I just showed evidence of military numbers and you tell me to research military numbers?
From YOUR OWN LINK:Originally Posted by Constantine View Post
They have numbers and discipline. Their equipment is all post soviet from the cold war. However like the Japanese in WW2 they are brainwashed to the point where they will fight to the death...all because they we're told to. Numbers matter. For example the US military is the strongest in the world ranging in at 313,847,465 personnel (2012) but China who has outdated equipment and recently embarrassed themselves with a copy of the F-35 Lightning that couldn't even fly....
has 1,344,130,00 (2012) members of the military. You read that right...1 billion.
Stalin's grand plan to defeat Hitler was to throw his forces at Hitler's, no retreat, no quarter, no taking of prisoners, and Stalin won the Eastern Front. The battle of Stalingrad is a classic example where soviet forces just kept sending more and more men until the Germans starved and then we're weak...and then they pulled off a pintzer movement and defeating them. So there's definitely strength in numbers.
Total POULATION - 1,344,130,00
Active Frontline Personal - 2,285,000
I won't even bother with the rest because... dude, you are a joke. Go back to the 1st grade and learn basic math skills.
And some thought the same thing about Iraq:Suddam's forces we're demoralized and didn't want to fight us. An entire division gave up at once during the war. It's hardly comparable or even relevant to a topic that addresses a psychological hold over a people. Suddam was a leader, to the North Koreans....the little Kim is a god king
Iraqi army is tougher than US believes: The US claims a war against Saddam would be quick. Wrong, says analyst Toby Dodge, the conflict could be long and bloody
Iraqi army is tougher than US believes | World news | The Guardian
That is not what students are taught and if that is the message that you heard you heard it wrong, or your teacher (more likely) was a moron. They are taught that one should not rely solely on Wikipedia but that Wikipedia can be a good starting point as long as you check their sources. Many times their sources lead to the CIA Factbook that you referenced, or the FBI site, Or a scholarly article. If that can be verified then Wikipedia, if used correctly, can slam ****ing dunk a person using supposed primary source documents.1. Wiklipedia is not a viable source. Middle schoolers are taught this. Yet you are going to counter with wikipedia. Stunning. Hurry up and go quick review another source before that one bites you in the butt lol.
Wrong. We lost because of POLITICS. Our Navy SEALS were their worst nightmare. We OWNED them with guerrilla tactics in that regard. We never lost a battle but we lost the war... due to POLITCS. Any half educated person knows this.Viet Nam....you think those guerrillas we're better than the US forces? Nope....but they knew their land, they had their numbers, and they knew guerrilla tactics better. That's why the US lost Viet Nam.
That's great, but perhaps you should have attended a history class as well...I've studied history in college because at one time I was going to be a history teacher
And just a bit of advice, when you are getting completely and utterly ****ing owned as you clearly are... drop the arrogant attitude because it only makes you sound like an imbecile.
I like how no one even considers Iraq an ally.
"Obamacare delenda est"
Ich habe schon Pferde vor der Apotheke kotzen sehen.
Pakistan is hands down the most untrustworthy.
Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates