Bolivia Ready For War With U.S

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: thesmokingman
Well, for a country that has ZERO fighter jets, I wish them luck in their future endeavors. They are not a threat to the US in any form or fashion. That's cute though...www.globalfirepower.com...


p?country_id=bolivia
Now go ahead and compare that to the US...www.globalfirepower.com...

Heavy firepower isn't everything though...

It isn't good to have a short memory.

Does Vietnam ring a bell? How about Afghanistan?

The North Vietnamese defeated the USA. The Taliban hasn't been defeated and still has influence in some areas of Afghanistan.

If the USA were to show overt aggression in, and towards, South America, i would predict they would have a very tough time.

the NVA were destroyed. they did not defeat us. we left. then they defeated the south. Afghanistan we defeated them in time to be home for lunch. Iraq we defeated them in time to be home for morning cartoons. you seem to equate the need to eventually leave with defeat. if so; i guess when we leave korea; NK will have defeated us. When we leave Japan japan will have defeated us. and when we leave europe; italy and germany (and russia) will have defeated us. and when we leave johnson atol the what sea turtles? will have defeated us? Your victory conditions evidently include never leaving.

Bollocks


Victory is being able to leave and nor have the ones you were fighting take over again,
If you leave Germany Nazi wont take over, or if you leave japan they wont go back to what they had evt


North vietnam was not destroyed as you put it, if it was it would not have taken the south..



America lost in vietnam. Man up and accept it.


Learn from it so it never happens again.


Usa lost vietnam politicaly not military but it still lost,

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: daaskapital
I'm sorry, but last i checked, Saigon fell and the USA turned tail and ran.

Not at all what happened.

Number of North soldiers killed .. 1+ million.
Number of US killed ... 58k.

The US had it's hands tied and still destroyed the North. We did not leave because we lost, we left because of pressure created by the media and a populace unwilling to continue the war. South Vietnam did not fall until 2 years after the US left, not at all the image you portray of the South already haven fallen and the US scattered to the winds.

You forget the 300 thousand south vietnemese allies that died.


But being American I should have expectd you to ignore them and make it out you fought alone.


And if victory is measured in numbers killed hitler won WW2 against Russia

Or we are discussing AMERICA's losses. America had very few losses compared to the enemy.

America left because the people grew tired of the war, not because the military lost. Literally nothing in common with Germany/Russia and WWII. If you think the US did not have the ability to lay waste to the North you are simply ignorant. Our military fought with it's hands tied and still won as far as the engagement part is concerned. We did not withdraw because we were beaten and routed, we left because of the sentiment back home towards the war.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Political or military loss? A loss is still a loss.


USA still withdrew and North vietnam still took the south and completed its war goals.


They still won.


Does not matter how you put it, they won.

a reply to: crazyewok

Which has nothing to do with my post or the point I made. The person made it sound as if the US was outmatched and routed. The US was winning until the people demanded we stop and politicians ended our involvement.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Why would we invade Venezuela?

Because It's there??..

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: thesmokingman
Well, for a country that has ZERO fighter jets, I wish them luck in their future endeavors. They are not a threat to the US in any form or fashion. That's cute though...www.globalfirepower.com...
Now go ahead and compare that to the US...www.globalfirepower.com...

Heavy firepower isn't everything though...

It isn't good to have a short memory.

Does Vietnam ring a bell? How about Afghanistan?

The North Vietnamese defeated the USA. The Taliban hasn't been defeated and still has influence in some areas of Afghanistan.

If the USA were to show overt aggression in, and towards, South America, i would predict they would have a very tough time.

the NVA were destroyed. they did not defeat us. we left. then they defeated the south. Afghanistan we defeated them in time to be home for lunch. Iraq we defeated them in time to be home for morning cartoons. you seem to equate the need to eventually leave with defeat. if so; i guess when we leave korea; NK will have defeated us. When we leave Japan japan will have defeated us. and when we leave europe; italy and germany (and russia) will have defeated us. and when we leave johnson atol the what sea turtles? will have defeated us? Your victory conditions evidently include never leaving.

