"You need a flare?"
"Nah man, he's close...he's real close"
*Kerchunk*
How common was losing your mind in Vietnam?
"You need a flare?". "Nah man, he's close...he's real close". *Kerchunk*
"You need a flare?"
"Nah man, he's close...he's real close"
*Kerchunk*
How common was losing your mind in Vietnam?
Imagine being in the shit with a guy this fucking talented
Not trying to be edgy but we live in a mad mad mad world. Strip away all the civilization and pretence society and it becomes hard to tell when it's losing your mind or sudden incident of sanity.
It's true, just look at places like Liberia, Detroit, Haiti, or Somalia.
I always laughed at preppers and other doomssayers (and i will keep doing it) but there is a lot of truth in saying "society is 3 warm meals from anarchy"
I don't think he lost his mind at all, quite the opposite imo
cont. from this but it sometimes stuns me how many people lose their mind. I've seen people shocked plenty of times including myself but that is more of an inhibitor to process what is happening but whenever I see people acting histerically or screaming it geniunely looks like all sensibility has left their body and they just look like helpless and soulless vassels being tossed around by their instincts.
brains is weird
Tonight, a girl at work was hyperventilating about a cockroach.
People were throwing it at her. She asked me to kill it. I said "No, you should learn to kill your own bugs."
People can be ridiculously weak.
People can be unbelievably strong.
I have no respect for the weak.
r/iamverybadass
r/gobacktoreddit
>people were throwing a live cockroach at a girl
yeah this is a story that really happened
I mean people can become catatonic after trauma
akinetic catatonia perhaps but for someone with that he shoots pretty fucking accurate, I think hes just trippin and a bit dazed but very aware of his situation to the point where its nihilistic; and rightfully so considering the situation.
Self awareness exists on a strange horse-shoe. On one end, you have people who are completely insane and have no grasp of reality. On the other end, you have people who are hyper-socialized to a point where they only recognize a manufactured, NPC-type reality.
The people in the middle -- who understand reality but pretend like they don't -- are the only sane ones.
Also I'm trans if that matters.
That guy was probably the most sober dude in the whole movie.
He represents the man Kurtz was talking about, the soldier able to kill without passion or judgement.
>the soldier able to kill without passion or judgement.
But he did have passion. After he kills him he goes “mother fucker.” Someone without passion wouldn’t have said a word.
Someone once told me that this whole scene was an allegory for inner city gang warfare. How some young men who have natural talent can get stuck in the system of violence waiting for some pro athletic team to come save them, while it gets wasted killing people
They are fucking wrong. God damn I hate progressives so fucking much
How do you not see that its not that far of a stretch and quite makes sense, even I can see it
You're talking to someone who got upset when their high school english teacher asked them what they thought the blue curtains represented.
>even I can see it
cuz you’re retarded
Read my book the film was based upon.
- J. Conrad (it's just a coincidence I was born in Ukraine, or is it?)
>Someone once told me that this whole scene was an allegory for inner city gang warfare.
That's retarded.
>I hate progressives
They dream of morons 24/7, feeling mostly guilty, but also slightly aroused.
The scene is just paralleling the book where the conditions and people are degrading as they travel farther up river.
Almost no one notice the Black Power symbol on the wall of the trench
Hey GEE EYEEE. FUCK YOUUU!!
%100 chance
>"Nah man, he's close...he's real close"
>angles his m79 40 fucking degrees upward and fires
imagine being a 19 year old conscript with limited training stoned on opium having the combination of both the unease of booby traps and ambushes like GWOT and incredibly brutal standing battles (the war killed 50k americans for a reason) like WW2.
That's why vietnam fucked a lot of guys up.
>the war killed 50k americans for a reason
(19 years, 5 months, 4 weeks and 1 day)
>38k in 3 years
https://www.militaryfactory.com/vietnam/casualties.php
you seem touchy due to repeated contact with vatniks
Aside from a few green berets most of the US troops were only involved from 1963-1973. US ops in Afghanistan lasted twice as long and killed like 10% as many americans.
Probably something to do with the fact that you had massive battles like La Drang where entire US regiments were at risk of being overrun and being totally destroyed (only saved by diverting every single combat available aircraft in the entire theatre to save them) something that has never happened since and might never happen again.
I dont think you got my point.
I was replying to a post that was romanticizing that war as some hardy shit or whatever (like ww2), while it was basically a duck hunt. The real problem was conscripting citizens who had no self control, thus the imagery of the war as some hard shit with drugs and hookers. Detroit is/was more deadly than Vietnam.
>I was replying to a post that was romanticizing that war as some hardy shit or whatever (like ww2), while it was basically a duck hunt.
>taking the entire US military for the entire 20 years of US involvement despite only a fraction of those forces and about half that time actually being involved in the war
It's like concluding the western front was no big deal because 700,000 isn't a lot if you include every single member of the entire British army in every dominion and theater and the entire royal navy.
your entire post just screams mental midget who thinks he is a genius
>nitpicking fronts out of the whole war
Are you implying I should have taken whole USA murder rate? Detroit would still be a part of it. Wake the fuck up.
the whole war like US navy logistics officers fucking femboys in the Persian Gulf or an air national guard pilot in Idaho count as fighting in a front of the war lmao.
