vietnamese call that war the American War.
 
I think you'd better clarify that statement Iceman, the North Vietnamese may have called it the American War...I seriously doubt the South Vietnamese did.
 
For an extensive look at the reasons behind the vietnam war vistit here: http://www.vva.org/about_the_war.htm

Vietnam was, before that, part of French indochina. The french had been battling rebles for ages before the americans got involved. American involvement started by funding the french war against the rebels, mostly because of fears that if and when the french moved out, the communists would take over.

Heres a few interesting excerpts:

... In Indochina a desperate struggle is in its eighth year. The outcome affects our own vital interests in the western Pacific, and we are already contributing largely in material and money to the combined efforts of the French and of Viet-Nam, Laos, and Cambodia.

We Americans have too little appreciated the magnitude of the effort and sacrifices which France has made in defense of an area which is no longer a French colony but where complete independence is now in the making. This independence program is along lines which the United States has encouraged and justifies increased United States aid, provided that will assure an effort there that is vigorous and decisive.

Communist China has been and now is training, equipping, and supplying the Communist forces in Indochina. There is the risk that, as in Korea, Red China might send its own army into Indochina. The Chinese Communist regime should realize that such a second aggression could not occur without grave consequences which might not be confined to Indochina. I say this soberly in the interest of peace and in the hope of preventing another aggressor miscalculation.

We want peace in Indochina, as well as in Korea. The political conference about to be held relates in the first instance to Korea. But growing out of that conference could come, if Red China wants it, an end of aggression and restoration of peace in Indochina. The United States would welcome such a development.

(1) Made before the American Legion, St. Louis; Department of State Bulletin, Sept. 14, 1953, pp. 341-342. Back

Source:
American Foreign Policy 1950-1955
Basic Documents Volumes I and II
Department of State Publication 6446
General Foreign Policy Series 117
Washington, DC : U.S. Governemnt Printing Office, 1957

USMARC Cataloging Record
Click to expand...

Indochina - Views of the United States on the Eve of the Geneva Conference: Address by the Secretary of State, March 29, 1954 (1)

... Their independence is not yet complete. But the French Government last July (4) declared its intention to complete that independence, and negotiations to consummate that pledge are actively under way.

The United States is watching this development with close attention and great sympathy. We do not forget that we were a colony that won its freedom. We have sponsored in the Philippines a conspicuously successful development of political independence. We feel a sense of kinship with those everywhere who yearn for freedom.

... The [communist] scheme is to whip up the spirit of nationalism so that it becomes violent. That is done by professional agitators. Then the violence is enlarged by Communist military and technical leadership and the provision of military supplies. In these ways, international Communism gets a strangle-hold on the people and it uses that power to "amalgamate" the peoples into the Soviet orbit.

"Amalgamation" is Lenin's and Stalin's word to describe their process.
"Amalgamation" is now being attempted in Indochina under the ostensible leadership of Ho Chi Minh. ...

Those fighting under the banner of Ho Chi Minh have largely been trained and equipped in Communist China. They are supplied with artillery and ammunition through the Soviet-Chinese Communist bloc. Captured material shows that much of it was fabricated by the Skoda Munition Works in Czechoslovakia and transported across Russia and Siberia and then sent through China into Vietnam. Military supplies for the Communist armies have been pouring into Vietnam at a steadily increasing rate.

Military and technical guidance is supplied by an estimated 2,000 Communist Chinese...

In the present stage, the Communists in Indochina use nationalistic anti-French slogans to win local support. But if they achieved military or political success, it is certain that they would subject the People to a cruel Communist dictatorship taking its orders from Peiping and Moscow.

...The tragedy would not stop there. If the Communist forces won uncontested control over Indochina or any substantial part thereof, they would surely resume the same pattern of aggression against other free peoples in the area.

The propagandists of Red China and Russia make it apparent that the purpose is to dominate all of Southeast Asia.
Southeast Asia is the so-called "rice bowl" which helps to feed the densely populated region that extends from India to Japan. It is rich in many raw materials, such as tin, oil, rubber and iron ore. It offers industrial Japan potentially important markets and sources of raw materials.

The area has great strategic value. Southeast Asia is astride the most direct and best developed sea and air routes between the Pacific and South Asia. It has major naval and air bases. Communist control of Southeast Asia would carry a grave threat to the Philippines, Australia and New Zealand, with whom we have treaties of mutual assistance.(6) The entire Western Pacific area, including the so-called "offshore island chain", would be strategically endangered.

President Eisenhower appraised the situation last Wednesday when he said that the area is of "transcendent importance".(7)

The United States Position
The United States has shown in many ways its sympathy for the gallant struggle being waged in Indochina by French forces and those of the Associated States. Congress has enabled us to provide material aid to the established governments and their peoples. Also, our diplomacy has sought to deter Communist China from open aggression in that area.

