Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
Chaos in Gaza: The libertarian position on the Middle East fiasco
I Read This
May 26, 2018, 07:30:27 EDT *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you have any issues at all, visit our support site.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
  Print  
Author Topic: Chaos in Gaza: The libertarian position on the Middle East fiasco  (Read 16897 times)
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #30 on: January 16, 2009, 10:57:54 EST »

Air superiority wins wars against armies.  Israel's past shows that.  However this situation has small groups using terrorist actions, so bombing them doesn't work as well unless you don't care about civilians. 
Vietnam proved air superiority totally useless over terrain that hides movements of armies,

Which is, of course, why US air strikes were able to totally collapse the last PAVN offencive before the final US withdrawal.

Limitations on the effectiveness of US air power were more due to political restrictions, (i.e. having target restrictions in North Vietnam, and not being able to engage in major interdictions in Cambodia and Laos), than the lack of capabilities.
On a whole air power in Vietnam proved highly cost prohibitive for their limited effectiveness and the cost of the US air war over Vietnam was a factor in the US economic crisis in 1970's.  What made them highely ineffective was most of the time they couldn't identify enemy troop positions from the ground let alone the air while the infrastructure of Vietnam was basic and easily repaired, also as the war dragged on North Vietnam was switching for bicycle convoys to off-road truck convoys (thanks to growing military aid from the U.S.S.R)  thus supplies were actually moving with more ease as the war dragged on even with the US bombing campaign.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2009, 10:59:50 EST by Psy » Logged
rwpikul
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1961


« Reply #31 on: January 18, 2009, 03:01:13 EST »

Air superiority wins wars against armies.  Israel's past shows that.  However this situation has small groups using terrorist actions, so bombing them doesn't work as well unless you don't care about civilians. 
Vietnam proved air superiority totally useless over terrain that hides movements of armies,

Which is, of course, why US air strikes were able to totally collapse the last PAVN offencive before the final US withdrawal.

Limitations on the effectiveness of US air power were more due to political restrictions, (i.e. having target restrictions in North Vietnam, and not being able to engage in major interdictions in Cambodia and Laos), than the lack of capabilities.
On a whole air power in Vietnam proved highly cost prohibitive for their limited effectiveness and the cost of the US air war over Vietnam was a factor in the US economic crisis in 1970's.  What made them highely ineffective was most of the time they couldn't identify enemy troop positions from the ground let alone the air while the infrastructure of Vietnam was basic and easily repaired, also as the war dragged on North Vietnam was switching for bicycle convoys to off-road truck convoys (thanks to growing military aid from the U.S.S.R)  thus supplies were actually moving with more ease as the war dragged on even with the US bombing campaign.

Why are you unable to actually read postings before replying to them?

When used against large force movements, (such as major PAVN offensives), USAF/USN air strikes were devastating.  Especially noted for it's effectiveness was the AC-47 and it's follow-on aircraft, (the AC-119 and the AC-130)[1].

In more strategic uses, the effect was more limited because _THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO ATTACK MOST OF THE IMPORTANT TARGETS_.  Saying that air strikes are of limited effectiveness on poor targets for air strikes does not address the fact that the problem was target restrictions.


[1] The AC-130 remains in USAF service, even the AC-47 is still used to great effect in environments similar to those in Vietnam as it was in the '60s.
Logged

--

Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #32 on: January 18, 2009, 11:12:52 EST »

Air superiority wins wars against armies.  Israel's past shows that.  However this situation has small groups using terrorist actions, so bombing them doesn't work as well unless you don't care about civilians. 
Vietnam proved air superiority totally useless over terrain that hides movements of armies,

Which is, of course, why US air strikes were able to totally collapse the last PAVN offencive before the final US withdrawal.

Limitations on the effectiveness of US air power were more due to political restrictions, (i.e. having target restrictions in North Vietnam, and not being able to engage in major interdictions in Cambodia and Laos), than the lack of capabilities.
On a whole air power in Vietnam proved highly cost prohibitive for their limited effectiveness and the cost of the US air war over Vietnam was a factor in the US economic crisis in 1970's.  What made them highely ineffective was most of the time they couldn't identify enemy troop positions from the ground let alone the air while the infrastructure of Vietnam was basic and easily repaired, also as the war dragged on North Vietnam was switching for bicycle convoys to off-road truck convoys (thanks to growing military aid from the U.S.S.R)  thus supplies were actually moving with more ease as the war dragged on even with the US bombing campaign.

Why are you unable to actually read postings before replying to them?
I do

Quote from: rwpikul
When used against large force movements, (such as major PAVN offensives), USAF/USN air strikes were devastating.  Especially noted for it's effectiveness was the AC-47 and it's follow-on aircraft, (the AC-119 and the AC-130)[1].
The US was mostly fighting against the PLAF that mostly fled the battlefield long before air support arrived and were mostly fighting extremely close to US forces under the cover of the jungle canopy.

Quote from: rwpikul
In more strategic uses, the effect was more limited because _THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO ATTACK MOST OF THE IMPORTANT TARGETS_.  Saying that air strikes are of limited effectiveness on poor targets for air strikes does not address the fact that the problem was target restrictions.
Most of the industrial capacity for the war effort was in the U.S.S.R and bombing the U.S.S.R would have drastically escalated the Vietnam war.  As for the of limit on targets in North Vietnam they were not that strategic, and this was proven when the US did bomb them later in the war and it didn't significantly harm North Vietnam's military strength and mostly just caused huge shortages for civilians in North Vietnam that allowed the U.S.S.R to greatly increase aid to North Vietnam.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2009, 11:24:31 EST by Psy » Logged
rwpikul
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1961


« Reply #33 on: January 18, 2009, 23:45:39 EST »

On a whole air power in Vietnam proved highly cost prohibitive for their limited effectiveness and the cost of the US air war over Vietnam was a factor in the US economic crisis in 1970's.  What made them highely ineffective was most of the time they couldn't identify enemy troop positions from the ground let alone the air while the infrastructure of Vietnam was basic and easily repaired, also as the war dragged on North Vietnam was switching for bicycle convoys to off-road truck convoys (thanks to growing military aid from the U.S.S.R)  thus supplies were actually moving with more ease as the war dragged on even with the US bombing campaign.

