9thIDdoc
Gold Member
- Aug 8, 2011
- 7,956
- 3,114
- 325
.....it was a country that was separated.....it was a country that was separatedRETARD it was 2 COUNTRIES. South Vietnam DID NOT FALL to rebels or insurgents or the citizens of that Country, they were invaded by 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, the people of South Vietnam were not in rebellion that ended with the TET Offensive in 68. Learn a few facts you dumb ass.after WW2, not many--if at all"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this"..like the OP says, we are not going into the North, etc......the Republicans could've been in charge--they are not going into the North, etc......
..we could've gone into the North and still no win
..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this
Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.
1. so, you named a WHOLE 2 wars. WOW!! out of HUNDREDS
a. you are blind or cannot understand basic English--I said AFTER WW2
....I can name dozens where there was no takeover
2. Vietnam was a CIVIL war--not 2 countries ...no country invaded Vietnam except the US--and they did not win
''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''
Timelines: VIETNAM | Asia for Educators | Columbia University
afe.easia.columbia.edu
.....any way---blah blah--the point was, [ the fact ] there are not many wars at all where a invader totally takes over another country/changes that country/etc -post WW2
..for every one you can name [ maybe 1 or 2 ] , I can name 2 dozen
..most wars are contained and not total
''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''
Actually it was a country called French Indochina that would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North Vietnam and South Vietnam.
You are unable to prove what you are trying to claim is a point.
Still waiting