Could an all-black army have succeeded where a white army so humiliatingly failed?

Could an all-black army have succeeded where a white army so humiliatingly failed?

Attached: us lost against.jpg (1200x800, 226K)

>Armys IQ: 80
Doubtful, Gerry.

If soldiers were smart, they wouldn't be in the army to begin with.

Blacks are
>stronger
>more enduring
>fearless
>savage

They would have won.

OP is Jewish.

The french also lost to the vietnamese as well. They occupied vietnam prior to the american invasion.
But you are probably a jew and don't care.

EH YO HOL UP
*smacks lips*
IS YOU BE SAYING
*sips grape soda*
THAT WE WAS SOLDIERS N SHIET?

This should answer your question

Attached: 1.png (207x243, 7K)

Attached: SouthPark_HumanShields.jpg (625x351, 64K)

Name one instance in which an all black army defeated an all white army.

>sights forward for more power.jpg

OP is a fucking ediot, france fought the same people in nam and also lost.

Iirc Black regiments were shit

we may have lost the war but we won every battle you goddamn german bastard.

France lost to the same farmers back in '54

>stronger
statistically whites are the strongest race
>more enduring
wrong again
>fearless
you mean dumb
>savage
wtf is that supposed to mean

Attached: 1535234610694.jpg (1024x611, 76K)

The US won every single major battle and engagement in Vietnam. It just became a war of attrition where the public at home couldn't support it anymore. They begin to ask themselves, if they are willing to die by the millions for their cause, and we're over there for what? We're going to stay just to prove to ourselves we could win? That's ridiculous. The kill count was insanely in the US' favor. If you want people to die just so you could win an e-argument 50 years later on a Mongolian shoe repair forum you've got problems.

You don't win wars by killcount leaf.
If that was the case then Hitler would have won WW2.

>I ignore the part about winning every single battle and major engagement and decide to pick on a tiny part I can argue in order to seem like I have a point
kys

>lost
To lose you have to fight in the first place.

fuck off, we lost to jewish media, not some commie gooks with sticks

>They begin to ask themselves, if they are willing to die by the millions for their cause, and we're over there for what?
That's not what happened, retard. Americans loved killing gooks. Jews and boomerkikes were the only ones against it.

Attached: I+grew+up+in+south+africa+the+battle+of+blood+_a981fcc68c644e8cbcdb9d0068a2e4fb.jpg (640x999, 103K)

>fearless
t. Has never met a nigger

In the USA they need blacks to show some balls, while in Russia they still use their own men.

France lost to the farmers before we lost to them. Thats why we were there, partially.

>Savage

By that "virtue", perhaps. The reason the U.S. "lost" in Vietnam was because of SJWs at home and an inability to commit against a foe who had absolutely no virtue, honor or dignity.

The exact same thing is continuing today in the Middle East. We could turn their country to nuclear glass in about a week, but because "muh liberals" we don't.

The First Italo-Ethiopian War.

How do they always end up being slaves then?

we were fighting two wars, one over there and one at home. who was the enemy at home? it was the fucking boomers the same enemy at home we face now.

>afriad of ghosts/haunted houses
>afraid of dogs
>afraid of white people
>afraid of the woods
>afraid of any wild animal (squirrels)
>afraid of getting jobs
>afraid of being fathers
>afraid of flying
>afraid of water/swimming
>afraid of healthy food

kek, yup

learn to history