|
Post by Turk on Aug 12, 2009 22:54:14 GMT -5
Plenty of hippie types in my unit. Conservatives do not have a corner on defending their nation. They just think they do. Nah - we know where you hippie types run to when the going gets tough and it rattles your peacenik ways too much! ;D ;D Dolphie, my guess Larry is speaking from a seasoned Vietnam veteran a time period I’ll regard as the most difficult in my lifetime, we may disagree with his politics but I don’t see Larry as someone who would run.
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Aug 12, 2009 23:05:30 GMT -5
Nah - we know where you hippie types run to when the going gets tough and it rattles your peacenik ways too much! ;D ;D Dolphie, my guess Larry is speaking from a seasoned Vietnam veteran a time period I’ll regard as the most difficult in my lifetime, we may disagree with his politics but I don’t see Larry as someone who would run. Did that read to imply he would run as in being a coward? If it did it was not my intent. My apologies if my teasing came across that way. The hippies typically let the conservatives do all the hard work. That was what I meant. I would never dishonor a vet - I hold too much respect for the military service. They are the reason my life is not war torn and I have freedoms and success. During the Viet Nam war - I had friends that truly did not want to go to war - but were drafted. I had one friend who physically had one side of his chest caved in (deformity from birth) and they still drafted him. These guys performed and returned. A few remind me of jdredd and potentially Larry (I am not sure here as I have not seen enough of his posts). I also had family and friends who enlisted to fight for our country.
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Aug 12, 2009 23:10:33 GMT -5
Dolphie I’m not offended and I doubt Larry is I was just trying to connect some historical dots with my knowledge of Larry. I’m on 36 hours with two hours sleep perhaps I should shut it down so I’m not misunderstood. Good night all.
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Aug 12, 2009 23:14:46 GMT -5
Dolphie I’m not offended and I doubt Larry is I was just trying to connect some historical dots with my knowledge of Larry. I’m on 36 hours with two hours sleep perhaps I should shut it down so I’m not misunderstood. Good night all. I trust your take on it... and I do apologize for any offense taken. Sleep well and dream of asteroids!
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on Aug 12, 2009 23:22:41 GMT -5
Don't kid yourself,
I ran and hid on a regular basis. To the best of my understanding that was my job. I am not upset at anything you say, I just want you to know that just because you believe it does not make it true. I will repeat myself. Conservatives do not have a lock on patriotism, heroism, hard work, commitment or dedication. They do not live better or act truer. They only think they do.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 13, 2009 19:40:01 GMT -5
I'm still researching about the cuts to Missle Defense in Obama's defense budget. My main concern was that we not deploy it near Russia in an In-your-face move. In fact, I think the argument that it's "unproven" by the left when they criticize MD is not very convincing. MD defense is a deterrent, and you simply need potential missle launching nations to think it MIGHT work.
As for the F-22, we will not build as many as some thought necessary. The program was started to build an air superiority fighter that could outfight the latest Soviet fighters. Since then, the situation has changed. While having a top-notch AS fighter is nice, with finite defense budgets it is a luxury we can no longer afford. Advances in software that are in the F-22 can be put into upgraded F-15's at a fraction of the cost. And by law, the F-22 was not allowed to be exported, which is a real disadvantage in keeping costs low. But the Air Force will get an accelerated F-35 schedule instead, which can be exported to reduce costs. By the way, if the F-18 was good enough for the Navy and Marines, why wasn't it good enough for the Air Force?
|
|
|
Post by johng on Aug 13, 2009 19:47:04 GMT -5
I personally took the OATH JD and to this day I live with and by it! I will do as is necessary to "Protect and Defend Against All Enemies - Foreign or Domestic" and the biggest threat I have witnessed since the Cuban Missile Crisis ended is in Washinton DC today! I never post with expectation that you or anyone else will agree nor do I seek your agreement - nor should you. Play is play and serious issues of national defense and protection of our civilization as we like it, is something you "Hippie Types" should leave to us. No offense - just stating it as I see it. When you lay your head down tonight give Momma a kiss and tell her she can rest peacefully knowing there are men like me out there covering your ass. Plenty of hippie types in my unit. Conservatives do not have a corner on defending their nation. They just think they do. Yes indeed. But the one I was exchanging with was not one of them nor did I say anything about political party affiliation! Thank you for your Service to our Country!
|
|
|
Post by Rocket on Aug 13, 2009 19:50:41 GMT -5
Fooled again big boy, it is your thinking.
