If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attack...
On Mar 27, 11:21*am, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 08:02:48 -0700 (PDT), David Walters wrote: The person posting this doesn't even know what a "military victory" means. It is, in the final analysis, the ability of one side to *completely overwhelm* the opponent OR to force the opponent to make the *political* choice that the loses are to great to continue do to resources (both military and human), capital destruction, national dismemberment, etc etc. Basically the argument that the US did "not lose" is the same one Hitler used to explain Germany's defeat at the end of WWI. It's a non- argument. Umm... The non-argument is that Hitler was even alive to "explain" Germany's defeat at the end of WW II. 30 April 1945 -- Hitler commits suicide in Berlin bunker. 7 May 1945 -- 02:41 Germany signs instrument of surrender in Reims, France. 8 May 1945 -- 23:01 All forces under German control cease active operations. It is true that had the US continued the bombing the Vietnamese would of been forced to the table once again. General Giap notes this in his interviews on the Christmas Bombings (while Nixon was in Beijing, as it happens) But wars are not fought as "what ifs". That is they are fought "as is". The US *was militarily defeated* by Vietnam.'' Pardon me, but General Giap would hardly be the one to admit that the U.S. did not lose militarily. *It's like asking a Muslim if he believes in Allah. The US was *militarily defeated* because it's loses of B-52, Could we have that in English? *Obviously your views must be seen as slanted since you're not an American. (12 in one day!) was too great to bear and *appeared* to have no effect. From 1942 onward the U.S. lost an AVERAGE of 170 planes a day. *Did we lose WW II because of those losses? Thye question to really ask is how many B-52s managed to complete their mission and destroy North Vietnam? *In fact, on 29 September, 1972, after all U.S. ground combat forces had already left South Vietnam, a heavy U.S. *air strike destroyed 10% of all of North Vietnam's Air Force in one single day. The stupid Air Force generals, meeting such little resistance coming out of Thai air bases, were *stupid* to keep flying the same patterns toward Hanoi. So the Vietnamese simply "lined up their remaining" SAMs and shot them down like using a .22 at a county fair. No proof offered. *Your claim fails. Proof: http://www.historynet.com/the-11-day-war.htm excerpt: There was worse news—the attack tactics themselves. All bombers were to depart from the same initial point (IP), make the same bomb run in single-file formation, fly exactly the same airspeeds, operate in exactly the same altitude blocks and maintain exactly the same spacing between each of the three-ship cells (one minute) and between each aircraft within the cells (15 seconds). A B-52 copilot who flew Linebacker II sorties from Andersen, then- Captain Don Craig, wrote me that "We knew there were big planning flaws, starting with the long lines of bombers coming in the same route…and it was straight down Thud Ridge, for God's sake….It looked very much like ducks in a shooting gallery." B-52 radar navigator Captain Wilton Strickland, operating from the other B-52 base, at U- Tapao airfield in Thailand, concurred: "[The spacing] gave enemy air de*fenses plenty of time to track and fire on each aircraft as it came within range….Long before we entered the target area, they knew our precise altitude, spacing and approach route…." Another concern was the bomb run no-evasion order issued by an Andersen wing commander (apparently on his own authority, on penalty of court-martial), despite previous evidence that if the B-52 was brought back straight and level prior to release, accuracy was not degraded. After aircrews repeatedly ignored the order on Days One and Two, without affecting bombing results, it was quietly rescinded. Most egregious, SAC planners mandated a "combat break" to the right after bomb release (post-target turn, or PTT), a nuclear-release procedure carried over into Arc Light (where it had been just as pointless; the PTT was designed solely for better survivability against a nuclear blast). During Arc Light, the PTT had rendered no harm. Over heavily defended Hanoi, however, it turned lethal. Not only were criti*cal electronic countermeasures degraded, the 120-knot-plus jet stream tailwind that B-52s enjoyed on the bomb run became a 120- knot-plus headwind after the turn, resulting in a combined groundspeed reduction of nearly 250 knots. Later, during the Day Two pre-mission briefing, a disgusted Captain Strickland, who was destined to fly six of the 11 Linebacker missions, could no longer keep silent: "Who is planning such stupid tactics," he asked the briefers, "and why?" Their response: "The planning is being done at Omaha's SAC HQ, and the common routes, altitudes and trail formations are used for ease of planning." "Well," Strickland shot back, "the enemy is using your plan, along with the after-release turn and our slow withdrawal, for ease of tracking and shootdown!" U-Tapao's 17th Air Division commander, Brig. Gen. Glenn Sulli*van, who was present during Strickland's comments, was thinking along similar lines. Sullivan and his wing commanders had been carefully listening to aircrew feedback, though their requests for tactics changes had so far fallen on deaf ears. Sullivan was most upset about the PTT; after the battle he wrote a friend, "The post-target turn was the murder point." Nevertheless, good tactics or bad, the 300 BUFF in-theater aircrews still had to fly the missions in the 206 Stratofortresses available (Andersen had 53 B-52Ds and 99 B-52Gs on station; U-Tapao had 54 B-52Ds). On Day One, 129 B-52s launched from Andersen and U-Tapao in three massive waves spaced at four-hour intervals. Shortly after dark, the first wave (33 B-52Ds and 15 B-52Gs) arrived at their Laotian IP and wheeled southeast toward seven Hanoi targets—setting the stage for the biggest air battle since World War II. Although the BUFFs were the attack's centerpiece, more than 100 additional U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine recon, radar jammer and fighter-bomber aircraft flew in support of the heavies or delivered their own assigned blows. .... |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attack...
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:39:39 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir wrote:
On Mar 27, 11:21*am, Planet Visitor II wrote: On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 08:02:48 -0700 (PDT), David Walters wrote: The person posting this doesn't even know what a "military victory" means. It is, in the final analysis, the ability of one side to *completely overwhelm* the opponent OR to force the opponent to make the *political* choice that the loses are to great to continue do to resources (both military and human), capital destruction, national dismemberment, etc etc. Basically the argument that the US did "not lose" is the same one Hitler used to explain Germany's defeat at the end of WWI. It's a non- argument. Umm... The non-argument is that Hitler was even alive to "explain" Germany's defeat at the end of WW II. 30 April 1945 -- Hitler commits suicide in Berlin bunker. 7 May 1945 -- 02:41 Germany signs instrument of surrender in Reims, France. 8 May 1945 -- 23:01 All forces under German control cease active operations. It is true that had the US continued the bombing the Vietnamese would of been forced to the table once again. General Giap notes this in his interviews on the Christmas Bombings (while Nixon was in Beijing, as it happens) But wars are not fought as "what ifs". That is they are fought "as is". The US *was militarily defeated* by Vietnam.'' Pardon me, but General Giap would hardly be the one to admit that the U.S. did not lose militarily. *It's like asking a Muslim if he believes in Allah. The US was *militarily defeated* because it's loses of B-52, Could we have that in English? *Obviously your views must be seen as slanted since you're not an American. (12 in one day!) was too great to bear and *appeared* to have no effect. From 1942 onward the U.S. lost an AVERAGE of 170 planes a day. *Did we lose WW II because of those losses? Thye question to really ask is how many B-52s managed to complete their mission and destroy North Vietnam? *In fact, on 29 September, 1972, after all U.S. ground combat forces had already left South Vietnam, a heavy U.S. *air strike destroyed 10% of all of North Vietnam's Air Force in one single day. The stupid Air Force generals, meeting such little resistance coming out of Thai air bases, were *stupid* to keep flying the same patterns toward Hanoi. So the Vietnamese simply "lined up their remaining" SAMs and shot them down like using a .22 at a county fair. No proof offered. *Your claim fails. Proof: http://www.historynet.com/the-11-day-war.htm That's hardly any proof that the U.S. military "lost the war in Vietnam." As I pointed out, the U.S. lost an AVERAGE of 170 aircraft each and every day of WW II, and I don't recall anyone claiming the U.S. lost that war. In the Schweinfurt-Regensburg bombing mission in WW II, the U.S. lost SIXTY B-17s in one single mission, only to fly a second mission losing ANOTHER SIXTY B-17s, with another 17 being too damaged to return to flying, and were scrapped, with yet another 161 having various degrees of battle damage. See -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Raid_on_Schweinfurt Then we have the ill-fated raid on the Ploiesti oil fields of Romania, which took place on 1 August, 1943, in which five Medals of Honor (3 posthumously), and numerous DSCs were awarded to pilots on a single day. 178 B-24 aircraft flew into a fiery hell that would be called "Black Sunday." 