Printable View
My partner wants to know, "Why is it that every war America fights, they lose"?
I pointed out the America war of Independence, and he conceded that yes they won that one. But he has a point about the rest!
He adds, "They were only on the winning side of WWII because the British were there!"
*Mum chuckles to herself and rolls her eyes*
=[ Man, I'm sad now..
Well, I dunno how to really answer this because I only know biased POV's about the wars (American sides), but from what I know, it's due to poor strategy.
I think the more accurate statement would be that the only reason the British were on the winning side was because the Americans were there. :p
Clearly, he's forgetting the Mexican-American War, through which we gained control of much of the American Southwest (Arizona, New Mexico, California) and the Spanish-American War (remember the Maine!). When we're on our own turf, we're alright.
We won the Civil War. :)
Only 'cause we fought ourselves?
As long as we teach our history like it's perfect then it doesn't matter what actually happened.
Edit: Also, we're better than Canada and that's good enough.
Edit2: I'm just kidding about the Canada thing.
Edit3: Probly.
And the War of 1812, as we successfully avoided being taken back over.
In what way? :PQuote:
Originally Posted by LunarWeaver
Yeah, the Europeans were doing great in WWII until the US showed up. :p
Vietnam is a loss. Iraq is a mess, but isn't really a war or a loss. It's just... bad. But War of 1812, Spanish-American, Mexican-American, WWI, WWII. Korean was a stalemate, but technically the US accomplished what it set out to do (prevent the expansion of communism).
That comment shows an incredible ignorance of history.
All of them of course. Canadians like you wouldn't understand if I explained it. The knowledge is too advanced for Canada.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roto13In what way? :PQuote:
Originally Posted by LunarWeaver
War is bad bad. :(
... was won by Canada when we weren't conquered by America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
Yes yes :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Christmas
I still don't see how Canada considers this a win. Wasn't Canada still part of Britain then? Should it not be a British win? Confuzlement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roto13... was won by Canada when we weren't conquered by America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
I believe it was a joke, dear confuzzeled one.Quote:
Originally Posted by IBCrayZI still don't see how Canada considers this a win. Wasn't Canada still part of Britain then? Should it not be a British win? Confuzlement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roto13... was won by Canada when we weren't conquered by America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
Actually to be technical Canada did not exist at the time so it was a British victory over the USA (we were merely a colony). I always believed it was a British victory over the Americans, since the invasion was prevented.Quote:
Originally Posted by MirielI believe it was a joke, dear confuzzeled one.Quote:
Originally Posted by IBCrayZI still don't see how Canada considers this a win. Wasn't Canada still part of Britain then? Should it not be a British win? Confuzlement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roto13... was won by Canada when we weren't conquered by America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
The British were on the war before the Americans and were losing. Without the Americans the Germans would have won.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mum
Sounds like your partner doesn't know a thing about WWII. Or military strategy... Or plain GRATITUDE.
I'm sorry, but that WWII comment irks me. 3 dead American soldiers were left on Normandy, for every soldier that made it. It was what it took to take over a heavily fortified territory from the Germans. Europe had been on the war for years and had no soldiers to lose in that ratio, not even the brits did.
According to Sun Tzu, one of the best strategists in history, to conquer a territory occupied by an enemy you need either a force 4 times as big ( or as mighty) as the enemy or you have to go for guerrilla war. The Americans provided the 3X troops to die to free Europe, the Europeans gave the rest.
It may sound funny to joke about it 50 years later, now that all is well, but it is very ignorant IMHO. Those 3 that died for every live soldier had families and friends and absolutely no obligation to bail Europe out, you know ?
The Russians did more to sway the fight towards Allied victory during World War II than the United States did. One of the greatest misconceptions propagated today on the American public is that the Normandy invasion was the turning point of the war, when in fact the defeat of Hitler's Sixth Army at Stalingrad in 1943 placed the first nail in the Nazi war machine. By the time U.S. and British forces stormed the beaches in 1944, the German armies were already weakened, and the Red Army was on its way to Germany. Don't get me wrong, the United States did its share of the fighting, but they certainly did not win the war single-handedly, and its doubtful they could have won it without the immense sacrifice of the Russian people.
Fighting wars abroad is tougher than dealing with one at home. I believe some of the battlefields of Vietnam were jungles, rainforests, maybe different conditions to what the troops were trained for
What wars did the Americans lose?? Well besides the ones they really didnt have to get involved in (Vietnam, and this one over in Iraq) but those were to try to prove something, but figured it wasnt worth risking so many lives for something they didnt have to fight.
If they were going to get into a real war where the country was being threatened to be taken over they wouldnt lose...
Unless it was China...can't trust those peps..
You are absolutely right, in regards to giving lives on the battlefield Russians did it even more than the Americans, and had it worse as a significant part of the war was fought in their own territory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamaneko
I just got irked at the jerk who thinks UK won the war single handedly, minimizing the tremendous sacrifice of Americans and Russians and of many others who pitched in.
