An article for my fellow Vets

The United States Army has not won a war since 1945. What do you expect ? It started with the Doolittle Commission in the late 40's and this is you merely the logical progression of things.

But remember this: where do the soldiers of our Army come from? Us, we the people. Remember the Army reflects or mirror images society. Remember too the Banned Barristers famous or infamous words: "what you tolerate you validate and what you validate you deserve."

We are losing World War III which we are fighting now.
 
I'm 1000% against the military changing the standards to allow women to fill any combat role. I don't believe the APFT is the end all be all either so I really don't care that the APFT is scaled for non combat roles. Tho, if a women can do an admin job and only needs to do 10 push-ups, why would a guy doing the same job need to do 30 push-ups? Anyway. This political correct bullshit makes me sick.

I had to pass the exact same standards to be a RATT rig operator as the guys. I didn't get to set up smaller antennas or carry lighter radios because I was a woman. I hate to say it but today's military is a bunch of pansies - that is, the upper levels cowtowing to the PC crowd. My hat is off to anyone who has served in combat.

And I'll stay out of the discussion of today's missions and whether or not our military is currently "defending America" out of respect for people like Sky (love you!) and others on this board.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
We didn't lose we just walked away and just let nature take its inevitable course.
It sucks for all the brave men that fought there but its true
 
North Vietnam signed a peace treaty effectively surrendering. The U.S. pledged aid to the South Vietnamese to continue the fight. Following Nixon's resignation and the next election, the Democrats won overwhelmingly and voted to defund our military aid to the South Vietnamese and the inevitable happened.

We kicked ass militarily in Vietnam. Congress (the politicians) walked away from our promise to South Vietnam. Did we lose Vietnam? Not necessarily.
 
dustoff22 said:
North Vietnam signed a peace treaty effectively surrendering. The U.S. pledged aid to the South Vietnamese to continue the fight. Following Nixon's resignation and the next election, the Democrats won overwhelmingly and voted to defund our military aid to the South Vietnamese and the inevitable happened. We kicked ass militarily in Vietnam. Congress (the politicians) walked away from our promise to South Vietnam. Did we lose Vietnam? Not necessarily.
Click to expand...

A loss is a loss doesn't matter how well the Army acquitted itself on the ground. You can split hairs but here's the simple truth: the self same politicians you talk about were not just in congress or the White House. They also were in uniform. The political generals. Let's not forget the ticket punchers, the six month company command tours, the destruction of the NCO Corps and an ever changing agenda and strategy with ill defined objectives. McNamara and Johnson knew we couldn't win and the American people lacked the resolve.

Before you excoriate me and say I don't know what I'm talking about, I served from 1968-1972 I was not in country, I saw the effects of the war on the military. Some of you pride yourself on how chickenshit garrison life was CONUS well it was that attitude that permeated the leadership and prosecution of the war at the strategic level.

Later on I went back on active duty from 1982 to 1998 so I probably wore the uniform longer than most of the responders. I gave the best years of my life to the United States Army and was part of the movement of NCOs and officers (I was both) who tried to build the all volunteer force from the post Viet Nam hollow Army only to see it go further down the tubes in the end. I'll stand by my original statement: the US Army has not won a war since 1945. Desert Storm came close, and I don't know if Just Cause or Urgent Fury count.

It might be a bitter pill for some of you to swallow but I suggest you read both Sun Tszu and Clausewitz. You can win tactically but lose strategically and in geopolitics strategic is where it is at. Robert E Lee may have been the greatest general of the American Civil War and won more than he lost, but in the end it didn't matter.

This in no way takes away your valor, your honor or the integrity of your service but sooner or later you have to come to grips with simple historical fact.
 
PennyPincher said:
Unfortunately it's true. America did not win in Vietnam. It was all a damn shame.
Click to expand...

Skysoldier said:
You too?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately Sky she is right. In a way. The American military was winning the battle, but the American government gave it away. And betrayed all of the brave men (and women) who went over there and gave their all. THAT is our great shame.
 
mark056 said:
A loss is a loss doesn't matter how well the Army acquitted itself on the ground. You can split hairs but here's the simple truth: the self same politicians you talk about were not just in congress or the White House. They also were in uniform. The political generals. Let's not forget the ticket punchers, the six month company command tours, the destruction of the NCO Corps and an ever changing agenda and strategy with ill defined objectives. McNamara and Johnson knew we couldn't win and the American people lacked the resolve.