53 aircraft were lost of those 178. See -- http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/ploesti.htm Then we have the battle of Midway in which virtually all U.S. aircraft were destroyed in the first few waves they were used to attack. But the Japanese were caught flat-footed during aircraft carrier refueling operations and Midway turned into an ugly defeat of Yamamoto's naval fleet in subsequent attacks. Guess who won that war? It cannot be said about Vietnam that "victory" consisted of _winning one particular battle_, even when there was certainly no "victory" by North Vietnam in Linebacker II. excerpt: There was worse news—the attack tactics themselves. All bombers were to depart from the same initial point (IP), make the same bomb run in single-file formation, fly exactly the same airspeeds, operate in exactly the same altitude blocks and maintain exactly the same spacing between each of the three-ship cells (one minute) and between each aircraft within the cells (15 seconds). A B-52 copilot who flew Linebacker II sorties from Andersen, then- Captain Don Craig, wrote me that "We knew there were big planning flaws, starting with the long lines of bombers coming in the same route…and it was straight down Thud Ridge, for God's sake….It looked very much like ducks in a shooting gallery." B-52 radar navigator Captain Wilton Strickland, operating from the other B-52 base, at U- Tapao airfield in Thailand, concurred: "[The spacing] gave enemy air de*fenses plenty of time to track and fire on each aircraft as it came within range….Long before we entered the target area, they knew our precise altitude, spacing and approach route…." Another concern was the bomb run no-evasion order issued by an Andersen wing commander (apparently on his own authority, on penalty of court-martial), despite previous evidence that if the B-52 was brought back straight and level prior to release, accuracy was not degraded. After aircrews repeatedly ignored the order on Days One and Two, without affecting bombing results, it was quietly rescinded. Most egregious, SAC planners mandated a "combat break" to the right after bomb release (post-target turn, or PTT), a nuclear-release procedure carried over into Arc Light (where it had been just as pointless; the PTT was designed solely for better survivability against a nuclear blast). During Arc Light, the PTT had rendered no harm. Over heavily defended Hanoi, however, it turned lethal. Not only were criti*cal electronic countermeasures degraded, the 120-knot-plus jet stream tailwind that B-52s enjoyed on the bomb run became a 120- knot-plus headwind after the turn, resulting in a combined groundspeed reduction of nearly 250 knots. Later, during the Day Two pre-mission briefing, a disgusted Captain Strickland, who was destined to fly six of the 11 Linebacker missions, could no longer keep silent: "Who is planning such stupid tactics," he asked the briefers, "and why?" Their response: "The planning is being done at Omaha's SAC HQ, and the common routes, altitudes and trail formations are used for ease of planning." "Well," Strickland shot back, "the enemy is using your plan, along with the after-release turn and our slow withdrawal, for ease of tracking and shootdown!" U-Tapao's 17th Air Division commander, Brig. Gen. Glenn Sulli*van, who was present during Strickland's comments, was thinking along similar lines. Sullivan and his wing commanders had been carefully listening to aircrew feedback, though their requests for tactics changes had so far fallen on deaf ears. Sullivan was most upset about the PTT; after the battle he wrote a friend, "The post-target turn was the murder point." Nevertheless, good tactics or bad, the 300 BUFF in-theater aircrews still had to fly the missions in the 206 Stratofortresses available (Andersen had 53 B-52Ds and 99 B-52Gs on station; U-Tapao had 54 B-52Ds). On Day One, 129 B-52s launched from Andersen and U-Tapao in three massive waves spaced at four-hour intervals. Shortly after dark, the first wave (33 B-52Ds and 15 B-52Gs) arrived at their Laotian IP and wheeled southeast toward seven Hanoi targets—setting the stage for the biggest air battle since World War II. Although the BUFFs were the attack's centerpiece, more than 100 additional U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine recon, radar jammer and fighter-bomber aircraft flew in support of the heavies or delivered their own assigned blows. .... People have ****ed and moaned about how a battle was conducted, or how they feel they were shafted into taken part in an action they learned to later hate since Achilles slew Hector. What's new about that?? None of that disputes the fact that U.S. Air Power continued well after all U.S. combat forces had been removed from Vietnam. Thus it is hardly possible that the loss of a number of B-52s means the U.S. military "lost the war in Vietnam." Since there were no U.S. military boots on the ground to lose that war. And it is a fact that North Vietnam violated the terms they had agreed to in the peace accords. It is also a fact that Linebacker II brought North Vietnam hastily back to the peace table that they had so confidently decided to leave. Further it was the political arm of the U.S. rather than the military that gave the military only 72 hours to launch Linebacker II, hardly sufficient time to adequately prepare for a major air assault on what was known to be a well-defended target. And these losses only happened during the third wave giving the NVA the ability to anticipate the strike patterns and deploy 34 SAMs into the target area. In the first wave 129 bombers were sent, and 3 were shot down. In the second wave 93 bombers were used, and although 20 SAMs were launched, not one B-52 was shot down. In that fatal third wave, 99 bombers were launched and seven more B-52s were shot down. Hardly a "defeat," in terms of targets destroyed, when compared to the loss of aircraft the U.S. sustained in various bombing runs during WW II. Planet Visitor II |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attack...
On Mar 27, 10:14*pm, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:39:39 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir wrote: On Mar 27, 11:21*am, Planet Visitor II wrote: On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 08:02:48 -0700 (PDT), David Walters wrote: The person posting this doesn't even know what a "military victory" means. It is, in the final analysis, the ability of one side to *completely overwhelm* the opponent OR to force the opponent to make the *political* choice that the loses are to great to continue do to resources (both military and human), capital destruction, national dismemberment, etc etc. Basically the argument that the US did "not lose" is the same one Hitler used to explain Germany's defeat at the end of WWI. It's a non- argument. Umm... The non-argument is that Hitler was even alive to "explain" Germany's defeat at the end of WW II. 30 April 1945 -- Hitler commits suicide in Berlin bunker. 7 May 1945 -- 02:41 Germany signs instrument of surrender in Reims, France. 8 May 1945 -- 23:01 All forces under German control cease active operations. It is true that had the US continued the bombing the Vietnamese would of been forced to the table once again. General Giap notes this in his interviews on the Christmas Bombings (while Nixon was in Beijing, as it happens) But wars are not fought as "what ifs". That is they are fought "as is". The US *was militarily defeated* by Vietnam.'' Pardon me, but General Giap would hardly be the one to admit that the U.S. did not lose militarily. *It's like asking a Muslim if he believes in Allah. The US was *militarily defeated* because it's loses of B-52, Could we have that in English? *Obviously your views must be seen as slanted since you're not an American. (12 in one day!) was too great to bear and *appeared* to have no effect. From 1942 onward the U.S. lost an AVERAGE of 170 planes a day. *Did we lose WW II because of those losses? Thye question to really ask is how many B-52s managed to complete their mission and destroy North Vietnam? *In fact, on 29 September, 1972, after all U.S. ground combat forces had already left South Vietnam, a heavy U.S. *air strike destroyed 10% of all of North Vietnam's Air Force in one single day. The stupid Air Force generals, meeting such little resistance coming out of Thai air bases, were *stupid* to keep flying the same patterns toward Hanoi. So the Vietnamese simply "lined up their remaining" SAMs and shot them down like using a .22 at a county fair. No proof offered. *Your claim fails. Proof: http://www.historynet.com/the-11-day-war.htm That's hardly any proof that the U.S. military "lost the war in Vietnam." *As I pointed out, the U.S. lost an AVERAGE of 170 aircraft each and every day of WW II, and I don't recall anyone claiming the U.S. lost that war. In the Schweinfurt-Regensburg bombing mission in WW II, the U.S. lost SIXTY B-17s in one single mission, only to fly a second mission losing ANOTHER SIXTY B-17s, with another 17 being too damaged to return to flying, and were scrapped, with yet another 161 having various degrees of battle damage. *See --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Raid_on_Schweinfurt Then we have the ill-fated raid on the Ploiesti oil fields of Romania, which took place on 1 August, 1943, in which five Medals of Honor (3 posthumously), and numerous DSCs were awarded to pilots on a single day. *178 B-24 aircraft flew into a fiery hell that would be called "Black Sunday." *53 aircraft were lost of those 178. *See --http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/ploesti.htm Then we have the battle of Midway in which virtually all U.S. aircraft were destroyed in the first few waves they were used to attack. *But the Japanese were caught flat-footed during aircraft carrier refueling operations and Midway turned into an ugly defeat of Yamamoto's naval fleet in subsequent attacks. Guess who won that war? *It cannot be said about Vietnam that "victory" consisted of _winning one particular battle_, even when there was certainly no "victory" by North Vietnam in Linebacker II. excerpt: There was worse news—the attack tactics themselves. All bombers were to depart from the same initial point (IP), make the same bomb run in single-file formation, fly exactly the same airspeeds, operate in exactly the same altitude blocks and maintain exactly the same spacing between each of the three-ship cells (one minute) and between each aircraft within the cells (15 seconds). A B-52 copilot who flew Linebacker II sorties from Andersen, then- Captain Don Craig, wrote me that "We knew there were big planning flaws, starting with the long lines of bombers coming in the same route…and it was straight down Thud Ridge, for God's sake….It looked very much like ducks in a shooting gallery." B-52 radar navigator Captain Wilton Strickland, operating from the other B-52 base, at U- Tapao airfield in Thailand, concurred: "[The spacing] gave enemy air de*fenses plenty of time to track and fire on each aircraft as it came within range….Long before we entered the target area, they knew our precise altitude, spacing and approach route…." Another concern was the bomb run no-evasion order issued by an Andersen wing commander (apparently on his own authority, on penalty of court-martial), despite previous evidence that if the B-52 was brought back straight and level prior to release, accuracy was not degraded. After aircrews repeatedly ignored the order on Days One and Two, without affecting bombing results, it was quietly rescinded. Most egregious, SAC planners mandated a "combat break" to the right after bomb release (post-target turn, or PTT), a nuclear-release procedure carried over into Arc Light (where it had been just as pointless; the PTT was designed solely for better survivability against a nuclear blast). During Arc Light, the PTT had rendered no harm. Over heavily defended Hanoi, however, it turned lethal. Not only were criti*cal electronic countermeasures degraded, the 120-knot-plus jet stream tailwind that B-52s enjoyed on the bomb run became a 120- knot-plus headwind after the turn, resulting in a combined groundspeed reduction of nearly 250 knots. Later, during the Day Two pre-mission briefing, a disgusted Captain Strickland, who