we own the skie... The tanks are just an after thought

Originally posted by watcheroftheskies
How old are you?
im sorry but you are in dire need of a correct history lesson concerning the vietnam conflict ... this was not about winning and losing it was about testing new weapons and helping the big money corporations.. oh my goodness the french were there... you mean those guys who built the maginot line ......? I dont think by my reckoning that they have accomplished anything since napoleon was around with out any ones help.
hey buddy one atom bomb on hanoi and war over
we had them at the peace table in 72 and stopped bombing or it was over ....kindly do more study in this area and stop listening to the right wing line about burying vietnam.... they did not win because they were fighting on there on soil ... there is no logic or any kind of proof to back that up

Words cannot express the shame your history teacher must feel right now.

Ethics too.

Ok, and english.

My friend you need a history lesson too
an action like what ?
we invade and kill millions of innocent people for more than ten years? is that what you mean?
im being sarcastic of course ....... im talking about a few more hours of bombing from our b-52's .... what the hell are you talking about? is it the few more hours of bombing they would not have supported give me a break ... hey budddddddy we didnt give a crap about any allies we didnt have any ...nobody supported this war in the world but us... please read more and stop absorbing propaganda that youve heard about vietnam....the freaking world is just rife with misinformation about vietnam and your helping spread it!!!

Originally posted by watcheroftheskies
hey budddddddy

Dude, I didnt know Pauly Shore was a member!

Vietnam was a war to stop the spread of communism.

If Vietnam fell immediately succumbed to communists then the surrounding nations would also have fell, and that would have put a red banner all over asia, from the kola peninsula to singapore in its length, with 2 billion red faces.

Nuclear weapons would have caused China or others to enter into the conflict.

my history teacher forgot more than you will ever know pal. its a shame that you didnt have him you might know something more about the subject..... instead of babbling and not being able to counter the truth...
disturbing isnt it...

Originally posted by Tetsuo-51

Originally posted by watcheroftheskies
hey budddddddy

Dude, I didnt know Pauly Shore was a member!

I'm still looking for my signed copy of In The Army Now.

Originally posted by watcheroftheskies
my history teacher forgot more than you will ever know pal. its a shame that you didnt have him you might know something more about the subject..... instead of babbling and not being able to counter the truth...
disturbing isnt it...

You are the one who is unable to listen, you cannot dismiss offhand history that actually happened and call it a state lie just because it does not meet your ideology or willingness to use nuclear weapons.

read what i say
i never supported the use of nukes
just the truth
the party line that you have absorbed is that the war was to stop communism
there is the big lie
and you have made it your own

Intrepid's mood.........................AOK, no flaming, buuuuuuuuut, arghhhhhhhhhh.

well i must say im releived you spent your anger
anger being a direct result of desires not satisfied and ignorance....i feel safer never the less
for your information my dad fought that screwed up war and so did a lot of other people i know... its just a shame that you sound like one of the people who wanted trash our guys when they came home ... ive done more research on vietnam than most people could do in 3 life times ... my boss who is sitting in the same room with me right now was in nam ..special ops with the navy in pow recovery ... i learned from them and books and the internet ... its a shame this forum has turned into a way for you to vent your spleen and feed your ego... I can tell you most threads that have been wrote about this subject so far are from those whose knowledge of vietnam you could fit into a thimble

Originally posted by watcheroftheskies
excuse me but the russian generals would be dead and
the tanks they were riding in would be gone...
the satellites that you know nothing of would make sure of that

First of all, most combat made by tank conquest cant be taken on by aircraft, there are times for urban warfare and aircraft cant go into the streets of cities and remain mobilized, it would be suicide, tanks and infantry WILL always be of use, as long as there are terrorists in caves or in cities, tanks and infantry will be vital.

Whoever owns the high ground has the advantage, but it doesn't mean you don't need the tanks & ground troops.

We chose to do what we did in Vietnam. No doubt had they been a weaker people the outcome may have been different. Fact is they were not a weak people, they didn't give up, and a change of politics and lack of will by the American people made us give up.

The argument is. Did we have the resources to win? My opinion is we did, but those resources were not made available. That's just my opinion on this day with the information that I've aquired. Don't hate me for it or attack me because of it. Feel free to give me more info, if you think you can change my mind, but how about doing it in a
thread about Vietnam, so we don't take the thread too far off topic..

While I don't think it was necessary to bring up Vietnam in every argument about why the U.S. and it's allies are militarily superior to other forces in this world, it seems to be the favorite of anti-US folks (yeah that includes many US citizens) and I would probably do the same if I had that point of view as it's the best they can come up with.