Before you excoriate me and say I don't know what I'm talking about, I served from 1968-1972 I was not in country, I saw the effects of the war on the military. Some of you pride yourself on how chickenshit garrison life was CONUS well it was that attitude that permeated the leadership and prosecution of the war at the strategic level.

Later on I went back on active duty from 1982 to 1998 so I probably wore the uniform longer than most of the responders. I gave the best years of my life to the United States Army and was part of the movement of NCOs and officers (I was both) who tried to build the all volunteer force from the post Viet Nam hollow Army only to see it go further down the tubes in the end. I'll stand by my original statement: the US Army has not won a war since 1945. Desert Storm came close, and I don't know if Just Cause or Urgent Fury count.

It might be a bitter pill for some of you to swallow but I suggest you read both Sun Tszu and Clausewitz. You can win tactically but lose strategically and in geopolitics strategic is where it is at. Robert E Lee may have been the greatest general of the American Civil War and won more than he lost, but in the end it didn't matter.

This in no way takes away your valor, your honor or the integrity of your service but sooner or later you have to come to grips with simple historical fact.
Click to expand...

How has it gone further down the tubes again? Politics aside, there is an incredible level of professionalism in todays military. GRANTED my experience is entirely within the Marine Corps, and I know we put a lot of emphasis on small-unit leadership and our NCOs.

Mike
 
crazymjb said:
How has it gone further down the tubes again? Politics aside, there is an incredible level of professionalism in todays military. GRANTED my experience is entirely within the Marine Corps, and I know we put a lot of emphasis on small-unit leadership and our NCOs. Mike
Click to expand...

It's already going down the tubes. Your Marine Corps is undergoing a reduction in force. You are already at the end of the food chain in terms of budget, resources and equipment. You are about a year away from the first female fire team members in your infantry squad.

The professionalism and combat skill level have absolutely nothing to do with this. Is professionalism winning in Afghanistan? Seems like the situation is still in doubt over there. It doesn't matter how well troops acquit themselves tactically in the field. In fact good field soldiers and especially good field officers usually don't survive in the upper ranks. Ever hear of an Army Col named David Hackworth?

It doesn't matter how well you fight. It matters how well your senior leaders lead. That's what hasn't happened for a very long time.
 
Top brass? I mean there have been some great ones... but its always a political dicksucking game.

As far as gender integration... I think its a bad idea but the corresponding increase in standards should if anything result in a net gain.

Nation building is dumb... that doesnt mean the military wouldnt excel in a traditional ground war.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
 
J
crazymjb said:
Top brass? I mean there have been some great ones... but its always a political dicksucking game.

As far as gender integration... I think its a bad idea but the corresponding increase in standards should if anything result in a net gain.

Nation building is dumb... that doesnt mean the military wouldnt excel in a traditional ground war.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
Click to expand...

Do you honestly think standards will be raised? Maybe in the Marines, but we will see how long that lasts once the congressional inquiries begin and if Hillary gets elected there will be no tightening of standards, quite the opposite.

Whether we can win a general war or a limited objective war is moot because we don't fight those kind of wars. We abandoned the Powell Doctrine. Korea and Viet Nam could have been decisive strategic victories but we were prevented from doing so by fears of involving China and/or the USSR in WWIII. MacArthur could not bomb north of the Yalu because the Chinese had privileged sanctuary and we were forbidden from invading North Vietnam even though we had the ability and expertise to do so.

Sure in the right war we can do just fine. No doubt of it. Now where are we going to fight where our leaders aren't going to ebtangle us in a quagmire? You tell me.

The political dicksuckers won't let us win and they haven't since 1945.
 
mark056 said:
J

Do you honestly think standards will be raised? Maybe in the Marines, but we will see how long that lasts once the congressional inquiries begin and if Hillary gets elected there will be no tightening of standards, quite the opposite.

Whether we can win a general war or a limited objective war is moot because we don't fight those kind of wars. We abandoned the Powell Doctrine. Korea and Viet Nam could have been decisive strategic victories but we were prevented from doing so by fears of involving China and/or the USSR in WWIII. MacArthur could not bomb north of the Yalu because the Chinese had privileged sanctuary and we were forbidden from invading North Vietnam even though we had the ability and expertise to do so.