was destined to fly six of the 11 Linebacker missions, could no longer keep silent: "Who is planning such stupid tactics," he asked the briefers, "and why?" Their response: "The planning is being done at Omaha's SAC HQ, and the common routes, altitudes and trail formations are used for ease of planning." "Well," Strickland shot back, "the enemy is using your plan, along with the after-release turn and our slow withdrawal, for ease of tracking and shootdown!" U-Tapao's 17th Air Division commander, Brig. Gen. Glenn Sulli*van, who was present during Strickland's comments, was thinking along similar lines. Sullivan and his wing commanders had been carefully listening to aircrew feedback, though their requests for tactics changes had so far fallen on deaf ears. Sullivan was most upset about the PTT; after the battle he wrote a friend, "The post-target turn was the murder point." Nevertheless, good tactics or bad, the 300 BUFF in-theater aircrews still had to fly the missions in the 206 Stratofortresses available (Andersen had 53 B-52Ds and 99 B-52Gs on station; U-Tapao had 54 B-52Ds). On Day One, 129 B-52s launched from Andersen and U-Tapao in three massive waves spaced at four-hour intervals. Shortly after dark, the first wave (33 B-52Ds and 15 B-52Gs) arrived at their Laotian IP and wheeled southeast toward seven Hanoi targets—setting the stage for the biggest air battle since World War II. Although the BUFFs were the attack's centerpiece, more than 100 additional U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine recon, radar jammer and fighter-bomber aircraft flew in support of the heavies or delivered their own assigned blows. .... People have ****ed and moaned about how a battle was conducted, or how they feel they were shafted into taken part in an action they learned to later hate since Achilles slew Hector. *What's new about that?? None of that disputes the fact that U.S. Air Power continued well after all U.S. combat forces had been removed from Vietnam. *Thus it is hardly possible that the loss of a number of B-52s means the U.S. military "lost the war in Vietnam." *Since there were no U.S. military boots on the ground to lose that war. *And it is a fact that North Vietnam violated the terms they had agreed to in the peace accords. *It is also a fact that Linebacker II brought North Vietnam hastily back to the peace table that they had so confidently decided to leave. *Further it was the political arm of the U.S. rather than the military that gave the military only 72 hours to launch Linebacker II, hardly sufficient time to adequately prepare for a major air assault on what was known to be a well-defended target. And these losses only happened during the third wave giving the NVA the ability to anticipate the strike patterns and deploy 34 SAMs into the target area. *In the first wave 129 bombers were sent, and 3 were shot down. *In the second wave 93 bombers were used, and although 20 SAMs were launched, not one B-52 was shot down. *In that fatal third wave, 99 bombers were launched and seven more B-52s were shot down. *Hardly a "defeat," in terms of targets destroyed, when compared to the loss of aircraft the U.S. sustained in various bombing runs during WW II. Planet Visitor II- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Who was talking about defeat, which I view as irrelevant, the line of talk was about B-52s lining up to come into bombing Hanoi so that they could easily be shot down! |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attack...
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 05:40:50 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir wrote:
On Mar 27, 10:14*pm, Planet Visitor II wrote: On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:39:39 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir wrote: On Mar 27, 11:21*am, Planet Visitor II wrote: On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 08:02:48 -0700 (PDT), David Walters wrote: The person posting this doesn't even know what a "military victory" means. It is, in the final analysis, the ability of one side to *completely overwhelm* the opponent OR to force the opponent to make the *political* choice that the loses are to great to continue do to resources (both military and human), capital destruction, national dismemberment, etc etc. Basically the argument that the US did "not lose" is the same one Hitler used to explain Germany's defeat at the end of WWI. It's a non- argument. Umm... The non-argument is that Hitler was even alive to "explain" Germany's defeat at the end of WW II. 30 April 1945 -- Hitler commits suicide in Berlin bunker. 7 May 1945 -- 02:41 Germany signs instrument of surrender in Reims, France. 8 May 1945 -- 23:01 All forces under German control cease active operations. It is true that had the US continued the bombing the Vietnamese would of been forced to the table once again. General Giap notes this in his interviews on the Christmas Bombings (while Nixon was in Beijing, as it happens) But wars are not fought as "what ifs". That is they are fought "as is". The US *was militarily defeated* by Vietnam.'' Pardon me, but General Giap would hardly be the one to admit that the U.S. did not lose militarily. *It's like asking a Muslim if he believes in Allah. The US was *militarily defeated* because it's loses of B-52, Could we have that in English? *Obviously your views must be seen as slanted since you're not an American. (12 in one day!) was too great to bear and *appeared* to have no effect. From 1942 onward the U.S. lost an AVERAGE of 170 planes a day. *Did we lose WW II because of those losses? Thye question to really ask is how many B-52s managed to complete their mission and destroy North Vietnam? *In fact, on 29 September, 1972, after all U.S. ground combat forces had already left South Vietnam, a heavy U.S. *air strike destroyed 10% of all of North Vietnam's Air Force in one single day. The stupid Air Force generals, meeting such little resistance coming out of Thai air bases, were *stupid* to keep flying the same patterns toward Hanoi. So the Vietnamese simply "lined up their remaining" SAMs and shot them down like using a .22 at a county fair. No proof offered. *Your claim fails. Proof: http://www.historynet.com/the-11-day-war.htm That's hardly any proof that the U.S. military "lost the war in Vietnam." *As I pointed out, the U.S. lost an AVERAGE of 170 aircraft each and every day of WW II, and I don't recall anyone claiming the U.S. lost that war. In the Schweinfurt-Regensburg bombing mission in WW II, the U.S. lost SIXTY B-17s in one single mission, only to fly a second mission losing ANOTHER SIXTY B-17s, with another 17 being too damaged to return to flying, and were scrapped, with yet another 161 having various degrees of battle damage. *See --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Raid_on_Schweinfurt Then we have the ill-fated raid on the Ploiesti oil fields of Romania, which took place on 1 August, 1943, in which five Medals of Honor (3 posthumously), and numerous DSCs were awarded to pilots on a single day. *178 B-24 aircraft flew into a fiery hell that would be called "Black Sunday." *53 aircraft were lost of those 178. *See --http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/ploesti.htm Then we have the battle of Midway in which virtually all U.S. aircraft were destroyed in the first few waves they were used to attack. *But the Japanese were caught flat-footed during aircraft carrier refueling operations and Midway turned into an ugly defeat of Yamamoto's naval fleet in subsequent attacks. Guess who won that war? *It cannot be said about Vietnam that "victory" consisted of _winning one particular battle_, even when there was certainly no "victory" by North Vietnam in Linebacker II. excerpt: There was worse news—the attack tactics themselves. All bombers were to depart from the same initial point (IP), make the same bomb run in single-file formation, fly exactly the same airspeeds, operate in exactly the same altitude blocks and maintain exactly the same spacing between each of the three-ship cells (one minute) and between each aircraft within the cells (15 seconds). A B-52 copilot who flew Linebacker II sorties from Andersen, then- Captain Don Craig, wrote me that "We knew there were big planning flaws, starting with the long lines of bombers coming in the same route…and it was straight down Thud Ridge, for God's sake….It looked very much like ducks in a shooting gallery." B-52 radar navigator Captain Wilton Strickland, operating from the other B-52 base, at U- Tapao airfield in Thailand, concurred: "[The spacing] gave enemy air de*fenses plenty of time to track and fire on each aircraft as it came within range….Long before we entered the target area, they knew our precise altitude, spacing and approach route…." Another concern was the bomb run no-evasion order issued by an Andersen wing commander (apparently on his own authority, on penalty of court-martial), despite previous evidence that if the B-52 was brought back straight and level prior to release, accuracy was not degraded. After aircrews repeatedly ignored the order on Days One and Two, without affecting bombing results, it was quietly rescinded. Most egregious, SAC planners mandated a "combat break" to the right after bomb release (post-target turn, or PTT), a nuclear-release procedure carried over into Arc Light (where it had been just as pointless; the PTT was designed solely for better survivability against a nuclear blast). During Arc Light, the PTT had rendered no harm. Over heavily defended Hanoi, however, it turned lethal. Not only were criti*cal electronic countermeasures degraded, the 120-knot-plus jet stream tailwind that B-52s enjoyed on the bomb run became a 120- knot-plus headwind after the turn, resulting in a combined groundspeed reduction of nearly 250 knots. Later, during the Day Two pre-mission briefing, a disgusted Captain Strickland, who was destined to fly six of the 11 Linebacker missions, could no longer keep silent: "Who is planning such stupid tactics," he asked the briefers, "and why?" Their response: "The planning is being done at Omaha's SAC HQ, and the common routes, altitudes and trail formations are used for ease of planning." "Well," Strickland shot back, "the enemy is using your plan, along with the after-release turn and our slow withdrawal, for ease of tracking and shootdown!" U-Tapao's 17th Air Division commander, Brig. Gen. Glenn Sulli*van, who was present during Strickland's comments, was thinking along similar lines. Sullivan and his wing commanders had been carefully listening to aircrew feedback, though their requests for tactics changes had so far fallen on deaf ears. Sullivan was most upset about the PTT; after the battle he wrote a friend, "The post-target turn was the murder point." Nevertheless, good tactics or bad, the 300 BUFF in-theater aircrews still had to fly the missions in the 206 Stratofortresses available (Andersen had 53 B-52Ds and 99 B-52Gs on station; U-Tapao had 54 B-52Ds). On Day One, 129 B-52s launched from Andersen and