American firepower was effective, but it never ultimately stopped the reunification of Vietnam under Communist rule. Indeed, while America withdrew most of its forces before the fall of Saigon and the annexation of South Vietnam, it can still be argued that the USA and its allies were ultimately defeated. South Vietnam collapsed and the USA evacuated what was left of their presence from Saigon.

South Vietnam and its allies were defeated, and North Vietnam reunified the country. It was a victory for them and a loss for the USA and its allies. This is understandable when one considers the goals of each side.

Afghanistan is a different matter. The Taliban hasn't been defeated. Sure, they were pushed out of governance, but they still hold sway in some areas and they aren't going away any time soon. It's still too early to tell, but i think Afghanistan could still yet fall if the USA is not careful in how it exits the country, and with what stability and resources it leaves the government.

As for me thinking one's leaving is equivalent to that of defeat, you are incorrect in your assertions.

In any case, all of this is beside the point. My original argument is that the USA does not have a good track record when it comes to dealing with insurgent or unconventional forces. The USA had a difficult time fighting the Viet Cong, and they still haven't ultimately eroded the power of the Taliban, even if it has already dealt significant damage to it. Considering these factors, i believe they would have a hard time if they ever did find themselves in conflict with South America. Some South American states have began transitioning a significant portion of their military into unconventional forces.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: daaskapital
I'm sorry, but last i checked, Saigon fell and the USA turned tail and ran.

Not at all what happened.

Number of North soldiers killed .. 1+ million.
Number of US killed ... 58k.

The US had it's hands tied and still destroyed the North. We did not leave because we lost, we left because of pressure created by the media and a populace unwilling to continue the war. South Vietnam did not fall until 2 years after the US left, not at all the image you portray of the South already haven fallen and the US scattered to the winds.

The US destroyed the North...which then invaded and annexed South Vietnam. Nice job at defeating the North Vietnamese there...

While the USA withdrew the vast majority of its forces 2 years beforehand, it still had to evacuate its presence directly preceding the fall of Saigon. The USA was still active in, and supporting of, South Vietnam during the time of the North's push.

a reply to: Telos

More and more countries around the world are realizing that USA is in covert war with them

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: daaskapital
I'm sorry, but last i checked, Saigon fell and the USA turned tail and ran.

Not at all what happened.

Number of North soldiers killed .. 1+ million.
Number of US killed ... 58k.

The US had it's hands tied and still destroyed the North. We did not leave because we lost, we left because of pressure created by the media and a populace unwilling to continue the war. South Vietnam did not fall until 2 years after the US left, not at all the image you portray of the South already haven fallen and the US scattered to the winds.

The US destroyed the North...which then invaded and annexed South Vietnam. Nice job at defeating the North Vietnamese there...

While the USA withdrew the vast majority of its forces 2 years beforehand, it still had to evacuate its presence directly preceding the fall of Saigon. The USA was still active in, and supporting of, South Vietnam during the time of the North's push.

So you are saying after nearly the entirety of the US withdrew the North made gains, and not before? Saigon fell after the US withdrew, and not as you were trying to say earlier that it fell and then the US withdrew?

Basically everything I said was true? The US destroyed the North, and left due to an unhappy populace at home that did not want the war to continue. The US lost not due to the military being incapable of fighting, but because the citizens refused to continue. Saigon did not fall until well after the US forces nearly fully withdrew. That was also the US fighting with their hands tied behind their back. The US should not be involved in any war where they are not willing to let the military run the military.

I would say that they would side with Islamic terrorists to fight America, but, since the majority of S.America is Catholic, I doubt they are going to go for that whole situation. Scary days ahead.

Am I reading this wrong or is it a claim that Bolivia would side with Venezuela in case it was attacked (which is vastly different than "go to war vs 'murica")?

Venezuela, on top of having vast oil resources, does already have a central bank? No? Coincidence? I guess they have all reasons to be afraid to get attacked, not necessarily in a conventional military way...