Sure in the right war we can do just fine. No doubt of it. Now where are we going to fight where our leaders aren't going to ebtangle us in a quagmire? You tell me.

The political dicksuckers won't let us win and they haven't since 1945.
Click to expand...

The Marine Corps is upping the standards for combat arms by adding MOS specific pass/fail tests and supposedly increasing the fitness test cutoff scores... of course the long term remains to be seen but assuming there is no huge demand placed upon them for numbers I dont see it dropping. Even during the rough part of Iraq the grunt slots were always in the highest demand. Most people join the gun club to shoot stuff. Its enticing guys to go supply and food services that is tough.

I can deal with women in the infantry if they can hack it. I think its not worth it in terms of the ammount of women who will get hurt along the way but if the standards truly are upheld it shouldnt hurt anything. Afterall 6% of the USMC is women, maybe 10% of them at most would want to he combat arms, and then as we have seen 30-50% on the enlisted side can do it without getting broken. So to have the infantry become less than 1% female, with mainly beast chicks filling that category, wont hurt it.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
 
crazymjb said:
The Marine Corps is upping the standards for combat arms by adding MOS specific pass/fail tests and supposedly increasing the fitness test cutoff scores... of course the long term remains to be seen but assuming there is no huge demand placed upon them for numbers I dont see it dropping. Even during the rough part of Iraq the grunt slots were always in the highest demand. Most people join the gun club to shoot stuff. Its enticing guys to go supply and food services that is tough. I can deal with women in the infantry if they can hack it. I think its not worth it in terms of the ammount of women who will get hurt along the way but if the standards truly are upheld it shouldnt hurt anything. Afterall 6% of the USMC is women, maybe 10% of them at most would want to he combat arms, and then as we have seen 30-50% on the enlisted side can do it without getting broken. So to have the infantry become less than 1% female, with mainly beast chicks filling that category, wont hurt it. Mike Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
Click to expand...

Mike,

You are looking at it from the micro level down in the weeds. Can't say you are wrong, but some bean counter in the Pentagon is apt to look at the percentages and wonder why the infantry has such a low percentage of females especially when the Army by that time will have a much higher percentage. Must be an unwelcoming corporate culture doncha see? The word will get passed down and an unofficial quota will be established. Standards will be adjusted or modified "to reflect the changing needs, demands and skill sets required by Marines on the 21st Century Battlefield blah blah blah..." Everybody major and above is going to want to be totally on board with this. Gosh, why aren't there any female Combat Regimental Commanders? Gotta fix that. Need to get some supply and admin officers transferred to the infantry to round out the demographics. Do you think your Marine Corps will bow to that kind of pressure? Well if the current leadership doesn't, then the leadership that replaces it most definitely will and it will most definitely be replaced if conformity to policy is not achieved.

Now maybe none of this will pass. I never was a Marine. I was a staff officer on a couple of Army Division staffs (2ID,4ID) I know how some of these people think. I know who went on to get stars and who didn't. Some deserved it, some didn't IMO. I think you have too much confidence in the system looking from the bottom up, and I have too little confidence looking from the top down.
 
That very well may happen...and it will be a goddamn tragedy if it foes. but Im saying in the immediate future Im not concerned. Even the feminazis seemed to stay out of the whole no women passing IOC thing... but you are right, its a possibility.

I saw captains leave because they saw promotions impending and actively said they wouldnt sell their soul and it was their time to leave... so I believe that the political side of the military is a beast of which I have no understanding.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
 
In Vietnam, during the TET offensive in 1968, the third Marine division maintained a 10 to 1 kill ratio against the North Vietnamese Army. The NVA was well trained, well supplied and a well led Army, that was defending its own back yard and it didn't matter when it really counted. While I was there it became apparent to me that the only times the NVA did well were when they greatly out numbered their enemy. In a one on contest, they never had the resolve required to achieve victory and usually when we were out numbered, they still didn't have the resolve to win. Half way through my first tour of duty, I signed up for my second tour, because back then, we believed in what we were doing. I left that shithole when the Third Marine Division was reassigned to Okinawa in October of 1969. Here's what I knew when we exited Vietnam. It was a poor decision to send the Third to Okinawa and " we were winning when we left ". That and America is great. It's our elected officials that suck. I cant understand how it is that on a national level, we are so good at producing the troops that defend us, yet so poor at producing / voting into office our political commanders.
 
