Vietnam was a long time ago, Afghanistan didn’t really have a traditional military, and the Iraq military was absolutely curb-stomped by the Americans.
I made a comment that’s entire point is that the US is bad at occupations because it can’t deal with insurgencies. You countered with examples of it being defeated by insurgencies. I pointed out that those examples were insurgencies, and now you’re acting like it’s some kind of sudden twist in my argument that I think they’re bad against insurgencies.
I don’t understand what you’re trying to argue. Are you just not capable of agreeing with someone without being a dick about it?
Except in Vietnam. And Iraq. And Afghanistan.
Vietnam was a long time ago, Afghanistan didn’t really have a traditional military, and the Iraq military was absolutely curb-stomped by the Americans.
“hurr durr I said ‘military’ so insurgency doesn’t count!”
I made a comment that’s entire point is that the US is bad at occupations because it can’t deal with insurgencies. You countered with examples of it being defeated by insurgencies. I pointed out that those examples were insurgencies, and now you’re acting like it’s some kind of sudden twist in my argument that I think they’re bad against insurgencies.
I don’t understand what you’re trying to argue. Are you just not capable of agreeing with someone without being a dick about it?