Why are you unable to actually read postings before replying to them?
I do

Be nice if you showed evidence of it from time to time, like not making claims that were already addressed.

Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
When used against large force movements, (such as major PAVN offensives), USAF/USN air strikes were devastating.  Especially noted for it's effectiveness was the AC-47 and it's follow-on aircraft, (the AC-119 and the AC-130)[1].
The US was mostly fighting against the PLAF that mostly fled the battlefield long before air support arrived and were mostly fighting extremely close to US forces under the cover of the jungle canopy.

Psy, the military wing of the PLAF _ceased to exist_ in 1968 except as a PAVN fiction.  Even before then, the war was not restricted to squad and platoon level actions.  (Of course, the near unblemished record the US had in larger actions does not fit within your mythology, so the extreme left likes to pretend they didn't happen.)

The claim that the Vietnam war was won by guerrilla fighters is, like all such claims, a myth. 

Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
In more strategic uses, the effect was more limited because _THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO ATTACK MOST OF THE IMPORTANT TARGETS_.  Saying that air strikes are of limited effectiveness on poor targets for air strikes does not address the fact that the problem was target restrictions.
Most of the industrial capacity for the war effort was in the U.S.S.R and bombing the U.S.S.R would have drastically escalated the Vietnam war.  As for the of limit on targets in North Vietnam they were not that strategic, and this was proven when the US did bomb them later in the war and it didn't significantly harm North Vietnam's military strength and mostly just caused huge shortages for civilians in North Vietnam that allowed the U.S.S.R to greatly increase aid to North Vietnam.

Did you see me using the word "factories" there?

No, and there is a reason for that.

If I were being specific, I might start out regarding the fact that Hai Phong was one of the prohibited zones.  Or, I might start out with the words "depots" and "port facilities".
Logged

--

Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #34 on: January 19, 2009, 00:10:32 EST »

On a whole air power in Vietnam proved highly cost prohibitive for their limited effectiveness and the cost of the US air war over Vietnam was a factor in the US economic crisis in 1970's.  What made them highely ineffective was most of the time they couldn't identify enemy troop positions from the ground let alone the air while the infrastructure of Vietnam was basic and easily repaired, also as the war dragged on North Vietnam was switching for bicycle convoys to off-road truck convoys (thanks to growing military aid from the U.S.S.R)  thus supplies were actually moving with more ease as the war dragged on even with the US bombing campaign.

Why are you unable to actually read postings before replying to them?
I do

Be nice if you showed evidence of it from time to time, like not making claims that were already addressed.

Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
When used against large force movements, (such as major PAVN offensives), USAF/USN air strikes were devastating.  Especially noted for it's effectiveness was the AC-47 and it's follow-on aircraft, (the AC-119 and the AC-130)[1].
The US was mostly fighting against the PLAF that mostly fled the battlefield long before air support arrived and were mostly fighting extremely close to US forces under the cover of the jungle canopy.

Psy, the military wing of the PLAF _ceased to exist_ in 1968 except as a PAVN fiction.

Even before then, the war was not restricted to squad and platoon level actions.  (Of course, the near unblemished record the US had in larger actions does not fit within your mythology, so the extreme left likes to pretend they didn't happen.)

The claim that the Vietnam war was won by guerrilla fighters is, like all such claims, a myth. 
And your point is?  Even when the PLAF became a puppet of the NVA if was still a ground based fighting force.

Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
In more strategic uses, the effect was more limited because _THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO ATTACK MOST OF THE IMPORTANT TARGETS_.  Saying that air strikes are of limited effectiveness on poor targets for air strikes does not address the fact that the problem was target restrictions.
Most of the industrial capacity for the war effort was in the U.S.S.R and bombing the U.S.S.R would have drastically escalated the Vietnam war.  As for the of limit on targets in North Vietnam they were not that strategic, and this was proven when the US did bomb them later in the war and it didn't significantly harm North Vietnam's military strength and mostly just caused huge shortages for civilians in North Vietnam that allowed the U.S.S.R to greatly increase aid to North Vietnam.

Did you see me using the word "factories" there?

No, and there is a reason for that.

If I were being specific, I might start out regarding the fact that Hai Phong was one of the prohibited zones.  Or, I might start out with the words "depots" and "port facilities".
Considering they did okay with the giant bottleneck of bicycle supply convoys before getting trucks from Russia, I think the inconvenience of unloading ships off port (if bombers were able to destroy the ports) wouldn't have hindered the North's flow of supplies much.
Logged
rwpikul
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1961


« Reply #35 on: January 19, 2009, 22:13:23 EST »

When used against large force movements, (such as major PAVN offensives), USAF/USN air strikes were devastating.  Especially noted for it's effectiveness was the AC-47 and it's follow-on aircraft, (the AC-119 and the AC-130)[1].
The US was mostly fighting against the PLAF that mostly fled the battlefield long before air support arrived and were mostly fighting extremely close to US forces under the cover of the jungle canopy.

Psy, the military wing of the PLAF _ceased to exist_ in 1968 except as a PAVN fiction.

Even before then, the war was not restricted to squad and platoon level actions.  (Of course, the near unblemished record the US had in larger actions does not fit within your mythology, so the extreme left likes to pretend they didn't happen.)

The claim that the Vietnam war was won by guerrilla fighters is, like all such claims, a myth. 
And your point is?  Even when the PLAF became a puppet of the NVA if was still a ground based fighting force.

