JMS Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 We did not send troops in 51. We didn't send troops in until 60 or 61 I believe.We were providing weapons to the South before we put boots on the ground. Actually we began sending troops into Vietnam in 1950... 9 advisors. And pulled our last troops in 1974. 1950----9 1951----74 1952----74 1953----138 1954----4,628 1955----427 1956----752 1957----751 1958----846 1959----819 1960----794 1961----959 1962----8,498 1963----15,620 1964----17,280 1965----129,611 1966----317,007 1967----451,752 1968----537,377 1969----510,054 1970----390,278 1971----212,925 1972----35,292 1973----265 1974----130 http://www.data360.org/dataset.aspx?Data_Set_Id=1170 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Actually, to be a little more accurate, we were in Vietnam for WAY longer then 14 years. We entered into a conflict with them while troops were still fighting off the N. Koreans/Chinese in Korea in '51. When did we finally leave from Vietnam? '78? By my count, that's 27 years. You are right of coarse. We did have troops in vietnam dating back to 50. We had advisors in there, but I don't know if you would call it an American war in 50 when we had 9 guys or 51 when we had fewer than 100. The Vietnam war for the United States I believe started after the Gulf of Tonken episode in August 1964, which allowed Johnson to significantly increase US forces in country... But you are correct we had hundreds of troops there before the USS Maddox was supposedly attacked.. In 64 - 65 we jumped from 17k troops to 129,000. Thats when we started getting serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 You know the ruling party in Turkey now is a religous Islamic party. They've been very critical of Israel. Remember the Turkish PM lit into the Israeli President at the UN conference a few months back over the Gaza bombings.If Turkey wouldn't let us bomb Iraq from their territory and we were offering them billions. I don't see these Turks letting Israel use their facilities to bomb Iran. Their is just not much in it for Turkey. You know the military in Turkey is largely secular led and has a special relationship with Israel?...and some common cause against Iran. Who controls the bases and access? I love conspiracies and speculation http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/4153 http://ala-watan.blogspot.com/2008/02/next-door-neighbour.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 You know the military in Turkey is largely secular led and has a special relationship with Israel?...and some common cause against Iran.Who controls the bases and access? I love conspiracies and speculation http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/4153 http://ala-watan.blogspot.com/2008/02/next-door-neighbour.html I believe Israel has IDF resources in both Turkey and India which could be used to attack Iran. I don't think the military in Turkey would act independently of the civilian government. I thought turkey was a viable base of operations for Israel when you first started talking about it a few years ago on this board. I think much has changed since then. It is interesting the talk of Israeli's commando's. Here is how I think it lays out... (1) The US military says it can't reliable draw down Iran short of a protracted many month long air attack, and even then it would only cost Iran a few years of effort.. We've got 10-15 times the resources of Israel, we've got strategic bombers Israel doesn't have, we've got better munitions, and our bases in the region are closer to the boarder of Iran.. (2) Israel's IDF is a very smart, professional force which has a history of thinking out of the box and coming up with interesting and suprisingly effective plans, and they seem to disagree with the US assessment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 (1) The US military says it can't reliable draw down Iran short of a protracted many month long air attack, and even then it would only cost Iran a few years of effort.. We've got 10-15 times the resources of Israel, we've got strategic bombers Israel doesn't have, we've got better munitions, and our bases in the region are closer to the boarder of Iran.. (2) Israel's IDF is a very smart, professional force which has a history of thinking out of the box and coming up with interesting and suprisingly effective plans, and they seem to disagree with the US assessment. The US military has that hammer problem deeply ingrained;) along with different political goals as well as interests in the area to protect.both military and aligned nations) When you are blessed with vast military resources you tend to use them as a sledgehammer and the lack of much of a direct threat makes the US political aspects broader. Israel has a very different doctrine and is a shining example of necessity being the mother of invention when you have more to lose. The poll showing a large percentage of Israeli's will flee if Iran attains nukes makes putting off a strike too long even more risky. The perception Iran can cripple Israel w/o even firing a shot ,irregardless of Iran's intention,makes it a very dangerous situation imo. I wonder if the Arrow II test failure makes a strike more or less likely? I wonder if they feel Iran's guidance systems are inaccurate enough to be more of a problem for their neighbors than themselves at this point? Interesting times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 I wonder if they feel Iran's guidance systems are inaccurate enough to be more of a problem for their neighbors than themselves at this point? I think that's another real problem on the horizon for Israel. The united states had cheap very accurate intermediate rage missiles in the 1970's. Currently we've got folks posting the plans for guidance systems for such weapons on the internet. It's only a matter of time before Iran get's a decent guidance system, and if she provides that thing to Hamas or Hezbollah it's a real game changer. Today those yahoo's can only target cities with their weapons and they can fire fifty of them and only kill like 1 person on average. If they had a guidance system and could target buildings or windows of buildings like ours, that's a real game changer. Both Hamas and Hezbollah have tens of thousands of those Scud type Katush rockets, and 95% of Israel is within the range of either Hamas in Gaza or Hezbollah in Lebonon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Thus the push on the Iron Dome and Arrow technology You snooze,ya lose if you are Israeli. Can't we all just get along? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haithman Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 as i've stated over the years: No 5 countries could take down the United States based on location and sheer awesom'ness in technology we possess.Those same 5 countries will just need to devalue the dollar and prop up the Euro / Something else and their mission is done.. We are now europe and can't afford anything. The U.S. Fed still runs the world. Of that you should have no doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 as i've stated over the years: No 5 countries could take down the United States based on location and sheer awesom'ness in technology we possess.Those same 5 countries will just need to devalue the dollar and prop up the Euro / Something else and their mission is done.. We are now europe and can't afford anything. That's because we currently are outspending the next 200+ greatest nations combined in defense spending. We are a one country arms race. We've outspent the greatest 18-20 nations combined in defense spending for decades, since Clinton took office and all of those 18-20 nations either are close American allies ( Canada, Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Germany, South Korea ) or they enjoy permanent most favored trade status with us ( China and Russia). http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm Maybe if we actually reigned in military spending a bit and only spent say... 5 times our biggest potential enemy.... maybe then we could balance our budget and actually be an economically viable country again. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 The U.S. Fed still runs the world. Of that you should have no doubt. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.