2,709,918 actually were in Vietnam during the war meaning the adjusted "murder rate" would be 2145 per 100k over the whole conflict
>American civil war both sides 20469 per 100k
>Verdun both sides 12240 per 100k but idk if that includes the 200,000+ MIAs
>US losses in the pacific 2565 per 100k
>UK loses in the Falklands war 929 per 100k
>US losses in Afghanistan 308 per 100k
as you can see it is well with in real fucking hardcore territory.
>losses
A loss and a kill are different numbers.
I used dead only not casualties in all the things I calculated
>Afghanistan
Grand Total: 1,928
These totals are U.S. KIA (hostile) in Afghanistan only (including civilians),
Thats through a 20 year period. Thats 100 per year in average. How did you reach 300?
my number for US KIA was slightly higher but its per 100k soldiers who took part in country over the entire conflict not per year. since soldiers rotate regularly the per 100k tends to account for time anyway. populations of cities tend to stay in place while soldiers are constantly rotating in and out. Detroit has had more migration than most cities but I don't think it has had over 10 years had 3x many people arrive, stay there then leave than the population at any one like is the case with troops going through Vietnam.
that's why the much more intense but small falklands war is 900 odd despite only 250 dead brits because it was short only 24k took part while more 3/4 of a million US troops circulated though afghanistan.
You are comparing intensive conflicts to a 20 year war.
Vietnam wasnt ww2, because vietnam was 20 years and ww2 was 4-5 years of intensive combat.
I didn't say Vietnam was just the same was WW2 but is by a massive margin the most deadly western war since WW2.
The intensity of Vietnam varied massively. prior to 1964 the US presence in Vietnam was a handful of green berets smuggling heroin and teaching montagnards how to kill commies and after the Tet Offensive in 1968 the intensity of the ground war rapidly declined. So the actual time period where most of the major battles and heavy losses took place and when there was actually a large number of US troops in the country was 1965-1971. Including the early and late periods where nothing was happening would be like including the time taken to sail down and back from the Falklands in the intensity of the conflict or including desert shield and the no fly zone in talking about how intense Desert Storm was.
again the things like the US losing thousands of combat aircraft and dropping more bombs than the combined bomber offensive or the fact that during phase one of the Tet offensive (just over a month) the US took 25,000 dead and wounded while at Okinawa in 2 months the US took about 50,000 dead and wounded might clue you in on it being a major conflict at scale of intensity/losses that hasn't been even remotely experienced since outside of african genocide wars, Iran-Iraq (or gulf war from Iraqi POV) or Russia-Ukraine 2022
fudging the statistics in goofy ways like including the 1950s when almost noone in the US army even know where vietnam was or using every single member of the entire US armed forces worldwide to count as people taking part doesn't change that
>I didn't say Vietnam was just the same was WW2
Then what the fuck are you arguing with me about, that was the original claim that some kid made and I refuted it. Thats it.
I was the poster who posted the post with the twinkjak I think you will find I said:
>[Vietnam had] incredibly brutal standing battles like WW2
which is factually true Vietnam had several large engagements like La Drang or Khe Sahn were US forces were facing massive divisional or multi-divisional enemy forces and heavily outnumbered locally almost as badly as during the late stages of the korean war. in many of those battles they suffered losses on a scale much much closer to WW2/Korea than any war the US had taken part in since. Show me an example after Vietnam where battalion sized US unit has been almost wiped out and takes 50% losses in a single battle.
although I am reminded of the scene in Born on the 4th of July where the Iwo Jima vet roasts on Ron Kovak though.
classic
I've only ever seen this once and I vaguely remember how it was (I know Kovic's real story rather well), but as I got older I came to see Oliver Stone as pozzed and commie-pilled and avoided his stuff more. Pretty well-played scene showing the different attitudes between these two generations and the ignorance of each other's horror's and the different circumstances they encountered in their service. Kind of refreshing to see such an even handed representation from 30 years ago of something I'd sooner expect an entirely shallow, caricature-esque, half-assed and full-retarded example of if it were made these days (bar a select few directors/screenwriters).
>La Drang
*Ia Drang, pronounced "Ya Drang."
ma Dang*
>Detroit murder rate 43.5 per 100,000
>9,087,000 military personnel served on active duty during the official Vietnam era from August 5, 1964 to May 7, 1975.
If 9mil soldiers were deployed in Detroit through 20 year period, it would have a bigger death rate than the vietnam war.
Common enough, macvsog wasnt the only group getting into the thick of it. Regular marines saw plenty of shit.
It ain't me, it ain't me
I ain't no senator's son, son
>"Hey soldier, do you know who's in command here?"
>Grins "Yeah."
Kino
Pretty incredible, the whole part of the movie really show how chaotic it is
Vietnam War might have killed a lot of people but at least we got some great movies out of it so it wasn't a complete waste of life.