What part of that didn't you understand?

Or did you simply stop reading after one sentence, and missed the little fact that the Vietnam war was full of large force operations, and the the US almost always won them handily?  The 'war of patrols', while not nonexistent, is greatly overblown.

(You keep claiming to read what you reply to, but then you go right back to missing major points and clearly not understanding the one you do respond to.)

Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Most of the industrial capacity for the war effort was in the U.S.S.R and bombing the U.S.S.R would have drastically escalated the Vietnam war.  As for the of limit on targets in North Vietnam they were not that strategic, and this was proven when the US did bomb them later in the war and it didn't significantly harm North Vietnam's military strength and mostly just caused huge shortages for civilians in North Vietnam that allowed the U.S.S.R to greatly increase aid to North Vietnam.

Did you see me using the word "factories" there?

No, and there is a reason for that.

If I were being specific, I might start out regarding the fact that Hai Phong was one of the prohibited zones.  Or, I might start out with the words "depots" and "port facilities".
Considering they did okay with the giant bottleneck of bicycle supply convoys before getting trucks from Russia, I think the inconvenience of unloading ships off port (if bombers were able to destroy the ports) wouldn't have hindered the North's flow of supplies much.

What do you call a freighter sitting off shore slowly offloading into small boats?

Targets.

Even avoiding attacks on the freighter itself, (barring 'unfortunate accidents'), you have a bunch of easy to sink boats wallowing with cargo.


You also miss the little fact that North Vietnam protected its depots by putting them in areas the US would not attack. 
Logged

--

Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #36 on: January 20, 2009, 00:23:08 EST »

When used against large force movements, (such as major PAVN offensives), USAF/USN air strikes were devastating.  Especially noted for it's effectiveness was the AC-47 and it's follow-on aircraft, (the AC-119 and the AC-130)[1].
The US was mostly fighting against the PLAF that mostly fled the battlefield long before air support arrived and were mostly fighting extremely close to US forces under the cover of the jungle canopy.

Psy, the military wing of the PLAF _ceased to exist_ in 1968 except as a PAVN fiction.

Even before then, the war was not restricted to squad and platoon level actions.  (Of course, the near unblemished record the US had in larger actions does not fit within your mythology, so the extreme left likes to pretend they didn't happen.)

The claim that the Vietnam war was won by guerrilla fighters is, like all such claims, a myth. 
And your point is?  Even when the PLAF became a puppet of the NVA if was still a ground based fighting force.

What part of that didn't you understand?

Or did you simply stop reading after one sentence, and missed the little fact that the Vietnam war was full of large force operations, and the the US almost always won them handily?  The 'war of patrols', while not nonexistent, is greatly overblown.

(You keep claiming to read what you reply to, but then you go right back to missing major points and clearly not understanding the one you do respond to.)
Did you miss the fact we are talking about ground forces playing the primary role in the war?

Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Most of the industrial capacity for the war effort was in the U.S.S.R and bombing the U.S.S.R would have drastically escalated the Vietnam war.  As for the of limit on targets in North Vietnam they were not that strategic, and this was proven when the US did bomb them later in the war and it didn't significantly harm North Vietnam's military strength and mostly just caused huge shortages for civilians in North Vietnam that allowed the U.S.S.R to greatly increase aid to North Vietnam.

Did you see me using the word "factories" there?

No, and there is a reason for that.

If I were being specific, I might start out regarding the fact that Hai Phong was one of the prohibited zones.  Or, I might start out with the words "depots" and "port facilities".
Considering they did okay with the giant bottleneck of bicycle supply convoys before getting trucks from Russia, I think the inconvenience of unloading ships off port (if bombers were able to destroy the ports) wouldn't have hindered the North's flow of supplies much.

What do you call a freighter sitting off shore slowly offloading into small boats?

Targets.

Even avoiding attacks on the freighter itself, (barring 'unfortunate accidents'), you have a bunch of easy to sink boats wallowing with cargo.


You also miss the little fact that North Vietnam protected its depots by putting them in areas the US would not attack. 
Lets see, civilian Russian ships flying the Soviet flag that officially were not engaged in combat, not only would it be a war crime for the US to target those ships but would give the excuse for Russia to move warships into the region to defend their ships while the ships are off-loading, then there was the risk that China could have intervened like they did in the Korean War and just overwhelm US positions in South Vietnam with shear numbers of troops.  Then you had the risk that it could escalate like the Cuban missile crisis via Russia in response deploying tactical nuclear systems to defend their ships and you can image what would have happened if Russia warships fired tactical nuclear missiles at US warships off the coast of North Vietnam in response for US warships getting too close to them, the CIA already knew that Russian subs were ready to launch tactical nuclear torpedoes at the US block aid during the Cuban missile crisis.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2009, 00:26:10 EST by Psy » Logged
rwpikul
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1961


« Reply #37 on: January 20, 2009, 20:43:44 EST »

Psy, the military wing of the PLAF _ceased to exist_ in 1968 except as a PAVN fiction.

Even before then, the war was not restricted to squad and platoon level actions.  (Of course, the near unblemished record the US had in larger actions does not fit within your mythology, so the extreme left likes to pretend they didn't happen.)

The claim that the Vietnam war was won by guerrilla fighters is, like all such claims, a myth. 
And your point is?  Even when the PLAF became a puppet of the NVA if was still a ground based fighting force.

What part of that didn't you understand?

Or did you simply stop reading after one sentence, and missed the little fact that the Vietnam war was full of large force operations, and the the US almost always won them handily?  The 'war of patrols', while not nonexistent, is greatly overblown.

(You keep claiming to read what you reply to, but then you go right back to missing major points and clearly not understanding the one you do respond to.)
Did you miss the fact we are talking about ground forces playing the primary role in the war?