From what I've learned about the war, I don't think the Allies could have won it if any of them were absent. Without American equipment prior to their actual military commitment, the British would have been kicked in. Without a Western front, Germany could have committed the vast majority of troops to fighting the Soviet Union, and let's be honest, they were good at what they did. I'm not sure I'd put my money on the Soviets if it was just them and the Third Reich going toe to toe. Similarly, had the Russians not been involved, the Nazi war machine could have been committed to fighting Western Europe, with likely very dire consequences again for Britain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamaneko
I really don't like this "We did the most to win WWII!" business that's going on in the world today. Most prominent, it's true, is the US with the movies and stuff, but over here in Britain we act exactly the same way, just less loudly. We really do seem to be of the opinion that it was Britain who won the Second World War, our tenacity and unwillingness to give in, and so forth. We all did a great deal to win WWII and I argue that if any of the major powers involved hadn't been involved, the others would have had a far, far more difficult time, if victory was possible at all.
But the British did less :p
"We Have Met The Enemy, And He Is Us"
--Walt Kelly
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
Hear, hear!
This is going to sound harsh. World War II is 60 years ago-it's over, move on. Especially us over here in America because we stormed over seas-we didn't have to live day to day with it, which is something I truly admire the British for. I have mixed feelings about what my people, the Italians did, though from what I've been able to piece together from sources of history (if I'm to trust the things I read and see) it was more a matter of survival in Italy than anything else. Still, not our proudest moment. I might be 4th generation American, but I am proud to have heritage in Italy, even if I'm so out of touch with it I'll be labled as an idiot tourist. Such is life.
As for losing every war we get involved in, that's a simpler matter. I have several friends in the US Marines, Navy, and Air Force-there is no doubt from any of them that we don't lose the battles out there. Since I don't have access to all the classified documents it would take for me to confirm or deny the empiracal evidence, I am left with really only two thoughts.
The first is that I'm being lied to by my friends who happen to be in the armed services. I find that somewhat unlikely. Impossible, no, but unlikely.
The second is that our media sells us out so completely it's disgusting. That I can prove, over and over again. I always wonder about it, honestly. How did American reporters manage exclusives with Terrorist Cells-ever? How is it that stations in our media are being forwarded 'classified' information, which they then blurt out on national airwaves?
From what I've seen, Americans don't lose fights-we're great at knocking people over. No-we lose as soon as diplomacy becomes involved. And since I honestly don't know what sorts of things that our officials say at those tables, I can honestly say that I don't know why. Then again, if our ambassadors are from certain parts of this country, I could probably piece together likely scenarios. After all, I know how politicians in the West Coast, the Southwest, New England, and to some extent, the Mississippi River Valley states work. Each one has a different sort of scum, honestly.
The 'United States' is sort've a sham right now. I believe it comes and goes in cycles, and presently, we're in a bad spot. Unfortunately, the problem goes down pretty deep. Me? I blame the lobbyists and think tanks... and I wonder more often than not about our arms business.
Amercia entered WWII PURELY for self intrest, they was selling expensive outdated equipment from ww1, hardly generious and its inimaginably annoying the amercians keep saying WE SAVED YOUR ASS, WE SAVED THE WORLD SINGLE HANDED, I got it just yesterday from an American in my course, How many countries was in the war? It really needs to stop glorfying itself its really not healthy.
I found this article site years ago, Its very qoutable.
http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/hateamerica.html#WW2
I don't think your friend knows that we only lost the Vietnam War. We were very good aid in the world wars and were never just minor support. We were why they won.
She's right, we would be speaking German if the USA hadn't joined.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renmiri
My god xD Thats a scary thought.
Listen, the lobbyists, arms industry and the powerful may have taken America to WWII just out of self interest. But the kids who died on that beach did it to help fellow human beings. They gave their lives to help you and you should honor their sacrifice as much as you honor your soldiers. PEOPLE die in wars, governments wage them. Don't confuse the two.
What's commonly overlooked is that, at the time, America's self-interests were in everyone's interests, because their idea of bringing about security and peace was for everyone to have democracy and capitalism. (Edit: That actually does remain the philosophy today, conspiracy theories of some weird occult secret society trying to rule the world aside. They're just not very GOOD at it.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wuggly Blight
Evil smurfers, those Americans, wanting peace and democracy.
Edit: Secondly, the reason America didn't want to enter World War II was because they didn't want to get involved in the rest of the world's business. It ended up getting involved because A) Churchill practically begged and B) America got attacked. So now today, America (At the behest of much of the world) DOES get involved, and they get the same kind of anti-American bull:skull::skull::skull::skull: they used to get for being 'cowards' and whatever.
My opinion of America and wars is that the American generals think that the war will be a pushover and then get surprised when the enemy actually fights back instead of going 'OMG it's the Americans, run away'.
That's because we usually win, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by starseeker
Mum, I think your partner is confusing "all of the wars" with "Viet Nam." At most, we have tied three (the only one that I would consider a tie is 1812), and lost one (Viet Nam).
Right on pretty much.Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILFWhat's commonly overlooked is that, at the time, America's self-interests were in everyone's interests, because their idea of bringing about security and peace was for everyone to have democracy and capitalism. (Edit: That actually does remain the philosophy today, conspiracy theories of some weird occult secret society trying to rule the world aside. They're just not very GOOD at it.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wuggly Blight
Evil smurfers, those Americans, wanting peace and democracy.
Edit: Secondly, the reason America didn't want to enter World War II was because they didn't want to get involved in the rest of the world's business. It ended up getting involved because A) Churchill practically begged and B) America got attacked. So now today, America (At the behest of much of the world) DOES get involved, and they get the same kind of anti-American bull:skull::skull::skull::skull: they used to get for being 'cowards' and whatever.
