bdbdbd on 20 June 2009
| mrstickball said: What's the point of the Vietnam answer, Barozi? Vietnam is an example of how retards in politics can destroy a military. The US could have EASILY won Vietnam, but did not chose to do it, thanks to Johnson and his Lunch Bunch. Nothing more. |
But despite of the bigger military force, it was still fucked up operation.
Despite the Vietnam comment being a good joke, it does show how human elements add a certain random factor into the matter. In any case, either of fictious sides aren't making "only good choices" or "only bad choices", both are making both.
When we talk about warfare in practice, there are lots of things to take into consideration outside the fighting. Only hypothetical examples can be used free of these issues. In a hypothetical example, we could wonder why USA doesn't conquer Canada, if it's so that USA could do it. Canada separates Alaska from mainland USA, so it would even had some real advantages.
In an example, where we relate the situation into real life, it's easy to see why they really can't do it.
Ei Kiinasti.
Eikä Japanisti.
Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.
Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.