Don't lie:

You made a claim regarding the effectiveness of air support in Vietnam, a claim which was contrary to reality.

You attempted to defend your claim by alluding to the mythical Vietnam War of an near exclusively guerrilla and small unit conflict.  You also repeatedly ignored things being pointed out to you, such as here where you complain about the importance of ground forces being ignored in passages that are entirely about those ground forces.

Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
If I were being specific, I might start out regarding the fact that Hai Phong was one of the prohibited zones.  Or, I might start out with the words "depots" and "port facilities".
Considering they did okay with the giant bottleneck of bicycle supply convoys before getting trucks from Russia, I think the inconvenience of unloading ships off port (if bombers were able to destroy the ports) wouldn't have hindered the North's flow of supplies much.

What do you call a freighter sitting off shore slowly offloading into small boats?

Targets.

Even avoiding attacks on the freighter itself, (barring 'unfortunate accidents'), you have a bunch of easy to sink boats wallowing with cargo.


You also miss the little fact that North Vietnam protected its depots by putting them in areas the US would not attack. 
Lets see, civilian Russian ships flying the Soviet flag that officially were not engaged in combat, not only would it be a war crime for the US to target those ships

BZZZT *WRONG*

When you sail into a war zone _carrying contraband_ you instantly make yourself a legal target.  In reality, had the US not tied their own hands in basically pretending that North Vietnam was not a belligerent, incoming ships would have been stopped and boarded by the US Navy and any contraband either confiscated, (and either purchased or returned at the end of hostilities), or destroyed, (with compensation).

And _AGAIN_ you fail to read what you are replying to.  I also have to wonder if you know what a depot is.
Logged

--

Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #38 on: January 20, 2009, 23:16:43 EST »

Psy, the military wing of the PLAF _ceased to exist_ in 1968 except as a PAVN fiction.

Even before then, the war was not restricted to squad and platoon level actions.  (Of course, the near unblemished record the US had in larger actions does not fit within your mythology, so the extreme left likes to pretend they didn't happen.)

The claim that the Vietnam war was won by guerrilla fighters is, like all such claims, a myth. 
And your point is?  Even when the PLAF became a puppet of the NVA if was still a ground based fighting force.

What part of that didn't you understand?

Or did you simply stop reading after one sentence, and missed the little fact that the Vietnam war was full of large force operations, and the the US almost always won them handily?  The 'war of patrols', while not nonexistent, is greatly overblown.

(You keep claiming to read what you reply to, but then you go right back to missing major points and clearly not understanding the one you do respond to.)
Did you miss the fact we are talking about ground forces playing the primary role in the war?

Don't lie:

You made a claim regarding the effectiveness of air support in Vietnam, a claim which was contrary to reality.
You do know General William Westmoreland and Army Chief of Staff Harold K. Johnson both have stated that US air power during the Vietnam war was mostly ineffective?

Quote from: rwpikul
You attempted to defend your claim by alluding to the mythical Vietnam War of an near exclusively guerrilla and small unit conflict.  You also repeatedly ignored things being pointed out to you, such as here where you complain about the importance of ground forces being ignored in passages that are entirely about those ground forces.
For the most it was and the PLAF till the Tet offensive mostly wanted to stick with limited hit and run engagements against lone US patrols as it worked, they proved they could roll over lone US patrols and leave the battlefield before US reinforcement arrived and large attacks against US always ended in failure for the PLAF.

Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
If I were being specific, I might start out regarding the fact that Hai Phong was one of the prohibited zones.  Or, I might start out with the words "depots" and "port facilities".
Considering they did okay with the giant bottleneck of bicycle supply convoys before getting trucks from Russia, I think the inconvenience of unloading ships off port (if bombers were able to destroy the ports) wouldn't have hindered the North's flow of supplies much.

What do you call a freighter sitting off shore slowly offloading into small boats?

Targets.

Even avoiding attacks on the freighter itself, (barring 'unfortunate accidents'), you have a bunch of easy to sink boats wallowing with cargo.


You also miss the little fact that North Vietnam protected its depots by putting them in areas the US would not attack. 
Lets see, civilian Russian ships flying the Soviet flag that officially were not engaged in combat, not only would it be a war crime for the US to target those ships

BZZZT *WRONG*

When you sail into a war zone _carrying contraband_ you instantly make yourself a legal target.

At the time the time North Vietnam was not officially part of the conflict and the US would have had to prove to the UN that they were before attacking arms shipments to North Vietnam.

Quote from: rwpikul
In reality, had the US not tied their own hands in basically pretending that North Vietnam was not a belligerent, incoming ships would have been stopped and boarded by the US Navy and any contraband either confiscated, (and either purchased or returned at the end of hostilities), or destroyed, (with compensation).
.
You do know South Vietnam was the belligerent right?  According to the UN there the division of North and South Vietnam was only to separate French and nationalist forces, there was suppose to be a vote to unify Vietnam yet South Vietnam stopped the election when polls showed Ho Chi Minh would have won the election, this created the NLF that fought to end the US occupation of Vietnam (as South Vietnam was a puppet of the USA so the NLF blamed the US for stopping the election) that North Vietnam got involved with.

Quote from: rwpikul
And _AGAIN_ you fail to read what you are replying to.  I also have to wonder if you know what a depot is
You assume attacking the depots would have disrupted the supply line significantly yet the PLAF had so much stockpiles they actually thought large attacks were viable (they weren't), attacking large depots in North Vietnam wouldn't have effected the caches of supplies already in South Vietnam.
Logged
rwpikul
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1961


« Reply #39 on: January 21, 2009, 21:17:38 EST »

What part of that didn't you understand?

Or did you simply stop reading after one sentence, and missed the little fact that the Vietnam war was full of large force operations, and the the US almost always won them handily?  The 'war of patrols', while not nonexistent, is greatly overblown.