By my count America has 7.5 victories, 1 Draw, 2.5 Losses, 2 Assists, and 1 Undecided.
American Revolution - VICTORY Defeated the British. Misconceptions abound however. Yes, the Americans won some key battles, but it was not until the French entered the war on behalf of the Americans that the Yanks could count on actual military victories to bring about the end of the war. The biggest contribution to ending the war on the American's part was simply keeping the Continental Army in the field and periodically engaging the Redcoats over several years. It kept the British Army "bogged down" in the Americas leading to war weariness back home. As support for the war fell, a series of defeats at the hands of the French and American forces forced the end of a war the Brits could have fought for longer if the support had been there (America would suffer a similary defeat in Vietnam two centuries later).
War of 1812 - DRAW Yes, you read that right. The US started the war with an attempt to annex Canada. They also wanted to strike back at British commercial interests at sea for what they saw as unfair treatment of their own maritime trade. Not only did they fail in both those objectives, they got themselves invaded. The Brits, unable and unwilling to wage a Total War, in part because of Napolean's dealing in Europe, cleverly attacked key ports and the nation's capital. A few major victories for Americans at the end forced the British to withdraw, cementing American independence for good and all, but the US failed in many of their own objectives for waging the war in the first place.
Mexican-American War - VICTORY After the US annexation of Texas, Mexico tried to take back what they believed was theirs--they hadn't recognized Texas as indpendent, and thus believed they had no right to seek to become an American state. Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott won a number of victories in Mexico proper, and Scott succeeded in occupying Mexico City. In exchange for their independence and $18 million, the Mexicans ceded claims over Texas as well as all control over New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, and California to the United States.
American Civil War - VICTORY From the standpoint that the Union's victory reinforced the United States as a single nation, laying the foundation for its tremendous prosperity over the ensuing 140+ years it has to be considered a victory of sorts.
Spanish-American War - VICTORY The US destroys the remnants of the Spanish Empire, taking control over its territories in the South Pacific and the Caribbean. America's only failure was not gaining total control over Cuba, which was granted a limited independence.
World War I - ASSISTED IN VICTORY World War I had arrived at a terrible stalemate that resulted in horrible levels of casualties for everybody involved. The US entering the war tipped the stalemate in favor of the French and British, who were then able to prosecute the remainder of the war. The inability of Woodrow Wilson to ensure a lasting peace because of the grudge the French and British bore towards the Germans was a failure and major influence in bringing about World War II.
World War II (Europe) - ASSISTED IN VICTORY It's almost certainly true that by the end fo the war, the US military presence was not needed in Europe. The Soviet Union could have steamrolled over Germany by itself at that point. America's interest in Europe primarily became that of securing a position to oppose the Soviets in the post-war shakedown. Earlier, however, American money and technology was important, both in helping the Brits, but also in aiding the Soviet recovery from Stalingrad. American manufacturing enginuity played a part in helping them rebuild their war machine. The American military involvement on the western front forced the Germans to spread their forces across two fronts, which undoubtedly helped the Soviets. Heck, Germany's greatest general was occupied with battling the Americans. That in itself was a contribution.
World War II (Asia) - VICTORY It occurred at the same time, and there certainly were alliances that factored in, but the Japanese-American part of WWII was almost a different war entirely, fought by the Americans with some contributions from Australia and French and British colonies. Oftentimes fighting out of their element, the US recovered from some hard blows to drive the Japanese back to their mainland and secured a surrender after the Bombs.
Korean War - HALF-VICTORY Succeeded in securing a portion of the Korean Peninsula on behalf of Capitalism and Democracy. 40 years later South Korea has become a major economic force in Asia, and an important political player in the region. On the other hand, China secured half the peninsula on behalf of Social-Communism. While China has since evolved, much of the North is stuck with a 1950s economy. It is also a major trafficing center for illegal drugs and weapons, and has now become a nuclear threat to its neighbors.
Vietnam War - LOSS Classic case of winning the battles and losing the war. Much like the British defeat in the American Revolution, a commitment to prolonged fighting (provided the USSR and China stayed out of the conflict directly) probably could have yielded a victory, eventually. The Tet Offensive resulted in the near obliteration of the North's military support. Yet, the ability to launch such an offensive against the US military "looked" like a loss. When support collapsed at home, influenced in no small way by the huge commitments we were making in manpower and military resources and also polito-military scandals, the US was forced to withdraw.
First Iraq War - VICTORY What is not really appreciated about this war is that Iraq, at the time, had something like the fifth largest military in the world. The American victory, with the broad support of her allies, was swift, decisive, and devastating. It was the unwillingness to bring the war to Baghdad that makes it look like less than the total victory it was.
Second Iraq War - PROBABLY A LOSS Despite being able to completely overthrow the Iraqi government and install their own, almost none of the country is safe or securely under control of either the Iraqi government or the US military. Commitment to the war is waning and an imminent withdrawal signifies a loss despite accomplishing the removal of Saddam.
