your mumsuggs wrote:who are you
Moderator: Community Team
The US won the Viet-Nam war. Only when Congress forbade any further involvment did the NVA launch their assault and overwhelm ARVN. The consensus amongst historians is that had the US increased troop numbers after the post-Tet annhiliation of Victor Charlie, or had US air power remained as a threat to the North, in 1973, there is no way that the South would have collapsed.Snorri1234 wrote:Yeah, I'm sure vietnam was lost because of the media and not because of the fact the soldiers didn't actually know a lot about fighting in the jungle or that the leaders made bad decisions....muy_thaiguy wrote:Fact: in a little over 200 years, the US has been involved in what, 50 odd wars? And only 2 of them weren't straight up victories. Those being Korea (still not technically over) and Vietnam (you can thank the media for this one, lugging huge cameras out into the battlefield and making US troops easy targets for the Viet Cong).sam_levi_11 wrote:no it doesnt, its factmuy_thaiguy wrote:Depends on how you look at it.sam_levi_11 wrote:oh the one war you still harp on about....geeze youd think youd change the record considering we have the best military history in the civilised world
Also, you guys lost the Iraq war too.
what, you mean the brilliant and novel idea of sending enough fucking troops to get the job done?Napoleon Ier wrote: Iraq is being won by the Petraeus-Odierno surge strategy.
Very few people will get that joke.reminisco wrote:no we didn't. i specifically remember the ticker tape parade down Broadway in Manhattan, we all lauded Gen. Schwarzkopf for a job well done!Snorri1234 wrote:Also, you guys lost the Iraq war too.
virus90 wrote: I think Anarkist is a valuable asset to any game.
Anyone here ever take a Zogby poll?Fruitcake wrote:Funny thing I have noticed.
The topic I put up was So what does it mean to be British
The thread has turned into a discussion about the merits of American war history.
Funny thing really, as quite often, that is actually what it is to be British.
Oh...sure, there were people making it clear that more troops were needed as early as '03. Prolem was, no one listened to them until now.reminisco wrote:what, you mean the brilliant and novel idea of sending enough fucking troops to get the job done?Napoleon Ier wrote: Iraq is being won by the Petraeus-Odierno surge strategy.
Gen. Shinseki was saying that back in motherfucking 2003. don't be such a Bush Administration cheerleader.
hell, even little old ME said we needed to send 500,000 troops to take Iraq. it was in a paper i wrote in college, as a net assessment of an invasion of Iraq for the purpose of staging protracted conflict with Iran, the real threat to US interests.
and i wrote that in 2001. if this wasn't an interweb forum, and actually counted for something, i could prove that.
of course, proving that doesn't accomplish much, except to prove that i'm smarter than the administration, and at least as smart as the Joint Chiefs were before Bush dismantled the brains at the Pentagon.
and that, old chum, is as stupid and ignorant as claiming the Dixie Flag doesn't symbolize slavery.Napoleon Ier wrote:And Iraq has yet to actually be lost. So the US had not lost a single armed conflixt in all it's history.
So, it's neither.reminisco wrote:and that, old chum, is as stupid and ignorant as claiming the Dixie Flag doesn't symbolize slavery.Napoleon Ier wrote:And Iraq has yet to actually be lost. So the US had not lost a single armed conflixt in all it's history.
Im going to assume you were being clever here because im pretty sure napoleon would argue it doesnt.reminisco wrote:and that, old chum, is as stupid and ignorant as claiming the Dixie Flag doesn't symbolize slavery.Napoleon Ier wrote:And Iraq has yet to actually be lost. So the US had not lost a single armed conflixt in all it's history.
yeah, good point. wasn't trying to be clever, and i don't really want to get into it again with that fucking racist waste of life Napoleon ShitBird Ier.got tonkaed wrote:Im going to assume you were being clever here because im pretty sure napoleon would argue it doesnt.reminisco wrote:and that, old chum, is as stupid and ignorant as claiming the Dixie Flag doesn't symbolize slavery.Napoleon Ier wrote:And Iraq has yet to actually be lost. So the US had not lost a single armed conflixt in all it's history.
If you werent being clever, your use of analogies leaves a smidge to be desired.
Hang on then, so the Dixie Flag represents slavery. Right....despite it being the star-and-stripes under which slave ships always sailed?got tonkaed wrote:reminisco wrote:and that, old chum, is as stupid and ignorant as claiming the Dixie Flag doesn't symbolize slavery.Napoleon Ier wrote:And Iraq has yet to actually be lost. So the US had not lost a single armed conflixt in all it's history.
Nearly all slave ships were Dutch and Portuguese.Napoleon Ier wrote:Hang on then, so the Dixie Flag represents slavery. Right....despite it being the star-and-stripes under which slave ships always sailed?