(You keep claiming to read what you reply to, but then you go right back to missing major points and clearly not understanding the one you do respond to.)
Did you miss the fact we are talking about ground forces playing the primary role in the war?

Don't lie:

You made a claim regarding the effectiveness of air support in Vietnam, a claim which was contrary to reality.
You do know General William Westmoreland and Army Chief of Staff Harold K. Johnson both have stated that US air power during the Vietnam war was mostly ineffective?

They were speaking of _strategic_ air power.

Parroting part of my position, misrepresenting it, and pretending it counters other parts of my position is dishonest.

Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
You attempted to defend your claim by alluding to the mythical Vietnam War of an near exclusively guerrilla and small unit conflict.  You also repeatedly ignored things being pointed out to you, such as here where you complain about the importance of ground forces being ignored in passages that are entirely about those ground forces.
For the most it was and the PLAF till the Tet offensive mostly wanted to stick with limited hit and run engagements against lone US patrols as it worked, they proved they could roll over lone US patrols and leave the battlefield before US reinforcement arrived and large attacks against US always ended in failure for the PLAF.

You're getting better, although you are still falling for the myth that the PLAF won most small force engagements.

You also need to learn a bit more about the Vietnam War:  The PLAF often deployed in Brigade strength, and even before Tet the PAVN would engage with up to Divisional strength.

Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Lets see, civilian Russian ships flying the Soviet flag that officially were not engaged in combat, not only would it be a war crime for the US to target those ships

BZZZT *WRONG*

When you sail into a war zone _carrying contraband_ you instantly make yourself a legal target.

At the time the time North Vietnam was not officially part of the conflict and the US would have had to prove to the UN that they were before attacking arms shipments to North Vietnam.

Psy, US combat involvement was predicated on North Vietnamese involvement, and included attacks on North Vietnamese targets.

Your attempt to ignore two thirds of the time the US was involved in combat is noted, and your concession that North Vietnam was part of the conflict is accepted.

Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
In reality, had the US not tied their own hands in basically pretending that North Vietnam was not a belligerent, incoming ships would have been stopped and boarded by the US Navy and any contraband either confiscated, (and either purchased or returned at the end of hostilities), or destroyed, (with compensation).
.
You do know South Vietnam was the belligerent right?

Of course they were a belligerent, so was the US.  _Everyone_ participating in a war is a belligerent.

Unlike you, I know what the term 'belligerent' means. 

Quote from: rwpikul
And _AGAIN_ you fail to read what you are replying to.  I also have to wonder if you know what a depot is
You assume attacking the depots would have disrupted the supply line significantly yet the PLAF had so much stockpiles they actually thought large attacks were viable (they weren't), attacking large depots in North Vietnam wouldn't have effected the caches of supplies already in South Vietnam.
[/quote]

Cutting off the supplies traps the PLAF in guerrilla actions, (which can never do more than avoid losing), and limits the ability of the PAVN to become involved.

(You're grasping at straws, and you know it:  If you actually though this was a strong argument, you wouldn't have had to have your avoidance of the issue pointed out to you twice.)
Logged

--

Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #40 on: January 21, 2009, 21:52:53 EST »

What part of that didn't you understand?

Or did you simply stop reading after one sentence, and missed the little fact that the Vietnam war was full of large force operations, and the the US almost always won them handily?  The 'war of patrols', while not nonexistent, is greatly overblown.

(You keep claiming to read what you reply to, but then you go right back to missing major points and clearly not understanding the one you do respond to.)
Did you miss the fact we are talking about ground forces playing the primary role in the war?

Don't lie:

You made a claim regarding the effectiveness of air support in Vietnam, a claim which was contrary to reality.
You do know General William Westmoreland and Army Chief of Staff Harold K. Johnson both have stated that US air power during the Vietnam war was mostly ineffective?

They were speaking of _strategic_ air power.

Parroting part of my position, misrepresenting it, and pretending it counters other parts of my position is dishonest.
Close Air support has the problem of finding targets in time and the U.S.S.R intervention in Afganistan showed that they are extremely vulnerable when they fly over hidden enemy positions as their only real defense is a strong offense, meaning whenever helicopter pilots were against small groups of troops and they spotted enemy troops first they would always win the engagement yet whenever they didn't and the enemy had modern anti-air weaponry the helicopter would mostly be at least severely damaged before it even had a chance to return fire.

Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
You attempted to defend your claim by alluding to the mythical Vietnam War of an near exclusively guerrilla and small unit conflict.  You also repeatedly ignored things being pointed out to you, such as here where you complain about the importance of ground forces being ignored in passages that are entirely about those ground forces.
For the most it was and the PLAF till the Tet offensive mostly wanted to stick with limited hit and run engagements against lone US patrols as it worked, they proved they could roll over lone US patrols and leave the battlefield before US reinforcement arrived and large attacks against US always ended in failure for the PLAF.

You're getting better, although you are still falling for the myth that the PLAF won most small force engagements.


You also need to learn a bit more about the Vietnam War:  The PLAF often deployed in Brigade strength, and even before Tet the PAVN would engage with up to Divisional strength.
That was still small enough to evade detection from the air.

Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Lets see, civilian Russian ships flying the Soviet flag that officially were not engaged in combat, not only would it be a war crime for the US to target those ships

BZZZT *WRONG*

When you sail into a war zone _carrying contraband_ you instantly make yourself a legal target.

At the time the time North Vietnam was not officially part of the conflict and the US would have had to prove to the UN that they were before attacking arms shipments to North Vietnam.

Psy, US combat involvement was predicated on North Vietnamese involvement, and included attacks on North Vietnamese targets.
No US combat involvement was predicated by nationalists independent of North Vietnam attacking their South Vietnam puppet.