ABSTRACT WARS
Cold War - VICTORY America's most under-appreciated victory. Without direct military conflict that would have caused widespread devastation worldwide, the US was able to destabilize the USSR and bring about its collapse. By escalating military and other economic production to a level the socialist/communist system couldn't hope to match, and applying the appropriate political pressure around the world, they were able to bring about economic and political instability that finally led to the break up of the country.
War on Terror - UNDECIDED It would appear that for the time being America's bringing the war to the Muslim extremists and their political backers, as well as its war in Iraq has succeeded in keeping the conflict away from the American homeland. They have captured or killed a number of important terrorist leaders, but many are still out there. As this is not a traditional conflict between nations, the conditions for victory or defeat are not even clear.
You can't say that the second Gulf War is a loss, because neither has it been finished, despite what W says, nor has it failed all of its objectives. While WMDs were not found (we totally should know that it is not the reason at all), Saddam was still captured (also not a valid reason, unless revenge suits you).
Honestly, do you think that the new Iraqi government will stand more than a few years? We learned this from the Articles of Confederation, that we did.
Yeah, I know that sounds incredibly one sided and patriotic, and W-like, but it's the truth. It doesn't matter how far off or esoteric the objective is, but if it is fulfilled, it is a point for contention. If Korea is a half-victory, then it is also a draw, and assists are still wins, as whoever is involved wins by technicality.
And, who in their right mind would consider 1812 a victory?
If we pull out of Iraq and the government we put in place collapses then it's a loss in my book. The major objective of the war was to install a democratic government favorable to American interests in the region. Deposing Saddam was a necessary step. Weapons of mass destruction was an excuse that some hawks believed was necessary to justify the war. I find it funny that intelligent people will play dumb and rely on the words blabbered by their leader when they are plenty smart enough to see the bigger picture behind the words: The Second Iraq War was not about taking out some terrorist camps and deposing the leader who could have (but did not) supplied them with WMDs. It was doing so in the process of establishing American interests in the region to counterbalance and confront future support of terrorism from other countries, like Syria and Iran. In fact, it might not be farfetched to assert that our position of weakness in Iraq embolded Iran to stand out against us over the last two years. The likelihood of Ahmadinejad running his mouth would have been greatly diminished if we had been able to bring stability to Iraq in short order.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tavrobel
Anyway, a person would have to be delusional to suppose that the government that takes power after it would be helpful to the US. If that series of events take place we won some battles, we defeated the Iraqi military and overthrew Saddam, but lost the war....as I see it. Since I believe that series of events is very likely, I say it's "probably a loss" and count it as such.
Also, in my book, a draw is not the same as a half win. A draw is where neither side accomplished the objectives they fought the war for, resulting in a situation that was much the same as it was before the war. Both sides decide that they want to stop the bloodshed and the treaty is not favorable to either side. A half-win/half-loss would be a situation in which a number of lasting objectives were achieved but where a number of them were not. Korea fits that perfectly. We succeeded in securing a democratic South Korea, we failed in doing so for all of Korea, the other half being secured by the communist Chinese. I suppose Iraq could fall into that category for the time being, pending the actual nature of the government that takes over when we pull out.
Of course all help was needed to attain the outcome that resulted in what we now deem as victory, but looking back as a historian also shows that the Russians did do more in terms of lives and years fighting the war. The United States entered the war relatively late and was aided by the British in the Western offensive. The Russians fought it alone (albeit with American and British financial support) and sustained the largest causalities by far (over 20 million). Moreover, so important was Stalingrad to Hitler that he moved some of his Panzer divisions from the Western front over to the fight in Stalingrad. It's difficult to say who did more in regards to overall outcome, yes, but merely in terms of raw life and time fighting, the Russians did a lot more.Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
the war of 1812 was when the british invaded the US the second time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roto13... was won by Canada when we weren't conquered by America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
I think you might be thinking of the french indian war where britain and france (canada) were fighting, and the brits used the NA.
I have no problem admitting that Americans helped in WW2. In fact, I may edit or even delete my previous post because of some recent posts. What pisses me off is the fact that damn near everything is focussed on "the Americans saving the world" or "the Americans saving the British". Seriously, get over it. You gave us a hand so cheers. But stop rubbing it in, unless you really want the world to hate you.
That probably doesn't apply to most people, but take a look at almost all WW2 movies made. What's the focus? Bloody directors....in case they hadn't noticed, a few French people died too. Oh and English. Oh and -list goes on-......That's what gets me peeved.
Umm, no, roto is correct in that the war of 1812 was started by an American desire for land in Canada, even if the British agression was the excuse. Okay, so Manifest Destiny was a REALLY bad idea. Canada so far has won ALL their wars, which is better than anyone else can say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimanimthe war of 1812 was when the british invaded the US the second time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roto13... was won by Canada when we weren't conquered by America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
I think you might be thinking of the french indian war where britain and france (canada) were fighting, and the brits used the NA.
Also, the colonies were not the United States during the French and Indian War, which was really about European infighting, and a desire for control over the Ohio River Valley. The British just happened to need Quebec to cut off French supplies.
They didn't already? I didn't know we had friends left.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quin 'n' Tonic
Ooh touche.Quote:
Originally Posted by TavrobelThey didn't already? I didn't know we had friends left.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quin 'n' Tonic
As far as I can tell America has won every war that it has ever fought with the exception of Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. I'm not a historian, though.
