USA vs ISIL

[KnightTemplar]

ISIL on penalties after extra time.

'Murica by Arm Bar.:icon_chee

 

[GhostZ06]

1.- You dont know the point of break of them, but i can assure you they are highly motivated.

2.- Thats the point i was making combat is not the only factor that decides whether you win or lose a war, there are other important factors, if combat alone solved conflicts like it was a game of civilization 5 countries would be dropping nukes left and right. Saying that the Vietnam war wasnt actually lost when there was a huge material and life loss without the achievement of the objectives its a joke, maybe Anderson Silva actually won right?

It was lost because we didn't fight it like a war, we were a deployed as a enlarged border guard that never really truly went an all out offensive. Only at the end of the war, we saw that LINEBACKER II actually did have a larger effect on the NVA when we took off the regulated bombing an handed control of the military over to the general(which it should have been from the get go). Vietnam shows that politicians suck at fighting wars. Please stop bring up Vietnam an babble a bunch of nonsense. And comparing Vietnam to Iraq is like comparing horse shit to gold, so stop.





An comparing the US military to ISIS is like comparing super man to a kid on a tri-cycle with one of those 1950s popguns

 

[saanen vaeltaa]

Of course we lost Vietnam. We lost because we quit fighting. And we should have quit fighting because the price wasn't worth winning We should have never been there.

But this thread is about Iraq. We should have never been in Iraq, either, and the US is never going to accept the the cost it would take to actually keep the peace in the middle east. But Iraq is not Vietnam. A very small US force could easily sweep ISIS and their conveys of pickup trucks off the battlefield and scatter them into hiding behind innocents in population centers. If our goal is to pacify Iraq, then we should plan on intensive nation-building for the next 50 years or so. But if our goal is to stop ISIS from sacking Bagdhad, or sweeping them back to sympathetic population centers they can hide in, the US can do that with relative ease.

I wouldn't say the U.S lost the Vietnam War. I would say the South Vietnamese lost the Vietnam War. I think we had more or less kept South Vietnam out of North Vietnamese hands and had killed way more North Vietnamese than the other way around, by something like a 10-to-1 margin, before we bombed Hanoi and forced North Vietnamese to sign a peace agreement. Then we left and North Vietnamese broke that agreement. After that, North Vietnamese marched to Saigon and won war. So as long as we were militarily involved we achieved our stated objective and inflicted far greater casualties before forcing enemy to sign agreement. I don't see how that's the U.S. losing.

I agree with you on Iraq, however.

 

[Rod1]

All of this in bold is the fault of the current Iraqi President Al-Maliki. When he had a 15 minute meeting with an advisory panel at the White House, it turned into 1 and 1/2 hours. They pleaded with President Al-Maliki to include both Sunni and Shia into his new government. He refused and now he's whispering "Save us!" Now he's being told "This is what you wanted."

Al-Maliki got into power thanks to the efforts of the USA, the point remains, the US wasnt capable of fulfilling its objectives into Iraq and therefore the material and human loss was in vain.

 

[oldshadow]

The reason we "lost" nam is because we fought a police action not a war. We tried to secure the south by driving then north out and netralize the VC.

If we had keep up and increased the bombing on the north WW2 style we could have brought the north to their knees.

 

[Rod1]

Of course we lost Vietnam. We lost because we quit fighting. And we should have quit fighting because the price wasn't worth winning We should have never been there.

So what are you disagreeing with me.

But this thread is about Iraq. We should have never been in Iraq, either, and the US is never going to accept the the cost it would take to actually keep the peace in the middle east. But Iraq is not Vietnam. A very small US force could easily sweep ISIS and their conveys of pickup trucks off the battlefield and scatter them into hiding behind innocents in population centers.

Exactly, so what prevents ISIS from coming back after the US leaves? What prevents them from recruiting more individuals and its supply lines can be remade since the gulf states have not even got a slap in the hand from the international community.

Anything the US does will be in vain.

If our goal is to pacify Iraq, then we should plan on intensive nation-building for the next 50 years or so. But if our goal is to stop ISIS from sacking Bagdhad, or sweeping them back to sympathetic population centers they can hide in, the US can do that with relative ease.

No war is with relative ease, materials costs are always through the roof and there is always the loss of human life, and thats not the point, the US can win any battle because of its infinite resources, but time has shown that winning battles doesnt necesarily means you win a war.

 

[Rod1]

It was lost because we didn't fight it like a war, we were a deployed as a enlarged border guard that never really truly went an all out offensive. Only at the end of the war, we saw that LINEBACKER II actually did have a larger effect on the NVA when we took off the regulated bombing an handed control of the military over to the general(which it should have been from the get go). Vietnam shows that politicians suck at fighting wars. Please stop bring up Vietnam an babble a bunch of nonsense. And comparing Vietnam to Iraq is like comparing horse shit to gold, so stop.


An comparing the US military to ISIS is like comparing super man to a kid on a tri-cycle with one of those 1950s popguns

More 4x time more bombs were thrown during operation rolling thunderthan during WW2. Seriously you are going full brazilian on this one.

 

[Rod1]

The reason we "lost" nam is because we fought a police action not a war. We tried to secure the south by driving then north out and netralize the VC.

If we had keep up and increased the bombing on the north WW2 style we could have brought the north to their knees.

4x time more bombs than in the entire WW2, make it per capita or per sq mile and its probably more than 30x-40x times WW2, the only thing short of WW2 was nukes, but this time around there were 2 other superpowers with nukes in the world.

Napalm, Agent Orange, exactly what was missing this time?

