Quake3World

like you pay attention to what the news say

like i pay attention

like i pay

$6 a week.

that fruit won't pick itself ya know

And the endless pedotan tears continue.

lol @ bragging about maintaining UK and US empires

Multi-billion dollar funded global organizations that can't crush a bunch of farmers with AKs and RPGs or find Bin Laden's secret evil laboratory so big you could drive a truck into it.

seremtan wrote:a point that sits adjacent to a similar point about the US vs vietnam - the only difference being that britain actually won

oh, and the vietnamese were a bunch of commie third-worlders with inferior weapons and no air force, while argentina had a semi-modern military. oh, and the US is a global superpower and britain isn't; let's not forget that

A guerilla style war is actually a much harder conflict to fight and win than a conventional war, your Vietnam analogy makes no sense. The avarage western army is still geared towards a conflict with a conventional enemy and when peasants start shooting that wonderful combination of mass firepower and clever logistics ends up being counterproductive. As can be seen from our fantastic successes in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The horrible fact is that with a little more luck, skill and bravado the Argentinians could have sunk that entire taskforce. God, that would have been an embarassement

rof

Ryoki wrote:

seremtan wrote:a point that sits adjacent to a similar point about the US vs vietnam - the only difference being that britain actually won

oh, and the vietnamese were a bunch of commie third-worlders with inferior weapons and no air force, while argentina had a semi-modern military. oh, and the US is a global superpower and britain isn't; let's not forget that

A guerilla style war is actually a much harder conflict to fight and win than a conventional war, your Vietnam analogy makes no sense. The avarage western army is still geared towards a conflict with a conventional enemy and when peasants start shooting that wonderful combination of mass firepower and clever logistics ends up being counterproductive. As can be seen from our fantastic successes in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The horrible fact is that with a little more luck, skill and bravado the Argentinians could have sunk that entire taskforce. God, that would have been an embarassement

wasnt bad though, it was a baby task force fighting on someone elses door step

that takes some sack

seremtan wrote:a point that sits adjacent to a similar point about the US vs vietnam - the only difference being that britain actually won

oh, and the vietnamese were a bunch of commie third-worlders with inferior weapons and no air force, while argentina had a semi-modern military. oh, and the US is a global superpower and britain isn't; let's not forget that

lol, Britain bareky eked out a victory over a pathetic excuse for a military. The US never lost a military engagement against the Vietnamese, the politicians in Washington threw it away for us. Not that we ever should have been there in the first place, but your comparison is far from valid.

lol, no sooner had i posted that than i thought of sgt barnes out of platoon blaming "them politishuns in wershington trahna faht this waw with one hayund tahd arahnd their bahlls"

seems some myths never die

I see you're devoid of any actual knowledge of military history. Enjoy your ignorant flailing.

right, recycling an old cliche = an actual knowledge of military history. perhaps you'd like to explain exactly how the politicians in washington threw it away?

also, your point about never losing an engagement is irrelevant. the US was in vietnam for 10 years, failed in its objectives against an inferior force and withdrew. normally that would be called a draw, but when one side is a superpower and the other side is a bunch of guerrillas in coolie hats and bowyangs, that counts as a defeat for the superpower

the only person who thinks the US won in vietnam is noam chomsky, who seems to think flattening hanoi with B-52s every week counts as a victory

seremtan wrote:right, recycling an old cliche = an actual knowledge of military history. perhaps you'd like to explain exactly how the politicians in washington threw it away?