Last edited:
M60 said:
In Vietnam, during the TET offensive in 1968, the third Marine division maintained a 10 to 1 kill ratio against the North Vietnamese Army. The NVA was well trained, well supplied and a well led Army, that was defending its own back yard and it didn't matter when it really counted. While I was there it became apparent to me that the only times the NVA did well were when they greatly out numbered their enemy. In a one on contest, they never had the resolve required to achieve victory and usually when we were out numbered, they still didn't have the resolve to win. Half way through my first tour of duty, I signed up for my second tour, because back then, we believed in what we were doing. I left that shithole when the Third Marine Division was reassigned to Okinawa in October of 1969. Here's what I knew when we exited Vietnam. It was a poor decision to send the Third to Okinawa and " we were winning when we left ". That and America is great. It's our elected officials that suck. I cant understand how it is that on a national level, we are so good at producing the troops that defend us, yet so poor at producing / voting into office our political commanders.
Click to expand...

Everything you say about Tet 1968 is absolutely 100 percent true. But in the world wide press it was hailed as a great victory for the North Vietnamese and they capitalized on it. The fact that sappers penetrated the Embassy supposedly shook up the brass. Here in the CONUS the American people were being told that the US and South Vietnamese were winning the war and all of a sudden there is this major offensive. It was a military disaster for the North Vietnamese but a psychological victory of the highest magnitude. It was IMO the turning point in the war when the American people really began to question the leadership.

You talk about the leadership, well it just wasn't the politicians but the generals who were politicians in uniform. The fact that there was an ever changing agenda, a changing strategy and Americans were caught in an unfair draft system to fight in a war that was perceived that the South Vietnamese were not carrying their fair share all contributed. Nobody talks about the corruption of the South Vietnamese government or that the domino theory was seriously flawed in retrospect. It doesn't matter how well an Army acquits itself in the field. In war there are no second place winners, and today Saigon is Ho Chi Min City, a bitter pill to swallow but undeniable historical fact.
 
Last edited:
M60 said:
In Vietnam, during the TET offensive in 1968, the third Marine division maintained a 10 to 1 kill ratio against the North Vietnamese Army. The NVA was well trained, well supplied and a well led Army, that was defending its own back yard and it didn't matter when it really counted. While I was there it became apparent to me that the only times the NVA did well were when they greatly out numbered their enemy. In a one on contest, they never had the resolve required to achieve victory and usually when we were out numbered, they still didn't have the resolve to win. Half way through my first tour of duty, I signed up for my second tour, because back then, we believed in what we were doing. I left that shithole when the Third Marine Division was reassigned to Okinawa in October of 1969. Here's what I knew when we exited Vietnam. It was a poor decision to send the Third to Okinawa and " we were winning when we left ". That and America is great. It's our elected officials that suck. I cant understand how it is that on a national level, we are so good at producing the troops that defend us, yet so poor at producing / voting into office our political commanders.
Click to expand...

Tactically TET was a major disaster for North Vietnam. Giap committed the whole Viet Cong force to seize a bunch of cities in an attempt to wipe out the ARVN's and politically split Vietnam. They managed to seize the Saigon embassy and fought over Hue for several weeks but the Viet Cong were virtually wiped out during the offensive and never played a major role in the war after TET.

Strategically it was a major victory. The American public went into shock over the offensive and turned against the war after figuring out the general's were lying to the public about the progress of the war. "We can see the light at the end of the tunnel." From that point on it was just a long drawn out withdrawal. "Peace with honor." Bullshit. The war was lost at TET. We could have fought for 20 more years. The outcome would not have changed.

I DEROS'd in 67, before TET, but after Ia Drang. I think anyone would concede that 1st Air Cav got their asses kicked in Ia Drang. They fought to a draw by using massive artillery and air support, support that was not available to PAVN. Hard to make a 1X1 comparison but if PAVN had helicopters and 105's, what would the outcome have been???
 
