America's weapons will never be tested to their fullest potential, because, well, you aim for oil. I'm saying that the US isn't all bright and open about their weapons and you often lie about them, hell, your government's been lying to your face for over 20 years. I've never stated that the US maked bad military equipment, I guess some people have difficulty reading. Drones are a prime example, a lot of their development occurred during Iraq and Afghanistan- they made things a whole lot worse by indiscriminately killing 20 odd people to target 1 person, effectively alienating the populace against the occupiers even more.Ī great example on where US equipment and strategy was employed to achieve a decisive victory was the initial attack on Baghdad in the Iraq war, I'm absolutely ok with praising that. I don't dispute the US could probably fuck up just about every nation going in a traditional war, but the fact is the equipment that was developed to face an insurgency did not do the job. The US fought against and effectively lost against insurgencies, that is a direct contradiction of what you said, which specified "in battle", not "in open battle" which would connote a more traditional campaign against an established armed force. You don't really seem to have an answer other than changing goalposts to what you said you meant.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |