Talk:Search and destroy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Vietnam (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

why not?File:Http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/vietnam-photos/images/op-oregon.gif --69.138.160.201 01:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that the citation #2 is incorrect. The authors name is George C. Herring, not Harring. Don't know how to change it, however, since it does not appear in the reference edit page.

~Eric


I'm not sure how/where to suggest this or how to use the odd form of code used here... However, you may want to consider "search and avoid" a commonly used term in Iraq.

Reference:hxxp://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39788

Thanks!


Search and avoid, was another Vietnam slang term. Keeping in mind that most of the men were drafted (or draft induced volunteers), no GI wanted to be the last man to die in Vietnam...as the withdrawal from the war began further evolving commencing in 1969. So the war transitioned from Search and Destroy to Search and Avoid; so men could live to return home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.49.119 (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.237.108 (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing how bad this article is.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Just completed the B-class assessment. My "yes" on supporting materials should be considered conditional. It has an image, but lacks an infobox and really doesn't seem complete from that aspect. The grammar could also be considered a conditional "no", as it's not as bad as some articles.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)