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".
Shipmaster sane didn't mention the French.France in Vietnam
The entire derail started over French military prowess or lack there of.Shipmaster sane didn't mention the French.
We're talking about more than one thing.What the hell are you going on about? We are talking about France.
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.Dude, this is tiresome. Stop with the digressions. And actually engage in the debate.
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.The US had failed to win, despite invading Cambodia and saturation bombing. By 1973, it was recognized that the war was futile. We could play Whac-A-Mole indefinitely but never actually ensure the South won.
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.The entire derail started over French military prowess or lack there of.
It is the common thing to say the Vietcong were the reason the US lostThat the "Vietcong" actually mattered as opposed to being annihilated during Tet. The NVA regulars fought that war not the "Vietcong".
Shipmaster sane didn't mention the French.
All started when I said it us a myth the french are not coward surrender monkeys and he goes "Vietnam!"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.
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.All started when I said it us a myth the french are not coward surrender monkeys and he goes "Vietnam!"
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.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.
I just don't know it very much besides what is mentioned and the French Foreign Legion.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.
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.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.
If you think you can just circle back and regurgitate your previous arguments and thats going to have any effect you're wrong.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.
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.They are one of the biggest, top 10, militaries in the world
Name the last army they defeated in the field.have been for a long time.
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.They also are fighting ISIS and other Islamic extremists as well as other groups in Africa.
Thier imperialism is always complain about.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.
Who else was involved Lybia besides us?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.
You mean Libya and Obama? I think that was to delegate the responsibility and save costs.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.
UK but it was literally a French operation. They just lacked the strength to do it themselves. Pretty damning no?Thier imperialism is always complain about.
Who else was involved Lybia besides us?
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.
Really?You mean Libya and Obama? I think that was to delegate the responsibility and save costs.
Wernt all three nations invovled in the first place?UK but it was literally a French operation. They just lacked the strength to do it themselves. Pretty damning no?
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.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
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?Really?
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.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