Quote from: rwpikul
Your attempt to ignore two thirds of the time the US was involved in combat is noted, and your concession that North Vietnam was part of the conflict is accepted.
You are blending the entire Vietnam war into a single war condition.

Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
In reality, had the US not tied their own hands in basically pretending that North Vietnam was not a belligerent, incoming ships would have been stopped and boarded by the US Navy and any contraband either confiscated, (and either purchased or returned at the end of hostilities), or destroyed, (with compensation).
.
You do know South Vietnam was the belligerent right?

Of course they were a belligerent, so was the US.  _Everyone_ participating in a war is a belligerent.

Unlike you, I know what the term 'belligerent' means. 
I'll should reword that, you do know that South Vietnam was the first belligerent since the cease fire between the nationalists and the French?

Quote from: rwpikul
Cutting off the supplies traps the PLAF in guerrilla actions, (which can never do more than avoid losing), and limits the ability of the PAVN to become involved.
Guerrilla actions can slowly bleed the enemy to the point they have to withdrawal their occupying forces. 
« Last Edit: January 22, 2009, 00:03:40 EST by Psy » Logged
rwpikul
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1961


« Reply #41 on: January 23, 2009, 01:00:38 EST »

You made a claim regarding the effectiveness of air support in Vietnam, a claim which was contrary to reality.
You do know General William Westmoreland and Army Chief of Staff Harold K. Johnson both have stated that US air power during the Vietnam war was mostly ineffective?

They were speaking of _strategic_ air power.

Parroting part of my position, misrepresenting it, and pretending it counters other parts of my position is dishonest.
Close Air support has the problem of finding targets in time and the U.S.S.R intervention in Afganistan showed that they are extremely vulnerable when they fly over hidden enemy positions as their only real defense is a strong offense, meaning whenever helicopter pilots were against small groups of troops and they spotted enemy troops first they would always win the engagement yet whenever they didn't and the enemy had modern anti-air weaponry the helicopter would mostly be at least severely damaged before it even had a chance to return fire.

The PAVN did not have effective portable air defence.

You are also _still_ clinging to the myth of small units.

Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
You attempted to defend your claim by alluding to the mythical Vietnam War of an near exclusively guerrilla and small unit conflict.  You also repeatedly ignored things being pointed out to you, such as here where you complain about the importance of ground forces being ignored in passages that are entirely about those ground forces.
For the most it was and the PLAF till the Tet offensive mostly wanted to stick with limited hit and run engagements against lone US patrols as it worked, they proved they could roll over lone US patrols and leave the battlefield before US reinforcement arrived and large attacks against US always ended in failure for the PLAF.

You're getting better, although you are still falling for the myth that the PLAF won most small force engagements.


You also need to learn a bit more about the Vietnam War:  The PLAF often deployed in Brigade strength, and even before Tet the PAVN would engage with up to Divisional strength.
That was still small enough to evade detection from the air.

Perhaps you should spend less time arguing, and more time reading what actually happened in those battles:  Not only could aircraft find those formations, they _did_ find those formations and _pounded_ them.

This is why the causality figures from the larger battles often ended up with figures like:  PAVN 1500KIA/MIA, US 120KIA/MIA.

Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
Psy, US combat involvement was predicated on North Vietnamese involvement, and included attacks on North Vietnamese targets.
No US combat involvement was predicated by nationalists independent of North Vietnam attacking their South Vietnam puppet.

Quote
Whereas naval units of the Communist regime in Vietnam, in violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law, have deliberately and repeatedly attacked United States naval vessels lawfully present in international waters, and have thereby created a serious threat to international peace; and

Whereas theses attacks are part of a deliberate and systematic campaign of aggression that the Communist regime in North Vietnam has been waging against its neighbors and the nations joined with them in the collective defense of their freedom;

The _US CONGRESS_ and _LYNDON B. JOHNSON_ disagree with you.

(To forestall the obvious rejoinder:  Yes, LBJ was not exactly telling the truth about what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin.)

Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
Your attempt to ignore two thirds of the time the US was involved in combat is noted, and your concession that North Vietnam was part of the conflict is accepted.
You are blending the entire Vietnam war into a single war condition.

Are you lying, illiterate, or are you just forgetting things again?

PAVN incursions into the South long predated Tet, and even predated large US ground force deployments.

Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
In reality, had the US not tied their own hands in basically pretending that North Vietnam was not a belligerent, incoming ships would have been stopped and boarded by the US Navy and any contraband either confiscated, (and either purchased or returned at the end of hostilities), or destroyed, (with compensation).
.
You do know South Vietnam was the belligerent right?

Of course they were a belligerent, so was the US.  _Everyone_ participating in a war is a belligerent.

Unlike you, I know what the term 'belligerent' means. 
I'll should reword that, you do know that South Vietnam was the first belligerent since the cease fire between the nationalists and the French?

Rewording it does not make it any more relevant.

It doesn't matter who started things:  If the other guy controls the sea lanes leading to your ports, he can stop and seize any war materials anyone tries to ship to you.  If ships attempt to run the blockade, they can be sunk out of hand.

Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
Cutting off the supplies traps the PLAF in guerrilla actions, (which can never do more than avoid losing), and limits the ability of the PAVN to become involved.
Guerrilla actions can slowly bleed the enemy to the point they have to withdrawal their occupying forces. 

What you are thinking of is having the guerrillas hang on not losing until another avenue to win opens up.

No guerrilla force has _ever_ won a war, winning has always come at the hands of politics or switching to conventional warfare.
Logged

--

Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #42 on: January 23, 2009, 12:01:47 EST »

You made a claim regarding the effectiveness of air support in Vietnam, a claim which was contrary to reality.
You do know General William Westmoreland and Army Chief of Staff Harold K. Johnson both have stated that US air power during the Vietnam war was mostly ineffective?

They were speaking of _strategic_ air power.