President Eisenhower, in his address of April 16, 1953,(8) explained that a Korean armistice would be a fraud if it merely released aggressive armies for attack elsewhere. I said last September that if Red China sent its own army into Indochina, that would result in grave consequences which might not be confined to Indochina.(9)

Recent statements have been designed to impress upon potential aggressors that aggression might lead to action at places and by means of free world choosing, so that aggression would cost more than it could gain.(10)

The Chinese Communists have, in fact, avoided the direct use of their own Red armies in open aggression against Indochina. They have, however, largely stepped up their support of the aggression in that area. Indeed, they promote that aggression by all means short of open invasion.

Under all the circumstances it seems desirable to clarify further the United States position.
Under the conditions of today, the imposition on Southeast Asia of the political system of Communist Russia and its Chinese Communist ally, by whatever means, would be a grave threat to the whole free community. The United States feels that that possibility should not be passively accepted, but should be met by united action. This might involve serious risks. But these risks are far less than those that will face us a few years from now, if we dare not be resolute today.

... It is now the policy of the United States not to exchange United States performance for Communist promises.

That United States position was made clear at the recent Berlin Conference. There, by standing firm, I finally obtained the reluctant agreement by Mr. Molotov that the Geneva Conference (20) would not be a "Big Five Conference" and that the invitation to Geneva would itself specify that neither the invitation to, nor the holding of, that conference should be deemed to imply diplomatic recognition where it had not already been accorded.(21)

The Chinese Communist regime has been invited only to discuss Korea and Indochina, where it is in fact a force of aggression which we cannot ignore. It gets no diplomatic recognition from us by the fact of its presence at Geneva. I said at Berlin: "It . . . is one thing to recognize evil as a fact. It is another thing to take evil to one's breast and call it good." (22) That we shall not do.

... Today the free world also feels a sense of lull. The danger of general war seems to have receded. I hope that that is so. If it is so, it is because the free nations saw the danger and moved unitedly, with courage and decision, to meet it.

There is, however, no reason for assuming that the danger has permanently passed. There is nothing to prove that the Soviet Communist rulers accepted peace as permanent, if permanent peace would block their ambitions. They continue unceasingly to burrow and tunnel to advance their positions against the citadels of freedom.

... As against such efforts, there is only one defense - eternal vigilance, sound policies and high courage.

Source:
American Foreign Policy 1950-1955
Basic Documents Volumes I and II
Department of State Publication 6446
General Foreign Policy Series 117
Washington, DC : U.S. Governemnt Printing Office, 1957

USMARC Cataloging Record
Click to expand...

1. President Johnson's Message to Congress August 5, 1964

Last night I announced to the American people that the North Vietnamese regime had conducted further deliberate attacks against U.S. naval vessels operating in international waters, and I had therefore directed air action against gunboats and supporting facilities used in these hostile operations. This air action has now been carried out with substantial damage to the boats and facilities. Two U.S. aircraft were lost in the action.

... Our policy in southeast Asia has been consistent and unchanged since 1954. I summarized it on June 2 in four simple propositions:

America keeps her word. Here as elsewhere, we must and shall honor our commitments.
The issue is the future of southeast Asia as a whole. A threat to any nation in that region is a threat to all, and a threat to us.
Our purpose is peace. We have no military, political, or territorial ambitions in the area.
This is not just a jungle war, but a struggle for freedom on every front of human activity. Our military and economic assistance to South Vietnam and Laos in particular has the purpose of helping these countries to repel aggression and strengthen their independence.

... As President of the United States I have concluded that I should now ask the Congress, on its part, to join in affirming the national determination that all such attacks will be met, and that the United States will continue in its basic policy of assisting the free nations of the area to defend their freedom.

... We must make it clear to all that the United States is united in its determination to bring about the end of Communist subversion and aggression in the area. We seek the full and effective restoration of the international agreements signed in Geneva in 1954, with respect to South Vietnam, and again in Geneva in 1962, with respect to Laos...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Joint Resolution of Congress H.J. RES 1145 August 7, 1964

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

That the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression. ...

Source:
Department of State Bulletin, August 24, 1964
Click to expand...
 
Hello,

I never wanted to discuss Vietnam War or the role the USA has in the World, not in this forum.
I was just shocked that Ridgerunner added a smiley when he mentioned the killing ability of the 16 inch guns.
Weapons are something I can't think positive about.
Btw. what was the diameter of the bullets used in Columbine? Where those bullets measured in inch or in metric?

The (American)husband of a very nice colleague, died at Fallusha.
I don't wanna see people dying by Weapons. Not Americans, not Iraquees and not Kids at their schools.
 
Anyway, back on Topic, when I played this mission the first time I paused the game and ran and found a Dictionary (for those who don't know Dictionaries usually have a conversion table in the front or back) and did the conversions on my own with a handy calculator (I was playing at the office at the time, and we all have those big calcuatlors with the print roles in the back to keep track of our figures) so it was rather easy for me to get through the first time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top