Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu


Rank #16262 on Comments
dontshoot Avatar Level 258 Comments: Contaminated Win
Send mail to dontshoot Block dontshoot Invite dontshoot to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 21
Steam Profile: Lookadragon
Date Signed Up:4/25/2010
Last Login:12/20/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#16262
Highest Content Rank:#8572
Highest Comment Rank:#2965
Content Thumbs: 150 total,  207 ,  57
Comment Thumbs: 5871 total,  7093 ,  1222
Content Level Progress: 10% (1/10)
Level 15 Content: New Here → Level 16 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 55% (55/100)
Level 258 Comments: Contaminated Win → Level 259 Comments: Contaminated Win
Content Views:19417
Times Content Favorited:2 times
Total Comments Made:1543
FJ Points:6166
Sup Brah!

Sort by:

funny pictures

Sort by:

youtube videos

  • Views: 706
    Thumbs Up 2 Thumbs Down 7 Total: -5
    Comments: 1
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 09/11/14
    MLG 420 4ever MLG 420 4ever

latest user's comments

#2518 - **dontshoot used "*roll cis privilege*"** **dontshoot rolls… 12/17/2014 on Did you check your... 0
#869 - no 11/15/2014 on comment and i post on your... 0
#104 - Mig isn't very hard tig is much harder  [+] (1 new reply) 11/12/2014 on Is porn allowed on funnyjunk? 0
User avatar #129 - blueninja (11/12/2014) [-]
#77 - For the amount of money it took to make that fake lambo you co… 11/06/2014 on Will Smith 0
#9 - they only reason we lost Vietnam was the traitorous media. its…  [+] (11 new replies) 10/28/2014 on 'murica +9
User avatar #12 - Rockaman (10/28/2014) [-]
Not really, the war dragged on for a long time without any big gains being made even with public support. The tactics used there were what lost the war - going out on patrols to find the enemy will never work as a decent tactic, as the enemy will only fight when it suits them.

Vietnam was a lost war from the start.
User avatar #65 - biebergotswag (10/28/2014) [-]
actually after the tet offensive, the NVA lost a fifth of it's soldiers, and their rank was thrown in absolute chaos. it's was pretty much as bad for the north vietnamese, as it was bad for the romans during the battle of Cannae. just one major offensive is pretty much sure to break them. but instead the media described the great south Vietnam victory into a american defeat and further destroyed war efforts.

also, remember that the north vietnamese were also supported by the soviet and chinese military, thus the scale of the war is much larger than most people realize. and by withdrawing support from the war. it allowed the soviets to restore the viet cong and massacre the south vietnamese.
if the americans just pushed against the broken NVA, they would have crushed it and stopped the war.
#26 - jdrinfantry (10/28/2014) [-]
I disagree. I served 6 months in FOB keenan in Helmand a few years back. The danish company I served with replaced a british company.
The Brits had lost so much ground around Keenan due to the fact that they stayed in their FOB, and refused to do patrols to engage the enemy. This resulted in the taleban pushing them back and basically laying siege to the FOB.
When we got there, we had this impressive Company leader (Captain Storrud) As he said during a ceremony of our first casualty"Tomorrow we fight again". Despite of heavy losses we went on daily patrols to bring the fight to enemy. We almost had our entire AO secured after just 6 months. It was really impressive what combat patrols can do.
User avatar #76 - rheago (10/28/2014) [-]
My friend was in the military and he told me that going out in small groups on patrol is the only way to fight guerilla warfare

Not sure if it's true but it seems to be working
#81 - jdrinfantry (10/28/2014) [-]
Well, yes and no. The size of a patrol is hard to master. Never go on a patrol with so few men that you may find yourself outgunned and outmanned by superior enemy forces. Go out with a patrol too big and you'd find yourself at risk of ambushes.

We never went on combat patrols with less than 30 men during the day. At night we'd send out smaller sniper teams, special forces patrols etc, in cover of the darkness they would sneak out and gather intel / take out high value targets.

There's obviously no fact list on how to fight Guerillas, and it is way harder to avoid ambushes when you're fighting enemies that could be any random civilian. But our tactics involving daily combat patrols proved effective. We had some trouble avoiding IEDs and boobytraps, but we'd try and be as unpredictable as possible in our movement.
User avatar #28 - Rockaman (10/28/2014) [-]
Think you misread- I was on about Vietnam, not Afganistan
User avatar #30 - jdrinfantry (10/28/2014) [-]
No no. I was just pointing out the genius strategy behind combat patrols. Since a siege is probably the worst situation you can be in, it is not only genius it is also vital to maintain supply routes etc.
User avatar #32 - Rockaman (10/28/2014) [-]
It is, but as a tactic to destroy your enemy it is highly ineffective, as you'll only ever fight them when they want to fight, so if they have plenty of numbers, they'll attack regularly, but as soon as they start to dwindle, they can hide and wait for reinforcements / new recruits, meaning you'll never be able to destroy them.
#34 - jdrinfantry (10/28/2014) [-]
No. Patrols can be about leading the enemy into an ambush aswell. The only way the enemy gets to choose when and where to fight is if you don't do patrols. Then they know where to hit with artillery and lay siege.

