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?