The US Deploys Mercenaries In Vietnam

Arizona Ranger

Lets assume the following.... :confused:

The CIA and other US Agencies decide to use the talents of such noted Mercenaries like Mike Hoare and his Wild Geese during the Vietnam War in order to keep them out of the intrigues of Africa... :eek:

So how would Mad Mike Hoare and men like Black Jack Schramm make the difference after fighting off the fierce Simbas in the Katanga Crisis ? Or would they find themselves frustrated by a seemingly inane US Policy in 'Nam ?

And how would the regular US Military react to the presence of these Soldiers of Fortune ? :rolleyes:
 
Mr_ Bondoc

Mr_ Bondoc

As Strange As It Sounds....

Something that sounds pretty damned weird is that in 1969, the infamous motorcycle gang, the Hell's Angels, volunteered to go to Vietnam to fight as mercenaries. Try to imagine Harley-Davidsons roaring through the Mekong Valley amidst a hail of AK-47 fire....all while Steppenwolf's "Born to Be Wild" plays in the background...
 

Nik

Mercenaries tougher than Foreign Legion ??

Could these mercenaries do better than the French Foreign Legion, whose mishaps in IndoChina taught the US too little ??
 

Superdude

Banned
Mr_ Bondoc said:
Something that sounds pretty damned weird is that in 1969, the infamous motorcycle gang, the Hell's Angels, volunteered to go to Vietnam to fight as mercenaries. Try to imagine Harley-Davidsons roaring through the Mekong Valley amidst a hail of AK-47 fire....all while Steppenwolf's "Born to Be Wild" plays in the background...
Click to expand...


That sounds like it would make an awesome movie.
 

Tielhard

Banned
The Vietnamese people kicked the crap out of the USA, Australia, Thailand, France and China. Like a few fat gits on hogs and a hand-full of British sadists are going to make a difference.
 

MerryPrankster

Tielhard said:
The Vietnamese people kicked the crap out of the USA, Australia, Thailand, France and China. Like a few fat gits on hogs and a hand-full of British sadists are going to make a difference.
Click to expand...

The Vietnamese people or the Vietnamese Communist Party? They're not necessarily the same thing--early in his tenure in the North, Ho Chi Minh crushed a peasant revolt. If the people who're supposed to be benefiting from your program are rebelling against you, there's a problem.
 

Tielhard

Banned
MerryPrankster wrote: "The Vietnamese people or the Vietnamese Communist Party? They're not necessarily the same thing--early in his tenure in the North, Ho Chi Minh crushed a peasant revolt. If the people who're supposed to be benefiting from your program are rebelling against you, there's a problem."

What price the unity of a nation. I understand the USA fought a civil war to preserve it. In doing so the USA supressed the desires of several million people who wanted no part of the USA. They killed several hundred thousand of them.

Really you whole argument is a crock, aside from being irrelevant, the Vietnamese Communist party, as you choose to call it was an expression of the will of the whole Vietnamese people, North and South for freedom and independence. Could the Vietnamese Communist party on its own have destroyed the army of the colonial power, humiliated the most powerful nation on earth and its allies, then liberated Cambodia from genocidal maniacs supported by the USA and finally fought the old imperial power to a stand still.
Get real.

As to the mercenaries and the fat gits ...
 

Superdude

Banned
And inherit a shattered and devastated country.

The USA could have won if they just planned the war like Iraq- Use overwhelming force in the beginning and contend with weakened resistance afterwards.
 

Tielhard

Banned
"The USA could have won if they just planned the war like Iraq- Use overwhelming force in the beginning and contend with weakened resistance afterwards."

If the USA could have won it would have done. It was defeated by Vietnam as was everybody else that fought them in the last century. The Vietnamese were victorious, the Americans and allies lost. As a young boy I watched on the TV as they ran away in thier overloaded helicopters. In the end they were not even able keep promises to evacuate thier Vietnamese collaborators.

America was defeated by Vietnam anything else is Alternative history, live with it.

The USA is currently loosing its war in Afghanistan, what it gained on the battlefield it is loosing to better diplomats. As for Iraq, nobody has won anything yet.
 

Tielhard

Banned
"how r we lossing in afganistan?" By the 'wee' I assume you are from the USA? A much better question would be 'what in God's name makes you think you are winning?'

"that would be so hilarous dudes on harlys with shotguns lol so funny"

Well it is funny if you like the idea of lots of arrogant middle-aged fat men on thier chromed steel m/cs getting bogged down in a rice paddy and having the crap shot out of them by some battle hardened teens in black pjs with AKs, just five minutes after they get off the plane. More to ypur taste than mine perhaps? Still with 2 million dead who's going to notice another couple of thou and you never know it might make the USA a nicer place?
 

Major Major

Arizona Ranger said:
Lets assume the following.... :confused:

The CIA and other US Agencies decide to use the talents of such noted Mercenaries like Mike Hoare and his Wild Geese during the Vietnam War in order to keep them out of the intrigues of Africa... :eek:

So how would Mad Mike Hoare and men like Black Jack Schramm make the difference after fighting off the fierce Simbas in the Katanga Crisis ? Or would they find themselves frustrated by a seemingly inane US Policy in 'Nam ?

And how would the regular US Military react to the presence of these Soldiers of Fortune ? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

But suppose, as was far more likely, the mercs hired were more of the order of "Colonel Callan". In real life, Costas Georgiou, a Cypriot from the British Army's Parachute Regiment who was discharged dishonourably and once he persuaded the CIA to hire him on at his assumed rank, killed more of his own men (through mass executions) than of the enemy.

How would an indisciplined, murderous merc of that sort do, besides confirming every prejudice about soldiers in 'Nam?
 

MerryPrankster

Tielhard said:
What price the unity of a nation. I understand the USA fought a civil war to preserve it. In doing so the USA supressed the desires of several million people who wanted no part of the USA. They killed several hundred thousand of them.
Click to expand...

The Civil War was bad too. It is true that the reason for the Confederate secession was abominable and splitting the US would be unwise, but the states formed the Union and therefore had the right to leave it.
 

fhaessig

Arizona Ranger said:
Lets assume the following.... :confused:
And how would the regular US Military react to the presence of these Soldiers of Fortune ? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Look at how they are reacting to the current use of mercenaries in Iraq and you have an answer.
 

fhaessig

Codeman said:
how r we lossing in afganistan?
that would be so hilarous dudes on harlys with shotguns lol so funny
Click to expand...

Hem....

Are you aware that the Talibans are back as a major faction and currently control a big part of the country?

And I don't think they do it as a US proxy this time.
 

Grimm Reaper

I think we all understand that the communists, whose atrocities and carnage rivaled the Nazis in Poland, did NOT express the will of a huge portion of the population, quite possibly the majority.

In fact, in 1968 during the Tet Offensive the US effectively destroyed the Viet Cong, and from then on the NVA was the only enemy.

There can be little doubt among honest historians that had the US honored its commitments after 1972, providing air support and arms on the same scale that Moscow gave Hanoi, South Vietnam would still be around. Suggesting otherwise is tantamount to suggesting that if the US kept aiding, say, Israel in 1973 while Moscow cut Syria off, the subsequent Syrian defeat would somehow be a surprise to anyone.

That the US did not honor commitments to people fighting Hanoi and their ally, the Khmer Rouge, is a dark stain on the US's record. That some people look at the millions murdered by the communists after 1975 and presume this was right and the popular will is disgusting rather than shameful.

As for anyone not spouting the party line, the idea that the US is losing in Afghanistan is laughable, at best.
 

fhaessig

Grimm Reaper said:
As for anyone not spouting the party line, the idea that the US is losing in Afghanistan is laughable, at best.
Click to expand...

That depends on your definition of losing.

It's fair to say that the coalition ( unlike Iraq, western intervention in Afganistan is currently a true coalition ) is definitely not winning at this time, if we define winning as helping establish a stable, non-theocratic, somewhat-democratic government. The country is currently in the middle of an on-off civil war, with warlordism and theocratic extremistm the order of the day anywhere outside of Kabul. Talibans, which were suppposed to be destroyed by the intervention of western special forces in coalition with Afghan rebels, are making a major come-back in the countryside and currently control a big part of the country. As a matter of fact, the international force only 'secures' Kabul and have to leave the rest of the country alone, because of lack of manpower. This may not be your definition of losing, but it doesn't fit the definition of winning either.
 

MerryPrankster

fhaessig said:
Hem....

Are you aware that the Talibans are back as a major faction and currently control a big part of the country?

And I don't think they do it as a US proxy this time.
Click to expand...

US proxy? I thought the problem in Afghanistan was that the warlords of the Northern Alliance were busy growing opium again (and occasionally shooting each other, though flybys by US aircraft tend to put a stop to that). I am aware that the Taliban are still active, but I was under the impression their activities were largely confined to the southeast of the country.
 

MerryPrankster

Grimm Reaper said:
I think we all understand that the communists, whose atrocities and carnage rivaled the Nazis in Poland, did NOT express the will of a huge portion of the population, quite possibly the majority.

In fact, in 1968 during the Tet Offensive the US effectively destroyed the Viet Cong, and from then on the NVA was the only enemy.
Click to expand...

To be fair, much of Ho's popularity did come from the fact that he was a nationalist who fought the French, and much of the unpopularity of the southern regime came from the fact that the country was divided.

Now, Ho was a monster. However, that might have been prevented. If the US had taken a more fair position re: the French and Indochina in the late 1940s, Ho might not have jumped in bed with Stalin and Mao. That might lead to a more moral, less murderous Ho later.

I concur about Tet. The problem with Tet was that it was a large offensive that occurred after two-odd years of LBJ and friends saying "the end is near." It was a military defeat for the Communists, but it was a major political/PR victory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top