-
[QUOTE=fpv_gtho]Bombing a country into oblivion. Now THERES a solution to everything[/QUOTE]
That's what you do in a war- defeat the enemy.
I'm not sure that Goldwater said those exact words, but it means the same thing... use more than ample military force to defeat the enemy.
-
-
Why what? Defeat the enemy? That's what is supposed to be done in a war.
-
[QUOTE=Fleet 500]That's what you do in a war- defeat the enemy.
I'm not sure that Goldwater said those exact words, but it means the same thing... use more than ample military force to defeat the enemy.[/QUOTE]
Defeat the enemy or wipe out a helpless population
-
No, use "more than ample military to defeat an enemy"?
-
[QUOTE=spi-ti-tout]No, use "more than ample military to defeat an enemy"?[/QUOTE]
Well, a war can't be won using less than ample military!
-
You win a war with AMPLE military. I agree you can't win a war with LESS than ample military. But my question is why MORE than ample military when just AMPLE military could have won the waR?
-
Because Weaponry is useless without the proper knowledge and tactical ability.
Something which, at the time, the US lacked.
-
[quote=Fleet 500]The U.S. didn't lose that fight.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Fleet 500]That's what you do in a war- defeat the enemy.[/QUOTE]
At least one of these statements is accurate :D
-
Don't break his heart he thinks both are :)
-
[QUOTE=IBrake4Rainbows]Because Weaponry is useless without the proper knowledge and tactical ability.
Something which, at the time, the US lacked.[/QUOTE]
The knowledge was there, of course. It was much harder fighting the Germans and Japanese 20 years earlier.
Unfortunately, the Vietnam war was fought politically, not militarilly. I remember that some troops were sent there with no bullets for their guns (they had to wait for orders to fire).
-
[QUOTE=spi-ti-tout]Don't break his heart he thinks both are :)[/QUOTE]
Aren't they?
-
[QUOTE=spi-ti-tout]You win a war with AMPLE military. I agree you can't win a war with LESS than ample military. But my question is why MORE than ample military when just AMPLE military could have won the waR?[/QUOTE]
More than ample military decreases the casualties.
-
[QUOTE=Fleet 500]The knowledge was there, of course. It was much harder fighting the Germans and Japanese 20 years earlier.
Unfortunately, the Vietnam war was fought politically, not militarilly. I remember that some troops were sent there with no bullets for their guns (they had to wait for orders to fire).[/QUOTE]
What in God's Name does WW2 have to do with this; Next on Fleet's Patented List of Red Herrings........
Helping to win WW2 does not give the US free reign over the world.
Political battles I can agree with, but the Understocking of Troops in Unjustified wars is common place; hows about unarmoured-soldiers fighting in Iraq.
What troops need is our support, what governments need is a clip over the ear and a dose of reality.
-
[QUOTE=Fleet 500]More than ample military decreases the casualties.[/QUOTE]
......On the US Side.
forgot that part.