Edit: After reading through this thread I'd like to point out that America didn't 'save' anybody in WWII. We entered that war for personal gain. If you think that any country, America or not, would fight a war to 'do the right thing' you're an incredibly stupid person. (And you're the reason we're in Iraq, too, asshole.)
So basically anybody that thinks Europeans should show us gratitude is an idiot and needs to shut up.
"Clearly, he's forgetting the Mexican-American War, through which we gained control of much of the American Southwest (Arizona, New Mexico, California) and the Spanish-American War (remember the Maine!). When we're on our own turf, we're alright."
YES!
That is exactly right!
I think people need to either listen to this analysis or read "on war" or "Voltaire's Bastards" both are about militaristic expansion. And it is really that simple - do not fight across the sea!
Japan only lost due to the misfortune of Hiryu. The Americans went out to loose the war and it was predicted that the Japanese would invade the west coast.
What about the War On Christmas or the War On Drugs?
Take care all.
Wrong. Much of the first half of the 20th century was about people trying to do what they thought was right, not what necessarily profited them. And you can't discount the fact that it was the right thing as a factor. And finally, someone's motives are only half the story. If someone saves my life, but only because I know how to cure his cancer, I'm still going to be smurfing grateful for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
As if!!! Kid I was anti war before you were even born.Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
No one dies for profit. You can't take any money with you. Those 18-25 year old kids who died at Normandy and the kids who are now dying in Iraq are not doing it to get rich. They re doing it for their troopmates, their family, their beliefs. none of them "profitable". Soldiers don't get mansions.
You are confusing the government with the soldiers. Don't.
PEOPLE die in wars. Governments wage them. I'm grateful to the PEOPLE who gave their lives so we wouldn't be Nazi right now on the IV Reich. The governments ? Those SOBs as soon would sell us all as "red meat" to a burger factory if there was profit to be had...
Renmiri-I may be pro-war and disagree with a lot of the liberal junk that gets tossed around out here, but I COMPLETELY agree with what you said here, and I think people need to really think before we commit our troops-our friends and family to causes. I believe there are plenty of things that are worth fighting for, and I believe you can genuinely find a true and just cause as well as a base humanistic cause for any war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renmiri
Oh, and I saw someone in here mention movies about WWII. Y'know, at the risk of sounding like an asshole, if you let American directors do all the movies, its not surprising that you get pro-American points of view. Is it right? Not only no, but hell no. Would you expect a French director to write a film about the great accomplishments of the British?
Hollywood is its own microcosm, believe me. I used to live there and have a considerable amount of inside info on the entire process. The short version is that people like to feel good about themselves, so investors fund the movie pitches in Hollywood that make them seem like better people than they are.
America is not as bad as the French. :D
Let's stop caring so much about war victories between each other and start figuring out where we're all going to live when we use up all our water and other necessary resources. Hmm? :p
Contribution > Conflict
Hey, American here!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamiko
I do truly suggest you go back and read that statement again. I don;t any offense to Americans anywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by LoveAryaHey, American here!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamiko
Unless being compared to the French in the first place gets you off.
Ohh, btw, AMERICAN HERE TOO BUT I DON'T CARE BECAUSE WE SUCK
Now, you should be offended.
The brits were retreating, france was lost, millions had been slaughtered, none of their tactics worked.Quote:
I think the more accurate statement would be that the only reason the British were on the winning side was because the Americans were there.
U.S. comes in, lends them money, and equipment. Millions of American soldiers were slaughtered on foreign lands and guess what: The tide of battle begins to turn! *gasp* could it possibly be because the Americans came?
Well no :skull::skull::skull::skull:, sherlock.
We don't lose wars, we just never finish them. I'll tell you why.
Becuase the do-gooding frappin' 'love everyone' democrats and enviromentalists and pro-life/peace supporters have absolute control over the frappin media. The only thing that's pumped into our ears every day is how many soldiers are dying, how bad war is, how much the world hates us. The same old :skull::skull::skull::skull: every day. People get scared, they change their votes based on biased information that doesn't mean :skull::skull::skull::skull:!!! We pull out of every war recently because of the political turmoil. The goddam 'love everyone' democrates keep pumping out this bull crap and the worst part is that everyone believes them! 'Stay the course' my ass. America hasn't been able to see one overseas project through since the term 'politically correct' was made. Turn the other cheek--and we get slapped. Fight back--our own people screw us over. We're never really 'United'. The politcal wars prevent us from doing anything--we've tied our own hands!!! It takes a terrorist attack on the World Trade Center to actually get the whole nation united. Only after we get attacked by terrorist we weren't allowed to go after because that would be a bad thing and it would be evil and discriminatory.
We would've won Vietnam, we would've won it hands down. But the frapping democrats and hippies start screaming about 'you can't do that, that's taking away the right to Life, that's discrimination'. After that, we pulled out so fast your head would spin. We never finished the war. We could go right back in and find it practically unchanged since we left. Our soldiers, even wounded soldiers, were spit upon and mobbed when they got back, because they had they're eyes open and saw that if they didn't defend this land then we would fall, and they defended it.
We're so steeped in being fair and politcally correct, and it's so idiotic--they're lying to themselves, listining to whatever the democrats say. I wonder if the majority to the population have thier heads up thier asses for the warmth or the view.
