Quote:
Originally Posted by Ephirith
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Ultimately it was an unwinnable conflict in the strategic sense, because the rules of engagement prevented NATO from mistreating civilians,Similar to our current conflict in Afghanistan, we have complete force superiority. We, at this moment, have the power to round up every Afghan man, woman, and child, and kill them. That would end the conflict. The issue of win vs. no-win lies in the rules of engagement, not in the power of our military machine.
|
Exactly lol , No shit we can nuclear bomb Afghanistan an kill everyone and "win" in your eyes, do you not think those rules of engagement would apply to American citizens? hell with the way shits going probably not so you may be right
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] They never could round us up but with your logic yes they could win any battle technically with 1 bomb. Its true they were not aloud to use Nukes, so they packed up and went home after months of getting shot at by random people, you can never win without a nuke, you could never round up every single citizen unless they were dead or you had some insanely huge prison, that is exactly what would happen in America. TBH i do not think they cared about civil rights of the viet congo we took airforce etc over there and really fucked them up but it was vs farmers with guns and we had to back out.