I could say the same thing about you Buddy. Why don't you tell us again how AQ is like the VietCong... :roll:

You can still lose a war while staying undefeated in battles, or having won many battles, but not the decisive ones.

This is what I wanted - and think I have - said and exporessed and made clear. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing different. Just this: you can still lose a war although you stay victorious in a battle. And this limits also my "comparison" between Vietcong - which I indeed used as a term to identify the enemy in Vietnam altogether - and Al Quaeda or Taliban. They all lose and have lost in field battles. But still win and have won the greater conflict.

Play with yourself. Your trick has been called by its name by several people .

And I did not say, nowhere, AQ is like the VC. The reference and comparison I made was a different one.

The decisive battle could never happen in Vietnam more due to political configuration than any thing else.

So what? Several people take my side too.

No, it was quite clear. You said the VietCONG won the Vietnam war.

I just disagreed with that assertion and showed that credit rightfully belongs to the North Vietnamese and their red Chinese backers. But like whenever someone disagrees with any tiny thing in your rants you went off the deep end accusing me of claiming that America didn't loose. We'll that's not what I said and you are still wrong. The only thing the VietCONG won was death and marginalization in the new Vietnam order.

When most people think of the Vietnam war they automatically think of the Vietcong or Charlie, and not the NVA. August is right though, the Vietcong smashed themselves into a brick wall during the Tet offensive and played a fairly minor part throughout the rest of the war, if any.
Their effect was more psychological than it was strategic, but it worked, and then once the Paris accords went into place and the US withdraw the NVA were able to mop up.

The thing is, Vietnam was a war that, like Afghanistan and Iraq, was not winnable with the SOP that was in place, and was not a war that was winnable swiftly and bloodlessly. Therefore war weariness set in, public opinion swung against it, and the US was unable to continue it. This happens in all kinds of governments, not just democracies, the Soviet Union had a similar problem in Afghanistan, only public opinion on the war was suppressed and controlled in true Soviet style. The PRC has had the same problem in Tibet over the past three decades, which they are only solving through forced migration and population change. I couldn't say how long a war needs to continue before war weariness sets in, although I think the communications involved in the era may play a part or perhaps the style of war, for example if a enemy is bombing you via aircraft then it may alleviate war weariness through determination to see it through to the end, it's a society emotional based thing and therefore almost impossible to predict.

Still, TLDR, Al'Qaeda has won battles, Vietcong won some battles, but both have yet to win a war solely.

But they did even if he didn't say it, Just like France won the second world war.
The nazis might have kicked their arses in a campaign but France still get a mention as winners against germany, just like the VC get a mention as the winners in the end against others like thailand australia S korea S vietnam and the USA who all lost the war.

Looks like AQ is making inroads with the Rebels now, while we sit around and do nothing. How we deal with this, I don't really know. Don't need to get into another war, but this could be a big problem down the road.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2...utmk=262244815

Stop the money from Saudi, Qatar and Kuwait flooding to the salafist groups.
After all those nations are supposedly your friends so you coud ask them very nicely.