The great irony is that the 'great and powerful America', always so prosperous and strong, is constantly called upon by the frappin U.N. to be the world police. And we can't do it. Oh, we try, but then the activists come out of the woodwork shrieking about the constitution. The Genocide in Darfur? You know why we're not involved? 1)we're in a war already 2)people will be so shocked over the loss of troops they will immiediatly hit the brakes.
It's like they never knew that in war people die. And that is just plain stupidity. They see a number of deaths and stop it before it climbs higher. Never had this problem in WWII. But the necrophobes and anti-Americans have complete control over what we do. (I've never heard of the 'majority' of people on the news. Know why? It's discrimination.) And in this state, we could do one thing then do the exact opposite. It's going to take a big reality check to make these idiots see the truth--that everything is not perfect, that we can fix everything, that people never die in war because we're so powerful, and that we can't be perfect ourselves. And that reality check will be coming soon. We're gearing up for a war with China right now. Nucs will be flying, sooner than anyone would like.
George Washington told us never to split--I wish someone had listened to him. Perhaps then we wouldn't be so screwed up.
the 2nd reason is that no one actually realizes that WWII was the last war that had an actual front line. After that, it's all gruellia warfare and everything we know about warfare is aboslute crap. Sun Tzu (which I have read many times) don't mean a thing anymore. We've been fighting wars we don't have a strategy to combat them with. We're actually writing history right now--our own Sun Tzu. If we find a way to fight this gurella warfare right now, that's how the world will be fighting for the rest of time. We're going into unknown territory.
You should be shot. The Iraqis are killing us because we don't submit to their effin Allah! They kill Americans becuase we're not like them! They fight us because they hate us and for no other reason. We're so alien to them the can't understand and for that they thinks we should be destroyed! Camaraderie--we have that. They don't.Quote:
No one dies for profit. You can't take any money with you. Those 18-25 year old kids who died at Normandy and the kids who are now dying in Iraq are not doing it to get rich. They re doing it for their troopmates, their family, their beliefs. none of them "profitable". Soldiers don't get mansions.
You are confusing the government with the soldiers. Don't.
We fight for our freedom--They fight us because we have it.
How about you never say that again and I'll let you go unscathed? Deal? Or no? Go ahead; make my day.Quote:
Ohh, btw, AMERICAN HERE TOO BUT I DON'T CARE BECAUSE WE SUCK
Now, you should be offended.
Ok, seriously dude. I'm pro-war, I'm pro-America, but ya just blew it hardcore, Dragon Mage. Seriously. And drop the WW2 thing. If the Brits didn't hold out, we wouldn't have had any kind of staging area and Europe would be Greater Germany.
And yeah-you're dead right about our pussy footing peace loving liberal bs media. But y'know? That hardly gives you the right to say that we SHOULDN'T be concerned about our troops! I've got family, friends, family of friends in there-and I happen to give a damn what happens to them! I expect that they will do what they think is right and what they need to to stay alive. I respect their choices for serving in the military and putting their lives on the line-because unlike our loser hippy media, I get it.
But y'know? We aren't right to go fight everyone's problems. What pisses me off is that we aren't right whether we go or not. The world holds a view that we have it all over here-and hell, who am I to say we don't? I think any prat at a computer has it pretty good next to a lot of people. What gets ME is that if we step in, we're automatically imperialists pursuing an agenda of more land and conquest, and if we don't step in, we're allowing unspeakable attrocities by our inaction.
All because that is the case doesn't mean we should take it out on the people we still have as friends. I'm proud to have Britain stand with us, and question what we do. We stand to learn a lot from the people who never had the sun set on their empire-or was it conveniant to forget that?
You're the kind of American that gives the rest of us a bad name-you're an officious jerk and you don't even try to understand that the world across the ocean IS totally different.
On the last note, you're right about the Middle Eastern sitch-but not 100% right. Like anywhere else in the world, there are people there that think that hey, we're doing good things! And there's people there that irrationally want us all to die. It's split. And to be entirely honest, I don't believe the Geneva Convention was signed by terrorists and consequently, I don't think we should be extending those pleasantries to them. But if we don't, it makes us seem like total monsters, now don't it?
So get it through your thick skull. We need to be making friends, not getting everyone on the "Yanks are evil" bandwagon.
I don't for one moment believe this.Quote:
Wrong. Much of the first half of the 20th century was about people trying to do what they thought was right, not what necessarily profited them.
Well good. I'm glad you see it from my point of view.Quote:
As if!!! Kid I was anti war before you were even born.
No I'm not. You're just not understanding what I have to say. Soldiers don't get rich, but soldiers don't start wars either. Politicians, however, do. (And money isn't necessarily a factor. In fact, I think power has quite a bit more to do with it than money.)Quote:
You are confusing the government with the soldiers. Don't.
Exactly my point, dude. America as a country doesn't deserve gratitude for it's involvement in WW2. The soldiers? Perhaps. But the country? Hell no.Quote:
PEOPLE die in wars. Governments wage them. I'm grateful to the PEOPLE who gave their lives so we wouldn't be Nazi right now on the IV Reich.
