Comments by "the truth hurts" (@thetruthhurts7675) on "‘Russia is not going to lose this war’, former British Army chief says" video.
-
2
-
Correct, only you really only know of the Vietnamese victories since WW2 of Vietnam. No one seems to know that the vietnamese have also been beaten just once, and in under 18 months since WW2. Also of course no one ever seems to remember that winning against just one enemy that outnumbers you isn't too difficult, many countries have in fact done this, winning against two even in defnsive wars has been done, but is difficult, However only one country has continously fought wars on three fronts, always outnumbered and supposedly "outgunned," Yet despite this they won when attacking on three fronts, or being attacked on three fronts, and formed the world's 5th largest Empire. Also being outgunned/outmanned in your own country is not really a thing, especially when the whole population works towards you demise.
1
-
@davidfaraday7963 Vietnam ....... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA... NO Vietnam has only ever faced one enemy at a time, and lost as I said to one inside 18 months since WW2.
My reply is simply this many many countries have won wars when supposedly outgunned, and outnumberred by a larger power. The USA for example constantly tells the world they beat the world's greatest ever power (which is true by the way), as an example of this. So one country beating another when they are supposedly the smaller power, but recieve aid from their own people, and (as in the case of the USA) other nations, when fighting "one on one" victory can be far easier than expected. Some countries Germany for example has always lived with the nightmare scenario of war on two fronts, both East, an west as have Austria, and Italy. Their is though only one country that forged an empire first honed purely out of revenge, then to stop China ruling it, and then facing the nightmare of war on 3 fronts, which has one from a position of never fielding in any place an army larger than the enemy, or having the security of knowing if they lose there are reserve armies, because their's were fully engaged elsewhere, yet through all of this they forged the world's 5th Largest Empire. These people basically at one time controlled almost all of Asia, apart from Japan, and India. They did go on eventually to control totally Afghanistan, and India. That empire was the Mongol Empire started by the person you know as the "Great Khan, or Genghis Khan."
Vietnam....................... I nearly spat my breakfast out all pver the floor I was so shocked at the wrong assumption, and laughter!! Vietnam only has one real enemy CHINA. Who by the way they have beaten easily since WW2!
Was That simple enough?
1
-
@davidfaraday7963 What is confused about mant countries win one on one wars with larger powers, a few have won against two or more. One has won on it's own against the next three greatest world powers, and one country, Mongolia, is the only country to have forged an Empire whilst continuously beating all of the odds on 3 fronts never having superior fire power manpower, or even in most cases their choice of ground on which to fight. If taht is garbled, and that is what I have written now for the last 2 posts, then I honestly wonder at the standard of your comprehension.
My final point was simply this : only one country has beaten Vietnam since WW2, and alone, and inside 18 months. The UN gave the mandate, and then a safe Vietnam was handed over to France.
I cannot account for your low standards of comprehension or understanding unless your natural (birth) language is NOT English.
1
-
@davidfaraday7963 It is not my clarity or lack of here, it is your comprehension that is at fault. My points were clear and concise, I haven't left out important details, except for deliberately leaving out the names of the countries I am talking about in two cases only. I am sorry for you if you didn't understand, however you are the only one ranting about comprehension, and clarity on here, so I make my point this way. YOU claim the high ground in comprehension, and clarity, and grammar, by inference. However as the only person making these claims, not just here, but on any thread I post on, or get replies on, then maaybe, just maybe your comprehension is lacking, not my clarity here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@judgedredd8876 Russia sent roughly 150,000 troops to Ukraine, the Ukraine armed forces in total pre the invasion was said to be 196,600, of which 35,000 were their airforces, and the naval element is roughly the same today at 15,000. This leaves 125,600 to face Russia's 150,000 at its worst Ukraine has never had the more numerous troops on the ground, nown as numerical parity. Today the numbers of Russian troops including those recently mobilised for Russia is roughly 250,000, whilst Ukraine now has roughly 200,000 troops of it's own. Russia is losing eberywhere from a position of superiority, and numerical advantage. Russia also has a far larger so called reserve with 2million so called reservists, while Ukraine has 900,000.
So once again your points are false as always!!
1
-
1