On this day in 1862 the French, the one nation that has never had a
major military victory, had their asses handed to them by the Mexican
Army.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html

Just another contribution to the French schizoid personality of
feeling superior while actually being inferior. :)

Later,

Tom

Napoleon? Did pretty well for a while, eh?

Butch
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On this day in 1862 the French, the one nation that has never had a
major military victory, had their asses handed to them by the Mexican
Army.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html

Just another contribution to the French schizoid personality of
feeling superior while actually being inferior. :)

Later,

Tom


Au contraire, mon ami.

You forget that the French won the French Revolution.
Of course, they were fighting the French.

Almost as well as Caesar!

"Butch Davis" wrote in message
ink.net...
Napoleon? Did pretty well for a while, eh?

Butch
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On this day in 1862 the French, the one nation that has never had a
major military victory, had their asses handed to them by the Mexican
Army.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html

Just another contribution to the French schizoid personality of
feeling superior while actually being inferior. :)

Later,

Tom


Au contraire, mon ami.

You forget that the French won the French Revolution.
Of course, they were fighting the French.

"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
Almost as well as Caesar!

"Butch Davis" wrote in message
ink.net...

Napoleon? Did pretty well for a while, eh?

Butch
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

On this day in 1862 the French, the one nation that has never had a
major military victory, had their asses handed to them by the Mexican
Army.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html

Just another contribution to the French schizoid personality of
feeling superior while actually being inferior. :)

Later,

Tom


Au contraire, mon ami.

You forget that the French won the French Revolution.
Of course, they were fighting the French.





Lest we forget, the US did not win the two major fighting wars it was
involved in after WW II.

Hehehe. Gulf Wars I and II don't "count" in Harry's book (I suppose because
we "won" them).

It got out with a "draw" in Korea,

Because we figured it would simply take too long and too much money to kill
1 billion Chinese.

and was whipped by Vietnam. Our sophisticated weaponry and tall talk
enables us to take on and defeat third and fourth rate military powers.

Actually, we're much better at killing the bad guys than they are at killing
us. If we were in a war for survival (instead of fighting to help preserve
someone elses's freedom halfway around the World), we'd win hands down.

In our "Quickie fast-food" world, the American public has grown unaccustomed
to waiting for anything. The longer a conflict drags on, the quicker we
lose patience and leave.

You say things like "we got our buts handed to us in Vietnam", yet 1 million
Vietcong died compared to our 50,000. If there was any butt-kicking going
on, it was directed against the side that lost 20 times more men.

"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...

Doug Kanter wrote:

Almost as well as Caesar!

"Butch Davis" wrote in message
rthlink.net...


Napoleon? Did pretty well for a while, eh?

Butch
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:


On this day in 1862 the French, the one nation that has never had a
major military victory, had their asses handed to them by the Mexican
Army.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html

Just another contribution to the French schizoid personality of
feeling superior while actually being inferior. :)

Later,

Tom


Au contraire, mon ami.

You forget that the French won the French Revolution.
Of course, they were fighting the French.



Lest we forget, the US did not win the two major fighting wars it was
involved in after WW II.


Hehehe. Gulf Wars I and II don't "count" in Harry's book (I suppose
because we "won" them).


Neither were major fighting wars against tough, well-trained, well-led
disciplined troops.





It got out with a "draw" in Korea,


Because we figured it would simply take too long and too much money to
kill 1 billion Chinese.


and was whipped by Vietnam. Our sophisticated weaponry and tall talk
enables us to take on and defeat third and fourth rate military powers.


Actually, we're much better at killing the bad guys than they are at
killing us. If we were in a war for survival (instead of fighting to
help preserve someone elses's freedom halfway around the World), we'd win
hands down.



This is based on what? Your somewhat hazy knowledge of 20th century
history?

Statistics and math. 500,000 Chinese and 1.1 million North Koreans died
during the Korean War. 54,000 American perished. When is dying at a rate
of 20:1 compared to our side, he better outnumber us 21:1 if he hopes to
have anybody standing when all is said and done.

"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
news
NOYB wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...

NOYB wrote:

"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...


Doug Kanter wrote:


Almost as well as Caesar!

"Butch Davis" wrote in message
. earthlink.net...



Napoleon? Did pretty well for a while, eh?

Butch
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...



Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:



On this day in 1862 the French, the one nation that has never had a
major military victory, had their asses handed to them by the
Mexican
Army.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html

Just another contribution to the French schizoid personality of
feeling superior while actually being inferior. :)

Later,

Tom


Au contraire, mon ami.

You forget that the French won the French Revolution.
Of course, they were fighting the French.


Lest we forget, the US did not win the two major fighting wars it was
involved in after WW II.


Hehehe. Gulf Wars I and II don't "count" in Harry's book (I suppose
because we "won" them).


Neither were major fighting wars against tough, well-trained, well-led
disciplined troops.





It got out with a "draw" in Korea,


Because we figured it would simply take too long and too much money to
kill 1 billion Chinese.



and was whipped by Vietnam. Our sophisticated weaponry and tall talk
enables us to take on and defeat third and fourth rate military powers.


Actually, we're much better at killing the bad guys than they are at
killing us. If we were in a war for survival (instead of fighting to
help preserve someone elses's freedom halfway around the World), we'd
win hands down.



This is based on what? Your somewhat hazy knowledge of 20th century
history?


Statistics and math. 500,000 Chinese and 1.1 million North Koreans died
during the Korean War. 54,000 American perished. When is dying at a
rate of 20:1 compared to our side, he better outnumber us 21:1 if he
hopes to have anybody standing when all is said and done.





Do you know how many Vietnamese died

3 million.

So what's your point? The Vietnamese died at a rate of 60:1 compared to
Americans in that war.

We lost the war of political wills...not the war of actual armed conflict.

Harry has a hard time understanding political will. He sticks his finger in
the air, see which way the "political" wind is blowing and then changes his
mind.
If it wasn't for the dem's talking points he would not have anything to talk
about.



"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
news
NOYB wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...

NOYB wrote:

"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...


Doug Kanter wrote:


Almost as well as Caesar!

"Butch Davis" wrote in message
.earthlink.net...



Napoleon? Did pretty well for a while, eh?

Butch
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...



Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:



On this day in 1862 the French, the one nation that has never had
a
major military victory, had their asses handed to them by the
Mexican
Army.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html

Just another contribution to the French schizoid personality of
feeling superior while actually being inferior. :)

Later,

Tom


Au contraire, mon ami.

You forget that the French won the French Revolution.
Of course, they were fighting the French.


Lest we forget, the US did not win the two major fighting wars it was
involved in after WW II.


Hehehe. Gulf Wars I and II don't "count" in Harry's book (I suppose
because we "won" them).


Neither were major fighting wars against tough, well-trained, well-led
disciplined troops.





It got out with a "draw" in Korea,


Because we figured it would simply take too long and too much money to
kill 1 billion Chinese.



and was whipped by Vietnam. Our sophisticated weaponry and tall talk
enables us to take on and defeat third and fourth rate military
powers.


Actually, we're much better at killing the bad guys than they are at
killing us. If we were in a war for survival (instead of fighting to
help preserve someone elses's freedom halfway around the World), we'd
win hands down.



This is based on what? Your somewhat hazy knowledge of 20th century
history?


Statistics and math. 500,000 Chinese and 1.1 million North Koreans died
during the Korean War. 54,000 American perished. When is dying at a
rate of 20:1 compared to our side, he better outnumber us 21:1 if he
hopes to have anybody standing when all is said and done.





Do you know how many Vietnamese died

3 million.

So what's your point? The Vietnamese died at a rate of 60:1 compared to
Americans in that war.

We lost the war of political wills...not the war of actual armed conflict.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...


Lest we forget, the US did not win the two major fighting wars it was
involved in after WW II.

Hehehe. Gulf Wars I and II don't "count" in Harry's book (I suppose
because we "won" them).

Are you nuts? That's like bragging after you (meaning you personally) kicked
the crap out of an 8 yr old kid behind a dumpster. Remember the news, on
days 1 & 2 of both wars? "Little or no resistance", at least not until we
reached the cities, where every army on earth is at a disadvantage.



It got out with a "draw" in Korea,

Because we figured it would simply take too long and too much money to
kill 1 billion Chinese.

You think someone didn't know this BEFORE we went into Korea???



In our "Quickie fast-food" world, the American public has grown
unaccustomed to waiting for anything. The longer a conflict drags on, the
quicker we lose patience and leave.

Depending on what date you choose, we were at war in Vietnam for between 8
and 15 years. How long do you think would've been long enough?



