(03-05-2026 11:04 PM)58-56 Wrote:  

(03-05-2026 09:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Trump would have promoted Robin Olds and let him win it. If you don't know about him, it's a great read. It's another one of those things your history professor will never mention. He was a great American fighter pilot!

Read about him? My father flew with him.

Very cool.

(03-05-2026 11:04 PM)58-56 Wrote:  

(03-05-2026 09:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Trump would have promoted Robin Olds and let him win it. If you don't know about him, it's a great read. It's another one of those things your history professor will never mention. He was a great American fighter pilot!

Read about him? My father flew with him.

Mine flew out of NKP and my uncle out of Ubon. They were admirers.

(03-06-2026 12:33 AM)UABFAN23 Wrote:  Still waiting on non-ai slop that proves the US or Israel are taking much of any casualties or lacking interceptions of Iran missle fire.

I think ballistic missile interceptions arent the real key. The real key is launches. Iranian ballistic missile launches are down 86% from first the 24 hours of the war. The reason? The launcher fleet was beaten up badly during the 12 day war and they were only able to rebuild their fleet of launchers back to about 200 at the start of the current blitz. As air power takes out more and more of those launchers---the number of launches will continue to fall.

My second day in Portugal. Neither the newscasts nor the 2 daily newspapers have made a single mention of anything going on in Iran. It's interesting to see news from other countries actually in those other countries.

UAE is considering freezing all Iranian assets. If this happens, this will indefinitely handicap the Iranian regime.

(03-05-2026 09:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-05-2026 09:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-05-2026 08:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2026 08:29 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(03-05-2026 08:05 PM)TripleA Wrote:  For someone born in 1970, who is my oldest daughter's age, and did not cognitively live through the era, what I would say was it was much more complex than you make it out to be.

Point taken. I admit I was just offering a hot take, nothing more.

Quote:a war which everyone knew was unwinnable with a repeat of a DMZ as we learned from Korea

It was unwinnable based on the strategies/tactics the U.S. actually used from 1961-1975. But other strategies and other tactics — non-nuclear tactics, I hasten to add — were readily available and would have resulted in American victory if used at any time prior to (roughly) Nixon’s resignation. By the time Ford stepped in, I admit it was probably just too late.

I’ll leave it there. If there is a thread on this subject maybe I’ll jump in LOL

The whole threat was a broader war if we prosecuted the war reasonably and successfully. The nuclear threat was not from us. The nuclear threat was still the specter of Russian aggression and was palpable following the Cuban Missile Crisis.

To say we could have won it is not in dispute, and our military knew that as well. To say we could win it employing the same restrictions to a similar scenario we faced in Korea (another war which was also winnable by conventional means) was far from encouraging. It is why the CIA conducted operations "allegedly" in Laos and Cambodia, and why all of our command officers wanted to obliterate the Ho Chi Minh Trail and bomb Haiphong Harbor. You can't win if you can't advance and destroy the means of resupply and that resupply was coming down the trail and through Laos and Cambodia.

And again, Nixon's resignation was one event in a panorama of world issues, not the least of which was his previous attempt to "play the China card". It's hard to maintain a threat against the ally of an enemy you are courting for a relationship.

History is great at recording events and lousy at adequately describing the sitz im leben of those events and the public attitudes surrounding it. The question sir, is not did we have the means and ability, but rather why we didn't use them?

I don't think it was "winnable." If we invaded the North, the Chinese would come in again like in Korea. It would have been another stalemate. The Chinese would have thrown in endless men and we didn't have the tech advantage we have now. The North Vietnamese had better artillery than we did. We had to rely on the Air Force.

And the real problem was half the South was for the other side, making it even more difficult.

Of course what LBJ did was criminal. He tied the military's hands behind their back, knew his strategy couldn't win (there are records of that), yet still kept sending our soldiers there to die. Nixon at least started blowing the hell out of them and arranged a peace. But when Congress tied Nixon's hands, the South Vietnamese fell apart.

And the end result ended up not being that bad for us. Cambodia and Laos were the only dominos.

Thats what I think. The S Vietnamese president was a crook and the people disliked him. Add to that the poor political decisions that meant we were never fighting to win---it was just a terrible terrible situation to send our soldiers into. That said, I dont think thats anything like the current situation.

