It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: stormbringer1701
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Bolivia Ready For War With U.S
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.
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...
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.
originally posted by: Spider879
originally posted by: ketsuko
Why would we invade Venezuela?
Because It's there??..