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'.
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'.
"Reality is that which,
when you stop believing in it,
doesn't go away".
Philip K. Dick
That's because we usually win, too.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.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.)
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 bullthey used to get for being 'cowards' and whatever.
history lesson
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.
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.
the war of 1812 was when the british invaded the US the second time.... was won by Canada when we weren't conquered by America.
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.the war of 1812 was when the british invaded the US the second time.... was won by Canada when we weren't conquered by America.
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.
Ooh touche.They didn't already? I didn't know we had friends left.
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.
Last edited by nik0tine; 12-19-2006 at 08:45 PM.
"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.
You are Quistis! You're a popular one. Life keeps you busy,
but you still try to slow down once in a while and enjoy the
world around you, in spite of how busy you are. You're in good
shape, and you can't help being a bit of a flirt.
Take the Final Fantasy 8 Test here!
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.
Last edited by Madame Adequate; 12-20-2006 at 04:56 AM. Reason: Changed 'most' to 'much'
Posting Permissions