The Vietnam War was lost the moment the U.S. decided to assassinate Ngo Dinh Diem. Out of all the S Vietnamese presidents, he was the only one that could have kept the country together. Each one after him didn't have the iron will to be a strong man - they just wanted to fleece the U.S. and any other aid coming into the country and find a way to go into exile.

Considering that Diem was basically the "tallest midget" among the presidents...the war was probably lost from the get go. But IMHO, Diem probably could have kept the country in order well enough to have created a stalemate.

I've not studied the Vietnam War to the level that I've investigated other parts of our history, but lesson is you cannot fight to preserve a country when the country itself doesn't have the stomach to try to mount a defense - relying almost completely on the U.S. in the case of S Vietnam.

(03-06-2026 06:39 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-05-2026 09:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-05-2026 09:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-05-2026 08:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2026 08:29 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Point taken. I admit I was just offering a hot take, nothing more.

It was unwinnable based on the strategies/tactics the U.S. actually used from 1961-1975. But other strategies and other tactics — non-nuclear tactics, I hasten to add — were readily available and would have resulted in American victory if used at any time prior to (roughly) Nixon’s resignation. By the time Ford stepped in, I admit it was probably just too late.

I’ll leave it there. If there is a thread on this subject maybe I’ll jump in LOL

The whole threat was a broader war if we prosecuted the war reasonably and successfully. The nuclear threat was not from us. The nuclear threat was still the specter of Russian aggression and was palpable following the Cuban Missile Crisis.

To say we could have won it is not in dispute, and our military knew that as well. To say we could win it employing the same restrictions to a similar scenario we faced in Korea (another war which was also winnable by conventional means) was far from encouraging. It is why the CIA conducted operations "allegedly" in Laos and Cambodia, and why all of our command officers wanted to obliterate the Ho Chi Minh Trail and bomb Haiphong Harbor. You can't win if you can't advance and destroy the means of resupply and that resupply was coming down the trail and through Laos and Cambodia.

And again, Nixon's resignation was one event in a panorama of world issues, not the least of which was his previous attempt to "play the China card". It's hard to maintain a threat against the ally of an enemy you are courting for a relationship.

History is great at recording events and lousy at adequately describing the sitz im leben of those events and the public attitudes surrounding it. The question sir, is not did we have the means and ability, but rather why we didn't use them?

I don't think it was "winnable." If we invaded the North, the Chinese would come in again like in Korea. It would have been another stalemate. The Chinese would have thrown in endless men and we didn't have the tech advantage we have now. The North Vietnamese had better artillery than we did. We had to rely on the Air Force.

And the real problem was half the South was for the other side, making it even more difficult.

Of course what LBJ did was criminal. He tied the military's hands behind their back, knew his strategy couldn't win (there are records of that), yet still kept sending our soldiers there to die. Nixon at least started blowing the hell out of them and arranged a peace. But when Congress tied Nixon's hands, the South Vietnamese fell apart.

And the end result ended up not being that bad for us. Cambodia and Laos were the only dominos.

Thats what I think. The S Vietnamese president was a crook and the people disliked him. Add to that the poor political decisions that meant we were never fighting to win---it was just a terrible terrible situation to send our soldiers into. That said, I dont think thats anything like the current situation.

The Vietnam War was lost the moment the U.S. decided to assassinate Ngo Dinh Diem. Out of all the S Vietnamese presidents, he was the only one that could have kept the country together. Each one after him didn't have the iron will to be a strong man - they just wanted to fleece the U.S. and any other aid coming into the country and find a way to go into exile.

Considering that Diem was basically the "tallest midget" among the presidents...the war was probably lost from the get go. But IMHO, Diem probably could have kept the country in order well enough to have created a stalemate.

I've not studied the Vietnam War to the level that I've investigated other parts of our history, but lesson is you cannot fight to preserve a country when the country itself doesn't have the stomach to try to mount a defense - relying almost completely on the U.S. in the case of S Vietnam.

The one thing about this that I took away from my time in the service during that period is that word was going around that the North Vietnamese were within a week or two of quitting, when we threw in the towel.

I have no way of ever verifying that, but it certainly was the word among a lot of vets.

Fox is reporting that Russia is providing targeting info to Iran, as to where our embassies and CIA stations are located, among other things.

In other news, Ukraine is now assisting the US in helping take down unmanned drones. We are using missiles that cost $4M each to shoot down one drone.