How can you say that 1st Air CAV got their got their asses kicked when the numbers prove otherwise. Of course they used artillery and close air support. That what it's there for. You ask what would have happened if the peoples army had helicopters and 105's. I ask what would have happened if the 1st Air Cav. had the soldiers to match Charlie man for man, at that time, in that valley. The people of vietnam, north or south for that matter, never once , saw the day when their troops could match our troops for superiority, so my answer your question is, if we had the troops on the ground, to match Charlie's numbers and Charlie had the tools that we had, Charlie would have gotten a worse ass wooping in the Ia Drang valley than he experienced. Sounds like you may have gone toe to toe with Charlie a time or two, so you should know what I'm saying is true.
 
mark056 said:
Everything you say about Tet 1968 is absolutely 100 percent true. But in the world wide press it was hailed as a great victory for the North Vietnamese and they capitalized on it. The fact that sappers penetrated the Embassy supposedly shook up the brass. Here in the CONUS the American people were being told that the US and South Vietnamese were winning the war and all of a sudden there is this major offensive. It was a military disaster for the North Vietnamese by a psychological victory of the highest magnitude. It was IMO the turning point in the war when the American people really began to question the leadership.

You talk about the leadership, well it just wasn't the politicians but the generals who were politicians in uniform. The fact that there was an ever changing agenda, a changing strategy and Americans were caught in an unfair draft system to fight in a war that was perceived that the South Vietnamese were not carrying their fair share all contributed. Nobody talks about the corruption of the South Vietnamese government or that the domino theory was seriously flawed in retrospect. It doesn't matter how well an Army acquits itself in the field. In war there are no second place winners, and today Saigon is Ho Chi Min City, a bitter pill to swallow but undeniable historical fact.
Click to expand...

Mark, you are spot on with regard to the political generals of the Vietnam conflict. Great observation. I wonder how many people know that in designing the TET offensive, Ho Chi Minh sent 60,000 troops to south Vietnam to carry out his plan, or that 30,000 of those troops were killed before arriving deep into south Vietnam. At the cost of most of the Third Marine Division, about 3,000 marines at the time, Mr. Minh lost 30,000 men, which broke the back of his true TET offensive plan. Minh says this in his writings. Things went so poorly for the north vietnamese army trying to use the Ho Chi Minh trail, which went through the lines of Third Division, that Minh began rerouting his troops through neighboring Laos and Cambodia to avoid more wholesale slaughter of his north Vietnamese army on the DMZ. For this, they renamed a city after Ho Chi Minh and we are told that we lost.
 
Nobody from either side knows the number of killed and wounded. There was a massive amount of propaganda and US body counts were no better than North Vietnam's claims. What is obvious is that the 2/7 Battalion was massacred. ("We were Soldiers Once" by Col Moore is one of the better books about the war.)

There were many other smaller battles where US troops got hammered.
25 Div, HoBo woods, (Near Tay Ninh) 57 casualties out of a Co of 92
1st Div, Xa Cam My, 109 out of a Co of 134
5th Mar, Op Union, 210 out of 3 Co (Good friend of mine survived this. They advanced across open rice paddies)
1st Mar, Go Noi, 924 out of 3 Battalions (50% casualties)
Hill 875, 173rd, 340 out of 570 who went up the hill
Hamburger Hill, 101st, 564 casualties. 60% in one Bn!!!

So I don't buy into the myth that we never lost a battle. We were subjected to huge propaganda claims by both sides. My personal experience: ARVN would not defend their own country. Viet Cong would only fight if they thought they outnumbered you, and then they would disappear as quickly as they appeared. They didn't wait around for the Phantoms or 155's to come rolling in. I have a lot of respect for their courage and fighting ability.
I had no contact with NVA. They were a well equipped and trained army and their leadership and tactics were as good as ours.

I think US Marines were and are the best trained soldiers and the world. They were not allowed to fight as a result of corrupt politicians and generals. Westmoreland should be buried in a prison graveyard full of former serial killers.
 
TayNinh_66 said:
Nobody from either side knows the number of killed and wounded. There was a massive amount of propaganda and US body counts were no better than North Vietnam's claims. What is obvious is that the 2/7 Battalion was massacred. ("We were Soldiers Once" by Col Moore is one of the better books about the war.)

There were many other smaller battles where US troops got hammered.
25 Div, HoBo woods, (Near Tay Ninh) 57 casualties out of a Co of 92
1st Div, Xa Cam My, 109 out of a Co of 134
5th Mar, Op Union, 210 out of 3 Co (Good friend of mine survived this. They advanced across open rice paddies)
1st Mar, Go Noi, 924 out of 3 Battalions (50% casualties)
Hill 875, 173rd, 340 out of 570 who went up the hill
Hamburger Hill, 101st, 564 casualties. 60% in one Bn!!!

