The Fall of Saigon...The End

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by Greg Reimer 7376

This is one of those things that we can't allow to be forgotten. Thanks for your service,Eddie and all the rest that served and still serve today.

This nation hasn't entered or prosecuted a war with the intentions of winning for at least seventy years. It's inexcusable. Neither party is free of guilt. Worse still, wars are now run by politicians and lawyers, and the public is fed B.S. by the media, ALL of the media, for seventy plus years. And NOT the sort of things the media did during World War II.



Whether or not you believe any of the undeclared wars should have been initiated, or entered, once they were, the failure to pursue absolute victory is far more criminal than any decision to go to begin with.

[Eddies66]

1983-Granada (regime change), 1989-Panama (regime change), 1991-Iraq (defeated 4th largest military force in 48 hrs), 2003-Iraq (regime change), 2011-GWOT (bin Laden).

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by Eddies66

1983-Granada (regime change), 1989-Panama (regime change), 1991-Iraq (defeated 4th largest military force in 48 hrs), 2003-Iraq (regime change), 2011-GWOT (bin Laden).

With all due respect, the first two were not wars. They were brief military actions of very limited scope. Those were pretty well run, and successful. Low number of casualties, relatively successful result.



Desert Shield/Desert Storm was a joint military action with a large coalition. It was relatively brief. It was also well run.Low casualty rate, somewhat short term successful result. Except that Hussein continued to remain in power, operate, threaten his neighbors, as well as fund, support, and sanction terrorists. It was necessary to maintain a large presence, and run constant operations to keep Iraq somewhat in check. And twelve years later, it was necessary to go back, in force, with fewer allies and less support.



While the 2003 war to remove Hussein was successful in the very beginning, Hussein was deposed, and eventually captured, however, long term it was an abject failure. The military was severely restricted in what they were allowed to do. Rarely were they allowed to fully engage the enemy and outright destroy them. Consider that, as ONE example, al-Sadr was allowed to live, and his organization allowed to survive, operate, and "participate in the government". This while he openly ran operations which killed U.S. personnel and their allies, and destabilized the new government. Rather than a complete defeat of the enemy, there were 15+ years of operations, presence, and casualties, with a very questionable result.


The 2011 operation to kill bin Laden was hardly a war. And it was a tiny part of the GWOT. Yes, the Seals and those who supported them did a great job of finally seeing to it that the ******* achieved room temperature. However, the "GWOT' as a whole has been poorly prosecuted. The eventual withdrawal from Afghanistan was an abject failure, and a disastrous embarrassment. Once again, after the short term success of the first part of the operation, there was a ludicrous "restricted warfare" policy, which caused unnecessary casualties, and prevented the total defeat and eradication of an enemy that practiced no such restraint. After the initial successes, there was an 18+ year period of lackluster results, because the military was not allowed to go out, and do what was necessary to win. In the end, the exit from Afghanistan bore a striking resemblance to the Fall of Saigon. Unnecessary casualties, embarrassment, and billions of dollars of military equipment abandoned, left for enemies to share, copy, improve, and use against the military.



As a person who was the son of a veteran of two wars, the nephew of three uncles who went to war, one of which never came home, and who, due to injury was not very welcome in the military, I have an extreme respect and admiration for our military. I have dozens of friends and relatives who have given a lifetime, as you have. It angers me to no end to see the military abused in the manner which has been almost customary since the end of the second World War.



While I believe that there ARE reason why battles MUST be fought, I also believe that if you tell a man he should go fight, you should NEVER restrict his ability to seek out and destroy the enemy, with maximum effort, excellent results, and the least possible risk. "Restricted warfare", with "limited rules of engagement", written by lawyers and politicians, are criminal policies. So are vague and obtuse "objectives".


These policies obviously do not work. There was no such "restricted warfare" in the war with Japan. Yet, since the end of World War II, and the brief occupation, Japan has become an extremely stable and reliable friend and ally. While not quite as reliable and friendly as Japan, Germany has been stable, and reliable. So these policies used after World War II just don't work. They're NOT an improvement. They're a complete and abject failure.



The United States military is the finest in the world, and the vast majority of its personnel are some of the very best humans on the planet. Unfortunately, a large portion of our government, criminally corrupt and morally bankrupt as it has become, sees that military, and those personnel as expendable pawns.

[Alan Roehrich]

My problem is not the military itself, at least below the "Joint Chiefs" and the Pentagon. Quite the opposite. My problem is with the government, including the "Joint Chiefs".


If the military were used judiciously, as intended by the Founding Fathers, and as the military should be used, as in, once the military is engaged, it practices almost completely unrestricted warfare, and has extremely few limits with regards to rules of engagement, then either Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq do not see the U.S. military, or those wars are over much more quickly, with much higher enemy casualties, and with absolute victory.


Men go into combat, and if they survive, they are forever altered. Regardless of the outcome, regardless of how the battle is prosecuted, those in it are NEVER the same. As such, we owe those we send into those battles. We owe them the ability and the requisite support to win. We owe them absolute victory. And we owe them the very best unending support for the rest of their lives for the price that they pay for the service that they give. Either give them ALL of that, or don't ever send them to battle, or simply discharge them, and send them home to do something else with their lives.

[Eddies66]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

My problem is not the military itself, at least below the "Joint Chiefs" and the Pentagon. Quite the opposite. My problem is with the government, including the "Joint Chiefs".