Ukraine has a system that costs about $5K to shoot one down.

(03-06-2026 07:11 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Fox is reporting that Russia is providing targeting info to Iran, as to where our embassies and CIA stations are located, among other things.

Fox is also reporting that Ukraine is helping us and our allies in this war to counter Iran's drone arsenal.

Same is true with China. Supposedly China gave Intel of the location of the Abraham Lincoln. It launched the 2 fighter jets that ended up getting shot down.

(03-06-2026 07:12 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(03-06-2026 07:11 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Fox is reporting that Russia is providing targeting info to Iran, as to where our embassies and CIA stations are located, among other things.

Fox is also reporting that Ukraine is helping us and our allies in this war to counter Iran's drone arsenal.

Ha, read my edit above. We were typing at the same time.

"Hate American First" yearning for failure Dems afflicted with TDS may want to skip this triggering post.

As of yesterday,

1. Ballistic missile attacks have decreased by 90% since day one.

2. Drone attacks have decreased by 83% since day one

3. We have destroyed over 30 ships, including an Iranian drone carrier ship about the size of a WWII aircraft carrier.

4. Hegseth said. "The amount of combat power that's still flowing, that's still coming, that we'll be able to project over Iran is multiples of what it currently is right now." Expect an increase in intensity.

5. Moving from destroying existing missiles to destroying their production.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/operati...g-campaign

(03-06-2026 07:00 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-06-2026 06:39 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-05-2026 09:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-05-2026 09:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-05-2026 08:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The whole threat was a broader war if we prosecuted the war reasonably and successfully. The nuclear threat was not from us. The nuclear threat was still the specter of Russian aggression and was palpable following the Cuban Missile Crisis.

To say we could have won it is not in dispute, and our military knew that as well. To say we could win it employing the same restrictions to a similar scenario we faced in Korea (another war which was also winnable by conventional means) was far from encouraging. It is why the CIA conducted operations "allegedly" in Laos and Cambodia, and why all of our command officers wanted to obliterate the Ho Chi Minh Trail and bomb Haiphong Harbor. You can't win if you can't advance and destroy the means of resupply and that resupply was coming down the trail and through Laos and Cambodia.

And again, Nixon's resignation was one event in a panorama of world issues, not the least of which was his previous attempt to "play the China card". It's hard to maintain a threat against the ally of an enemy you are courting for a relationship.

History is great at recording events and lousy at adequately describing the sitz im leben of those events and the public attitudes surrounding it. The question sir, is not did we have the means and ability, but rather why we didn't use them?

I don't think it was "winnable." If we invaded the North, the Chinese would come in again like in Korea. It would have been another stalemate. The Chinese would have thrown in endless men and we didn't have the tech advantage we have now. The North Vietnamese had better artillery than we did. We had to rely on the Air Force.

And the real problem was half the South was for the other side, making it even more difficult.

Of course what LBJ did was criminal. He tied the military's hands behind their back, knew his strategy couldn't win (there are records of that), yet still kept sending our soldiers there to die. Nixon at least started blowing the hell out of them and arranged a peace. But when Congress tied Nixon's hands, the South Vietnamese fell apart.

And the end result ended up not being that bad for us. Cambodia and Laos were the only dominos.

Thats what I think. The S Vietnamese president was a crook and the people disliked him. Add to that the poor political decisions that meant we were never fighting to win---it was just a terrible terrible situation to send our soldiers into. That said, I dont think thats anything like the current situation.

The Vietnam War was lost the moment the U.S. decided to assassinate Ngo Dinh Diem. Out of all the S Vietnamese presidents, he was the only one that could have kept the country together. Each one after him didn't have the iron will to be a strong man - they just wanted to fleece the U.S. and any other aid coming into the country and find a way to go into exile.

Considering that Diem was basically the "tallest midget" among the presidents...the war was probably lost from the get go. But IMHO, Diem probably could have kept the country in order well enough to have created a stalemate.

I've not studied the Vietnam War to the level that I've investigated other parts of our history, but lesson is you cannot fight to preserve a country when the country itself doesn't have the stomach to try to mount a defense - relying almost completely on the U.S. in the case of S Vietnam.

The one thing about this that I took away from my time in the service during that period is that word was going around that the North Vietnamese were within a week or two of quitting, when we threw in the towel.