So I don't buy into the myth that we never lost a battle. We were subjected to huge propaganda claims by both sides. My personal experience: ARVN would not defend their own country. Viet Cong would only fight if they thought they outnumbered you, and then they would disappear as quickly as they appeared. They didn't wait around for the Phantoms or 155's to come rolling in. I have a lot of respect for their courage and fighting ability.
I had no contact with NVA. They were a well equipped and trained army and their leadership and tactics were as good as ours.

I think US Marines were and are the best trained soldiers and the world. They were not allowed to fight as a result of corrupt politicians and generals. Westmoreland should be buried in a prison graveyard full of former serial killers.
Click to expand...

Any source for more info on Marines having their hands tied? Not doubting you, I just havent heard that before and I find Vietnam to be the most interesting/mysterious of Americas wars. Id like to learn more on this.

Thanks. And thank you guys for serving in a rougher time.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
 
Last edited:
TayNinh_66 said:
Nobody from either side knows the number of killed and wounded. There was a massive amount of propaganda and US body counts were no better than North Vietnam's claims. What is obvious is that the 2/7 Battalion was massacred. ("We were Soldiers Once" by Col Moore is one of the better books about the war.)

There were many other smaller battles where US troops got hammered.
25 Div, HoBo woods, (Near Tay Ninh) 57 casualties out of a Co of 92
1st Div, Xa Cam My, 109 out of a Co of 134
5th Mar, Op Union, 210 out of 3 Co (Good friend of mine survived this. They advanced across open rice paddies)
1st Mar, Go Noi, 924 out of 3 Battalions (50% casualties)
Hill 875, 173rd, 340 out of 570 who went up the hill
Hamburger Hill, 101st, 564 casualties. 60% in one Bn!!!

So I don't buy into the myth that we never lost a battle. We were subjected to huge propaganda claims by both sides. My personal experience: ARVN would not defend their own country. Viet Cong would only fight if they thought they outnumbered you, and then they would disappear as quickly as they appeared. They didn't wait around for the Phantoms or 155's to come rolling in. I have a lot of respect for their courage and fighting ability.
I had no contact with NVA. They were a well equipped and trained army and their leadership and tactics were as good as ours.

I think US Marines were and are the best trained soldiers and the world. They were not allowed to fight as a result of corrupt politicians and generals. Westmoreland should be buried in a prison graveyard full of former serial killers.
Click to expand...

Read what Ho Chi Minh has written regarding the TET offensive. He admits what I said here earlier.
 
Last edited:
crazymjb said:
Any source for more info on Marines having their hands tied? Not doubting you, I just havent heard that before and I find Vietnam to be the most interesting/mysterious of Americas wars. Id like to learn more on this.

Thanks. And thank you guys for serving in a rougher time.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
Click to expand...

I can't speak for Marines in other areas of nam or their restrictions. I can tell you that in the hill country of northern I Corps. we didn't have much high ranking influence at all. If you went a bit south of us to LZ Stud, which became known as Vandergrif combat base later on, you could find officers here and there. Now and then they sent us a 2nd. Lt. who needed to get his bush time in if he was looking for a long term career. Long story short, we engaged when we felt is was the right thing to do. We didn't ask for permission. Only ammunition. Funny thing is that after a decent fire fight, the first thing they lifted into us was a pallet of beer. Ammo always seemed to come in last. Brass didn't bother with us much as long as we got the job done. That and the fact that the brass didn't want to come that far into indian country. lol.
Kind of surprised that you refer to nam as a rougher time. Maybe I'm just old. When I think of a rougher time, I think of the Island hopping the Corps did in WW11. Battles like the battles for Okinawa, Tarawa and Guadal canal. Those guys did some real Marine stuff. Mostly I think it's just different when you're there and part of it, than when you're only able to read about it.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Interesting Article & Program for Veterans
Replies
2
Views
331
Len-2A Training
Len-2A Training
"Thanks for serving"
Replies
8
Views
410
Patriot
Patriot
Just another reminder
Replies
2
Views
233
graphite
graphite
WWII and Uncle Pete
Replies
1
Views
115
Rick O'Shea
Rick O'Shea
VA and NICS
Replies
3
Views
185
Rat187
Rat187
Back
Top Bottom