|
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#91
10-21-2010, 03:07 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Check your sources.  Quote:
Quote:
Morally, the US won. (lol) Reminds me of the Ariane space program. If the mission is a success; it's a French rocket. If they have to blow it up, its European. Quote:
Can't be me. See any Vietcong? What about the Ho Chi Minh trail? Was on the sout side too, no? Anyway, I agree with you on almost all the points you mentioned. Last edited by swiss; 10-21-2010 at 03:19 AM. 
|
|
#92
10-21-2010, 03:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 . OK, "pragmatic" is a better word (best president in my life time). BTW, I think we actually supported Iraq if I recall correctly. Saddam to be specific. We were still rather miffed with Iran for holding our people hostage for 444 days (umm, by the way, Iran released our hostages on the day Reagan took office for some strange reason....maybe promised annihilation? lol). Reagan knew that as long as they were fighting each other they would not be fighting the west. I know, it sounds Machiavellian but it certainly worked for a decade or so. They were bound to fight anyway and neither side could be allowed to win, especially the fanatical regime in Iran led by the Ayatollah. This policy was criticized later because Saddam became so powerful but....let's face it, his armed forces were really a paper tiger even in '91. The Iran-Iraq war had drained his military and he had not fully recovered. Understand also that Iran had nuclear dreams even before the war with Iraq just as they do now. Israel took care of it the first time around. Reagan understood that Iran could not be permitted a victory against Iraq. You simply have to love a leader whom the bad guys perceive to be just crazy enough to "do it". That was Reagan. He bluffed his way into winning the cold war (SDI my fat....). He bluffed the Iranians into turning loose the hostages (though he would probably have crushed them if they had held onto the hostages). He kept two dangerous enemies fighting each other rather than turning loose on the rest of the world. He backed up his threats, called saber rattling then, just enough (Libya) to give enemies pause. The man was a simple genius who understood people. Splitter
|
|
#93
10-21-2010, 03:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It's quite refreshing to see the US government still doesn't. Afghanistan is another success story... How tf did they think they win? If you're not fighting an army it's going to be though to win - they hide all over the planet. Btw, do you know "The Sorcerer's Apprentice"? No the movie, the poem by Goethe?
|
|
#94
10-21-2010, 03:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
 But the Shah was in power that time.
|
|
#95
10-21-2010, 03:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not "you", Swiss. "You" meaning anyone who rattles the big dog's cage
. I was using the "royal you" just as I use the "royal we"...after all, I do not speak for all Americans (insert a "thank goodness" here lol).The Ho Chi Minh Trail was a major supply artery, no doubt. The thing is, the supplies had to GET to the trail before they could be delivered on the backs of civilians, water buffalo, bicycles, and trucks. The air interdictions into the North hit railways, roads, and bridges and prevented about half the supplies from ever reaching the North Vietnamese army in the south. Make no mistake, the problem for the North was getting supplies to their forces in the South. Civilian casualties to them were just unfortunate byproducts of war. Sometimes, civilian casualties were a boon to their cause due to the "bad publicity" it caused in the US. I am not sure people outside the US understand just how divided the US was at the time (I can only imagine because I was an infant myself lol). The hippy, free love, peace movement was in full swing. The war had been going on for many years and people were weary of it. Families divided over opinions on the war. The North played on this division in the US. They fed the American left the anti-war meat it craved. Protests were rampant and people were frothing at the mouth. This was Johnson's problem. He was a leftist and was handed a little war which he did not want to fight. However, he could not get out of it either. So he chose the middle ground, neither fighting to win nor willing to pull out. He had great dreams (in his mind) for his presidency but the war always got in the way. Nixon came in with the plan and will to win but he found himself handcuffed by the left as to what he could do to win. He was a politician above all and never took his eye off of re-election. It ended up that he didn't have the stomach to win either as a result. Then the country got distracted with a bungled burglary job committed by Nixon's people and they just wanted to GTFO of Vietnam. Very sad. 50K Americans died over there and who knows how many hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese. All because we didn't have the stomach to do what was needed to win. As a nation, we never fully committed which is usually a recipe for disaster. Splitter
|
|
#96
10-21-2010, 04:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
By the time the Iran-Iraq war kicked up, it was the Ayatollah vs. Saddam though and we backed Iraq. Reagan (or Carter for that matter) actually COULD have bombed Iran and gotten away with it domestically....the people were that angry. And I am not talking about taking out a few buildings, I am talking about wave upon wave of B-52's carpet bombing Tehran. A popular song at the time was "Bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boy's "Barbara Anne" lol. There is a way to win in Afghanistan, just not the one we are pursuing. "Eliminating" the poppy crops and sealing off the country would work as far as eliminating it as a resource for the terrorists. The key in Afghanistan is that the people are not willing to fight for their freedom. It's a cultural thing in that they change sides on a whim. Of course, if we cut the country off the people would suffer. So we won't. We won't throw enough troops in to seal off the borders either because that would further erode the US President's support amongst his own party. Like Johnson, Obama is fighting the war from the middle. He can't cut and run because it would ruin him in the eyes of the people and he can't fight to win because it would ruin him within his party. Earlier this year the military requested 70K additional troops, they got 40K I think. So there ya go. Our bombs are better now . But some still miss. Worse yet, sometimes the intel used to choose targets is faulty. Civilians still die, just not in anywhere near the numbers they have in the past. Now, though, cameras are everywhere. One death gets publicity. People hate seeing dead civilians on the evening news (ok, on Youtube because no one watches the news anymore lol). We are even less tolerant of collateral damage (dead civilians) than we have been in the past.I only remember the Sorcerer's Apprentice from school and I probably just skimmed it then . I just remember the moral being something like "don't bite off more than you can chew"...but hey, I was probably more worried about cheerleaders than literature so I could have gotten it all wrong . If I am remembering it correctly it does pertain to world politics and war. Don't mess around when you don't know what you are doing and be careful that your "fixes" don't cause even more damage. Close?Splitter
|
|
#97
10-21-2010, 05:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Despite a massive kill ratio in their favor all the US could achieve is a stalemate where the North finally agreed to "peace talks" allowing the US save face and abandon South Vietnam without being totally embarrassed. It was well understood at that the time that after an appropriate period of a year or two the North would occupy the South. hence the panic to get US associates, employees and collaborators out of the country at the time. As far as the 60's protesters go their main point seem to be that encouraging people on the other side of the planet to embrace "freedom democracy and western values" by bombing hell out of them didn't seem to be particularly working that well.
|
|
#98
10-21-2010, 07:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
#99
10-21-2010, 07:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
This whole middle east story, is about more than the drugs and oil, as the west (USA, UK, etc.) have supported both sides at one time or another.
The side they supported was the 'puppet in their interest', but as shown many times in the past that if you cannot win the minds and souls, you cannot win The souls are not winnable, as the opposing groups are fundentally different in religion and culture. The trick is to just leave the cultures alone and let them destroy (or develop) themselves. Even when they're divided don't think that it's a good time to attack as this idea has backfired in a big way, many times throughout history.
__________________
|
|
#100
10-21-2010, 01:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
BTW, sisnce we came to V War - I'm preparing an interview with Soviet aviation advisor in NV... Might be interesting to take a look from another side... Last edited by FPSOlkor; 10-21-2010 at 01:23 PM.
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