I have no way of ever verifying that, but it certainly was the word among a lot of vets.

Hard to say if that was hearsay or there was something there. I know some of the Germans at the end of WW1 in the military thought the Kaiser surrendered unnecessarily. Many of those disillusioned Germans later joined the Nazi's. No connection to this conflict or the Vietnam war intended. This post is about the psychology and the fallacy of the sunk cost. I'd imagine most military personnel on the losing end of a conflict where outcome appeared to be still in doubt are susceptible to the sunk cost fallacy.

CNN doing Iranian propaganda now? When Tucker did this in Russia people flipped

(03-06-2026 07:38 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-06-2026 07:00 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-06-2026 06:39 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-05-2026 09:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-05-2026 09:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  I don't think it was "winnable." If we invaded the North, the Chinese would come in again like in Korea. It would have been another stalemate. The Chinese would have thrown in endless men and we didn't have the tech advantage we have now. The North Vietnamese had better artillery than we did. We had to rely on the Air Force.

And the real problem was half the South was for the other side, making it even more difficult.

Of course what LBJ did was criminal. He tied the military's hands behind their back, knew his strategy couldn't win (there are records of that), yet still kept sending our soldiers there to die. Nixon at least started blowing the hell out of them and arranged a peace. But when Congress tied Nixon's hands, the South Vietnamese fell apart.

And the end result ended up not being that bad for us. Cambodia and Laos were the only dominos.

Thats what I think. The S Vietnamese president was a crook and the people disliked him. Add to that the poor political decisions that meant we were never fighting to win---it was just a terrible terrible situation to send our soldiers into. That said, I dont think thats anything like the current situation.

The Vietnam War was lost the moment the U.S. decided to assassinate Ngo Dinh Diem. Out of all the S Vietnamese presidents, he was the only one that could have kept the country together. Each one after him didn't have the iron will to be a strong man - they just wanted to fleece the U.S. and any other aid coming into the country and find a way to go into exile.

Considering that Diem was basically the "tallest midget" among the presidents...the war was probably lost from the get go. But IMHO, Diem probably could have kept the country in order well enough to have created a stalemate.

I've not studied the Vietnam War to the level that I've investigated other parts of our history, but lesson is you cannot fight to preserve a country when the country itself doesn't have the stomach to try to mount a defense - relying almost completely on the U.S. in the case of S Vietnam.

The one thing about this that I took away from my time in the service during that period is that word was going around that the North Vietnamese were within a week or two of quitting, when we threw in the towel.

I have no way of ever verifying that, but it certainly was the word among a lot of vets.

Hard to say if that was hearsay or there was something there. I know some of the Germans at the end of WW1 in the military thought the Kaiser surrendered unnecessarily. Many of those disillusioned Germans later joined the Nazi's. No connection to this conflict or the Vietnam war intended. This post is about the psychology and the fallacy of the sunk cost. I'd imagine most military personnel on the losing end of a conflict where outcome appeared to be still in doubt are susceptible to the sunk cost fallacy.

No way to debunk or verify, and it matters not now. I just found it interesting b/c it was so prevalent at the time.

Trump demands unconditional surrender, including an acceptable leader.

It is a high bar to clear because the current regime will fight to the bitter end, I fear.

(03-06-2026 10:24 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Trump demands unconditional surrender, including an acceptable leader.

It is a high bar to clear because the current regime will fight to the bitter end, I fear.

This is where it could be a good thing to offer the regime an off ramp. They may not take it; however, if your outlook is certain death then why not sow as much carnage as possible? They may refuse the off ramp but if you can give them one where all they get is their life and possibly some creature comforts then maybe some of them take it and bug out. IDK.

(03-06-2026 10:28 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-06-2026 10:24 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Trump demands unconditional surrender, including an acceptable leader.

It is a high bar to clear because the current regime will fight to the bitter end, I fear.

This is where it could be a good thing to offer the regime an off ramp. They may not take it; however, if your outlook is certain death then why not sow as much carnage as possible? They may refuse the off ramp but if you can give them one where all they get is their life and possibly some creature comforts then maybe some of them take it and bug out. IDK.

Russia seems the most likely destination any surviving high ranking regime members will eventually wind up.

I think it's too late for that. Per reports, the Iranians contacted us yesterday and asked to return to negotiations. Trump told them to pound sand. Def too late.

Screw em. Give up and live or don't.