Bolivia Ready For War With U.S

Oh Nooooooo! Not Bolivia! whatever will we do? Aaaaaargh! Aaaaargh

originally posted by: MrWendal

originally posted by: thesmokingman
Well, for a country that has ZERO fighter jets, I wish them luck in their future endeavors. They are not a threat to the US in any form or fashion. That's cute though...www.globalfirepower.com...
Now go ahead and compare that to the US...www.globalfirepower.com...

Afghanistan had zero fighter jets. They proved to be a threat to Russia as that war economically bled Russia dry.

A Country does not have to be militarily mighty in order to be a threat.

They are no threat whatsoever to the USA...period. Afghanistan may have been a tough fight for the Soviets in the 80's, in the 80's! Last time I checked, the US had no problem at all beating up on Afghanistan. Then right after they go into Iraq. Now look...Libya...done. Syria, work in process. Point is, the USA has unfortunately mastered the art of war . So much in fact, that the US are now making their own fighters, (ISIS) to fight against and use for target practice and to get their hands into other countries as well.

originally posted by: Mastronaut
Am I reading this wrong or is it a claim that Bolivia would side with Venezuela in case it was attacked (which is vastly different than "go to war vs 'murica")?

Venezuela, on top of having vast oil resources, does already have a central bank? No? Coincidence? I guess they have all reasons to be afraid to get attacked, not necessarily in a conventional military way...

Yes it has a central bank the only places that do not are 7 micro nations Andorra, Monaco, Nauru, Kiribati, Tuvalu,, Palau, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, the last 3 of which are in compacts of free assosiation with the US. Also when was the last time the US got oil from a nation it went to war with? Never is a pretty safe answer.

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: Mastronaut
Am I reading this wrong or is it a claim that Bolivia would side with Venezuela in case it was attacked (which is vastly different than "go to war vs 'murica")?

Venezuela, on top of having vast oil resources, does already have a central bank? No? Coincidence? I guess they have all reasons to be afraid to get attacked, not necessarily in a conventional military way...

Yes it has a central bank the only places that do not are 7 micro nations Andorra, Monaco, Nauru, Kiribati, Tuvalu,, Palau, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, the last 3 of which are in compacts of free assosiation with the US. Also when was the last time the US got oil from a nation it went to war with? Never is a pretty safe answer.

My bad, for some reason at 3am I was under the impression that Venezuela didn't have a Rotschild bank. So we can be sure you will not invade them militarily.
But when was the last time the US destabilized a country to control their resource flow? I feel "always" it's a pretty safe answer.

maybe they just got a little mixed up? We're not invading we're deporting.

LMAO! Bolivia a threat to America? What is next, Costa Rica organizing an invasion?

Well I will say this, my buddy had a girlfriend from Bolivia, and damn could she make some very good green chili Bolivian salsa that was to die for. It was great poured over her home made tortillas when she would make us breakfast burritos. Nice girl, a little overly possessive, but a good girl. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: ketsuko
Why would we invade Venezuela?

Because It's there??..

And do what with it?

This is the same problem with the idea that we should just annex Mexico. I know, I know ... oil. Whatever. We have enough of our own for all that we refuse to use it.

The social, infrastructure and budgetary problems such a move would cause would far outweigh any possible, perceived benefits.

a reply to: SheopleNation

The only way that Bolivia and nations could be part of any threat is if they allied and coordinated with a far superior power's actions in other theaters. If, say, Russia and China attacked and then South America allied and invaded through Mexico, it would be difficult. I imagine that it would fall mostly to the civilian population with old, mothballed military hardware to try to repel the invasion which would get ugly because those S. American partisans are far more used to fighting than we are.

We'd have to learn fast.

a reply to: charlyv

We hear the same mentality about us dropping the 2 A-Bombs,because we were cowardly or afraid. We had no choice if we wanted anyone LEFT. YES we could totally win that war but not at at the HIGH cost of the human casualties. It wasn't worth it Giap knew it and that MORON LBJ didn't care.
OUR LEADERS lost wars our military never has. IF the leadership GET'S OUT of the way you have wars like Desert Storm where the General commands, an old CIA Director would know that.

We don't need Venzuela they have their own mess to clean up.
Socialism at it's finest.
So we agree.