Playing dumb works extremely well to get out of extortion attempts too.
I've driven through a stack of countries notorious for extortion by Police and Military - Congo, Nigeria, Honduras, Kenya, Guinea - just to name a few.
One of my tactics to avoid paying a cent is playing dumb. It's super easy when they don't speak English. I do my best to understand their (French/Spanish/Portuguese/Whatever), all the while remaining very polite and friendly. It's a real shame when I don't understand they want money, and virtually always they wave me through in disgust.
On a two year drive from Alaska to Argentina I paid one $5 bribe.
In three years around Africa through 35 countries I paid once in Ivory Coast, because I was too big for my boots and let on that I speak French.
Playing dumb has a lot of advantages.
For anyone interested, here's me dealing with a real-life extortion attempt in Nigeria [1]. This was in Nigeria, so it's all in English, but the script is identical in any corrupt country.
I vaguely remember a post from you on reddit or HN or somewhere a long time ago when you were first getting ready for this trip and the responses were like "You're going to get robbed/break down in the middle of nowhere/You won't find jeep parts in Africa/Why not drive a land cruiser/you will die in the Sahara." Glad to see you proved the naysayers wrong.
Man, what a story. Please, HN readers, dedicate 15 minutes of your time today to read it. It's so worth it.
I won't spoil some of the great passages, but let me leave you with the conclusion:
> These sailors are the products of the neighborhoods, churches, schools and families working together to produce individuals blessed with a sense of humor and the gift of freedom who can overcome any kind of odds. These sailors are tremendously loyal and devoted to their units and their leaders in their own private and personal ways.
> As long as we have the Dougs of this world, our country will retain its freedoms.
> We are talking about the vietnam war ... how were soldiers fighting in it retaining the freedoms of the US?
The soldiers that fought the Vietnam war didn't merely retain freedoms, they established practical, though not Constitutional, freedom from conscription.
Well, they were defending the freedoms of South Vietnam, which was a sovereign republic which was being invaded by another country. They were resisting international Communism, which had a goal of establishing Communist governments in every country, to include the United States. So by defending South Vietnam from its invader they were defending the United States.
No, a coup in South Vietnam happened, that lead to starting the war. They were not invaded.
Not arguing about the sovereign nation part, yet I recommend you read up a bit on the history (maybe not only US history books).
vietnam war domino theory, haven’t heared that in a while. So the US was defending their freedoms against communism ... and lost? So they lost their freedom and communism took over the world?
Watch Apocalypse Now and full metal jacket to see how freedoms were defended.
I’m amazed by his cleverness. Playing dumb to get one up on his captors. I also really liked how he took steps to protect his senior after his release.
I don’t think so, but the Northern Vietnamese generated a bunch of FUD about it. Gross simplification, but essentially committed anti-war activists or others opposed to the US campaign (including foreign powers) would sometimes accept the Northern Vietnamese account of humane treatment as fact.
What Brent did was get concrete intelligence about exactly who was still alive and in prison, so that families could know their relatives were still alive and N. Vietnam could be publicly held to account for their survival at least.
I heard a former RF-4 pilot and POW at the Hanoi Hilton speak; it was honestly one of the best motivational speeches I've ever hear. Talk about a positive look on life. The other amazing thing was seeing him do the 'tap code' in real time.
> The Communists took a siesta for two hours every afternoon which was a good deal for us as we were free from torture and harassment. I was laying on the floor on my bed board and Doug was skipping, yes, skipping around the room.
My mental state also reacts to stress with unreasonable cheerfulness, at times. It has something to do with the joy of all the new problems and opportunities paired with an appreciation/confidence that I am not going to die imminently (he was put in a cell where they kept long-term prisoners), in the face of it...a type of relief. Having survived multiple events where my survival was in serious question, I am a consummate pessimist with an expectation that I can die at any time. Therein lies a freedom.
Emergency open heart surgery, severe anaphylaxis from a previously unknown allergy to tetracycline that swelled all my tissues (internally as well) which had all the bad effects you can imagine (unconsciousness frozen joints/lockjaw swelled tongue etc after severe pain) with lumps the size of fists on my limbs, starving to the point of eating out of the dumpster (a year of living out of my car) multiple times (you can graze within grocery stores for so long), nearly freezing to death in an alleyway in new york city next to the hudson with my now wife, aggresive-yet-otherwise-benign tumor growing on my scalp (years later that has left a MASSIVE scar), etc. I count about 12 for just myself.
