Indyfella wrote:It wasn't the soldiers that lost the Viet Nam war, it was the press. Viet Nam just waited us out.
It's not possible to occupy a country without sufficient forces to do the job.That's the reason the British Empire collapsed after all, for some strange reason after a world war people all of a suddern thought "hmmmn I think we would like to run ourselves now instead of you ruling over us".
Vietnam has a long history, and it's ironic most arent aware who trained the Vietnamese in gorilla tactics to deal with a modern army (IE the French FL) and consequently inflict sufficient losses to make the occupier basically leave.
Afghanistan is exactly the same, they have a tradition and have done so for avery long time as acting as mercenaries, fighting for and against the British at times in the past.The terrain makes it a very difficult country to occupy.
You cant fly safely (due to nice cheap surface to air missiles and the fact helocopters are nice and vulnerable.
The roads are easily mined and narrow in the mountains which makes ambushing really easy as well.
In short it's the same old same old but the only way to win a war is to use overwhelming numbers and then disarm the locals.If you don't, you've had it.
And now adays you can watch IED's blowing up Soldiers on the net as soon as someone uploads the footage via their phone or laptop within minutes of the incident happening.
The information/bullshit age is here ladies and gents.
Obama for President....tertius decimus.....Liberty!!!!!!: click here to read the entire thread »