- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Let me answer your question with a question:
A grand master and a player of moderate skill sit down for a game of chess. The game ends in a stalemate -- the grand master with a king and two bishops and the other with just his king.
Who won?
That still doesn't explain how the United States military was defeated militarily, in Vietnam.
Still care to tackle that?
IOW, it's totally irrelevant to the current discussion, as to battlefield tactics. Yes?
I'm saying that good things come to those who wait, which seems to be the main thrust of what repeter was saying.
IOW, you don't have the first goddamn clue?
You better be really careful. Redress don't like mother****ers who can't back their own bull****. She'll be in here on your ass!
Um, seeing as how I used the expression and then defined what I meant, I know exactly what I meant.
Why are you hiding behind her?
You're refusing to answer the question because you see my point.
It's no problem, because even if you played along and let me make my point, you'd just dismiss it out of hand. You refuse to admit defeat, even when you're wrong.
That still doesn't explain how the United States military was defeated militarily, in Vietnam.
Still care to tackle that?
This deadlock isn't helping anyone, so let me answer who won the chess match for him. Obviously the amateur (insurgents) won, because the odds were heavily against him, and the master (the US) was a shoe-in to win, and could have done a hell of a lot better. Therefore, an amateur's draw against a master is a loss for the master, and a victory for the amateur.
But that is a rather simplistic comparison to make, and there are a lot of factors that it fails to contend with. Regardless, I have to say, I really liked it
As in my other post, I'm trying to break this useless deadlock, so I'll answer for Tactical.
We lost Vietnam because we didn't have the political will to stay in the fight until the end, and Tactical would argue that we further failed to do as well as we should have, and could have, because of a lack of political will.
Of course, it can still be argued we got out because it wouldnt be worth starting a larger conflict with China, and perhaps cause the world to end.
This deadlock isn't helping anyone, so let me answer who won the chess match for him. Obviously the amateur (insurgents) won, because the odds were heavily against him, and the master (the US) was a shoe-in to win, and could have done a hell of a lot better. Therefore, an amateur's draw against a master is a loss for the master, and a victory for the amateur.
But that is a rather simplistic comparison to make, and there are a lot of factors that it fails to contend with. Regardless, I have to say, I really liked it
You're refusing to answer the question because you see my point.
It's no problem, because even if you played along and let me make my point, you'd just dismiss it out of hand. You refuse to admit defeat, even when you're wrong.
Ok, make your point...without riddles, that is.
That wasn't a riddle, that was a comparison. It's only a riddle if you don't get it.
At any rate, we rounded up one of the best military forces on the planet, invaded, and then we left the battlefield because we lost the will to fight.
There's absolutely no way you could possibly paint the United States the victor, for the same reason the grand master lost the draw.
We left the battlefield, because the it wasn't politically expedient for the politicians.
Our military wasn't defeated on the battlefield, nor did our troops lose their will to make war upon the enemy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?