 

[Rod1]

I wouldn't say the U.S lost the Vietnam War. I would say the South Vietnamese lost the Vietnam War. I think we had more or less kept South Vietnam out of North Vietnamese hands and had killed way more North Vietnamese than the other way around, by something like a 10-to-1 margin, before we bombed Hanoi and forced North Vietnamese to sign a peace agreement. Then we left and North Vietnamese broke that agreement. After that, North Vietnamese marched to Saigon and won war. So as long as we were militarily involved we achieved our stated objective and inflicted far greater casualties before forcing enemy to sign agreement. I don't see how that's the U.S. losing.

I agree with you on Iraq, however.

Stated objective was to prevent the vietcong from overruning the south, that objective was not met.

Also the US also was trying to avoid, Soviet involvement in the war, so its not like it was a matter of storming Hanoi.

 

[oldshadow]

4x time more bombs than in the entire WW2, make it per capita or per sq mile and its probably more than 30x-40x times WW2, the only thing short of WW2 was nukes, but this time around there were 2 other superpowers with nukes in the world.

Napalm, Agent Orange, exactly what was missing this time?

We bombed the south and the boarder areas and not the north mostly, also we made little holes big and big holes bigger. Talk to people that were there.

What do you think would have happened if we carpet bombed the northern cities?

I'm not saying we should have been there in the first place, mainly because we had no plan to win only to tie.

 

[saanen vaeltaa]

Stated objective was to prevent the vietcong from overruning the south, that objective was not met. Also the US also was trying to avoid, Soviet involvement in the war, so its not like it was a matter of storming Hanoi.

As long as the U.S. was involved, the objective was met. North Vietnamese and Viet Cong only overran the South and won after the U.S. withdrew. Say I break into your house multiple times trying to claim your apartment as mine and each time I do you beat the shit out of me and force me out before I can . Then one time after doing this you come over to my house and beat the shit out of me and make me promise to never break into your house again. I say okay. Then you move because you're sick of me breaking into your house all the time. And a couple years later I go to your old house claim it as mine. Yes, I got your house but I don't get to tell people I beat you up for it and took it from you. You kicked the shit out of me when I wanted it and then I only got it when you really didn't care about it anymore and left it behind.

 

[Stokanator]

This question isn't even a matter of opinion! The US Military would absolutely obliterate ISIS as long as we have a commander in chief that empowers them to do so.

Obama has been the worst wartime president the US has ever seen! He knows absolutely nothing about the workings of military however that didn't stop him from ignoring the advice from the the best generals in the entire world! These Military commanders would request 30k troops and Obama would send 12K, they requested a military surge in Afghanistan long before Obama finally approved it. The guy is truly and embarrassment!

 

[drowningidiot]

This question isn't even a matter of opinion! The US Military would absolutely obliterate ISIS as long as we have a commander in chief that empowers them to do so.

Obama is the worst wartime president the US has ever seen! The man knows absolutely nothing about the workings of military yet that didn't stop him from ignoring the advice from the the best generals in the world that he assigned to commanded and win the Afghan and Iraq wars. These Military commanders would request 30k troops and Obama would send 12K, they requested a military surge in Afghanistan months and months before Obama finally approved it. The guy is truly and embarrassment!

So basically not enough meat is being tossed into the grinder for your liking.

 

[AmericanStryker]

Goddamnit, TS, I see what you did there. That there is called satire, gentlemen.

 

[Strychnine]

Al-Maliki got into power thanks to the efforts of the USA, the point remains, the US wasnt capable of fulfilling its objectives into Iraq and therefore the material and human loss was in vain.

Absolutely correct. The objective in Iraq was un-attainable since it never existed in the first place.

 

[GhostZ06]

More 4x time more bombs were thrown during operation rolling thunderthan during WW2. Seriously you are going full brazilian on this one.

So? this is relevant because? guided bombs weren't used until the end of the war during linebacker 2

 

[Abortedone]

drop a atom bomb on them and be done with it

 

[dawnslayer]

Goddamnit, TS, I see what you did there. That there is called satire, gentlemen.

you can never tell, the boston marathon bomber (yes that dead asshole) was a sherdogger who posted shit like this till he got banned

 

[Rod1]

As long as the U.S. was involved, the objective was met. North Vietnamese and Viet Cong only overran the South and won after the U.S. withdrew. Say I break into your house multiple times trying to claim your apartment as mine and each time I do you beat the shit out of me and force me out before I can . Then one time after doing this you come over to my house and beat the shit out of me and make me promise to never break into your house again. I say okay. Then you move because you're sick of me breaking into your house all the time. And a couple years later I go to your old house claim it as mine. Yes, I got your house but I don't get to tell people I beat you up for it and took it from you. You kicked the shit out of me when I wanted it and then I only got it when you really didn't care about it anymore and left it behind.

That makes absolutely no sense, in that scenario the nazis won the war in 39, 40 and 41, but lost the years 42 and forward.

Wars are fought for objectives, not as a dick measuring contest, the objective of the USA was to avoid the Vietcong to overrun south vietnam and that objective was not met, hence the US lost the war.

Your analogy makes sense in a videogame or a competition, not in real life.

 

[Rod1]

So? this is relevant because? guided bombs weren't used until the end of the war during linebacker 2

As opposed to the guided bombs during WW2? the argument was that the US didnt go WW2 on Vietnam, because of "hippies".

It didnt went WW2, (which i assume is nuking) because it sets a precedent for the Soviets to go the same against other countries, or being afraid it would cause a direct confrontation with Russia or China, which are countries with nukes.