...
OH SAY CAN YOU SEE
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
bbc.co.uk
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
With today's technology and no bullshit stringent ROE, it would be over in six months tops.
that was the same time where our anti-personal missiles were literally just nails
> this is what cuckservatives and neocon dems actually believe
Reminder that the US and South Vietnam won the war until the US left and North Vietnam violated the treaty and re-invaded South Vietnam. South Vietnam lost the war not the US
We won that war.
Actually, it's true. Stating that fact doesn't mean that I support foreign adventurism.
lrn2read
You mean the RoE that stop things like this happening?
bbc.co.uk
American pulled out because they were loseing, America was fighting Vietcong,Russia,china ! You could never have won! You can't beat a country that thinks nothing to throw thousands,millions of men in battle! Not on there doorstep
>when you're a retarded britbong who doesn't know what actually happened, so you go to Sup Forums to shitpost about how much you don't know.
they wuz in trees and shit
US vs Vietnam: 1955 -1975
US vs Afghanistan: 2001–2014
US vs Iraq: 2003 - 2011
To be fair the Mongolians, Chinese and French lost to them too.
But you lost to Colonialists lol
You lost a war to an emaciated Indian that cucked you out of your empire.
US wins, follow the money.
funny thing is that this justifies the second amendment perfectly
BY THE DAWNS EARLY LIGHT
I smell jelly on you old man
en.wikipedia.org
Look at casualties. The Vietnam War was more a withdrawal than a defeat. The war was impossible to continue with next to no popular support. The Americans were extremely good at waging war, but a war without clear and defined goals tends to fail to realize any real tangible success.
A Comparison:
>Battle of Isandlwana
1,837 trained British soldiers (armed with state-of-the-art breech-loading rifles) vs 20,000 Zulus
British: 1,300 dead
Zulus: 1,000 dead
>Battle of Blood River
464 Boere (Farmers) with single shot muskets vs 20,000 Zulus.
Boers: 3 wounded
Zulus: 3,000 dead
>Anglo Boer War
450,000 British vs 50,000 Boers
British: 7,882 dead
Boers: 6,000 dead
>a few hundred
Wars are won and lost by old men talking, which is what "won" the Vietnam war, not Vietnamese with the most up to date weapons and training provided by the Soviets.
Battles on the other hand are not, you you got your asses kicked by a tribe of monkeys.
i agree somewhat ,am not haveing a go at America for loseing but lose it did.no country not the British empire nor the Roman Empire could of won in Vietnam! The cost is just too great ,china has millions of people to play with!
OP your a faggot trying to troll American.
Thanks for pointing out British empire loses ,wanna list the victorys now?
WHO WOULD WIN
The whole united states army
Of
The whole united states citizenry
And yet the left says we can't fight the US military with our weapons.
>iits another pick on America thread
God I'm tired of these. When you're on top everyone wants to knock you down, eh?
We were fighting Russian migs and Russian weaponry. "Farmers". Please. We were fighting soldiers on top of dealing with the marxism coming to fruition in the states
Bombs do not care how many people are in their way
WHO WOULD WIN
>THE ENTIRE BRITISH EMPIRE
OR
>A BUNCH OF ILLITERATE FARMERS
Don't be salty burgerbro. If you give them salt it feeds them. It's all they have left.
Neither. The rulers of the fake communist country won by establishing their dictatorship. Check and mate normies
/thread
Dey was in junglez n shit
Daily reminder that the US did better than anyone else would have
Why are we fucking pretending that we have not fought a war since?
Iraq alone has drawn more blood than any conflict in modern history. A collection of second hand sand-devils have hurt us harder than even the Vietnamese; at least from a policy prospective.
>outdated weapons
>1960's
Things that make you go hmmm
Please explain
I see what you did thar