Your gumption is truly astonishing.
I accept your concession of defeat since you have no answer for the obvious fact of the Taliban having a standing army in 2001, e.g.:
During the 1990s the Taliban maintained 400
and
tanks and more than 200 armoured personnel carriers.
400 tanks and 200 APCs isn't a throwaway line no matter how much you bury your head in the sand.
As for your "10k to 100" "air combat ratio", that is a straight up lie on your part. That 10k number is losses of ALL aircraft, including cargo planes and helicopters. That makes sense since the USAF usually dominated the skies above but as soon as they dipped towards the canopy to drop troops or supplies they were vulnerable to even small arms fire. Pretty sure North Vietnam didn't do too many combat drops.
The actual net "air combat ratio" is about 150:70 in favor of the USAF.
BTW, here are a couple more "throwaway lines" from that link, including describing your vaunted Linebacker II which was allegedly so successful for North Vietnam:
"Even so, enemy MiGs failed in their primary mission to stop US air attacks over North Vietnam during OPERATION ROLLING THUNDER. In fact, the VPAF fighter force sometimes retreated to China and stood down from combat operations due to heavy losses suffered at the hands of American fighter crews.
MiG pilots did little better in December 1972 -- by the end of OPERATION LINEBACKER II, USAF B-52s and tactical aircraft hit targets at will, forcing the North Vietnamese to sign a peace treaty."