Vietnam is a complicated defeat really. I blame the lack of political support of course. But also their cavalry tactics. You remember watching movies of american landing with helicopters in the middle of a firefight? That's just about the dumbest way to engage an enemy. Imagine the enemy being in entrenched positions and then landing on top of them, that could EASILY lead to 1:10 casualty rates.
User avatar #41 - Rockaman (10/28/2014) [-]
The VC had such a decent network of spies and informants that they knew where the patrols would be coming from, so were almost always the ambushers. On top of being on home turf where it was easy to slip away, they could then disappear once their enemie's reinforcements arrive. Also, combat patrols are really bad in booby-trapped locations, IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan have also amounted to large numbers of casualties.

Yes they are good at securing your lines and keeping supplies coming, but as an offensive tactic they are really quite poor.

I'd say that Vietnam was pretty complicated, but I think tactical error plus the effective Vietnamese tactics were more to blame for the defeat than political support as the war had plenty of support to start with and that support dwindled after failures and large scale offenses by the VC and NVA when the US public believed they were winning. If the failures had never happened then support would have probably stayed high.
User avatar #51 - jdrinfantry (10/28/2014) [-]
Combat patrols are not tactical mistakes.
Conducting a proper patrol without enemy getting intel of your whereabouts may be difficult, but quite necessary.
If the US had siezed conducting patrols all together where do you think that would have lead them? (By the way, in Vietnam they almost stopped their patrols during the Tet Offensive)

Also I think the casualty statistics speak for themselves when it comes to who was the superior military power and strategies. It is estimated that 1.1 million NVAs and Viet Congs died during the vietnam war, as opposed to US KIAs numbering around 58.000
#68 - No problem i think Reagan was a great president but Reaganomic…  [+] (1 new reply) 10/28/2014 on Facts -2
User avatar #72 - whtkid (10/28/2014) [-]
The whole war with the Contras thing, as well as the introduction of Crack Cocaine into the US, are reasons I really despise Regan's presidency
#65 - Reaganomics are the reason all small farms disappeared and are…  [+] (6 new replies) 10/28/2014 on Facts -7
#117 - anonymous (10/28/2014) [-]
l0l ur dumb kid
#98 - therealsupanova (10/28/2014) [-]
Sub prime lending is only possible because of the idea of free credit, something that Bill Clinton instituted. If you know anything at all about the 2008 crash, you know how relevant that is.
User avatar #67 - BOOTYWIZARD (10/28/2014) [-]
i meant it as a counterpoint to reagan being a badass. thanks tho
#97 - therealsupanova (10/28/2014) [-]
wait... what? By most measurable statistics, Reaganomics was one of the most successful economic experiments in United States history...

from wikipedia:

Spending during Reagan's two terms (FY 1981–88) averaged 22.4% GDP, well above the 20.6% GDP average from 1971 to 2009. In addition, the public debt rose from 26% GDP in 1980 to 41% GDP by 1988. In dollar terms, the public debt rose from $712 billion in 1980 to $2.052 trillion in 1988, a roughly three-fold increase.[4]:143 The unemployment rate rose from 7% in 1980 to 10.8% in 1982, then declined to 5.4% in 1988. The inflation rate declined from 10% in 1980 to 4% in 1988.[2]

Some economists have stated that Reagan's policies were an important part of bringing about the second longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history.[26][27] During the Reagan administration, the American economy went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988 (in constant 2005 dollars), averaging 7.91% annual growth in current dollars.[28] This reduced the unemployment rate by 1.6%, from 7.1% in 1980 to 5.5% in 1988.[29][30] A net job increase of about 21 million also occurred through mid-1990. Reagan's administration is the only one not to have raised the minimum wage.[31] The inflation rate, 13.5% in 1980, fell to 4.1% in 1988, which was achieved by applying high interest rates by the Federal Reserve (peaking at 20% in June 1981).[32]

The misery index, defined as the inflation rate added to the unemployment rate, shrunk from 19.33 when he began his administration to 9.72 when he left, the greatest improvement record for a President since Harry S. Truman left office.[33] In terms of American households, the percentage of total households making less than $10,000 a year (in real 2007 dollars) shrunk from 8.8% in 1980 to 8.3% in 1988 while the percentage of households making over $75,000 went from 20.2% to 25.7% during that period, both signs of progress
User avatar #68 - dontshoot (10/28/2014) [-]
No problem i think Reagan was a great president but Reaganomics was ultimately not a great idea
User avatar #72 - whtkid (10/28/2014) [-]
The whole war with the Contras thing, as well as the introduction of Crack Cocaine into the US, are reasons I really despise Regan's presidency
#20 - that not acid if it has a metallic taste its a different chemi… 10/26/2014 on neil degrasse tyson: origins 0
#15 - just dropped acid for the first time last night can confirm i … 10/25/2014 on Your friends sound like... -1
#4431 - **dontshoot rolls 590,037,818** 10/24/2014 on Free Steam 0

user's channels

Join Subscribe 4chan
Join Subscribe art-graphics
Join Subscribe tf2
Sort by:


Total unique items point value: 1050 / Total items point value: 1150

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #1 - soundofwinter ONLINE (06/21/2014) [-]
**** you
 Friends (0)