You say things like "we got our buts handed to us in Vietnam", yet 1
million Vietcong died compared to our 50,000. If there was any
butt-kicking going on, it was directed against the side that lost 20 times
more men.

The numbers are irrelevant. We did not achieve our stated goals.

"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
news
NOYB wrote:

"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...


NOYB wrote:


"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...



Doug Kanter wrote:



Almost as well as Caesar!

"Butch Davis" wrote in message
l.earthlink.net...




Napoleon? Did pretty well for a while, eh?

Butch
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...




Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:




On this day in 1862 the French, the one nation that has never had
a
major military victory, had their asses handed to them by the
Mexican
Army.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html

Just another contribution to the French schizoid personality of
feeling superior while actually being inferior. :)

Later,

Tom


Au contraire, mon ami.

You forget that the French won the French Revolution.
Of course, they were fighting the French.


Lest we forget, the US did not win the two major fighting wars it was
involved in after WW II.


Hehehe. Gulf Wars I and II don't "count" in Harry's book (I suppose
because we "won" them).


Neither were major fighting wars against tough, well-trained, well-led
disciplined troops.





It got out with a "draw" in Korea,


Because we figured it would simply take too long and too much money to
kill 1 billion Chinese.




and was whipped by Vietnam. Our sophisticated weaponry and tall talk
enables us to take on and defeat third and fourth rate military
powers.


Actually, we're much better at killing the bad guys than they are at
killing us. If we were in a war for survival (instead of fighting to
help preserve someone elses's freedom halfway around the World), we'd
win hands down.



This is based on what? Your somewhat hazy knowledge of 20th century
history?


Statistics and math. 500,000 Chinese and 1.1 million North Koreans died
during the Korean War. 54,000 American perished. When is dying at a
rate of 20:1 compared to our side, he better outnumber us 21:1 if he
hopes to have anybody standing when all is said and done.





Do you know how many Vietnamese died


3 million.

So what's your point? The Vietnamese died at a rate of 60:1 compared to
Americans in that war.

We lost the war of political wills...not the war of actual armed
conflict.





The number is higher, actually.

We lost the war, period.

3 million dead Vietnamese compared to 58,000 Americans.

We quit because of the lack of political will...not because we were beaten.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...


Lest we forget, the US did not win the two major fighting wars it was
involved in after WW II.

Hehehe. Gulf Wars I and II don't "count" in Harry's book (I suppose
because we "won" them).

Are you nuts? That's like bragging after you (meaning you personally)
kicked the crap out of an 8 yr old kid behind a dumpster. Remember the
news, on days 1 & 2 of both wars? "Little or no resistance", at least not
until we reached the cities, where every army on earth is at a
disadvantage.



It got out with a "draw" in Korea,

Because we figured it would simply take too long and too much money to
kill 1 billion Chinese.

You think someone didn't know this BEFORE we went into Korea???

Of course. And that's one of the reasons why Truman didn't allow MacArthur
to push past the 38th parallel, once he had driven the N. Koreans back to
it.

What would you have preferred happened, Doug? Let Pusan (and the Americans
holed up there) be overrun instead?

Harry says we fought to a draw. Not a chance. Truman's objective was to
recapture Seoul and reestablish an independent South Korea. In that case,
we clearly won.

Had MacArthur pushed into N. Korea as *he* wanted, we'd have probably
engaged the entire Soviet military (instead of just their fighter pilots)
*and* the Chinese. Inevitably, nukes would have been used.

If we "only fought to a draw", it was because of the looming threat of a
nuclear engagement with Russia. This is an example of how nukes tip the
balance of power. And this is precisely why a nuclear Iran is such a scary
thought.







In our "Quickie fast-food" world, the American public has grown
unaccustomed to waiting for anything. The longer a conflict drags on,
the quicker we lose patience and leave.

Depending on what date you choose, we were at war in Vietnam for between 8
and 15 years. How long do you think would've been long enough?

Why didn't we send ground forces north of the 17th parallel? Why didn't we
bomb the hell out of the North with our B-52's?
We'll never know "how long would've been enough" since we didn't fight that
war appropriately.





You say things like "we got our buts handed to us in Vietnam", yet 1
million Vietcong died compared to our 50,000. If there was any
butt-kicking going on, it was directed against the side that lost 20
times more men.

The numbers are irrelevant. We did not achieve our stated goals.

In Korea we did. Does that still mean that we "fought to a draw"?