Tell that to the soldiers getting shot by AKs.
You missed the point...
You were trying to prove that because of the AK, the US forces have a hard time in Iraq - they don't. First of all, most attacks on the US by insurgents are suicide attacks, not actual firefights, and second, the M16/M4 proved superior in the actual war.
No one, because no one was defeated at the economic or military level. That's how war ends, when your opponent can no longer fight. We left because of political pressure, not because of a strain of resources or people.
I really dint care what your personal opinion about this issue is, since im going with the major consensus of society. A war is won or lost when a set of goals is met or failed, and the US failed to eliminate the North Vietnamese threat, thats why we lost. The North Vietnamese goal was not to destroy the united states army, but to drive it out. That is what they did, that is why they won. Wars are more complex than a simple concept of "destroy the other guy"
The consensus of society was "let's get the **** out of there, this is pointless". I don't think you realize how anti-war the people of the US were at that time, and how much pressure they put on the government to withdraw. The US never lost - the US gave up. There is a difference.
No problem, that is why a good amount use both.
Not really. None of the top special forces use the AK as a preference - they prefer the M4.
This isn't about tech and training vs other tech and training, this is about the M4 vs the AK47, and you still havn't really named two countries that gave us a hard time with an AK-47. You named Vietnam - but the people who gave us a hard time were the international and domestic community, you named Iraq, but the Iraqi government has been soundly defeated, and things are going well with stabilizing and reconstructing Iraq.
Try again, name a nation that actually gave us a hard time with the AK-47, and because of the AK-47.
It is truly pointless to have a discussion with you because of your blind patriotic xenophobia which causes you to be utterly illogical.
Ah yes, insults, how original.
For your information, I am part Middle Eastern, part South East Asian, and grew up in a Muslim household. Calling me xenophobic? Don't make assumptions.
It is all about preference. Your preference is the M4, but your arguments are very simple minded.
It isn't about preference - no wealthy nation would give their soldiers AKs.
The destroys force of a nation is not simply determined by a government interface.
We're not talking about government interface, are we?
Vietnam was a clear defeat to the US.
Read above.
Iraq was a victory for the US, however Iraq is giving the US forces stationed there a very hard time.
No, insurgents are giving the US a hard time. And guess what? These insurgents are made mostly up of non-Iraqis, and they prefer to bomb rather than confront US soldiers in an actual firefight.
A country is determined by its people, not its leader.
You're right. But that has nothing to do about the AK vs the M4.
Lastly, if you think that things will are going to keep stabilizing and will keep going well, you clearly do not know anything about the history of occupation.
You mean like the occupation of Japan? Yeah, that went terrible, just look at the mess the US made over there...those poor Japanese.
Your basing your understanding of the occupation on most of history on nations other than the US, rather than what is actually happening. Granted, most occupations have never resulted well, but when it comes to the US, it's had a rather good track when it comes to major occupations. Though technically, this is only their second major occupation ever. And it's finally going well. I suggest you read up on the news. Watch some BBC, or use Al-Jazeera.
Discussion with you is pointless, because you clearly don't have the basic knowledge of logic.
Since I see so many people here on GS use that word incorrectly...I must ask...do you know what logic is?
dzaric
Log in to comment