U-Tapao in three massive waves spaced at four-hour intervals. Shortly after dark, the first wave (33 B-52Ds and 15 B-52Gs) arrived at their Laotian IP and wheeled southeast toward seven Hanoi targets—setting the stage for the biggest air battle since World War II. Although the BUFFs were the attack's centerpiece, more than 100 additional U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine recon, radar jammer and fighter-bomber aircraft flew in support of the heavies or delivered their own assigned blows. .... People have ****ed and moaned about how a battle was conducted, or how they feel they were shafted into taken part in an action they learned to later hate since Achilles slew Hector. *What's new about that?? None of that disputes the fact that U.S. Air Power continued well after all U.S. combat forces had been removed from Vietnam. *Thus it is hardly possible that the loss of a number of B-52s means the U.S. military "lost the war in Vietnam." *Since there were no U.S. military boots on the ground to lose that war. *And it is a fact that North Vietnam violated the terms they had agreed to in the peace accords. *It is also a fact that Linebacker II brought North Vietnam hastily back to the peace table that they had so confidently decided to leave. *Further it was the political arm of the U.S. rather than the military that gave the military only 72 hours to launch Linebacker II, hardly sufficient time to adequately prepare for a major air assault on what was known to be a well-defended target. And these losses only happened during the third wave giving the NVA the ability to anticipate the strike patterns and deploy 34 SAMs into the target area. *In the first wave 129 bombers were sent, and 3 were shot down. *In the second wave 93 bombers were used, and although 20 SAMs were launched, not one B-52 was shot down. *In that fatal third wave, 99 bombers were launched and seven more B-52s were shot down. *Hardly a "defeat," in terms of targets destroyed, when compared to the loss of aircraft the U.S. sustained in various bombing runs during WW II. Planet Visitor II- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Who was talking about defeat, which I view as irrelevant, the line of talk was about B-52s lining up to come into bombing Hanoi so that they could easily be shot down! And my "No proof offer. Your claim fails," was in response to the comment from the original poster that "The US was *militarily defeated* because it's loses of B-52." The loss of those B-52s in Linebacker II did not signal a "military defeat" for the U.S. military in Vietnam. I was certainly not questioning or attempting to deny that loss; but insisting that the loss itself did not represent the *military defeat" of the U.S. in Vietnam. No war is fought without some tactical or strategic mistake being made. Certainly the Viet Cong and the NVA made their share of tactical and strategic mistakes, as shown by the much greater number who died than the 58,000 plus U.S. military deaths. Planet Visitor II |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attack...
On Mar 28, 7:58*am, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 05:40:50 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir wrote: On Mar 27, 10:14*pm, Planet Visitor II wrote: On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:39:39 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir wrote: On Mar 27, 11:21*am, Planet Visitor II wrote: On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 08:02:48 -0700 (PDT), David Walters wrote: The person posting this doesn't even know what a "military victory" means. It is, in the final analysis, the ability of one side to *completely overwhelm* the opponent OR to force the opponent to make the *political* choice that the loses are to great to continue do to resources (both military and human), capital destruction, national dismemberment, etc etc. Basically the argument that the US did "not lose" is the same one Hitler used to explain Germany's defeat at the end of WWI. It's a non- argument. Umm... The non-argument is that Hitler was even alive to "explain" Germany's defeat at the end of WW II. 30 April 1945 -- Hitler commits suicide in Berlin bunker. 7 May 1945 -- 02:41 Germany signs instrument of surrender in Reims, France. 8 May 1945 -- 23:01 All forces under German control cease active operations. It is true that had the US continued the bombing the Vietnamese would of been forced to the table once again. General Giap notes this in his interviews on the Christmas Bombings (while Nixon was in Beijing, as it happens) But wars are not fought as "what ifs". That is they are fought "as is". The US *was militarily defeated* by Vietnam.'' Pardon me, but General Giap would hardly be the one to admit that the U.S. did not lose militarily. *It's like asking a Muslim if he believes in Allah. The US was *militarily defeated* because it's loses of B-52, Could we have that in English? *Obviously your views must be seen as slanted since you're not an American. (12 in one day!) was too great to bear and *appeared* to have no effect. From 1942 onward the U.S. lost an AVERAGE of 170 planes a day. *Did we lose WW II because of those losses? Thye question to really ask is how many B-52s managed to complete their mission and destroy North Vietnam? *In fact, on 29 September, 1972, after all U.S. ground combat forces had already left South Vietnam, a heavy U.S. *air strike destroyed 10% of all of North Vietnam's Air Force in one single day. The stupid Air Force generals, meeting such little resistance coming out of Thai air bases, were *stupid* to keep flying the same patterns toward Hanoi. So the Vietnamese simply "lined up their remaining" SAMs and shot them down like using a .22 at a county fair. No proof offered. *Your claim fails. Proof: http://www.historynet.com/the-11-day-war.htm That's hardly any proof that the U.S. military "lost the war in Vietnam." *As I pointed out, the U.S. lost an AVERAGE of 170 aircraft each and every day of WW II, and I don't recall anyone claiming the U.S. lost that war. In the Schweinfurt-Regensburg bombing mission in WW II, the U.S. lost SIXTY B-17s in one single mission, only to fly a second mission losing ANOTHER SIXTY B-17s, with another 17 being too damaged to return to flying, and were scrapped, with yet another 161 having various degrees of battle damage. *See --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Raid_on_Schweinfurt Then we have the ill-fated raid on the Ploiesti oil fields of Romania, which took place on 1 August, 1943, in which five Medals of Honor (3 posthumously), and numerous DSCs were awarded to pilots on a single day. *178 B-24 aircraft flew into a fiery hell that would be called "Black Sunday." *53 aircraft were lost of those 178. *See --http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/ploesti.htm Then we have the battle of Midway in which virtually all U.S. aircraft were destroyed in the first few waves they were used to attack. *But the Japanese were caught flat-footed during aircraft carrier refueling operations and Midway turned into an ugly defeat of Yamamoto's naval fleet in subsequent attacks. Guess who won that war? *It cannot be said about Vietnam that "victory" consisted of _winning one particular battle_, even when there was certainly no "victory" by North Vietnam in Linebacker II. excerpt: There was worse news—the attack tactics themselves. All bombers were to depart from the same initial point (IP), make the same bomb run in single-file formation, fly exactly the same airspeeds, operate in exactly the same altitude blocks and maintain exactly the same spacing between each of the three-ship cells (one minute) and between each aircraft within the cells (15 seconds). A B-52 copilot who flew Linebacker II sorties from Andersen, then- Captain Don Craig, wrote me that "We knew there were big planning flaws, starting with the long lines of bombers coming in the same route…and it was straight down Thud Ridge, for God's sake….It looked very much like ducks in a shooting gallery." B-52 radar navigator Captain Wilton Strickland, operating from the other B-52 base, at U- Tapao airfield in Thailand, concurred: "[The spacing] gave enemy air de*fenses plenty of time to track and fire on each aircraft as it came within range….Long before we entered the target area, they knew our precise altitude, spacing and approach route…." Another concern was the bomb run no-evasion order issued by an Andersen wing commander (apparently on his own authority, on penalty of court-martial), despite previous evidence that if the B-52 was brought back straight and level prior to release, accuracy was not degraded. After aircrews repeatedly ignored the order on Days One and Two, without affecting bombing results, it was quietly rescinded. Most egregious, SAC planners mandated a "combat break" to the right after bomb release (post-target turn, or PTT), a nuclear-release procedure carried over into Arc Light (where it had been just as pointless; the PTT was designed solely for better survivability against a nuclear blast). During Arc Light, the PTT had rendered no harm. Over heavily defended Hanoi, however, it turned lethal. Not only were criti*cal electronic countermeasures degraded, the 120-knot-plus jet stream tailwind that B-52s enjoyed on the bomb run became a 120- knot-plus headwind after the turn, resulting in a combined groundspeed reduction of nearly 250 knots. Later, during the Day Two pre-mission briefing, a disgusted Captain Strickland, who was destined to fly six of the 11 Linebacker missions, could no longer keep silent: "Who is planning such stupid tactics," he asked the briefers, "and why?" Their response: "The planning is being done at Omaha's SAC HQ, and the common routes, altitudes and trail formations are used for ease of planning." "Well," Strickland shot back, "the enemy is using your plan, along with the after-release turn and our slow withdrawal, for ease of tracking and shootdown!" U-Tapao's 17th Air Division commander, Brig. Gen. Glenn Sulli*van, who was present during Strickland's comments, was thinking along similar lines. Sullivan and his wing commanders had been carefully listening to aircrew feedback, though their requests for tactics changes had so far fallen on deaf ears. Sullivan was most upset about the PTT; after the battle he wrote a friend, "The post-target turn was the murder point." Nevertheless, good tactics or bad, the 300 BUFF in-theater aircrews still had to fly the missions in the 206 Stratofortresses available (Andersen had 53 B-52Ds and 99 B-52Gs on station; U-Tapao had 54 B-52Ds). On Day One, 129 B-52s launched from Andersen and U-Tapao in three massive waves spaced at four-hour intervals. Shortly after dark, the first wave (33 B-52Ds and 15 B-52Gs) arrived at their Laotian IP and wheeled southeast toward seven Hanoi targets—setting the stage for the biggest air battle since World War II. Although the BUFFs were the attack's centerpiece, more than 100 additional U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine recon, radar jammer and