Lanmandragon
Well-known member
That the "Vietcong" actually mattered as opposed to being annihilated during Tet. The NVA regulars fought that war not the "Vietcong".
History Myths and Misconceptions of History you Hate
- Thread starter AndrewJTalon
- Start date
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
Shipmaster sane didn't mention the French.
Lanmandragon
Well-known member
The entire derail started over French military prowess or lack there of.
Shipmaster Sane
You have been weighed
We're talking about more than one thing.
What debate, if you wont talk coherently, theres nothing to respond to. Saying "French military doesnt suck because it exists and is active" is a complete non sequitur. I could care less what you find tiresome, in fact, maybe if you tire of your own whinging you'll leave and go be wrong somewhere else.
none of this changes the fact that we evicerated their military and a ceasefire was mutually agreed upon after a political battle in the United States. If your metric for victory is "sure our army was annihilated contemptuously and our territory occupied, but the enemy diddnt literally conquer us for the rest of history" then you might be a vietnamese historian.
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
I'll be fair to the French that after getting involved in two world wars it's not surprising the locals got the right time to rebel.
It is the common thing to say the Vietcong were the reason the US lost
All started when I said it us a myth the french are not coward surrender monkeys and he goes "Vietnam!"
Shipmaster Sane
You have been weighed
Wrong, I contradicted your sillyness about the french not being cowards, which they were and are, and I mentioned vietnam as an aside, which you bit down on hard until giving up almost immediately to mumble from the sidelines while a different incoherent poster white knighted for you.
They arnt cowards though. They are one of the biggest, top 10, militaries in the world and have been for a long time. They also are fighting ISIS and other Islamic extremists as well as other groups in Africa.
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
I just don't know it very much besides what is mentioned and the French Foreign Legion.
There's always someone bitching about French Imperialism for the interventions but it's standard fare.
Lanmandragon
Well-known member
That's all well and good but we have the fact. That the French could not even roll freaking Lybia right across from them. They had to whine to Barry and get him to do it...Not exactly awe inspiring.
Shipmaster Sane
You have been weighed
If you think you can just circle back and regurgitate your previous arguments and thats going to have any effect you're wrong.
So was Iraq, and they were literally worthless. As far as world military strength, 2nd place might as well be 50th. The difference is way too big.
Name the last army they defeated in the field.
If fighting muslim Mad Max gangs and african "groups" is the mark of military might, then virtually no military on earth can be called shitty, including the muslim mad max gangs and africans.
Thier imperialism is always complain about.
Who else was involved Lybia besides us?
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
You mean Libya and Obama? I think that was to delegate the responsibility and save costs.
Lanmandragon
Well-known member
UK but it was literally a French operation. They just lacked the strength to do it themselves. Pretty damning no?
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
Honestly, somehow it sounds like they haven’t fought real organized and equipped militaries for a long while and those two types of “militaries”
you mentioned are probably more used to attacking civilians than actually fighting back
Really?
Wernt all three nations invovled in the first place?
They were involved in the Korean war along with the Dutch and were put worh the US 2ID. There is a whole thing here about it.
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
From the perspective of waging war would it be preferable to have allies to help with the war you're in especially if they're reliable?
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
I don't believe any first world army has come to test that unless the shit going on in Ukraine and Syria when Russian contractors got killed count.
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
@Shipmaster Sane TBH, your comparing apples and oranges.
No one contests that the US has the biggest baddest military and is extremely good at blowing stuff up and killing people.
The French though are a military power. Whether you like it or not.
The distinction is that the US is a stronger power than the next four countries combined.
As for Iraq-quantity and quality are not synonymous. Comparing the French and Saddam's Iraq is at best ignorant and at worst disingenuous.
As for World War 2, this video summarizes a lot of the circumstances and in the description there are plenty of sources for you to look at.
For Vietnam, claiming "we won, but the politics made us leave" ignores Clausewitz now trite dictum, and also that the Homefront matters. The US government failed to convince enough of the population to stay the course. And was unwilling to keep holding the South's hand indefinitely.
No one contests that the US has the biggest baddest military and is extremely good at blowing stuff up and killing people.
The French though are a military power. Whether you like it or not.
The distinction is that the US is a stronger power than the next four countries combined.
As for Iraq-quantity and quality are not synonymous. Comparing the French and Saddam's Iraq is at best ignorant and at worst disingenuous.
As for World War 2, this video summarizes a lot of the circumstances and in the description there are plenty of sources for you to look at.
For Vietnam, claiming "we won, but the politics made us leave" ignores Clausewitz now trite dictum, and also that the Homefront matters. The US government failed to convince enough of the population to stay the course. And was unwilling to keep holding the South's hand indefinitely.