Parroting part of my position, misrepresenting it, and pretending it counters other parts of my position is dishonest.
Close Air support has the problem of finding targets in time and the U.S.S.R intervention in Afganistan showed that they are extremely vulnerable when they fly over hidden enemy positions as their only real defense is a strong offense, meaning whenever helicopter pilots were against small groups of troops and they spotted enemy troops first they would always win the engagement yet whenever they didn't and the enemy had modern anti-air weaponry the helicopter would mostly be at least severely damaged before it even had a chance to return fire.

The PAVN did not have effective portable air defence.

You are also _still_ clinging to the myth of small units.
The NVA did get shoulder fired anti-air missile launchers late in the war, and they did start bringing down US helicopters with great ease, also there is no reason why they couldn't have been issued to the PLAF to strike a crippling blow to the US military by downing a large number of helicopters.

Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
You attempted to defend your claim by alluding to the mythical Vietnam War of an near exclusively guerrilla and small unit conflict.  You also repeatedly ignored things being pointed out to you, such as here where you complain about the importance of ground forces being ignored in passages that are entirely about those ground forces.
For the most it was and the PLAF till the Tet offensive mostly wanted to stick with limited hit and run engagements against lone US patrols as it worked, they proved they could roll over lone US patrols and leave the battlefield before US reinforcement arrived and large attacks against US always ended in failure for the PLAF.

You're getting better, although you are still falling for the myth that the PLAF won most small force engagements.


You also need to learn a bit more about the Vietnam War:  The PLAF often deployed in Brigade strength, and even before Tet the PAVN would engage with up to Divisional strength.
That was still small enough to evade detection from the air.

Perhaps you should spend less time arguing, and more time reading what actually happened in those battles:  Not only could aircraft find those formations, they _did_ find those formations and _pounded_ them.

This is why the causality figures from the larger battles often ended up with figures like:  PAVN 1500KIA/MIA, US 120KIA/MIA.
The US army had no choice by have patrols as they couldn't even spot enemy divisions from the air.  They also were able to spot divisions from the air when there in the open, this is why there was booth the NVA and PLAF wanted to stay in the jungles they were winning the jungles.

Also when you look at the overall casualties while the PLAF and NVA it didn't matter, the war with France show Vietnam was more then willing to win through attrition while absorbing huge losses.

Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
Psy, US combat involvement was predicated on North Vietnamese involvement, and included attacks on North Vietnamese targets.
No US combat involvement was predicated by nationalists independent of North Vietnam attacking their South Vietnam puppet.

Quote
Whereas naval units of the Communist regime in Vietnam, in violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law, have deliberately and repeatedly attacked United States naval vessels lawfully present in international waters, and have thereby created a serious threat to international peace; and

Whereas theses attacks are part of a deliberate and systematic campaign of aggression that the Communist regime in North Vietnam has been waging against its neighbors and the nations joined with them in the collective defense of their freedom;

The _US CONGRESS_ and _LYNDON B. JOHNSON_ disagree with you.

(To forestall the obvious rejoinder:  Yes, LBJ was not exactly telling the truth about what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin.)
LBJ said privitaly "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there"

Also the US occupation of South Vietnam was an act of aggression since the peace treaty stated clearly that the French would leave, there would be elections and there would a unified Vietnam.  Since South Vietnam became a puppet of the USA basically illegally occupied Vietnam thus North Vietnam had the legal right to defend against US aggression against Vietnam as they would have probably have won the reunification election.

Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
Your attempt to ignore two thirds of the time the US was involved in combat is noted, and your concession that North Vietnam was part of the conflict is accepted.
You are blending the entire Vietnam war into a single war condition.

Are you lying, illiterate, or are you just forgetting things again?

PAVN incursions into the South long predated Tet, and even predated large US ground force deployments.
Again you are bleeding the entire Vietnam war in a single war condition, you ignore that US ground forces fired on PLAF way before the North was involved, you ignore that the US stopped the unification election through their South Vietnam puppet. 

Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
I'll should reword that, you do know that South Vietnam was the first belligerent since the cease fire between the nationalists and the French?

Rewording it does not make it any more relevant.

It doesn't matter who started things:  If the other guy controls the sea lanes leading to your ports, he can stop and seize any war materials anyone tries to ship to you.  If ships attempt to run the blockade, they can be sunk out of hand.
That assume the U.S.S.R wouldn't have started escorting them with warships and setting up screens of destroyers to prevent US warships from getting close to the cargo ships.  What would the US do then, run to the UN?  The US didn't have a leg to stand on in the UN over Vietnam.  The U.S.S.R could have blocked US warships legally as the US was in a illegal war with Vietnam.

Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
Cutting off the supplies traps the PLAF in guerrilla actions, (which can never do more than avoid losing), and limits the ability of the PAVN to become involved.
Guerrilla actions can slowly bleed the enemy to the point they have to withdrawal their occupying forces. 

What you are thinking of is having the guerrillas hang on not losing until another avenue to win opens up.

No guerrilla force has _ever_ won a war, winning has always come at the hands of politics or switching to conventional warfare.
Bleeding the enemies army to withdrawal is political.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2009, 12:06:58 EST by Psy » Logged
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #43 on: January 23, 2009, 16:21:31 EST »

As much as I hate entering into these frays, I feel it useful to point out one of the old adages in military theory is that war -is- politics.
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
rwpikul
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1961


« Reply #44 on: January 23, 2009, 23:46:37 EST »

They were speaking of _strategic_ air power.

Parroting part of my position, misrepresenting it, and pretending it counters other parts of my position is dishonest.
Close Air support has the problem of finding targets in time and the U.S.S.R intervention in Afganistan showed that they are extremely vulnerable when they fly over hidden enemy positions as their only real defense is a strong offense, meaning whenever helicopter pilots were against small groups of troops and they spotted enemy troops first they would always win the engagement yet whenever they didn't and the enemy had modern anti-air weaponry the helicopter would mostly be at least severely damaged before it even had a chance to return fire.