fighter-bomber aircraft flew in support of the heavies or delivered their own assigned blows. .... People have ****ed and moaned about how a battle was conducted, or how they feel they were shafted into taken part in an action they learned to later hate since Achilles slew Hector. *What's new about that?? None of that disputes the fact that U.S. Air Power continued well after all U.S. combat forces had been removed from Vietnam. *Thus it is hardly possible that the loss of a number of B-52s means the U.S. military "lost the war in Vietnam." *Since there were no U.S. military boots on the ground to lose that war. *And it is a fact that North Vietnam violated the terms they had agreed to in the peace accords. *It is also a fact that Linebacker II brought North Vietnam hastily back to the peace table that they had so confidently decided to leave. *Further it was the political arm of the U.S. rather than the military that gave the military only 72 hours to launch Linebacker II, hardly sufficient time to adequately prepare for a major air assault on what was known to be a well-defended target. And these losses only happened during the third wave giving the NVA the ability to anticipate the strike patterns and deploy 34 SAMs into the target area. *In the first wave 129 bombers were sent, and 3 were shot down. *In the second wave 93 bombers were used, and although 20 SAMs were launched, not one B-52 was shot down. *In that fatal third wave, 99 bombers were launched and seven more B-52s were shot down. *Hardly a "defeat," in terms of targets destroyed, when compared to the loss of aircraft the U.S. sustained in various bombing runs during WW II. Planet Visitor II- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Who was talking about defeat, which I view as irrelevant, *the line of talk was about B-52s lining up to come into bombing Hanoi so that they could easily be shot down! And my "No proof offer. *Your claim fails," was in response to the comment from the original poster that "The US was *militarily defeated* because it's loses of B-52." *The loss of those B-52s in Linebacker II did not signal a "military defeat" for the U.S. military in Vietnam. *I was certainly not questioning or attempting to deny that loss; but insisting that the loss itself did not represent the *military defeat" of the U.S. in Vietnam. *No war is fought without some tactical or strategic mistake being made. *Certainly the Viet Cong and the NVA made their share of tactical and strategic mistakes, as shown by the much greater number who died than the 58,000 plus U.S. military deaths. Planet Visitor II They did not have massive numbers of Jets, ships and bombers. They did not have the mobilbity and fire power of the US = of course they suffered higher number of dead! |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attack...
"Our purpose is, through a
progression of all-out attacks, to cause many U.S. casualties and so erode the U.S. will that the antiwar influences will gain decisive political strength," said Pham Van Dong, former prime minister of North Vietnam. Moreover, Ho Chi Minh famously predicted, "For everyone of yours we kill, you will kill 10 of ours. But in the end, it is you who will grow tired." See www.vietnam.war.info/casualties and you will learn that Ho Chi Minh figures of 10 Vietnamese casualties would be needed to effect a single US casualty was grossly conservative in accordance with figues estimated by the North Vietnamese themselves after the conflict. Since the US tragically experienced 58000 combat casualties, their Vietnamese combatants experienced in excess of 1,000,000 combat casualties in the process to inflict those US Army combat casualties. In other words it took more than 17 Vietnamese combatant casualties to effect a single US casualty in accordance with the link estimating combat casualties for both sides of the conflict. Anyone construing those figures to spin that America got its "arsed kicked in Vietnam" is either living in a mythological fantasy world or is desperately in need of a course in remedial arithmetic. On Mar 28, 10:11*am, chatnoir wrote: On Mar 28, 7:58*am, Planet Visitor II wrote: On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 05:40:50 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir wrote: On Mar 27, 10:14*pm, Planet Visitor II wrote: On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:39:39 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir wrote: On Mar 27, 11:21*am, Planet Visitor II wrote: On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 08:02:48 -0700 (PDT), David Walters wrote: The person posting this doesn't even know what a "military victory" means. It is, in the final analysis, the ability of one side to *completely overwhelm* the opponent OR to force the opponent to make the *political* choice that the loses are to great to continue do to resources (both military and human), capital destruction, national dismemberment, etc etc. Basically the argument that the US did "not lose" is the same one Hitler used to explain Germany's defeat at the end of WWI. It's a non- argument. Umm... The non-argument is that Hitler was even alive to "explain" Germany's defeat at the end of WW II. 30 April 1945 -- Hitler commits suicide in Berlin bunker. 7 May 1945 -- 02:41 Germany signs instrument of surrender in Reims, France. 8 May 1945 -- 23:01 All forces under German control cease active operations. It is true that had the US continued the bombing the Vietnamese would of been forced to the table once again. General Giap notes this in his interviews on the Christmas Bombings (while Nixon was in Beijing, as it happens) But wars are not fought as "what ifs". That is they are fought "as is". The US *was militarily defeated* by Vietnam.'' Pardon me, but General Giap would hardly be the one to admit that the U.S. did not lose militarily. *It's like asking a Muslim if he believes in Allah. The US was *militarily defeated* because it's loses of B-52, Could we have that in English? *Obviously your views must be seen as slanted since you're not an American. (12 in one day!) was too great to bear and *appeared* to have no effect. From 1942 onward the U.S. lost an AVERAGE of 170 planes a day. *Did we lose WW II because of those losses? Thye question to really ask is how many B-52s managed to complete their mission and destroy North Vietnam? *In fact, on 29 September, 1972, after all U.S. ground combat forces had already left South Vietnam, a heavy U.S. *air strike destroyed 10% of all of North Vietnam's Air Force in one single day. The stupid Air Force generals, meeting such little resistance coming out of Thai air bases, were *stupid* to keep flying the same patterns toward Hanoi. So the Vietnamese simply "lined up their remaining" SAMs and shot them down like using a .22 at a county fair. No proof offered. *Your claim fails. Proof: http://www.historynet.com/the-11-day-war.htm That's hardly any proof that the U.S. military "lost the war in Vietnam." *As I pointed out, the U.S. lost an AVERAGE of 170 aircraft each and every day of WW II, and I don't recall anyone claiming the U.S. lost that war. In the Schweinfurt-Regensburg bombing mission in WW II, the U.S. lost SIXTY B-17s in one single mission, only to fly a second mission losing ANOTHER SIXTY B-17s, with another 17 being too damaged to return to flying, and were scrapped, with yet another 161 having various degrees of battle damage. *See --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Raid_on_Schweinfurt Then we have the ill-fated raid on the Ploiesti oil fields of Romania, which took place on 1 August, 1943, in which five Medals of Honor (3 posthumously), and numerous DSCs were awarded to pilots on a single day. *178 B-24 aircraft flew into a fiery hell that would be called "Black Sunday." *53 aircraft were lost of those 178. *See --http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/ploesti.htm Then we have the battle of Midway in which virtually all U.S. aircraft were destroyed in the first few waves they were used to attack. *But the Japanese were caught flat-footed during aircraft carrier refueling operations and Midway turned into an ugly defeat of Yamamoto's naval fleet in subsequent attacks. Guess who won that war? *It cannot be said about Vietnam that "victory" consisted of _winning one particular battle_, even when there was certainly no "victory" by North Vietnam in Linebacker II. excerpt: There was worse news—the attack tactics themselves. All bombers were to depart from the same initial point (IP), make the same bomb run in single-file formation, fly exactly the same airspeeds, operate in exactly the same altitude blocks and maintain exactly the same spacing between each of the three-ship cells (one minute) and between each aircraft within the cells (15 seconds). A B-52 copilot who flew Linebacker II sorties from Andersen, then- Captain Don Craig, wrote me that "We knew there were big planning flaws, starting with the long lines of bombers coming in the same route…and it was straight down Thud Ridge, for God's sake….It looked very much like ducks in a shooting gallery." B-52 radar navigator Captain Wilton Strickland, operating from the other B-52 base, at U- Tapao airfield in Thailand, concurred: "[The spacing] gave enemy air de*fenses plenty of time to track and fire on each aircraft as it came within range….Long before we entered the target area, they knew our precise altitude, spacing and approach route…." Another concern was the bomb run no-evasion order issued by an Andersen wing commander (apparently on his own authority, on penalty of court-martial), despite previous evidence that if the B-52 was brought back straight and level prior to release, accuracy was not degraded. After aircrews repeatedly ignored the order on Days One and Two, without affecting bombing results, it was quietly rescinded. Most egregious, SAC planners mandated a "combat break" to the right after bomb release (post-target turn, or PTT), a nuclear-release procedure carried over into Arc Light (where it had been just as pointless; the PTT was designed solely for better survivability against a nuclear blast). During Arc Light, the PTT had rendered no harm. Over heavily defended Hanoi, however, it turned lethal. Not only were criti*cal electronic countermeasures degraded, the 120-knot-plus jet stream tailwind that B-52s enjoyed on the bomb run became a 120- knot-plus headwind after the turn, resulting in a combined groundspeed reduction of nearly 250 knots. Later, during the Day Two pre-mission briefing, a disgusted Captain Strickland, who was destined to fly six of the 11 Linebacker missions, could no longer keep silent: "Who is planning such stupid tactics," he asked the briefers, "and why?" Their response: "The planning is being done at Omaha's SAC HQ, and the common routes, altitudes and trail formations are used for ease of planning." "Well," Strickland shot back, "the enemy is using your plan, along with the after-release turn and our slow withdrawal, for ease of tracking and shootdown!" U-Tapao's 17th Air Division commander, Brig. Gen. Glenn