Why is Stealth So Important?

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
news:wFFMb.20$ce2.7@okepread03...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote
"Gene Storey" wrote

Please provide some evidence that US military officers intended to lose
the war

The war was lost, and officers are in charge of war.

You'll have to do better than that. How did they INTEND to lose it?


It was lost in 1946 when we allowed the French to decolonize.

That is a ridiculous statement.


http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/2...ietnamMACV.asp

Basically, if you fly a B-52 down the same route as the previous three
B-52, and do
it at the same altitude, and with the same waypoints, you and whoever
drew-up the
operation are derelict. The fact that anyone survived is pure luck, and
those that
died were very brave, but very wasted (much as going over the top in the
great war
in the face of machine guns). The way to lose a war is to suffer
casualties so great,
with such waste, the people back home won't want to go, and either burn
their draft
cards, or joined the Reserves.

What claptrap. You are about one notch above that ZZBunker character in
terms of having a grasp of reality. The fact that the early tactics of the
B-52 raids during LBII were flawed had nothing to do with the way the war
progressed. And assigning the qualities of draft resister to *all*, or even
*most*, of the US citizens in the late sixties/early seventies is pure
unadulterated BS. While casualties are never good, the fact is that the
casualty count in Vietnam was much less than that of either WWI or WWII, and
the casualty *rate* was less than that experienced in Korea (given that the
duration of active combat operations in Korea was much less than that
experienced in Vietnam). You need to go back to supporting the policies of
Saddam and Hitler--as ridiculous as those attempts were, you were probably
making more headway with them than with this nonsense.

Brooks