The PAVN did not have effective portable air defence.

You are also _still_ clinging to the myth of small units.
The NVA did get shoulder fired anti-air missile launchers late in the war, and they did start bringing down US helicopters with great ease, also there is no reason why they couldn't have been issued to the PLAF to strike a crippling blow to the US military by downing a large number of helicopters.

They couldn't 'have been issued to the PLAF' because they didn't start getting SA-7s until 1972, (and even assuming earlier supply, the PLAF couldn't get any because they didn't even enter Soviet service until 1968).

As for their effectiveness:  They were highly effective for about three months, (for rather limited values of highly effective, only scoring a kill on 20-25% of hits, often a second hit on an already damaged aircraft), the deployment of flare dispensers and IR strobes rendered them nearly useless.

Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
You also need to learn a bit more about the Vietnam War:  The PLAF often deployed in Brigade strength, and even before Tet the PAVN would engage with up to Divisional strength.
That was still small enough to evade detection from the air.

Perhaps you should spend less time arguing, and more time reading what actually happened in those battles:  Not only could aircraft find those formations, they _did_ find those formations and _pounded_ them.

This is why the causality figures from the larger battles often ended up with figures like:  PAVN 1500KIA/MIA, US 120KIA/MIA.
The US army had no choice by have patrols as they couldn't even spot enemy divisions from the air.  They also were able to spot divisions from the air when there in the open, this is why there was booth the NVA and PLAF wanted to stay in the jungles they were winning the jungles.

Repeating a false claim does not make it any more true the second time around.

When the PLAF engaged in large operations, and most of the time the PAVN did anything, they were set-piece battles with the goal of actually capturing something.  You can't do that hiding in the jungle, (which didn't work for large forces anyway, as things like la Drang and White Wing demonstrated).

Quote from: Psy
Also when you look at the overall casualties while the PLAF and NVA it didn't matter, the war with France show Vietnam was more then willing to win through attrition while absorbing huge losses.

The Vietminh were not taking 10:1 causality ratios, and was facing a force smaller than themselves.

The PLAF/PAVN was taking those 10:1 ratios, (when tangling with the US, set piece battles against the ARVN were about even), and was facing a force twice its size.

Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
Psy, US combat involvement was predicated on North Vietnamese involvement, and included attacks on North Vietnamese targets.
No US combat involvement was predicated by nationalists independent of North Vietnam attacking their South Vietnam puppet.

Quote
Whereas naval units of the Communist regime in Vietnam, in violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law, have deliberately and repeatedly attacked United States naval vessels lawfully present in international waters, and have thereby created a serious threat to international peace; and

Whereas theses attacks are part of a deliberate and systematic campaign of aggression that the Communist regime in North Vietnam has been waging against its neighbors and the nations joined with them in the collective defense of their freedom;

The _US CONGRESS_ and _LYNDON B. JOHNSON_ disagree with you.

(To forestall the obvious rejoinder:  Yes, LBJ was not exactly telling the truth about what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin.)
LBJ said privitaly "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there"

Yes, we all know LBJ was lying through his teeth to get the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.  That would be why _I POINTED THAT OUT_, and you even quoted me doing it _A SINGLE LINE ABOVE_ you pretending that pointing it out is somehow a response to what I said.

Quote from: Psy
Also the US occupation of South Vietnam was an act of aggression since the peace treaty stated clearly that the French would leave, there would be elections and there would a unified Vietnam.  Since South Vietnam became a puppet of the USA basically illegally occupied Vietnam thus North Vietnam had the legal right to defend against US aggression against Vietnam as they would have probably have won the reunification election.

The State of Vietnam was never signatory to the Geneva Accords.

Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
Your attempt to ignore two thirds of the time the US was involved in combat is noted, and your concession that North Vietnam was part of the conflict is accepted.
You are blending the entire Vietnam war into a single war condition.

Are you lying, illiterate, or are you just forgetting things again?

PAVN incursions into the South long predated Tet, and even predated large US ground force deployments.
Again you are bleeding the entire Vietnam war in a single war condition,

Are you lying, illiterate, or are you just forgetting things again?  Or are you simply a moron who does not understand that a war can consist of more than one type of fighting.

If you were to actually _READ_ and _UNDERSTAND_ my posts you would know that I had pointed out that the Vietnam War included a range of ground conflicts, from the patrol battles that communist apologists and Hollywood pretend was the whole of the war, up to large set piece battles on the divisional scale.

You are on notice, again:  Keep this dishonest shit up and it will count as a blanket concession that you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about and that you are thus conceding the discussion.

Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
I'll should reword that, you do know that South Vietnam was the first belligerent since the cease fire between the nationalists and the French?

Rewording it does not make it any more relevant.

It doesn't matter who started things:  If the other guy controls the sea lanes leading to your ports, he can stop and seize any war materials anyone tries to ship to you.  If ships attempt to run the blockade, they can be sunk out of hand.
That assume the U.S.S.R wouldn't have started escorting them with warships and setting up screens of destroyers to prevent US warships from getting close to the cargo ships.

Well, if the Soviet government wanted to start WWIII....

Quote from: Psy
Quote from: rwpikul
Quote from: Psy
Guerrilla actions can slowly bleed the enemy to the point they have to withdrawal their occupying forces. 

What you are thinking of is having the guerrillas hang on not losing until another avenue to win opens up.

No guerrilla force has _ever_ won a war, winning has always come at the hands of politics or switching to conventional warfare.
Bleeding the enemies army to withdrawal is political.

Except that wasn't what happened.  What turned things in the US was inaccurate reporting about battle results, and atrocities comitted by US forces.
Logged

--

Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!