1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderOkay now I understand. Soviet tanks and Chineese military along w/the N.Koreans. As I said before, take the politics out of it and NOBODY can stand up to the U.S. Military!
Wrong "Great Skedaddle".
EDIT: Apparently it's more commonly referred to as "The Big Bugout".
And of course I may have a bias as well as you should but the w/the "gloves off" No military can compare to the U.S.A.
You get a congress that declares war and says, "have at em boys" there is no stopping them. WW2 proved that!
But when you got them hand cuffed as in korea,vietnam afghanastan these inferior forces look like they can hold their own. And thats simply not the case.
Originally posted by utherpendragonRAH, RAH GO TEAM!
Okay now I understand. Soviet tanks and Chineese military along w/the N.Koreans. As I said before, take the politics out of it and NOBODY can stand up to the U.S. Military!
And of course I may have a bias as well as you should but the w/the "gloves off" No military can compare to the U.S.A.
You get a congress that declares war and says, "have at ...[text shortened]... stan these inferior forces look like they can hold their own. And thats simply not the case.
The Chinese army that routed the 8th Army didn't have a single tank or heavy artillery piece and hardly any mobile transport. A declaration of war would have hardly made much of a difference.
US troops, when well led, do fine but considering how extravagantly they are supplied, it's very questionable whether they are superior man for man over even the irregular (but combat experienced) forces they faced in Vietnam and now face in Afghanistan.
Originally posted by no1marauderWay to go tough guy. You ever served in combat? If not, then stop ridiculing our troops.
RAH, RAH GO TEAM!
The Chinese army that routed the 8th Army didn't have a single tank or heavy artillery piece and hardly any mobile transport. A declaration of war would have hardly made much of a difference.
US troops, when well led, do fine but considering how extravagantly they are supplied, it's very questionable whether t ...[text shortened]... e irregular (but combat experienced) forces they faced in Vietnam and now face in Afghanistan.
Originally posted by no1marauder1. cut and paste where I said I support the CSA
Here we go again ...........................................
Supporters of the CSA really shouldn't call other Americans "traitors".
2. Prove how the CSA were traitors.
3. support your claim how there were no soviet tanks used in the korean conflict
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragon1. You're not seriously denying you have in this Forum? For example: "The south was fighting for their right to survive ......" http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=135825&page=3#post_2574552
1. cut and paste where I said I support the CSA
2. Prove how the CSA were traitors.
3. support your claim how there were no soviet tanks used in the korean conflict
2. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." US Constitution, Article III, Section 3
3. I didn't make that claim. I did claim that in the initial attack they did not have any tanks. That is true.
Originally posted by generalissimoSure, but at a certain point you're just going to have to not bother when people who have a strong interest in lying to you are making suspect claims.
It always such a shame when we have a perfectly reasonable argument being dismissed out of hand solely because of its origin; attack the message, not the messenger.
Originally posted by no1marauderI think its somewhat the established norm that guerrilla warfare cannot be successfully countered by conventional warfare, the success of the taliban rag heads is therefore not surprising.
The Taliban "rag heads" are still in the field fighting (pretty successfully) against overwhelming odds. You don't have to like their ideology to admire their fighting qualities; the Army of Northern Virginia and the SS were fighting for odious ideological reasons, but any non-biased observer has to grant that they had great professional competence.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder
1. You're not seriously denying you have in this Forum? For example: "The south was fighting for their right to survive ......" http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=135825&page=3#post_2574552
2. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Co t claim. I did claim that in the initial attack they did not have any tanks. That is true.
You're not seriously denying you have in this Forum? For example: "The south was fighting for their right to survive
this a statement of fact or at the very least you could say my opinion. it in no way condones or "supports" the CSA.