And, if you had been paying attention to the conversation, you would have noticed that I repeated the fact that it was for domestic consumption several times.
We put massive forces in Vietnam, we used all the weapons in our arsenal except for nuclear weapons. That we did not put massive forces in Vietnam is a poor and easily disprove excuse. In Somalia, we did not need a massive force or unrestricted warfare to win. However, our forces grew complacent from their easy victories, and paid the price. Executing missions the same way 6 times. First, you say we lost Somalia, now you say we did not lose Somalia...Which is it?
......Vietnam was a restricted war--we did not invade the North--there were limits to bombing airfields/etc in the North....etc ....it was unwinnable anyway...even McNamara and Kennedy said it.....as did others ...wrong, those were all restricted wars/conflicts
hahahahhah--please read it more slowly--so you might understand--I said we lost prestige in Korea ..we won in Korea---the objective was to kick the North Koreans out of the South --but we did get our a$$es kicked by the Chinese ..hold it---!!!?? we did not lose in Vietnam????!!!! WOW!! again--hahahhahaha--Russia had MASSIVE casualties in WW2----more than the Germans .....but the Germans LOST, not the Russians ...we lost prestige in Somalia ....come on Takao--you KNOW casualties do not equate to a loss ...I'm disappointed in you
Don't know..You seem to be the one making a big deal about it. And? We have fought nothing but restricted conflicts since WW2. Kennedy & McNamara said Vietnam was unwinnable...Yet, they continued to fight an unwinnable war...Very curious.
..like I said --read it more slowwwwwwly ..I said you couldn't put in massive forces AND unrestricted warfare 1. we did not use the reserves in Vietnam 2.we did not use the full forces available as we did in WW2 = we are not doing that in Beirut, Vietnam, Somalia, etc = they are restricted wars = ''unwinnable'' = we did not use massive forces = as was my initial point ....
We won in Korea? The "objective" was to kick the North Koreans out of the South? Ummm...We did that by 1950, and with no Chinese intervention. Seems the "objective" was a little more than kicking the North out of the South. Seems to me that the Germans were fighting more than just the Russians in WW2. Yeah, having your troops bodies dragged around clad only in their underwear will do that. Just like Iran sinking a supercarrier.
..yes----you apparently do not know much about it: in Anatomy of Victory page 233 JFK states: ''''in the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it.....''' bold mine bold mine Mcnamara's Change Of Heart Is Painful For Many Vietnam Vets Most Deaths, Injuries Came After He Decided The War Was 'Unwinnable' Baltimore Sun: Baltimore breaking news, sports, business, entertainment, weather and traffic Ball also: “It was an Unwinnable War” ..even Morley Safer could see it in 1965!!! said we can win the battles --but not the people's hearts ''frustration of Vietnam''' etc etc
no we did not use our full military capability: Baltimore Sun: Baltimore breaking news, sports, business, entertainment, weather and traffic
I dddddddddiiiiiiiiiiiiidddddddd. False. We did use the reserves in Vietnam. Not many, but they were used. We have also used the reserves in Iraq & Afghanistan...Guess what - We are still there. Far longer than we were in Vietnam. Maybe, it takes more than reserves. Well, let's see, we used B-52s, battleships, carriers, tanks, etc. We used everything in the arsenal plus lots more that we did not have in WW2. None of the wars were unwinnable. You did not need all of that to win any of those wars. Which is the whole problem...Most folks only look at military power as their yardstick.
again, you apparently have not researched or read much on it: ''''''In Korea the Government forces, which were armed to prevent border raids and to preserve internal security, were attacked by invading forces from North Korea. The Security Council of the United Nations called upon the invading troops to cease hostilities and to withdraw to the 38th parallel. This they have not done, but on the contrary ave pressed the attack. The Security Council called upon all members of the United Nations to render every assistance to the United Nations in the execution of this resolution.''''' bold and font mine ..we kicked the North out of the South--objective completed https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/116192.pdf?v=31e383a7e226b441e40fb0527a828da0
'''not many''' ---hahahahahhahaha..babbling....... ..again--you provide no evidence to back up what you say o--Nam was unwinnable .......ok--new thread coming up
Apparently YOU DO NOT KNOW MUCH ABOUT IT. It was during a Walter Cronkite interview in September, 1963 What JFK said was... The President. I don’t think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it, the people of Viet-Nam, against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don’t think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months, the government has gotten out of touch with the people. The repressions against the Buddhists, we felt, were very unwise. Now all we can do is to make it very clear that we don’t think this is the way to win. It is my hope that this will become increasingly obvious to the government, that they will take steps to try to bring back popular support for this very essential struggle. As for McNamara...He published his hands ring tome in 1995?
Ummm....That is UN Security Consul Resolution #82. You want UN Security Consul Resolution #83. The "objective" was to repel the attack AND restore international peace & security to the area.
And yet both continued to expand the war. Altough, Kennedy had only a short time left. Macnamara is more the vilian of the piece here.
Common knowledge does not need to be cited... But, since what I thought was common knowledge, is uncommon, here is your cite. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a531975.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj6k4CmhPvqAhW6knIEHTH4CR0QFjAEegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw3Ux2qHJ453gwynjwhNjBWg
so--the French lost ...and then LBJ/etc couldn't win it but Takao, from WW2F knows how they co wrong...yours is not common knowledge - it's babble