|
|
|
Post by johng on Aug 13, 2009 19:53:40 GMT -5
I'm still researching about the cuts to Missle Defense in Obama's defense budget. My main concern was that we not deploy it near Russia in an In-your-face move. In fact, I think the argument that it's "unproven" by the left when they criticize MD is not very convincing. MD defense is a deterrent, and you simply need potential missle launching nations to think it MIGHT work. As for the F-22, we will not build as many as some thought necessary. The program was started to build an air superiority fighter that could outfight the latest Soviet fighters. Since then, the situation has changed. While having a top-notch AS fighter is nice, with finite defense budgets it is a luxury we can no longer afford. Advances in software that are in the F-22 can be put into upgraded F-15's at a fraction of the cost. And by law, the F-22 was not allowed to be exported, which is a real disadvantage in keeping costs low. But the Air Force will get an accelerated F-35 schedule instead, which can be exported to reduce costs. By the way, if the F-18 was good enough for the Navy and Marines, why wasn't it good enough for the Air Force? Thrust to Weight ratios and pay loads. AF Prop Jocks have the luxury of land based deployment the Navy and Marines work from a floating platform - God I love this stuff it gives me wood!
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 13, 2009 20:08:11 GMT -5
"God I love this stuff it gives me wood!"
Thank you for sharing, but I could have lived without that information.
Good point about thrust to weight...Are you saying the Air Force is accepting less than optimum performance by sharing the F-35 with the Navy?
|
|
|
Post by johng on Aug 13, 2009 20:12:17 GMT -5
"God I love this stuff it gives me wood!" Thank you for sharing, but I could have lived without that information. Good point about thrust to weight...Are you saying the Air Force is accepting less than optimum performance by sharing the F-35 with the Navy? Depends on the mission need more than other factors but I suspect it is more the Navy concession than AF - Don't know that for sure though so don't go running around quoting me without permission. Ask Hatch he is closer to the issue I just get excited with the sheer power of it all
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Aug 13, 2009 20:15:18 GMT -5
Depends on the mission need more than other factors but I suspect it is more the Navy concession than AF - Don't know that for sure though so don't go running around quoting me without permission. Ask Hatch he is closer to the issue I just get excited with the sheer power of it all He keeps forgetting you are a cave dweller.
|
|
|
Post by dj on Aug 13, 2009 20:22:12 GMT -5
I have to disagree on your point about Vietnam. Because we had no business being there, victory was irrelevant. What good is a victory in a war not worth fighting? And the stupid generals kept saying we were winning, yet every year they would ask for more soldiers, untill the American people had had enough. Well, we WERE winning, however we weren't fighting TO win. I'll explain. We were fighting a war of attrition. We were not going after the north in an attempt to defeat, occupy, reunite and galvanize the whole country of Vietnam. Instead, we occupied and propped up south vietnam, drew viet cong into the south so we could kill them. And we were "winning", in that we were wiping them out. Something like 30 of them for every 1 of us. Eventually they were supposed to run out of men and materiel. While that is "winning" a war of attrition, it is not "winning" a war in the traditional sense, where you drive to the enemy's lair and get a full and unconditional surrender. Worse, the north's strategy was to terrorize and demoralize us, not dominate us. While the Tet Offensive was a total and complete disaster for the north militarily, it was the pivot point around which perceptions, both in the U.S. and throughout the world' turned. So the question is, WHY were we sitting around killing the ants as they showed up? Dolphie says we should have just put it into the hands of the military so they could go WIN. Well, yes, in most cases, this is what works. It is true that the constant micromanagement from the White House took the well-schooled strategy men right out of the equation, but remember it was a political war as much as a territory conflict. This was a Cold War skirmish. We COULDN'T just annihilate the North. Hence the stalemate stance, modeled after the two Koreas and their DMZ. The idea was that we would have the same in Vietnam. At the time we also had East and West Germany, etc. Big chess game. The only problem, THE most important problem, is that the Vietnamese were having none of it. The Tet offensive not only surprised and confused the west, it scared half of the population of South Vietnam half to death, and it galvanized the other half into an underground of collaborators. Again, WHY? Because the Vietnamese were always traditionally one people. It was only two countries because of the occupation breakdowns following world war II, just like the partitioning of Germany and Korea. For 1000 years the Vietnamese had proudly ejected all occupiers including the Chinese multiple times. They weren't about to be North and South Anything. To them if it took another 1000 years, so be it. Dolphie, you're close when you say France pulled us in. They had had control of the occupation there for the previous 15-20 years and had spent the 1950's failing to pacify the population in the same way.
|
|
|
Post by johng on Aug 13, 2009 20:29:26 GMT -5
Bravo!
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 13, 2009 20:33:40 GMT -5
DJ, glad you showed up. I was feeling outnumbered. While I don't agree with everything you say, I agree with a lot.
Might be a good time for my perspective on the French role in Indochina. Up to the beginning of the Cold War, America had a reputation as a fiercely anti-colonial nation, for obvious reasons. The Truman administration betrayed that tradition at the urging of American anti-Communist extremists. Ho Chi Minh asked the U.S. for diplomatic assistance in removing the French, but he was turned down because of his leftist beliefs. Thus was Vietnam destined for 30 more years of war, and a million plus deaths.
|
|