Download 'Nam 1965-1975

Turtler 2023-11-06 1 point

@Uh Dude Part 1

"No offense, but this war has been over for almost 50 years."

At least in Vietnam. The Pathet Lao over in Laos are still hunting down and killing the people (or kin of the people) who defied them in the Laotian Civil War decades earlier with the tacit support of both the Vietnamese and Chinese governments. So the war isn't quite as over as people would like to believe.

" While I will agree that the treatment veterans received at the end of the war was harsh and the peace protests were out of control we should not have been in the war in the first place."

I'm not sure the Cambodians or South Vietnamese feel the same, especially those that were killed or isolated. The US, French, and others certainly had reasons to be suspicious of Communist expansion and while we had to pick our battles it is worth it.

"Our presence in South Vietnam simply made a war that would have been over in a year last 10"

Nope, absolutely not. The fact is that between the French withdrawal in 1954/5ish and the arrival of the first US combat troops in the early sixties, the war had already lasted half a decade of almost purely Indochinese on Indochinese violence, with the Communist Vietnamese not only failing to take over the South (as this narrative would have us believe was inevitable) but falling to civil war themselves as their drive to cement their rule caused a civil war in the North against the Vietnamese KMT, Viet Royalists, and local self-defense groups (justifiably) horrified at the orgy of violence and collectivization that was "Land Reform." It got to the point where the Southern coalition felt so secure from the communists they actually fell out in a struggle for control, with the Binh Xuyen Cartel trying to overthrow the Diem government in a pitched battle in Saigon.

The Communists had a host of advantages, but the idea that they were always destined to be the victors is simply contrary to history. And indeed they didn't even win the war in a year when the US did pull out over the course of 1973-4, since it took them until 1975 to finally overrun the South.

" and kills thousands of Americans and Vietnamese citizens."

This would be a lot more convincing if one didn't know the knock on effects of the "war ending" in 1975 would kill hundreds of millions of people (through an orgy of bloodletting as the victorious Vietnamese Communists, the Khmer Rouge, and the Pathet Lao persecuted their old enemies and then turned on each other), and caused a peacetime famine that would last until the 1990s.Far be it for me to claim Allied, anti-Communist conduct in the Indochinese Wars was blameless, it wasn't, not by a long shot. But I don't think too many South Koreans would view the cold war on their peninsula or later violent outbreaks like the DMZ War of the 1960s as a greater evil when the alternative was being ruled by Pyongyang.

"The peace protestors were right in the end,"

Depends on which part.

"we could not end this war without total commitment"

Much more dubious, especially given Korea and Greece.

"and we had no business trying to change the fate of another country."

This would be a lot more convincing if Beijing and Moscow did not argue they had the right to not only change the fate of other countries, but to dictate the fate of the world, and Hanoi did not engage in its own brutal neocolonial policies not just internally but in neighboring areas like Laos and Cambodia, which led to things like the Pathet Lao and the Khmer Rouge.

Politics is an ugly game and always has been, and even if one wants to argue that the US had no business changing the fate of another country in the abstract or in principle, people don't live and die in the abstract or on principle alone. And I challenge anybody to argue that the fate of Greece or South Korea was worse off because of the US's role in changing the fate of those countries.

"My grandfather fought in the US Navy and bombed Hanoi in Rolling Thunder.... He agrees that we should have never been there either."

Fair, and I have to thank him for his service and frankly agree that the US should have picked its battles and either been willing to commit more or gone home. But that doesn't change the merits.

"And @Joe Biden, you are drawing parallels that should not be drawn. The US should never have been in Vietnam and failed in their mission. However America technically accomplished their mission in Afghanistan with Bin Laden croaking."

Bin Laden was just the leader of an interconnected terrorist network dedicated to global Islamist revolution. His death was important but not all-important, as shown by the fact that the Al Qaeda franchise has limped along (albeit weakened and splintered) and the fact that he died at an ISI safehouse in Pakistan hinting at how he had his allies.

It's also not like this does not have precedence in history before. The death of the self-proclaimed "Madhi" of Sudan Muhammad Ahmad in 1885 led to his ideological successor the "Khalifa" Abdallahi ibn Muhammad taking over and continuing his wars. Osama had his crown contested between Zarqawi and Zawahiri, among others. It's hard to cut the heads off a hydra, and the conduct of the Taliban government shows that they now intend to rekindle the alliance with Al Qaeda successor organizations that helped cause 9/11 n the first place.

"We should have left after that happened"

That only works if you believe the threat of Al Qaeda rested in Osama personally, when in reality he was cut off from much ready communications with his cell and forced into a distant managerial role. Which is one reason why his lieutenants were so ready to take over once he was killed.

"but instead we decided to stick around and attempt to nation build, which never works."