If the military were used judiciously, as intended by the Founding Fathers, and as the military should be used, as in, once the military is engaged, it practices almost completely unrestricted warfare, and has extremely few limits with regards to rules of engagement, then either Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq do not see the U.S. military, or those wars are over much more quickly, with much higher enemy casualties, and with absolute victory.


Men go into combat, and if they survive, they are forever altered. Regardless of the outcome, regardless of how the battle is prosecuted, those in it are NEVER the same. As such, we owe those we send into those battles. We owe them the ability and the requisite support to win. We owe them absolute victory. And we owe them the very best unending support for the rest of their lives for the price that they pay for the service that they give. Either give them ALL of that, or don't ever send them to battle, or simply discharge them, and send them home to do something else with their lives.

I have dedicated the last 20 years of my life as a Service Officer for the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans and as Nevada Veterans Advocate insuring those lives that have been changed are treated and compensated for their injuries. Since the PACT Act was approved on 1 Jan 2023, I am averaging 10 to 12 cases a week. The VA has received over 2 million claims since approval. You might want to take a look at what the Congressional Budget Office proposed to the House. Cutting compensation to veterans and spouses, terminating 81,000 VA employees, which in turn would close VA facilities. It is not “thank for your service” it’s “** for your service”.

When you talk about the differences between a war, a police action or minor conflict. I can speak only about Marines and how they react to being on the pointy end of the spear, we care about each other and know our mission is to “close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver”. If the Commandant of the Marine Corps told me to shoot my grandmother, she could standby because there would be rounds coming down range. Enjoy the freedoms that these young men and women have provided dedicating their lives in maintaining it.

[Randy Wells]

Originally Posted by Eddies66

I have dedicated the last 20 years of my life as a Service Officer for the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans and as Nevada Veterans Advocate insuring those lives that have been changed are treated and compensated for their injuries. Since the PACT Act was approved on 1 Jan 2023, I am averaging 10 to 12 cases a week. The VA has received over 2 million claims since approval. You might want to take a look at what the Congressional Budget Office proposed to the House. Cutting compensation to veterans and spouses, terminating 81,000 VA employees, which in turn would close VA facilities. It is not “thank for your service” it’s “** for your service”.

When you talk about the differences between a war, a police action or minor conflict. I can speak only about Marines and how they react to being on the pointy end of the spear, we care about each other and know our mission is to “close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver”. If the Commandant of the Marine Corps told me to shoot my grandmother, she could standby because there would be rounds coming down range. Enjoy the freedoms that these young men and women have provided dedicating their lives in maintaining it.

Luckily Gandma has the 2nd amendment and she can shoot back.

Randy Wells
I/S 5628

[Eddies66]

Originally Posted by Randy Wells

Luckily Gandma has the 2nd amendment and she can shoot back.

Randy Wells
I/S 5628

True! No issue with the 2nd Amendment, they do need open up HIPPA laws as part of the background checks.

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by Eddies66

I have dedicated the last 20 years of my life as a Service Officer for the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans and as Nevada Veterans Advocate insuring those lives that have been changed are treated and compensated for their injuries. Since the PACT Act was approved on 1 Jan 2023, I am averaging 10 to 12 cases a week. The VA has received over 2 million claims since approval. You might want to take a look at what the Congressional Budget Office proposed to the House. Cutting compensation to veterans and spouses, terminating 81,000 VA employees, which in turn would close VA facilities. It is not “thank for your service” it’s “** for your service”.

When you talk about the differences between a war, a police action or minor conflict. I can speak only about Marines and how they react to being on the pointy end of the spear, we care about each other and know our mission is to “close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver”. If the Commandant of the Marine Corps told me to shoot my grandmother, she could standby because there would be rounds coming down range. Enjoy the freedoms that these young men and women have provided dedicating their lives in maintaining it.

Again, I see the government as morally bankrupt, and I have no use for bureaucrats and politicians who cut benefits to veterans.

we waste enough tax revenue on entitlements to assure every veteran a lifetime of the best possible care.


As stated, I'm not commenting on the grunts. I'm commenting on the government, including the "Joint Chiefs". The differentiation assigned to various engagements is a matter of government declaration, and government policy, not of danger to or effectiveness of the individual personnel. Sure, you WANT to close with and destroy the enemy. Unfortunately, the government prevents that all too often, while still sending you to be shot at. And that is the problem.While acknowledging that the statement about granny is hyperbole, we'll assume that you'd consider whether or not that's a lawful order.

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by Eddies66

True! No issue with the 2nd Amendment, they do need open up HIPPA laws as part of the background checks.

By all means, there should be penalties for those who fail to disclose to the proper authorities that an individual is a threat to others due to psychological disorders. Including government and military offices. If a person is separated from the military because they're considered a hazard when armed, due to a psychological disorder, it should be reported as an adjudication of mental defect.

[Eddies66]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

By all means, there should be penalties for those who fail to disclose to the proper authorities that an individual is a threat to others due to psychological disorders. Including government and military offices. If a person is separated from the military because they're considered a hazard when armed, due to a psychological disorder, it should be reported as an adjudication of mental defect.

The DD214 members 4 copy discloses type of discharge and the reenlistment code i.e., medical discharge with personality disorder. Unfortunately most cases of PTSD are not treated in the military and not recognized until after discharge.