The concept of "Rules Of Engagement" wasn't thought up by a soldier.

seremtan wrote:the only person who thinks the US won in vietnam is noam chomsky, who seems to think flattening hanoi with B-52s every week counts as a victory

Won the battle, lost the war. Ever hear of that?

seremtan wrote:right, recycling an old cliche = an actual knowledge of military history. perhaps you'd like to explain exactly how the politicians in washington threw it away?

also, your point about never losing an engagement is irrelevant. the US was in vietnam for 10 years, failed in its objectives against an inferior force and withdrew. normally that would be called a draw, but when one side is a superpower and the other side is a bunch of guerrillas in coolie hats and bowyangs, that counts as a defeat for the superpower

the only person who thinks the US won in vietnam is noam chomsky, who seems to think flattening hanoi with B-52s every week counts as a victory

Oh for fuck's sake. As if I have several hours to to illustrate how American political meddling completely goatfucked any chance of a military victory in Vietnam. The regular bombing halts, Johnson's support of Westmoreland's insistence on trying to fight a large-scale, Cold War-type set piece battle against the North Vietnamese (see Khe Sanh), Washington caving into political pressure against cross-border fighting into Laos and Cambodia, refusal to bomb Hanoi for the longeest time, etc., etc.
Don't try to turn this into a semantic argument, Methuselah. I said that you peckerwoods very nearly got your asses kicked by the Argentines, and that's a fact. They inflicted losses entirely disproportionate with the training, equipment, and opponent's alleged abilities. Politics had nothing to do with my argument, you tried to incorporate it in your respsonse as a dodge.

Nightshade wrote:

seremtan wrote:right, recycling an old cliche = an actual knowledge of military history. perhaps you'd like to explain exactly how the politicians in washington threw it away?

also, your point about never losing an engagement is irrelevant. the US was in vietnam for 10 years, failed in its objectives against an inferior force and withdrew. normally that would be called a draw, but when one side is a superpower and the other side is a bunch of guerrillas in coolie hats and bowyangs, that counts as a defeat for the superpower

the only person who thinks the US won in vietnam is noam chomsky, who seems to think flattening hanoi with B-52s every week counts as a victory

They inflicted losses entirely disproportionate with the training, equipment, and opponent's alleged abilities.

dude, i think that goes the same with every war americas been in ?

and on a ratio, we fucked em right up....

Over 600,000 Vietnamese killed to almost 58,000 American dead.
You guys scraped one out and walked away bloody and battered.

pfft. along with an extra 300,000 wounded

and we wasnt carpet bombing forests to get our kill count up

no, instead we fucked up an entire air force in someone elses back yard before serving them the eviction notice

o aye, and those fuckas didnt have exocets

Nightshade wrote:Don't try to turn this into a semantic argument, Methuselah. I said that you peckerwoods very nearly got your asses kicked by the Argentines, and that's a fact. They inflicted losses entirely disproportionate with the training, equipment, and opponent's alleged abilities. Politics had nothing to do with my argument, you tried to incorporate it in your respsonse as a dodge.

now who's being semantic, General Lostmorehairland. you've equated "very nearly" in your own mind with "very actually" and run with it. britain won - in spite of having to knock together a task force very quickly and move it thousands of miles away, and spite of political interference by the thatcher government

you overlook the fact that nations go to war, not just militaries. from a purely military standpoint Tet was a total failure for the NVA (they got creamed) but the psychological effect on the credibility of the "we can win" crowd in the US was devastating, thence came vietnamization, withdrawal and, er, failure. george bush senior was talking bollocks when he claimed the vietnam syndrome was nailed by gulf war I, simply because it isn't a vietnam syndrome: it's the inevitable consequence of pursuing a foreign policy that niall ferguson called (rightly imho) "the imperialism of anti-imperialism" - in which a democracy pursues an imperial foreign policy while denying it's imperial and with one eye on the electoral cycle. the same thing is happening in iraq now. the US now defines victory as "being able to withdraw without a loss of face"

face it, in spite of having the world's most powerful and well-trained militaries, the US just isn't cut out for serious warfare against serious opponents

p.s. save the psych 101 crap for someone who's impressed

Hey, keep talking about things other than political bungling and military wins. It's helping, really.

i reckon the welsh, on their lonesome, could kick americas tiny arse

losCHUNK wrote:americas tiny arse

You're gonna need a size 30 boot to cover all of it

Nightshade wrote:Hey, keep talking about things other than political bungling and military wins. It's helping, really.

sure, just so long as you keep sidepeddling and missing the point entirely