Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Iran's Revolutionary Guard stages mock attack

Discussion in 'Free Fire Zone' started by CAC, Jul 29, 2020 at 12:34 AM.

  1. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,567
    Likes Received:
    1,817
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    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.
     
  2. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,567
    Likes Received:
    1,817
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    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?
     
    belasar likes this.
  3. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,123
    Likes Received:
    214
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    ......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
     
  4. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,123
    Likes Received:
    214
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    so why the big deal about it??!!??
     
  5. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,123
    Likes Received:
    214
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    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
     
  6. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,567
    Likes Received:
    1,817
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    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.
     
  7. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,123
    Likes Received:
    214
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    ..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
    ....
     
  8. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,567
    Likes Received:
    1,817
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    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.
     
  9. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,123
    Likes Received:
    214
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    ..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
     
  10. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,123
    Likes Received:
    214
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    no we did not use our full military capability:
    Baltimore Sun: Baltimore breaking news, sports, business, entertainment, weather and traffic
     
  11. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,567
    Likes Received:
    1,817
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    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.
     
  12. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,123
    Likes Received:
    214
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    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
     
  13. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,123
    Likes Received:
    214
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    '''not many''' ---hahahahahhahaha..babbling.......
    ..again--you provide no evidence to back up what you say
    o--Nam was unwinnable .......ok--new thread coming up
     
  14. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,567
    Likes Received:
    1,817
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    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?
     
    belasar likes this.
  15. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,123
    Likes Received:
    214
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    exactly --we can't win it for them.....if we did ''win'', it's STILL a loss
    caps for emphasis
     
  16. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,567
    Likes Received:
    1,817
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2020 at 5:30 PM
  17. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,567
    Likes Received:
    1,817
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    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.
     
  18. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,567
    Likes Received:
    1,817
    Location:
    Reading, PA
  19. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,123
    Likes Received:
    214
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    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
     
  20. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,123
    Likes Received:
    214
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    exactly---???!!! hahahahahha still unwinnable.....what's your point??
     

Share This Page