Japan, Germany, Italy, Cuba, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Grenada, Nigeria, and Iraq beg to differ. Obviously nation building is difficult, and often tends not to go the way people doing it want, but obviously it can and does work or there wouldn't be any nations around. Moreover people trading in cliches of Afghanistan as a hole in the map or a graveyard of empires tend to ignore the fact that the last round of state building in Afghanistan by the British in the late 19th and early 20th century was monumentally difficult and costly but so successful it ultimately created a decently modern, sane government that could keep peace and weather outright civil war in the 1920s, lasting right up until a series of fratricidal coups within the royal family followed up by Communist coups and ultimately Soviet invasion in 1979.

That's not great but 80 something years is quite the track record.

"The Afghan government was clearly corrupt"

This is true and one thing I have been especially harsh on with the Afghan government, as well as its fallback on Sharia Law and failure by NATO forces to help stomp out a lot of abuses.

But now the Afghan government is the Taliban, who are also clearly corrupt with the "side benefit" of being racist, sectarianly oppressive, and terrorist sponsoring theocrats.

I have a LOT bad to say about the Afghan Republic, but treating the Taliban like they were ever the lesser evil was a horrible mistake.

Uh Dude 2022-12-15 -2 points

@Swedish Fatman
No offense, but this war has been over for almost 50 years. While I will agree that the treatment veterans received at the end of the war was harsh and the peace protests were out of control we should not have been in the war in the first place. Our presence in South Vietnam simply made a war that would have been over in a year last 10 and kills thousands of Americans and Vietnamese citizens. The peace protestors were right in the end, we could not end this war without total commitment and we had no business trying to change the fate of another country. My grandfather fought in the US Navy and bombed Hanoi in Rolling Thunder.... He agrees that we should have never been there either.

And @Joe Biden, you are drawing parallels that should not be drawn. The US should never have been in Vietnam and failed in their mission. However America technically accomplished their mission in Afghanistan with Bin Laden croaking. We should have left after that happened but instead we decided to stick around and attempt to nation build, which never works. The Afghan government was clearly corrupt and there is no point in staying around to prop up a doomed government. We should have withdrawn 10 years ago but the previous presidents skirted around the problem so we did it last year. The only reason you are objecting is because Biden was president, if Trump had won reelection and withdrawn the soldiers (which he planned to do) you would be cheering him on for returning Americans home.

No offense guys, but politics should not be brought into a early 90's British game on the Vietnam War. Just thought I'd clarify that for you though.

Swedish Fatman 2022-07-01 -8 points DOS version

I know a vietnamese guy who came here (to Sweden) as a boy and a refugee,with his mother in the ´70:s.That was AFTER the country´s war with Uncle Sam.The new Ho Chi Minh administration were actually a-holes that persecuted quite a number of their own people and went to (a meaningless) war with China.Now,Sweden was one of the most bitter,louder and fierce critics of the american Vietnam campaign and its warfare (Olof Palme even compared it with nazi concentration camps).Personally,i TRULY HATE THAT LEFTISH BULLSHIT though !.Why won´t they ever mentioning the FNL´s "brain washing" methods, the kolkhoz system that lead to starvation (as it did under Stalin and Mao too periodically),or the stream of refugees that fled the country AFTER the war was over ?!.NEVER with ONE WORD,they will speak about this subject ! (and if they do,they´ll deminish it,or/and,says;"but you have to ""See the whole picture"" with it".Something they totally lacks the abiliy to do themselves obviously) .It´s the other way around actually;:-"Oh,MY parents (or ""grandparents"") were members of the swedish "FNL"-limb !.They walked in demonstration rallies,burned american flags at public places and went to peace meetings almost every night in that time !".-"Oh,really..My cousin´s dad "was there",when they throwed Molotov cocktails on the american embassy.And then he fought the street polices with his ""Pig patrol"" friends !" .-"Oh,what a good times it must have been then !.Being able to stand up for the peace,the liberty,solidarity between folks against imperialist oppressionism.."...Yeah,right..

Palme got what he deserved,although NOW,he´s a fu¤¤ing martyr and a legend !.I hate the fact that i live in the land of hypocrites.But the health care and professional education systems is almost free.The nature/countyside is quite nice and some of the national beers arn´t so bad either,so i guess i´m staying.

Wayne 2021-09-05 -2 points DOS version

Cool DOS-ROM!

ranomperson 2021-07-04 0 point DOS version

Can you play as Forrest Gump?

c 2020-02-02 -1 point

hey is this safe to download

Froggit 2019-01-30 -27 points

Gross, why did the United kingdom make a Vietnam game

McCarty 2018-03-01 -5 points

This game is a poor quality freeform strategic warfare simulation of the Vietnam war. There are budgeting decisions and instantaneous brigade deployments from a list of several dozen of the US and allied members that participated. The DOS version is virtually unplayable but, the Amiga version is bug free. As designed the though the game is tedious and unrealistic. Though it is challenging and reflects upon a game subject most wargame companies are cowardly ignore.

Ultamate escapism 2017-03-01 -2 points

"'Nam" I really hope the title is spoken in the game with an american accent.