Leaderboard

Days since about Case #1 in the US.

First, Tet in 1968 was a VC operation, not an NVA operation. It was a "last gasp", intended to convince the US that the war was unwinnable. IT DIDN'T WORK, and it finished the VC. They were never again a factor in "the" war. The US kept right on going, chewing the NVA into little tiny pieces. Second, the US wound down its involvement, and withdrew, in 1972. South Vietnam did not fall until 1974. In the 1972-1974 period, with heavy backing from the USSR and the PRC, the NVA built TWO of the largest mechanized armies ever seen on the planet, larger than anything Hitler ever fielded in World War II. (That's saying something. Germany fielded some BIG mechanized armies.) The ARVN, with US air support, reduced the first one to Brillo (tm) pads, and sent what was left (NOT MUCH) back to Hanoi. When the second one headed south, in 1974, the Democrat-controlled Congress voted the equivalent of ten rounds of ammunition and two hand grenades per ARVN soldier, which was not remotely enough. It should be mentioned. That was one of the most expensive Brillo pad orders the Soviets ever placed, and it was a chunk of why the Soviet Union fell some years later.

0,50,100,150,200,250 I think you mean what is the axis title.

Some data, as of a few days ago. The first chart is day-to-day new cases, 7-day moving average, for the US. The second chart is day-to-day deaths, 7-day moving average, for the US. Bluntly, the pandemic is dying out.

FALSE, and badly so, but you have to read the history and look at the actual timeline. Full Disclosure: I am cribbing heavily from Jerry Pournelle's writings in this. First, it is necessary to recognize that there were in fact THREE wars being fought in Vietnam in the 1960s and early 1970s. The first was a revolt-from-within in South Vietnam, by the Viet Cong. The Viet Cong LOST that war in 1968: the Tet Offensive was their absolute last gasp. They were losing, they knew it, and the went for broke. They threw everything they had, including every kitchen sink and chamber pot they could find, at the US Army. The Army took it all, soaked it up, shook it off, and said, essentially "Is that the best you can do?" The VC were never a factor again in the hostilities after Tet. They were done. The second was a conventional land grab from North Vietnam, that had been flaring up periodically for some two thousand years, that usually fought itself to a standstill at about the DMZ. The VC made common cause with the North Vietnamese Army, who saw a chance to use a proxy to weaken the Army of the Republic of (South) Vietnam. Once the VC were off the board, the NVA continued the fight. The US essentially won that war, and withdrew from Vietnam in 1972, leaving only a commitment to provide air cover when needed. With air cover, the ARVN was quite capable of handling the NVA, and did so, handily. This included making Brillo (Tm) pads out of a larger mechanized army than Hitler's Germany ever fielded. Two years later, while hounding Richard Nixon out of the White House, the Democratic Party reneged on the air cover pledge, and South Vietnam fell. The US didn't lose; the Democrats THREW THE VICTORY AWAY. The third war is the interesting one. Vietnam was not just a stand-alone war: it was a critical campaign of attrition in the Seventy Years War between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In such a campaign, the trick is NOT TO WIN OUTRIGHT, but rather to keep the other guy thinking that he can win it if just commits some more resources to the meatgrinder. The object is to cost the other guy a lot more than he costs you, and, in this regard, the US was howlingly successful in Vietnam. When Vietnam finally fell, the next campaign was in Afghanistan, where all the US did was supply Stinger SAMs to the Afghans, depriving the Soviets of their air cover assets, and letting them learn why nobody in their right minds EVER gets into a serious fight with the Afghans. Bluntly, the US did not "lose" the Vietnam War. By any sensible set of victory conditions, the US won. The problem is that the Democrats then betrayed South Vietnam, and let them fall.

False. Private citizens can own selective fire weapons (i.e., fully automatic), although the hoops are difficult to jump through. They can also own artillery pieces, and even fully operational tanks. There are "license fees", that are quite high, that being the closest the government can actually get to outlawing them. The M-16 and AK-47 are full auto. The AR-15 is the semiautomatic version of the M-16. As you correctly observe, it is quite easy to convert to full auto. The AR-15 is not popular because it is an "assault weapon" (There is NO SUCH THING as an "assault weapon" or "assault rifle".) It is popular because it is an extremely well-designed weapon, with a great deal of flexibility, that was designed with mission adaptation (adding gadgets as needed for special tasks) specifically in mind. It is in part popular because of the very unusual straight-line design, which eliminates muzzle climb. Flash, the Second Amendment was never about hunting. It was never about personal home defense. It was ALWAYS about ensuring that, when and if it became necessary for the people of the United States of America to overthrow the government AGAIN (recall that they'd just had to do that very thing!), they would have the weapons to do it. The other pieces are secondary, albeit absolutely necessary in some areas. (This is precisely why the Supreme Court ruled for Heller against the District of Columbia, and then for McDonald against Chicago.) It is also why the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals just threw out California's attempt to ban "large capacity" magazines.