> Upon release I compared notes with Doug and we determined that time frame was the same time he accused the Vietnamese in Paris of murdering me [I had not written home once writing became voluntary] for embarrassing them in a Life magazine bowing picture. Thanks to Doug, despite the scars on my body, the Communists had to produce me alive at the end of the war.
I'm feeling a bit stupid myself, because I'm not following the implication here. Why would Hegdahl's accusation cause the VC to leave Stratton alive, or to check him for signs of torture, or to pay him any special attention at all? If Hegdahl hadn't ever mentioned him, why would they kill Stratton specifically?
I enjoyed the story, and appreciate the tongue-in-cheek delivery, but it may have been intended for an audience better acquainted with the geopolitics of the war than I am. Any help?
I'm making some assumptions here, but the N. Vietnamese viewed the prisoners as political negotiating chips. They were very casually indifferent to their survival and indeed many died. Quite a few were killed. However, the N. Vietnamese tried to paint a very different picture publicly, that the POWs were being humanely treated.
Doug openly accusing the N. Vietnamese of murdering Stratton meant the Stratton's value to come out of his imprisonment alive was greatly increased, as that made the N. Vietnamese look good and the Americans look more foolish.
Stratton, for various reasons, may also have thought the N. Vietnamese would kill/disappear him because he had signs of obvious torture, which would put lie to their claims of humane treatment.
The fact this happened "in Paris" indicates it happened during the Paris peace accords (which effectively ended most US involvement in the Vietnam war), so was a matter of concern to the top officials in the country.
The way I read it was that they'd tortured Stratton and he had the scars as evidence to prove that they had. They might have been tempted to just quietly execute him at the end, dump his body to hide that he had been tortured, and then deny that they'd had him (remember he hadn't written home).
Instead Hegdahl shined a big diplomatic spotlight on Stratton to try to get them to get them to acknowledge having him alive and deny having murdered him. After that, they'd want to make sure their denial of murder stays true.
have you ever shot a gun? The rapid gas expansion which expels the bullet can get quite big for big guns like 50cal. Now scale that up to a bullet 8" (20cm) in diameter which has an ultrasonic muzzle velocity. The shock wave from a shot fired could push a person so hard, they go over a railing into the water.
I’m picturing someone already leaning over the railing, somewhat close to the gun, by himself (since nobody alerted of his fall), while his ship is firing and cruising in enemy waters. My mental image might be wrong, but not exactly the smartest way to get captured.
>One morning he had the 0100 watch while the Canberra was steaming down the coast of North Vietnam firing its 8-inch guns against targets of opportunity (bicycles, water buffalo and occasional trucks) on Highway 1.
Just steaming along casually bombarding civilians and livestock like normal.
The North Vietnamese would often transport military supplies on livestock, by bicycle, and in unmarked vehicles. In any case, it doesn't excuse their repeated torture and murder of PoWs.
That's a straw man argument. To apply the principle of generosity, OP is referring to the author's total lack of acknowledging US crimes against Vietnamese civilians, even as it focuses (quite reasonably!) on the torture of American POWs.
There can be no conversation about the US war in Vietnam without recognizing the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed by American forces.
What are you talking about? Not everything you dislike is a logical fallacy. I am not saying that I know for a fact that those targets were military; I am just saying that it was very difficult to differentiate 'legitimate targets' in a situation where the enemy does not advertise their insignia (as required by the Geneva Conventions).
The Vietnam War was a war, and wars cause civilian casualties. North Vietnam ran a very effective, organized campaign of terror against South Vietnam and its supporters. The South Vietnamese and American forces were each responsible for many deaths of innocents, through negligence and more isolated malevolence.
No, the North Vietnamese were the invading force. They invaded South Vietnam, and after the Paris Peace Accords they invaded it again and conquered it.