If there was no profit in WW2 do you people sincerely believed that America would have entered? (And again, I'm not talking money here)
K, don't. But it's true nonetheless. Huge, huge numbers of politicians, policy-makers, and thinkers in the late 19th and early 20th century were concerned with what was best and right, not with personal profit. There were tons of people who were greedy and self-interested, but not nearly as large a proportion as today. Heck, look at the history of architecture and urban planning in Europe in the '20s for a pretty detailed, conclusive example of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
Note that what people thought was right doesn't necessarily translate into them doing good, productive, or right things, but their motives were benign.
The thing is, I'm not talking about personal profit. I'm talking about political profit. Right now alot of Republicans think the war in Iraq is the 'right thing'. Not because we're freeing an oppressed people, but because it's supposed to keep us the sole world super power. source.Quote:
K, don't. But it's true nonetheless. Huge, huge numbers of politicians, policy-makers, and thinkers in the late 19th and early 20th century were concerned with what was best and right, not with personal profit.
Take Americas involvement in the phillipines, for example. Was the justification for that war not very similar to the justifications used for Iraq? I'm no historian, but when I took a simple American history course last year the parallels were astounding. That war was for the 'right' reasons. Y'know. Spreading Democracy and all. But at it's core it was blatant imperialism, was it not?
My point is that just becuase politicians say they are doing the 'right' thing doesn't mean they are. It's not logical to believe that a politician would throw away the lives of his own people and spend billions upon billions of dollars (or whatever the equivalent of that time period was) for purely benevolent means.
If there is potential benevolence in a war the politicians are going to make that absolutely clear. But it's not why people go to war. That's just naive.
ROFL... Pretty brave talk from a 15 year old. :rolleyes2Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon Mage
Grow up, will ya ? Not everything is resolved with violence.
Well, we agree 100% here. When I say America I usually mean the people who live in it. The politicians ? No siree, those are not "America" for me. Politicians are basically the same on all countries in the world: blood sucking leeches in the game for power and profit.Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
*sigh* Alright. Deconstruction time.
You're kidding, right? I must be reading the wrong media.Quote:
We don't lose wars, we just never finish them. I'll tell you why.
Becuase the do-gooding frappin' 'love everyone' democrats and enviromentalists and pro-life/peace supporters have absolute control over the frappin media.
Um... no. If only one point of veiw is being "pumped into your ears", that is purely your own fault. As far as people changing their votes- Bush got re-elected. Need I say more?Quote:
The only thing that's pumped into our ears every day is how many soldiers are dying, how bad war is, how much the world hates us. The same old :skull::skull::skull::skull: every day. People get scared, they change their votes based on biased information that doesn't mean :skull::skull::skull::skull:!!! We pull out of every war recently because of the political turmoil.
Oh, come on. Can you at least try being origional? The Democrats have not had signifigant power on the national level for a decade.Quote:
The goddam 'love everyone' democrates keep pumping out this bull crap and the worst part is that everyone believes them! 'Stay the course' my ass. America hasn't been able to see one overseas project through since the term 'politically correct' was made. Turn the other cheek--and we get slapped. Fight back--our own people screw us over. We're never really 'United'. The politcal wars prevent us from doing anything--we've tied our own hands!!!
Yeah, and it took the right wing to undo that unity. Now, let's see, who imediatly said 9-11 was the will of god, and the fault of America for being sinful? Oh yeah- conservatives. (All right, fine. Right wing reactionaries. But still, the point stands.)Quote:
It takes a terrorist attack on the World Trade Center to actually get the whole nation united.
Bull:skull::skull::skull::skull:! America was firmly united in wanting Osama bin Laden's head on a pike. Almost everyone, liberal and conservative put aside our differences when 9/11 happened and stood by the president.Quote:
Only after we get attacked by terrorist we weren't allowed to go after because that would be a bad thing and it would be evil and discriminatory.
We got out because Americans were sick of our soldiers dying for no good reason. And by the way, what, exactly, would we have won in Vietnam? (And btw, the Vietnam war was started by a democrat, so that doesn't really fly)Quote:
We would've won Vietnam, we would've won it hands down. But the frapping democrats and hippies start screaming about 'you can't do that, that's taking away the right to Life, that's discrimination'. After that, we pulled out so fast your head would spin.
That is patently false.Quote:
We never finished the war. We could go right back in and find it practically unchanged since we left.
Also false. We did not succeed in Vietnam, and yet America is still standing. And BTW, many of the protesters were soldiers.Quote:
Our soldiers, even wounded soldiers, were spit upon and mobbed when they got back, because they had they're eyes open and saw that if they didn't defend this land then we would fall, and they defended it.
Uh-huh. Everyone listens to the Democrats. Which is why republicans were, until a month ago, in control of all three branches of government. Gee, i don't suppose you have a bridge I could buy, do you?Quote:
We're so steeped in being fair and politcally correct, and it's so idiotic--they're lying to themselves, listining to whatever the democrats say. I wonder if the majority to the population have thier heads up thier asses for the warmth or the view.
Huh? The Constitution doesn't have a damn thing to do with our actions overseas.Quote:
The great irony is that the 'great and powerful America', always so prosperous and strong, is constantly called upon by the frappin U.N. to be the world police. And we can't do it. Oh, we try, but then the activists come out of the woodwork shrieking about the constitution.
No, we aren't involved in Dafur because NO ONE GIVES A DAMN. Not the American people, and certainly not our government. And the blame for that falls on all sides.Quote:
The Genocide in Darfur? You know why we're not involved? 1)we're in a war already 2)people will be so shocked over the loss of troops they will immiediatly hit the brakes.