Sulli*van, who was present during Strickland's comments, was thinking along similar lines. Sullivan and his wing commanders had been carefully listening to aircrew feedback, though their requests for tactics changes had so far fallen on deaf ears. Sullivan was most upset about the PTT; after the battle he wrote a friend, "The post-target turn was the murder point." Nevertheless, good tactics or bad, the 300 BUFF in-theater aircrews still had to fly the missions in the 206 Stratofortresses available (Andersen had 53 B-52Ds and 99 B-52Gs on station; U-Tapao had 54 B-52Ds). On Day One, 129 B-52s launched from Andersen and U-Tapao in three massive waves spaced at four-hour intervals. Shortly after dark, the first wave (33 B-52Ds and 15 B-52Gs) arrived at their Laotian IP and wheeled southeast toward seven Hanoi targets—setting the stage for the biggest air battle since World War II. Although the BUFFs were the attack's centerpiece, more than 100 additional U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine recon, radar jammer and fighter-bomber aircraft flew in support of the heavies or delivered their own assigned blows. .... People have ****ed and moaned about how a battle was conducted, or how they feel they were shafted into taken part in an action they learned to later hate since Achilles slew Hector. *What's new about that?? None of that disputes the fact that U.S. Air Power continued well after all U.S. combat forces had been removed from Vietnam. *Thus it is hardly possible that the loss of a number of B-52s means the U.S. military "lost the war in Vietnam." *Since there were no U.S. military boots on the ground to lose that war. *And it is a fact that North Vietnam violated the terms they had agreed to in the peace accords. *It is also a fact that Linebacker II brought North Vietnam hastily back to the peace table that they had so confidently decided to leave. *Further it was the political arm of the U.S. rather than the military that gave the military only 72 hours to launch Linebacker II, hardly sufficient time to adequately prepare for a major air assault on what was known to be a well-defended target. And these losses only happened during the third wave giving the NVA the ability to anticipate the strike patterns and deploy 34 SAMs into the target area. *In the first wave 129 bombers were sent, and 3 were shot down. *In the second wave 93 bombers were used, and although 20 SAMs were launched, not one B-52 was shot down. *In that fatal third wave, 99 bombers were launched and seven more B-52s were shot down. *Hardly a "defeat," in terms of targets destroyed, when compared to the loss of aircraft the U.S. sustained in various bombing runs during WW II. Planet Visitor II- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Who was talking about defeat, which I view as irrelevant, *the line of talk was about B-52s lining up to come into bombing Hanoi so that they could easily be shot down! And my "No proof offer. *Your claim fails," was in response to the comment from the original poster that "The US was *militarily defeated* because it's loses of B-52." *The loss of those B-52s in Linebacker II did not signal a "military defeat" for the U.S. military in Vietnam. *I was certainly not questioning or attempting to deny that loss; but insisting that the loss itself did not represent the *military defeat" of the U.S. in Vietnam. *No war is fought without some tactical or strategic mistake being made. *Certainly the Viet Cong and the NVA made their share of tactical and strategic mistakes, as shown by the much greater number who died than the 58,000 plus U.S. military deaths. Planet Visitor II They did not have massive numbers of Jets, ships and bombers. * They did not have the mobilbity and fire power of the US = of course they suffered higher number of dead! |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attack...
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 07:11:17 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir wrote:
On Mar 28, 7:58*am, Planet Visitor II wrote: On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 05:40:50 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir wrote: On Mar 27, 10:14*pm, Planet Visitor II wrote: On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:39:39 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir wrote: On Mar 27, 11:21*am, Planet Visitor II wrote: On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 08:02:48 -0700 (PDT), David Walters wrote: The person posting this doesn't even know what a "military victory" means. It is, in the final analysis, the ability of one side to *completely overwhelm* the opponent OR to force the opponent to make the *political* choice that the loses are to great to continue do to resources (both military and human), capital destruction, national dismemberment, etc etc. Basically the argument that the US did "not lose" is the same one Hitler used to explain Germany's defeat at the end of WWI. It's a non- argument. Umm... The non-argument is that Hitler was even alive to "explain" Germany's defeat at the end of WW II. 30 April 1945 -- Hitler commits suicide in Berlin bunker. 7 May 1945 -- 02:41 Germany signs instrument of surrender in Reims, France. 8 May 1945 -- 23:01 All forces under German control cease active operations. It is true that had the US continued the bombing the Vietnamese would of been forced to the table once again. General Giap notes this in his interviews on the Christmas Bombings (while Nixon was in Beijing, as it happens) But wars are not fought as "what ifs". That is they are fought "as is". The US *was militarily defeated* by Vietnam.'' Pardon me, but General Giap would hardly be the one to admit that the U.S. did not lose militarily. *It's like asking a Muslim if he believes in Allah. The US was *militarily defeated* because it's loses of B-52, Could we have that in English? *Obviously your views must be seen as slanted since you're not an American. (12 in one day!) was too great to bear and *appeared* to have no effect. From 1942 onward the U.S. lost an AVERAGE of 170 planes a day. *Did we lose WW II because of those losses? Thye question to really ask is how many B-52s managed to complete their mission and destroy North Vietnam? *In fact, on 29 September, 1972, after all U.S. ground combat forces had already left South Vietnam, a heavy U.S. *air strike destroyed 10% of all of North Vietnam's Air Force in one single day. The stupid Air Force generals, meeting such little resistance coming out of Thai air bases, were *stupid* to keep flying the same patterns toward Hanoi. So the Vietnamese simply "lined up their remaining" SAMs and shot them down like using a .22 at a county fair. No proof offered. *Your claim fails. Proof: http://www.historynet.com/the-11-day-war.htm That's hardly any proof that the U.S. military "lost the war in Vietnam." *As I pointed out, the U.S. lost an AVERAGE of 170 aircraft each and every day of WW II, and I don't recall anyone claiming the U.S. lost that war. In the Schweinfurt-Regensburg bombing mission in WW II, the U.S. lost SIXTY B-17s in one single mission, only to fly a second mission losing ANOTHER SIXTY B-17s, with another 17 being too damaged to return to flying, and were scrapped, with yet another 161 having various degrees of battle damage. *See --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Raid_on_Schweinfurt Then we have the ill-fated raid on the Ploiesti oil fields of Romania, which took place on 1 August, 1943, in which five Medals of Honor (3 posthumously), and numerous DSCs were awarded to pilots on a single day. *178 B-24 aircraft flew into a fiery hell that would be called "Black Sunday." *53 aircraft were lost of those 178. *See --http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/ploesti.htm Then we have the battle of Midway in which virtually all U.S. aircraft were destroyed in the first few waves they were used to attack. *But the Japanese were caught flat-footed during aircraft carrier refueling operations and Midway turned into an ugly defeat of Yamamoto's naval fleet in subsequent attacks. Guess who won that war? *It cannot be said about Vietnam that "victory" consisted of _winning one particular battle_, even when there was certainly no "victory" by North Vietnam in Linebacker II. excerpt: There was worse news—the attack tactics themselves. All bombers were to depart from the same initial point (IP), make the same bomb run in single-file formation, fly exactly the same airspeeds, operate in exactly the same altitude blocks and maintain exactly the same spacing between each of the three-ship cells (one minute) and between each aircraft within the cells (15 seconds). A B-52 copilot who flew Linebacker II sorties from Andersen, then- Captain Don Craig, wrote me that "We knew there were big planning flaws, starting with the long lines of bombers coming in the same route…and it was straight down Thud Ridge, for God's sake….It looked very much like ducks in a shooting gallery." B-52 radar navigator Captain Wilton Strickland, operating from the other B-52 base, at U- Tapao airfield in Thailand, concurred: "[The spacing] gave enemy air de*fenses plenty of time to track and fire on each aircraft as it came within range….Long before we entered the target area, they knew our precise altitude, spacing and approach route…." Another concern was the bomb run no-evasion order issued by an Andersen wing commander (apparently on his own authority, on penalty of court-martial), despite previous evidence that if the B-52 was brought back straight and level prior to release, accuracy was not degraded. After aircrews repeatedly ignored the order on Days One and Two, without affecting bombing results, it was quietly rescinded. Most egregious, SAC planners mandated a "combat break" to the right after bomb release (post-target turn, or PTT), a nuclear-release procedure carried over into Arc Light (where it had been just as pointless; the PTT was designed solely for better survivability against a nuclear blast). During Arc Light, the PTT had rendered no harm. Over heavily defended Hanoi, however, it turned lethal. Not only were criti*cal electronic countermeasures degraded, the 120-knot-plus jet stream tailwind that B-52s enjoyed on the bomb run became a 120- knot-plus headwind after the turn, resulting in a combined groundspeed reduction of nearly 250 knots. Later, during the Day Two pre-mission briefing, a disgusted Captain Strickland, who was destined to fly six of the 11 Linebacker missions, could no longer keep silent: "Who is planning such stupid tactics," he asked the briefers, "and why?" Their response: "The planning is being done at Omaha's SAC HQ, and the common routes, altitudes and trail formations are used for ease of planning." "Well," Strickland shot back, "the enemy is using your plan, along with the after-release turn and our slow withdrawal, for ease of tracking and shootdown!" U-Tapao's 17th Air Division commander, Brig. Gen. Glenn Sulli*van, who was present during Strickland's comments, was thinking along similar