BTW- intrepid I think you had a valid point when you brought up the subject in your first post. It's just the back & forth comments that led me to add mine.

[Edited on 18-2-2004 by outsider]

Air superiority is one thing.

But you cant win a war with ground troops.

Its like living with no heads and feet.

No point to it.

Out,
Russian

Okay,

You people need to look at new ways of fighting war instead of using planes, and sattalites. These have been around for ages and you can always flaw them.

First of all, there are weapons such as EMPs, HERFs and HPMs.

All you need is one soldier to take care of a HPM station (High Powered Microwave). They just need to aim these (it doesn't have to be accurate) at a target and then it's electronics get knocked out. The beauty about these weapons are that they are STEALTH, CHEAP, AND YOU CAN BUILD AT HOME!

Even if the planes get to launch a missle, the missles targeting system gets kncocked down, the fuel gets burnt and it explodes in mid air.

It is extremely easy to take out aerial objects because they all rely on microchips. When someone aims one of these weapons at an aerial object, the microchips get overloaded and shut down, OR they can just melt.

All of this can happen in microseconds.

What happens if they send in infantry after you?

Well that's a very easy problem to solve.

Anything that is organic and gets hit by a HPM beam get cooked from the inside. So what happens is that you excite the molecules in your body and they produce so much heat, that you get cooked. Whoever survives will be eating you for dinner!

So my opinion would be to take out the old weaponry and stick with the new because they are much beta.

Originally posted by intrepid
Not all conflicts can be won by air and naval prowess. You still need artillery and infantry. Sorry guys, but look at Nam, the U.S. had superior armaments in these areas and that didn't assure success.

Let's look at "Nam". Funny, someone registered in Canada referring to it as "Nam". Were you in the states until th4e 6-0's?
Anyway, the superiority, strength or moral of the troops and equipment had nothing to do with the win/loss/draw of that war. It was decided before the begining that it would not be won.

T.C., I come from a military family. My father was into following the war, we watched the news every night. I was a teenager when the war ended,so I saw alot. I just abbreviated Nam, quicker. I agree with your assessment.

Mr. Crowne :
Iwant to thank you even though things did stray from my original posting ... its true our government right from the beggining had planned never to win vietnam... it was a test at the sacrafice of many people.I just want people to think and use there minds and realize that this war just maybe wasnt about stopping communism but a conflict to use new weaponry and create money for big military corporations ... so many people still do not beleive this to be the truth...in my heart i know it is...... we could have won this war in a short time.. it just was never in the plans.... Now mr. Revenge i want to thank you much for going back to the oringinal posting.... there are sattelites in space right now that our government has not even used in any conflict that is going to change the face of conventional warfare as we know it today .... theese guys had no remarks to make concerning my thread other than to systematicaly take apart what i said and turn into something different... the new weapons that you spoke of can take troop concentrations and tanks from outer space and fry them into oblivion ...since theese jokers didnt know the first thing about them and couldnt intelligently respond the first thing they did was to react emotionaly and feed there egos on a subject that was almost completely greek to them
thank you both for clearing the air

To clarify, the thread is "We own the sky... The tanks are just an afterthought." You can not win a war without both. The aircraft soften an area so that it will be easier to take by troops. The artillery is there to back-up the infantry with it's superior firepower. If you use just aircraft you have blown an area up, but have you secured it? NO. You do not secure an area until you occupy, and then clean up, and this is done by troops, with the back-up of artillery AND aircraft.

Originally posted by robertfenix
We "lost" nam because we did not have the balls to flatten the jungle. At the expense of our soldiers lives.

Period. We had the airpower/ firepower to level the entire jungle if we wanted. But because of civic pressure. international etc. The US refrained from destroying the jungle cover. So we threw thousands of soliders into a battle they could never win on the ground.

The US goverment at the time cared more about international treaties then its soldiers.

I agree with all of this except the part about we could never win on the ground.

In a word Bull#

The problem was that a bunch of candy asses behind a desk did not understand it was a War not a Police action.

We could have over-run the north in a manner of weeks or months if we would have just DONE IT instead of just #ing around. I will be the first to say they were good but they couldnt stand toe to toe with us, every time they tried they got there asses kicked. But at hit and run they shined no doubt.

I dont know how politicions sleep at night

once again intrepid you have missed what i said at the end of the thread about the satellites that will change everything that you curriently know about conventional warfare..... theese satellites "which they havent used yet will change it all