Interview with WWII reconaissance pilot

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by swiss

Bros, you can't defeat your enemy without soldiers on his ground - it really doesn't matter where they put their AA(oder even SA).

When we bombed the snot out of 'em, they returned to the negotiating table. When we stopped because of political reasons, the negotiations fell apart.

You are right, you need boots on the ground to take and keep territory. But air power can make their job a LOT easier. But (another but), that's not why we lost.

We fought a limited war. When the bombing was increased against the north, protesters at home went nuts so we stopped bombing. Ho understood this from the start. He knew the war would be won on the streets of America, not the jungles of Vietnam. He knew we did not have the stomach, would not make the sacrifices, necessary to win the war. We would not sacrifice enough of our boys but more importantly, we would not be willing to do to North Vietnam what was needed to win.

He drew up the blue print for how to beat the US. NO single entity...no two countries even....are going to beat us militarily. You beat us by turning our morality against us. You beat us by dividing our people (pictures of dead women and children do the trick). You beat us by being willing to sacrifice more than we are willing to sacrifice. You beat us by exploiting your civilian casualties.

Saddam miscalculated (he wasn't that tough a nut to crack). Our present opponents relearned the lesson of Minh and are gambling that we will not be willing to do what is needed to win (they may be right too). All they have to do is outlast us, not beat us. Just like Minh.

We are leaving Iraq in July of 2011. The president said so. All the bad guys need to do is survive that long and move in to take over. That lesson was not lost on Pakistan who is negotiating with the terrorists (our enemy) in preparation for our future withdrawal from Afghanistan.

We just don't have the staying power. Then or now.

Splitter

[Theshark888]

Originally Posted by swiss

What?
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1801938 Do not use 60 year old articles to prove your point. There is much good information about German production and plans for expansion and how the General staff was much afraid of Hitler.

Next thing you tell me is the US actually won the Vietnam War? Tecnically the South lost the War.


Of course it was only about the sooo loved Kuwaitis. We did fly our flag on their tankers during the Iran-Iraq (oh, sorry 1st Gulf War) but you were not even born then See the history of the USS Samuel B. Roberts, for an interesting read!


No, actually not. This hate is reserved to treehugers and other do-gooders. In fact I had a discussion about this with Splitter.
But I don't have too many infos on the pacific war, I guess I'll do some research during the next few days.

Japan did some brutal business in Asia and received some brutal payback.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Theshark888

[COLOR="red"]Jbut you were not even born then

1976, I'd say I was already very alive.
Check your sources.

We did fly our flag on their tankers during the Iran-Iraq (oh, sorry 1st Gulf War)

And supported Iran, interesting to see where that led to.

Tecnically the South lost the War.

The "South", right.
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.

Originally Posted by Splitter

...You beat us .... You beat us....
Splitter

Whom you're talking to?
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.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by swiss

And supported Iran, interesting to see where that led to.

Reagan could be a mean bastige . 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

[K_Freddie]

Originally Posted by Theshark888

Germany was about as unprepeared for World War 2 as any other country.

You must be living in a parallel world with an alternate history.. this must be interesting.

[K_Freddie]

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.

[Theshark888]

Originally Posted by K_Freddie

You must be living in a parallel world with an alternate history.. this must be interesting.

If you researched this topic you would be very surprised how unready Germany was for war and how close the German General Staff came to overthrowing Hitler before the invasion of Poland.

I would also probably shock you since I believe the Maginot Line actually served it's purpose and forced the Germans to attack around it!

I know that this is a tough pill to swallow for a lot of Euros, but Hitler could have been easily defeated by some Allied action in the 1930's; that was my only point! My "alternate" universe may have made the world a more dangerous place, with no Hitler buffer against the Soviet Union or some other unintended consequences

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Theshark888

I would also probably shock you since I believe the Maginot Line actually served it's purpose and forced the Germans to attack around it!

So if a burglar robs you by coming through the wide open window in the backyard, your burglarproof steel front-door served it's purpose as well?

Optimistic point of view.

[K_Freddie]

Originally Posted by Theshark888

with no Hitler buffer against the Soviet Union or some other unintended consequences

Interesting.. would you have any idea who's going to buffer the rest of the world from the current aggressor

[=XIII=Shea]

Cheers for the read m8