lines. Sullivan and his wing commanders had been carefully listening to aircrew feedback, though their requests for tactics changes had so far fallen on deaf ears. Sullivan was most upset about the PTT; after the battle he wrote a friend, "The post-target turn was the murder point." Nevertheless, good tactics or bad, the 300 BUFF in-theater aircrews still had to fly the missions in the 206 Stratofortresses available (Andersen had 53 B-52Ds and 99 B-52Gs on station; U-Tapao had 54 B-52Ds). On Day One, 129 B-52s launched from Andersen and U-Tapao in three massive waves spaced at four-hour intervals. Shortly after dark, the first wave (33 B-52Ds and 15 B-52Gs) arrived at their Laotian IP and wheeled southeast toward seven Hanoi targets—setting the stage for the biggest air battle since World War II. Although the BUFFs were the attack's centerpiece, more than 100 additional U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine recon, radar jammer and fighter-bomber aircraft flew in support of the heavies or delivered their own assigned blows. .... People have ****ed and moaned about how a battle was conducted, or how they feel they were shafted into taken part in an action they learned to later hate since Achilles slew Hector. *What's new about that?? None of that disputes the fact that U.S. Air Power continued well after all U.S. combat forces had been removed from Vietnam. *Thus it is hardly possible that the loss of a number of B-52s means the U.S. military "lost the war in Vietnam." *Since there were no U.S. military boots on the ground to lose that war. *And it is a fact that North Vietnam violated the terms they had agreed to in the peace accords. *It is also a fact that Linebacker II brought North Vietnam hastily back to the peace table that they had so confidently decided to leave. *Further it was the political arm of the U.S. rather than the military that gave the military only 72 hours to launch Linebacker II, hardly sufficient time to adequately prepare for a major air assault on what was known to be a well-defended target. And these losses only happened during the third wave giving the NVA the ability to anticipate the strike patterns and deploy 34 SAMs into the target area. *In the first wave 129 bombers were sent, and 3 were shot down. *In the second wave 93 bombers were used, and although 20 SAMs were launched, not one B-52 was shot down. *In that fatal third wave, 99 bombers were launched and seven more B-52s were shot down. *Hardly a "defeat," in terms of targets destroyed, when compared to the loss of aircraft the U.S. sustained in various bombing runs during WW II. Planet Visitor II- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Who was talking about defeat, which I view as irrelevant, *the line of talk was about B-52s lining up to come into bombing Hanoi so that they could easily be shot down! And my "No proof offer. *Your claim fails," was in response to the comment from the original poster that "The US was *militarily defeated* because it's loses of B-52." *The loss of those B-52s in Linebacker II did not signal a "military defeat" for the U.S. military in Vietnam. *I was certainly not questioning or attempting to deny that loss; but insisting that the loss itself did not represent the *military defeat" of the U.S. in Vietnam. *No war is fought without some tactical or strategic mistake being made. *Certainly the Viet Cong and the NVA made their share of tactical and strategic mistakes, as shown by the much greater number who died than the 58,000 plus U.S. military deaths. Planet Visitor II They did not have massive numbers of Jets, ships and bombers. They did not have the mobilbity and fire power of the US = of course they suffered higher number of dead! My point exactly. Planet Visitor II |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attack...
The problem is that there is rarely a pure military victory. I was
quite alive during this period and watch, as *an American* seeing the US getting it's ass kicked. The Vietnam War was fought like all wars as enxtension of politics. And like all "victories" and "defeats" the military actions have political consequences. The US lost 10 times the number of troops during WWII. It losts hundred of more planes. Yet the US, and ONLY because of Russian RED ARMY involvement, was able to participate in an Allied victory in that war. [I base point about the brilliant General Giap on an interview he gave for a Military Channel series on Vietnam] As 10s of thousands of GIs were killed with 6 times that number injured (or more) the *politics* of this war, without clear *political* goals, go the American people ****ed off enough to make it impossible for the US to win...militarily. The goal for Vietnam was to liberate their country from US *military* occupation. The Vietnamese WON (thank the gods). David |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attackson the Hanoi area, you had won the war. It was over..."
On Mar 27, 4:09*pm, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:58:41 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir wrote: On Mar 26, 3:11*pm, :???????? wrote: "..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attacks on the Hanoi area, * you had won the war. *It was over..." "-A Better War Lewis Sorley's A Better War challenges the accepted view of Vietnam, does so with great authority, and will hopefully thereby foster a significant re-examination of this sorest spot in the national psyche. The basic premise of the book is that late in 1970 or early in 1971 the United States had essentially won the Vietnam War. *That is to say, we had defeated the Viet Cong in the field, returned effective control of most of the population to the South Vietnamese and created a situation where the South Vietnamese armed forces could continue the war on their own, so long as we provided them with adequate supplies and intelligence, and carried through on our promise to bomb the North if they violated peace agreements. Sorley cites Sir Robert Thompson's assessment that : * * In my view, on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attacks on the Hanoi area, * * you had won the war. *It was over. At that point, the Viet Cong had been destroyed, we had definitely won the insurgency phase of the War. *Additionally, the North had been defeated in the initial phase of conventional warfare, and had finally had the War brought home to them in a significant way. *Though the overall War was certainly not over, it was sitting there, just waiting to be won. So what happened ? ..." ...One book can not change peoples' minds about a matter as contentious as the Vietnam War. *In fact, the intellectual classes and the Baby Boom Generation have so much of themselves invested in the idea that the War was wrong and unwinnable that it's unlikely that any number of books could change their minds. *But as the years go by and as new generations take a fresh look at the War, it is important that they approach it with an open mind...." google any part to read more Looks like it was lost in the end! * Only the removal of the crook Nixon stopped the bombing! Anyone with half a brain knows that the U.S. did NOT lose the MILITARY WAR in Vietnam. *Only half-brain anti-American idiots who never saw a day in Vietnam during the war like to pander the silly notion that the Viet Cong and the North Vietnam rag-tag military mastered the U.S. military. It was Kissinger who lost that war for the U.S., and he never served a day in the military. *If there had been no "Peace" accord, our military leaders would have simply continued to murder innocent people along with our own military being killed and we would have remained there until at least1980.. Because we were a society sick at our moral core by ever contending there was any need whatsoever to consider that tiny piece of land to have any military significance in the U.S. defensive posture. Eventually, North Vietnam would have run out of resources, since we were far from running a "guns or butter" economy along with running that war. Our Peace Wall would now have 200,000 names at least, but North Vietnam's wall would have been ten times as large. *And no matter what, a few years after we left, with North Vietnam totally defeated militarily, South Vietnam would have internally collapsed politically, because it was held together with nothing but American guns, glue and money... making some very bad people very rich. *And we would be right where we are today, except for the million of humans that would probably have been slaughtered. But this claim about the U.S. losing the military war in Vietnam should not be the issue. *There NEVER should have been such a war!! *We should NEVER have slaughtered so many innocent human beings under false pretenses!!! *The immorality of the U.S. in even engaging in such a war dwarfs any implied immorality in our engaging in war in Iraq. *Not one American life was in danger from forces in Vietnam if we had never ventured in. *It was a war with no reason whatsoever. *Proven by the fact that today Vietnam is in the same political position it would be in if we had never set a single military foot in Vietnam. It has to be said that most of our military LEADERS, agreed completely with the belief that we needed to kill opponents of the very civilian leaders of South Vietnam that WE kept in power. *And if they had been permitted they would have killed ten times as many as they led American troops to kill. *Thus the loss of innocent lives in Vietnam has to be seen as nothing but mass murder on their part. *Further... *in that act of horrendous deceit and knavery we most certainly did more than lose our presumed "innocence." * We turned an ideological and moral corner... and still have not found our way back again. Planet Visitor II "Only half-brain anti-American idiots who never saw a day in Vietnam during the war like to pander the silly notion that the Viet Cong and the North Vietnam rag-tag military mastered the U.S. military." Who's the anti-American: "If there had been no "Peace" accord, our military leaders would have simply continued to murder innocent people along with our own military being killed and we would have remained there until at least 1980. ...a society sick at our moral core" The mass opposition to the war, already apparent in the early seventies would have exploded had the war continued "...until at least 1980" as the body bags carrying the precious corpses were flown in in increasing numbers and the American economy got into deeper and deeper crisis as the costs of the war spiralled. That mass opposition of Americans is given no credit by you at all. You prefer to blame the war on "Americans" rather than nail the banker-capitalists as its root cause. That makes you a fake patriotic hiding the crimes of the ruling class. PS: your fantasy of the fighting ability and organisation of the Vietnamese bears no resemblance to reports by Australians who fought in Vietnam. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attacks on the Hanoi area, you had won the war. It was over..."
