Eri Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 Saw on Facebook this morning, that General died on the 3rd Quote Link to post Share on other sites
swedeinsiam Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 From Bangkok Post Yesterday Vietnam independence hero General Giap dead at 102 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moose135 Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 102? Holy crap, he was old! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HOLMES Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 RIP General Giap. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Aigore Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 RIP Giap! Wow 102 years. ?...I thought he was long gone by now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Rest in Peace, General ... -Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Eri Posted October 6, 2013 Author Share Posted October 6, 2013 He survived 3 wars and see an independent country. 102 is a long long time. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
yardbird78 Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Rest in peace General Giap. You were indeed, "An Honorable Enemy". You led the defeat of three different "world power" enemies in three different wars. Few, if any other military leaders can say that. Darwin Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChesshireCat Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 just a thought and not trying to start a flame war. You loose a 665,000 man army (confirmed), and probably closer to 1.2 million men and women. You are responsible for ordering the murder of a couple hundred thousand civilians in Vietnam alone. Plus at least another 50,000 in Laos, and who knows what in Cambodia (not what Pol Pot did). After the war was over you and your friends are credited with another 1.2 million deaths from your purges and enslavement. Can I ask where the honor is? gary Quote Link to post Share on other sites
vince14 Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Vince Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sharkey Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 just a thought and not trying to start a flame war. You loose a 665,000 man army (confirmed), and probably closer to 1.2 million men and women. You are responsible for ordering the murder of a couple hundred thousand civilians in Vietnam alone. Plus at least another 50,000 in Laos, and who knows what in Cambodia (not what Pol Pot did). After the war was over you and your friends are credited with another 1.2 million deaths from your purges and enslavement. Can I ask where the honor is? gary Quote Link to post Share on other sites
hornet97 Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 just a thought and not trying to start a flame war. You loose a 665,000 man army (confirmed), and probably closer to 1.2 million men and women. You are responsible for ordering the murder of a couple hundred thousand civilians in Vietnam alone. Plus at least another 50,000 in Laos, and who knows what in Cambodia (not what Pol Pot did). After the war was over you and your friends are credited with another 1.2 million deaths from your purges and enslavement. Can I ask where the honor is? gary Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SonyKen Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Sorry, guys. I feel about the same as Gary does on this one. I admit that surviving to the ripe old age of 102 is impressive, but there are many folks who survive to that age and older and none of those can be credited with the number of deaths (either directly or indirectly) of United States service men and women in Southeast Asia as the General was credited. Again Sorry. No sympathy here. Best Regards, Ken Bailey (SonyKen) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
vince14 Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Sorry, guys. I feel about the same as Gary does on this one. I admit that surviving to the ripe old age of 102 is impressive, but there are many folks who survive to that age and older and none of those can be credited with the number of deaths (either directly or indirectly) of United States service men and women in Southeast Asia as the General was credited. Again Sorry. No sympathy here. Best Regards, Ken Bailey (SonyKen) Giap was a solider, though, not a politician. He wasn't responsible for starting the Vietnam War anymore than General Westmoreland was. However, once the conflict had begun then both men were required by the powers-that-be in their respective nations to prosecute the war as best they could. Did you have sympathy for Westmoreland when he died? After all, it can be argued that he was equally to blame for all those US and Vietnamese deaths as Giap. What about JFK or Johnson? They were the politicians who decided to commit US troops into what was, in essence, a civil war in a strategic backwater. What about the American people themselves? Were it not for a widespread, rabid paranoia of Communism in the 1950's and early '60's then it's extremely unlikely that the US would ever have gotten involved in Vietnam. Wars are fought for a myriad of reasons. Unlike in the playground, it's never a case of 'He started it Sir'. Vince Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=268720 Coincidence? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChesshireCat Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Sorry, guys. I feel about the same as Gary does on this one. I admit that surviving to the ripe old age of 102 is impressive, but there are many folks who survive to that age and older and none of those can be credited with the number of deaths (either directly or indirectly) of United States service men and women in Southeast Asia as the General was credited. Again Sorry. No sympathy here. Best Regards, Ken Bailey (SonyKen) the gist of my post was simply that there were no ethics. I have no personal vendetta against Mr Giap, but have witnessed his actions upfront and personal. Was he a great tactician? If you think so, I have a bridge to sell you. He never was, but will give him the concept of "win at all costs." The North Vietnamese Army had far better tacticians than him, but also were not held in good favor. He personally led several campaigns, and 100% of the time was sent back home dragging his tail. Still he held no remorse for his failures, and basically had little regard for the basic foot soldier. The best Division he had working for him was the White House and the CIA. These errors have been pointed many, many times over the years. But give Giap credit as he took advantage of our incompetence. I faced Giap, and his boys in Feb. 68. Tough for about the first ten days, and then we ate his lunch everyday. He was smarter in Feb 69, and picked smaller targets to prove his point. Took a solid, very tough six weeks to reach a stalemate, and after that we ate his lunch every night to the middle of June. That one cost him a Division and a half of NVA regulars (confirmed) out of three full strength Divisions. Now I was taught to love my enemy by a guy far greater than Giap could ever be. So yes I respected him and his men. Hold zero remorse towards them even to this very day. I would have dinner with them tonight; if that matters much. (not eating spoiled rice and fish heads) In the end if he were to knock on my door, and say lets have a cup of coffee; I'd of course welcome him. I would not do that for Abrams! But of course I would for Westy. In closing, let me say it this way: "rest in peace Mr. Giap, I hold you as an opponent and that's about it" gary Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 the gist of my post was simply that there were no ethics. I have no personal vendetta against Mr Giap, but have witnessed his actions upfront and personal. Was he a great tactician? If you think so, I have a bridge to sell you. He never was, but will give him the concept of "win at all costs." The North Vietnamese Army had far better tacticians than him, but also were not held in good favor. He personally led several campaigns, and 100% of the time was sent back home dragging his tail. Still he held no remorse for his failures, and basically had little regard for the basic foot soldier. The best Division he had working for him was the White House and the CIA. These errors have been pointed many, many times over the years. But give Giap credit as he took advantage of our incompetence. I faced Giap, and his boys in Feb. 68. Tough for about the first ten days, and then we ate his lunch everyday. He was smarter in Feb 69, and picked smaller targets to prove his point. Took a solid, very tough six weeks to reach a stalemate, and after that we ate his lunch every night to the middle of June. That one cost him a Division and a half of NVA regulars (confirmed) out of three full strength Divisions. Now I was taught to love my enemy by a guy far greater than Giap could ever be. So yes I respected him and his men. Hold zero remorse towards them even to this very day. I would have dinner with them tonight; if that matters much. (not eating spoiled rice and fish heads) In the end if he were to knock on my door, and say lets have a cup of coffee; I'd of course welcome him. I would not do that for Abrams! But of course I would for Westy. In closing, let me say it this way: "rest in peace Mr. Giap, I hold you as an opponent and that's about it" gary Nicely put. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Julien (UK) Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Giap was a solider, though, not a politician. He wasn't responsible for starting the Vietnam War anymore than General Westmoreland was. However, once the conflict had begun then both men were required by the powers-that-be in their respective nations to prosecute the war as best they could. Did you have sympathy for Westmoreland when he died? After all, it can be argued that he was equally to blame for all those US and Vietnamese deaths as Giap. What about JFK or Johnson? They were the politicians who decided to commit US troops into what was, in essence, a civil war in a strategic backwater. What about the American people themselves? Were it not for a widespread, rabid paranoia of Communism in the 1950's and early '60's then it's extremely unlikely that the US would ever have gotten involved in Vietnam. Wars are fought for a myriad of reasons. Unlike in the playground, it's never a case of 'He started it Sir'. Vince I have to say as a bit of an outsider I do agree with you there. Some say no honour but he did was removed from his position for speaking out about such things as corruption and was held in high esteem by a lot in his country till he died. I would think more people in his country know his name, than other countries do the leaders who were defeated by him. Julien Quote Link to post Share on other sites