You say conquered they say unified. It was only split into North and South as a result of the Independence movement (against colonial French occupation). And actually, an associated declaration stated that after the troop withdrawals (signifying the actual demarcation of North and South) an election would be held for the reunification of the country. This provision was subsequently never agreed to by the South Vietnamese or the United States. So the North Vietnamese invaded their own country to wrest control from a puppet US supported government, after they had reneged on a democratic option for reunification.
I don't know if anyone would suggest that the US's indiscriminate summary executions of civilians for the crime of riding a bicycle justified anyone torturing anyone, but I certainly didn't.
Well, we don't know how many of the people on Highway 1 were carrying military supplies. This is exactly why the North Vietnamese avoided displaying insignias; they were using their civilians as human shields, and pretending that everyone not wearing a uniform was innocent.
This may have been part of the reason, the other is that there was a significant portion made up of irregulars, the equivalent of militia members in the states. They didnt have uniforms or insignia covered vehicles with which they could transport weaponry, and they weren't going to spray the cow with an insignia were they.
Don't be a fool for the PR, they didn't purposely not wear uniforms, in the same way that the Taliban dont wear a uniform. In general these are not armed forces but irregulars, locals protecting their homeland. If the US was invaded do you think every gun owner is going to sign up and dress in military fatigues? Or are they going to fight back regardless of what they happen to be wearing?
The Geneva Conventions require display of insignia, though not necessarily uniforms. Similar clothing or large enough patches would suffice. There are exceptions for people who spontaneously take up arms to defend their homes or towns.
If, on the other hand, one side systematically avoids identification of combatants and related personnel, that side is responsible for any civilian deaths (as well as not being entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions).
> The Geneva Conventions require display of insignia, though not necessarily uniforms.
True.
> If, on the other hand, one side systematically avoids identification of combatants and related personnel, that side is responsible for any civilian deaths (as well as not being entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions).
Both claims are false. With regard to the second, such combatants are not entitled to protection as POWs under Geneva (III), but, as a consequence, they are protected as civilians under Geneva (IV). A key difference is the latter may be criminally charged for engaging in combat while the former may not, but there are still procedural and substantive protections.
My first claim is that the side which is (basically) using human decoys/shields is morally responsible for civilian deaths, which I don't think you've demonstrated to be false.
My second claim was overbroad; I meant it in the common sense of talking about the third Geneva Convention relating to PoWs, but I concede that I didn't specify that, though I could argue that North Vietnam was effectively not bound by the Convention (thus excluding their nationals from protection).
> My first claim is that the side which is (basically) using human decoys/shields is morally responsible for civilian deaths,
You said the side not using insignia (which neither implies nor is implied by using human shields) becomes responsible for all civilian casualties in the conflict.
Certainly, a side violating the laws of war in any way bears full responsibility for the civilian casualties (and any other harms) actually resulting from that wrongful act and no other wrongful act by another party. But they don't become responsible for the impacts of acts due to other unrelated violations of the laws of war by another party, and to the extent that they are responsible impacts of related violations of the laws of war by another party, that responsibility is shared with the other party. Nor does the violation make them morally responsible for civilian casualties in the conflict that don't result from the violation, in the first place.
By that assessment any country that is invaded would be using human shields due to the civilian population. As an American I'm sure that works well for you as generally you do the invading and are usually fighting, at least in part, irregulars.
Well, the Vietcong were assassinating thousands of Southerners in their effort to overthrow the Southern Government. It’s not like they were just living peaceful lives.
I've driven through a stack of countries notorious for extortion by Police and Military - Congo, Nigeria, Honduras, Kenya, Guinea - just to name a few.
One of my tactics to avoid paying a cent is playing dumb. It's super easy when they don't speak English. I do my best to understand their (French/Spanish/Portuguese/Whatever), all the while remaining very polite and friendly. It's a real shame when I don't understand they want money, and virtually always they wave me through in disgust.
On a two year drive from Alaska to Argentina I paid one $5 bribe.
In three years around Africa through 35 countries I paid once in Ivory Coast, because I was too big for my boots and let on that I speak French.
Playing dumb has a lot of advantages.
For anyone interested, here's me dealing with a real-life extortion attempt in Nigeria [1]. This was in Nigeria, so it's all in English, but the script is identical in any corrupt country.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RTlDa2cg0o