I give up. You tell me.

What you already mentioned? The SAMs and MiGs? This conversation started because I stated that shooting down B-52s didn't win the war. You're going in circles.

Lots of different things.
Though I am sure you realise it wasn't small arms which led to a reversal of the earlier French success with hedgehogs.

This conversation started with you saying it was the common man with an AK47 that won the war
Since AK 47s didn't win the war any more than the SA-7 did it can only go full circle..
It started with some chinese PT boats and ended with some russian tanks visiting the palace, the man with the AK was just another bit player in a big story.

An american with an ar-15 is a american rifle man, he can be called up to protect the nation, his state, his community, his home, his family it has been that way for over 200 years so what's the problem. Me owning an ak-47 makes me half as lethal as I was when I was an active duty Marine with my issued M-16, I could hit a 9in plate at 500 yards with open sights with a 6 shot group of 2 inches, the ak is all over the place at 300 now the sks on the over hand isn't to bad. Stuff coming down the pike on Bengazi sounds like a plan kidnapping gone wrong, Obama was to save the day and trade the blind sheik for the ambassador,..No wonder the seals were told to stand down, I'm not very happy about being lead by a bunch of traitors...Nixon could have started a war to save is butt from watergate..

Doesn't matter. The question was whether people with M-16s could stand up to bombing by B-52s, and my point that the North Vietnamese did it for ten years still stands. They shot down a few, but the bombing continued. And they survived it. The point was that they never had air superiority, but that didn't kill them all, and it didn't stop the war. They didn't win by shooting down all the enemy planes, but they still won.

One thousand ,,, seven hundred and fifty aircraft lost to hostile activities is not a few. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraf...he_Vietnam_War 17 b-52s might be considered a few.

Steve was talking about B-52s, not all aircraft. His point still stands.

Dear lord, I'm helping a conservative.

And you missed the point entirely that they were backed by a superpower, just like the American revolutionaries were.
So the question you missed is who is going to back the American with an M-16, as if they have no big backers then they cannot be compared to N. Vietnam at all.

Irrelevant. How many aircraft were shot down has nothing to do with the question I originally addressed. You're picking nits.

Actually I was talking about surviving the bombing and fighting on.

Quote:

Dear lord, I'm helping a conservative.

What makes you think I'm a conservative?

You are still going in circles.
You didn't address it as a states armed forces with foriegn backing are nothing at all like the issue in question.

Every one knows that Mexicans will take care of that.:haha:

Only because you're making me

That had nothng to do with Oberon's original question, which I answered. It's always more complex than can be stated without a full-page tome, then and now.

So we have a civil war against the federal government lets say red states against blue states, and they the feds managed to coherse some pilots to fly against the american people,, breaking their oath,, remeber, states have the air national guard and the states have the right to protect their sovernity the question ought to be could blue states take red states and how many service men and women would break their oath and turn against the american people, if red states stop producing and giving services to northern blue states I believe they would starve or they would end up looking like north korea...As it stands now 340 sheriffs won't support the governments assult on the 2nd amendment.

Your surrounded. Lay down your arms and give yourself up.
http://douglas.nerad.org/journal/wp-...popredblue.png

I think Chesty Puller, said it the best, now that we are surrounded we won't have any problem finding the enemy. or was it Nutz