82Whitey51 Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) Oh...another dead commie? GOOD! B) Edited October 10, 2013 by 82Whitey51 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wayfarer 30 Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Nicely put +2Exactly my words. Thank you for your service ChesshireCat. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChesshireCat Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 +2 Exactly my words. Thank you for your service ChesshireCat. I like to look back at a statement that one of the greatest Generals of any generation once said after all had gone quiet. That would have been Robert E. Lee shortly after Gettysburg when he took all his losses upon himself, and blamed no one else. Win loose or draw; one has to respect that statement. Mr. Giap never did, and nor did Hitler. Folks like George Patton, Montgomery (I apologize, as I cannot remember his first name), Hal Moore revered their lost men, and held them in the highest esteem. These are four men out of hundreds that can be named, but R.E. Lee stands out for me, and I would imagine Grant held the same thoughts towards his men. In mortal combat, you absolutely must respect your enemy. He who doesn't will not survive. My enemy for the most part had little respect for me, but did fear me. This thought is not new, and has came out many times over the years. My First Sargent was tough (the second one out of four). He was one of guys left on the Yalu River to hold off a million Chinese while everybody else bugged out. He knew how to deal with hard times, and had fine leadership skills. Trust me he put a boot in my butt more times than I like to remember. I was scared to death of him, but I also know that with his hand pressing against my back as I went out the right side of a Huey he would be there as my boots hit the ground. He carried at least a 100lb. load, and often carried more. I respected him for that as I rarely even saw an Officer don an extra ammo belt, while he always had three or four. In late March one year we were involved in some serious ground attacks down by Quang Nghai with a platoon out of the 101st. Looked like we were playing with a heavy battalion sized element, and we were shooting 155mm WP with a one and two second time fuse. I was cussing them and pretty much wacked out. The First Sargent gave me a pep talk and told me I must learn to respect and love my enemy just like the Bible says. Things got a lot easier after that, and I refuse to allow my self to hate them. Hal Moore had it right as well When we had POW's, I always got water to them ASAP, and when we ate they ate the same thing. Yes I know that was a one way street, but I'm above that. No one told me to do that, as it's part of the respect scenario. Mr. Giap's folks thought differently as well know by now, and that alone causes a loss of respect for them. I might add here that I also had little respect for the South Vietnamese and their ways of doing things. (probably even less) I vowed that I would never drop down to that level. gary Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Linden Hill Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304626104579119221395534220.html Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Les / Creative Edge Photo Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304626104579119221395534220.html An analogy. Most anyone will agree that in the world of insects the scorpion is a serious insect machine. On its own there is not much in the insect world that will defeat it. This scorpion wanders into an area inhabited by ants it won't much bother if 1,2, maybe 10 or so ants attack it, BUT! if 50-100+ attack it the scorpion WILL LOSE AND WILL DIE. General Giap much like his fighting brothers and sisters during the Vietnam War knew that this type of tactic would work too. Not just over who they saw as the arrogant French first in the 1950's but later over who they also saw as the belligerent Americans at the time during the 1960's - early 70's. Once the South's very corrupt govt. and it's corporate/elite cronies knew it could not depend on the USA they would cave like the paper tigers they pretended to be. In a war of attrition more than military size and general battle field tactics matter. Ultimately only the will for one side to outlast the other matters. Foreign powers often wander into other nations civil wars and revolutions and pretty well and as time passes, all the time the foreign powers regardless of who, gets their a$$es handed to them in the end. It's odd at how such powers never seem to learn from history which is pock marked with these lessons. Often in their blind arrogance they think they will achieve what others before them have always failed to do. Meh it's a disease of grandeur to some in halls of power. It's too bad many people pay such a terrible price for it though. :(/> Edited October 10, 2013 by Les / Creative Edge Photo Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.