Quote:
Originally Posted by vonPrutz
We could have easily won the Vietnam war, all we had to do bomb the North's ports, fuck what the Soviets or Chinese say about losing their ships.
|
Preaching a classic 'big dic' agenda of Gen Westmoreland is far from complimentary. Reality: every intelligence service - including those in the DoD - said no useful targets existed in Vietnam. But since a classic 'big dic' mentality took hold, then we bombed like no man had ever seen. World record bomb tonnage was dropped. 10% of this nation’s nuclear bomber force was lost. What did that accomplish? Exactly what every intelligence analysis said would happen. Nothing useful. Your myths about bombing restrictions ignores the fact that every possible military target was bombed.
Meanwhile, your knowledge is not inherited by genes from your father. Only combat that provides knowledge is combat you did yourself. Apparently you have zero combat experience. Again, you demonstrated the 'big dic' mentality where genetics somehow makes one an expert. Reasoning based on such logic is not just defective - it is scary. Too many of my peers were killed by such scary thinking.
In Vietnam, most direct and major engagements ending with Tet. In direct contradiction to your post, Vietnam’s patriots changed tactics to great effect (ie MyLai). They were winning because, in part, they stopped using direct engagements AND because they owned the battlefield after every battle. If your knowledge from genetic inheritance is significant, then you grasp the significance of that last sentence explicitly AND your reply starts with that sentence. Why is that sentence so significant?
|