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:36:54 -0700 (PDT), dusty wrote:
On Mar 27, 4:09*pm, Planet Visitor II wrote: On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:58:41 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir wrote: On Mar 26, 3:11*pm, :???????? wrote: "..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attacks on the Hanoi area, * you had won the war. *It was over..." "-A Better War Lewis Sorley's A Better War challenges the accepted view of Vietnam, does so with great authority, and will hopefully thereby foster a significant re-examination of this sorest spot in the national psyche. The basic premise of the book is that late in 1970 or early in 1971 the United States had essentially won the Vietnam War. *That is to say, we had defeated the Viet Cong in the field, returned effective control of most of the population to the South Vietnamese and created a situation where the South Vietnamese armed forces could continue the war on their own, so long as we provided them with adequate supplies and intelligence, and carried through on our promise to bomb the North if they violated peace agreements. Sorley cites Sir Robert Thompson's assessment that : * * In my view, on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attacks on the Hanoi area, * * you had won the war. *It was over. At that point, the Viet Cong had been destroyed, we had definitely won the insurgency phase of the War. *Additionally, the North had been defeated in the initial phase of conventional warfare, and had finally had the War brought home to them in a significant way. *Though the overall War was certainly not over, it was sitting there, just waiting to be won. So what happened ? ..." ...One book can not change peoples' minds about a matter as contentious as the Vietnam War. *In fact, the intellectual classes and the Baby Boom Generation have so much of themselves invested in the idea that the War was wrong and unwinnable that it's unlikely that any number of books could change their minds. *But as the years go by and as new generations take a fresh look at the War, it is important that they approach it with an open mind...." google any part to read more Looks like it was lost in the end! * Only the removal of the crook Nixon stopped the bombing! Anyone with half a brain knows that the U.S. did NOT lose the MILITARY WAR in Vietnam. *Only half-brain anti-American idiots who never saw a day in Vietnam during the war like to pander the silly notion that the Viet Cong and the North Vietnam rag-tag military mastered the U.S. military. It was Kissinger who lost that war for the U.S., and he never served a day in the military. *If there had been no "Peace" accord, our military leaders would have simply continued to murder innocent people along with our own military being killed and we would have remained there until at least1980. Because we were a society sick at our moral core by ever contending there was any need whatsoever to consider that tiny piece of land to have any military significance in the U.S. defensive posture. Eventually, North Vietnam would have run out of resources, since we were far from running a "guns or butter" economy along with running that war. Our Peace Wall would now have 200,000 names at least, but North Vietnam's wall would have been ten times as large. *And no matter what, a few years after we left, with North Vietnam totally defeated militarily, South Vietnam would have internally collapsed politically, because it was held together with nothing but American guns, glue and money... making some very bad people very rich. *And we would be right where we are today, except for the million of humans that would probably have been slaughtered. But this claim about the U.S. losing the military war in Vietnam should not be the issue. *There NEVER should have been such a war!! *We should NEVER have slaughtered so many innocent human beings under false pretenses!!! *The immorality of the U.S. in even engaging in such a war dwarfs any implied immorality in our engaging in war in Iraq. *Not one American life was in danger from forces in Vietnam if we had never ventured in. *It was a war with no reason whatsoever. *Proven by the fact that today Vietnam is in the same political position it would be in if we had never set a single military foot in Vietnam. It has to be said that most of our military LEADERS, agreed completely with the belief that we needed to kill opponents of the very civilian leaders of South Vietnam that WE kept in power. *And if they had been permitted they would have killed ten times as many as they led American troops to kill. *Thus the loss of innocent lives in Vietnam has to be seen as nothing but mass murder on their part. *Further... *in that act of horrendous deceit and knavery we most certainly did more than lose our presumed "innocence." * We turned an ideological and moral corner... and still have not found our way back again. Planet Visitor II "Only half-brain anti-American idiots who never saw a day in Vietnam during the war like to pander the silly notion that the Viet Cong and the North Vietnam rag-tag military mastered the U.S. military." Ah.. the old "thump-my-chest" claim of superiority. Chum... I was serving in Vietnam while you were still trying to get Susie to pull down her knickers in the third grade. I served 20 years in the military, and can prove it. I served the prerequisite year in Vietnam at DaNang AB, on good ol' Monkey Mountain; I served another year in Thailand at Korat RTAB, with thuds taking off every morning, and sometimes a few less coming back in the evening; and I served another two years at Drake AB in Tokyo, where the major military hospital in Japan was located, and the seriously injured military were treated, with kids as young as 19 and 20, in wheelchairs, with clamps on their heads so they could not move their heads because of traumatic spinal cord injuries. And I still have the orders and my retirement certificate from 1 April 1973 to prove it. Who's the anti-American: Well, that would be you. "If there had been no "Peace" accord, our military leaders would have simply continued to murder innocent people along with our own military being killed and we would have remained there until at least 1980. ...a society sick at our moral core" The truth doesn't make my anti-American. In fact, I am more patriotic because I see the truth, and accept that it does not make me anti-American to recognize the warts and all in a country I love and honor. The mass opposition to the war, already apparent in the early seventies would have exploded had the war continued "...until at least 1980" as the body bags carrying the precious corpses were flown in in increasing numbers and the American economy got into deeper and deeper crisis as the costs of the war spiralled. That mass opposition of Americans is given no credit by you at all. You prefer to blame the war on "Americans" rather than nail the banker-capitalists as its root cause. That makes you a fake patriotic hiding the crimes of the ruling class. That's because you are a fanatic socialist, obsessed with a failed political system which treats humans like pawns. The problem we had with Vietnam was our political and military leaders were filled with personal hubris, and gave no thought to geopolitical or long-term considerations about the far-east. The very fact that there was this deep objection from citizens to that war, points out clearly what there is to love about the deep-rooted morality of so many Americans. My only argument is that we should never have even entered into that war. But once in we certainly never LOST that war. There is not a single instance of any document of surrender by any U.S. combat force in any engagement against the Viet Cong or the NVA. Nor would any such instance show that the U.S. military LOST the war in Vietnam, when considering the numerous defeats of the Viet Cong and the NVA in various military engagements. PS: your fantasy of the fighting ability and organisation of the Vietnamese bears no resemblance to reports by Australians who fought in Vietnam. ROTFLMAO. When cowards argue they generally try to latch onto others who were not. Are you claiming that Australians who fought in Vietnam felt they were outfought by the Viet Cong, and they admit that the Viet Cong were better fighters man-for-man, than they were? The argument is a claim that the U.S. military, with all it's military might LOST the military war in Vietnam. And that argument is a total crock of ****! The Viet Cong admitted that the most frightening part of that war was the B-52, and the fact that they could be walking through the jungle and suddenly find the ground around them exploding with ordnance from the sky. Unannounced, and with no place to hide. How many B-52s did the Viet Cong or the NVA have? During the course of that war how many bombings did North Vietnam receive from the U.S. Air Force? During the course of that war how many bombings did the U.S. receive from the North Vietnam Air Force?? For the U.S. military to have lost that war would have required the U.S. military to have combat boots on the ground present to announce a surrender to the NVA. That's how one defines the MILITARY LOSS OF A WAR! There was not a single U.S. combat boot on the ground when the NVA invaded South Vietnam and entered Saigon. Planet Visitor II |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DC rally by conservatives: "tens of thousands?" "three hundredthousand?" "five hundred thousand?" "A million people came?" The only thingagreed upon was that it was a "vast crowd" and it spells big tr | O'Donovan, PJ, Himself | Europe | 16 | August 31st, 2010 04:16 AM |
"President" B. Hussein Obama "likely" to speak about attempted Xmas09 Muslim terror attack in "next few days" | PJ O'Donovan[_3_] | Europe | 0 | December 28th, 2009 12:05 PM |
The First 100 days: Will Barack Hussein Obama Say "Ich bin einMuslimer " oder "Ich bin ein Dhimmi ?" | PJ O'Donovan | Europe | 7 | January 28th, 2009 09:25 PM |
"liberalism" to "socialism" to "communism": The "end" justifies the "means" in America | PJ O'Donovan[_1_] | Europe | 5 | February 24th, 2007 04:57 PM |