In WWII, we knew why we were fighting. We had a clear sense of purpose. Also, the people we were helping didn't want us dead. That might be a factor. :rolleyes2Quote:
It's like they never knew that in war people die. And that is just plain stupidity. They see a number of deaths and stop it before it climbs higher. Never had this problem in WWII.
Oh, come on. If you're gonna keep bringing up the "America-hating-liberals-control-the-country" song and dance, it would be nice if you provided something remotely resembling evidence. :rolleyes2Quote:
But the necrophobes and anti-Americans have complete control over what we do. (I've never heard of the 'majority' of people on the news. Know why? It's discrimination.)
He also told us to mind our own damn buisness. I wish we'd listend to that.Quote:
George Washington told us never to split--I wish someone had listened to him. Perhaps then we wouldn't be so screwed up.
The Iraqis are killing us because *gasp!* We're in their country! Iraq did not attack us. Al-Queda attacked us, for myriad reasons, none of which involve our freedom.Quote:
You should be shot. The Iraqis are killing us because we don't submit to their effin Allah! They kill Americans becuase we're not like them! They fight us because they hate us and for no other reason. We're so alien to them the can't understand and for that they thinks we should be destroyed! Camaraderie--we have that. They don't.Quote:
No one dies for profit. You can't take any money with you. Those 18-25 year old kids who died at Normandy and the kids who are now dying in Iraq are not doing it to get rich. They re doing it for their troopmates, their family, their beliefs. none of them "profitable". Soldiers don't get mansions.
You are confusing the government with the soldiers. Don't.
Incredibly simplistic. Not that that suprises me, at this point.Quote:
We fight for our freedom--They fight us because we have it.
AMERICAN HERE TOO BUT I DON'T CARE BECAUSE WE SUCKQuote:
How about you never say that again and I'll let you go unscathed? Deal? Or no? Go ahead; make my day.Quote:
Ohh, btw, AMERICAN HERE TOO BUT I DON'T CARE BECAUSE WE SUCK
Now, you should be offended.
She's just 15... With the reading / viewing comprehension of a 4 year old= 0. All she knows is to regurgitate the pap Limbaugh, Hannity and Ann feed her. Give her a binky and she will stop her tantrum and go back to her nap till their next show.
I wish the OTHER deluded "democrats are the root of all evil" Limbaugh choir boys were that easy to figure out.
Hey Dragon Mage. Hahahahahaha!
What gets me is how someone who is ostensibly on 'my side' in this discussion can be such a blatant moron. I mean, sure-I'm a Libertarian Conservative, I'm pro-war, and I believe in fighting the good fight, but even I know that when politicians give us the stamp of approval to do something there is some kind of string attached. We have selfish reasons to do what we declare as the right thing-and honestly, every country does the same thing. We get blamed for it because I've heard that we're somewhat 'up' in the world, and the positions around the top are the ones that everyone is watching. Whether they watch us to be like us, to avoid being like us, or to take advantage of us when our pants are down is up for grabs-but they do watch us.
But y'know, irrational hate not does get us anywhere. It can be argued that justified, perfectly rational hate doesn't either, but I'll at least stand by positions that revolve around that. Honestly-what the heck would we gain by pissing off the British? I don't think that everyone gets it.
As we have developed new and better means of blowing things all to hell, we have developed a need along with it to be aware of the goings on in the world. As someone who is pro-war, let me put it clearly-we need to pick our fights well. And as much as I hate to say it, Dragon Mage is right on ONE thing. We aren't losing the war we're in-we're completely kicking the crap out of the insurgents. I find it hard to believe we don't just fire bomb their training camps and start checking every Mosque we come across for illegal arms-I'm pretty sure automatic weapons are illegal for the average citizen in Iraq-but those aren't my decisions to make.
What really bothers me is that people don't understand the nature of war. War is not pretty, it is not a happy, flowery endeavor in which the just walk out and slay the evil bad guys. I seem to recall that Britain allowed the Germans to attack their civilians on one particular engagement because they decided to keep the fact they'd deciphered the Germans' codes a secret. My history is probably off some, but I believe 40,000 people died in that attack, most of which were civilians.
Out in Iraq, I'm certain we've killed civilians in our hunt for terrorists. I'm certain when things really get hot and we decide to do something about what's going on in Iran, civilians will die. The North Korean situation? I consider it a Chinese problem, but I'm sure we're going to be dragged into it. I hear things about Russia employing cold war tactics, killing people who left Russia, seeking amnesty in the UK-right on your door step, Britain.
These are bad times, right now. And I don't want to say it, but I wonder if we're all in for it big time. American, British, French, Iraqi, Iranian, Israeli, Turkish, Palestinian, Chinese, Korean, and Russian. These are all people who are caught in the motion of whatever their leaders decide. I want to be wrong here, really. I also want to buy a gun in case I'm right.
Make no mistake here. What's happening now is not so good. I'm really hoping it's the worst of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon Mage
Remarks of such an inflammatory flavor are naturally not allowed here. You kids are going to end up banned if that's the best you can do.Quote:
Originally Posted by LazarCotoron
Sorry, Mom. Next time, just advise your partner to peruse some historical Text.