NationStates Jolt Archive

what do you think? Please tell me your thoughts.

*awaits poll*

what do you think? Please tell me your thoughts. the U.S. should never have supported the French in Indochina. That foreign policy mistake cost 60,000 american lives and damaged the image of the U.S. internationally on a pretty permanent basis.

Then again, letting ourselves be goaded into involvement in the first world war was probably just as bad an idea. It set us up with Wilsonian Internationalism as a politically viable operation. The U.S. could have avoided a lot of costly death and injuries by simply continuing to sit that one out-and likely wouldn't have had to fight the rematch.

yeah, i though the US should just stayed the hell out of WWI, but i though Veitnam was a biiger mistake. What i think is that the only foreign war that was justified was WWII. Because we were attacked in that war.

and BTW...it was 56,000 US Soldiers.

World War II, hands down.

WW2? No way - us guys in Europe are grateful for your assistance.

World War II, hands down.


Why WWII? We were attacked by the Japaneese[sp?] sure, we could not have gotten involved in the Europe theater, by surely the Pacific! I mean were were bombed!

World War II, hands down.
I could understand the European front as a mistake, but why the Pacific? I don't mean to sound Hawkish, but Japan was asking for it by attacking Pear Harbor....

I could understand the European front as a mistake, but why the Pacific? I don't mean to sound Hawkish, but Japan was asking for it by attacking Pear Harbor....

Germany did declare war on the US, and German u-boats did sink some US ships in the Gulf of Mexico

WWI, supporting one side of European empires against another side of European empires. Yeah.

If dickhead Roosevelt hadn't butted his nose in other nations' affairs, we'd have never been attacked. Without question, we should have let the Nazis and Soviets wipe each other out, and then finished off the winner.

Germany did declare war on the US, and German u-boats did sink some US ships in the Gulf of Mexico
Ok then, forget what I said about the European front being a possible mistake.....

WWII? That's probably the most justified war in human history.

Iraq? Simply compare the casualities to Vietnam. Iraq is smalltime; period.

If dickhead Roosevelt hadn't butted his nose in other nations' affairs, we'd have never been attacked. Without question, we should have let the Nazis and Soviets wipe each other out, and then finished off the winner.

I say we shouldn't have stopped at germany...we should have gone on and attacked russia! Then communism wouldnt have gotten a big start and Korean, and Vietnam might never had happened. And who knows... China could have been democratic.

If I recall correctly, World War II was good for the american movie industry because it let them take true stories and change the characters from british soldiers to american soldiers.

WWII? That's probably the most justified war in human history.

Iraq? Simply compare the casualities to Vietnam. Iraq is smalltime; period.

Dont get me qrong i am very sorry for the losses people have endured in Iraq, by brother has been wounded twise and the second time he lost his left hand.(he right handed :) ) but yes compared to Vietnam's 56,000 Iraqs 1,700 is very small.

(im not sure about the exact amount killed in Iraq, but i think it is some where around there)

what do you think? Please tell me your thoughts.

Although it greatly pains me to admit it, the Vietnam War was the biggest mistake of those listed. The objectives were vague, the Country was overreaching, there was little public support, and it rapidly became a major ground war in Asia, something the military had long considered anathama. My brothers and sisters and I did a great job and would have "won" had North Vietnam not won the propaganda war in the US. Looking back, I'm not 100% sure what "winning" would have gained us, but we were very, very good.

Of all wars in which the US has ever been involved, though, I have to say that the Civil War was the saddest, although definitely necessary. Vietnam comes in a close second because of the way our returning veterans were treated.

By Iraq, do you mean the Gulf War, or Bush's War?

We don't make no steenking mistakes.

We don't make no steenking mistakes.

:rolleyes:

The invasion of Iraq is by far the US's biggest mistake.

A pre-emptive war fought for dubious reasons. Saudi Arabia is probably a bigger threat to the US than Iraq. That Iraq was labeled an "imminent threat" to the US is laughable. Part of the "war on terrorism?" Give me a break.

Iraq is now a breeding ground for terrorism, and terrorism has increased since the US attacked Iraq.

The US has lost a lot of credibility worldwide because of this "mistake". Millions of people all over the world marched in war protests.

What I find disturbing, is that most of the posters on this thread relate only to the numbers of American deaths as a determinate as to whether Nam or Iraq was a bigger mistake. What about the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis who have died or have been seriously injured in this war? Do they not count?

What about the Iraqi infastructure that has been devestated, and the massive amounts of money that the US has spent to <<cough>>"liberate" <<cough>> Iraq?

Many of the US's traditional allies refused (for good reason) to take part in this travesty inflicted upon Iraq and the Middle East.

My biggest concern, is that Iraq is the first of many other forced regime changes in the Middle East. Time will only tell.

Vietnam , from what I am aware of at this time.

The invasion of Iraq is by far the US's biggest mistake.

A pre-emptive war fought for dubious reasons. Saudi Arabia is probably a bigger threat to the US than Iraq. That Iraq was labeled an "imminent threat" to the US is laughable. Part of the "war on terrorism?" Give me a break.

Iraq is now a breeding ground for terrorism, and terrorism has increased since the US attacked Iraq.

The US has lost a lot of credibility worldwide because of this "mistake". Millions of people all over the world marched in war protests.

What I find disturbing, is that most of the posters on this thread relate only to the numbers of American deaths as a determinate as to whether Nam or Iraq was a bigger mistake. What about the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis who have died or have been seriously injured in this war? Do they not count?

What about the Iraqi infastructure that has been devestated, and the massive amounts of money that the US has spent to <<cough>>"liberate" <<cough>> Iraq?

Many of the US's traditional allies refused (for good reason) to take part in this travesty inflicted upon Iraq and the Middle East.

My biggest concern, is that Iraq is the first of many other forced regime changes in the Middle East. Time will only tell.

Jesus Christ! I'm I the only one that thinks this post reads like a propaganda text book? I mean really, “pre-emptive war” "Saudi Arabia," "imminent threat,” and mostly "breeding ground for terrorism" read like they where plagiarized from Forums for Dummies: Liberal Edition. :rolleyes:

Hmmm.

WW1.
That one started it all. Or that's what many people think, cuz America had a tradition of getting involved in other country's business before that. Me personally would have preferred them to stay home (and get attacked by mexico hehehe), cuz that would have helped the chances of Germany winning. And the Emperor's plans were not that bad. A free trade zone, with Germany at the top, lots of repayments etc. But probably not like what the French did to Germany after the war.

WW2.
Its so easy to blame the Japanese, isn't it. They didn't have a choice, they had to attack then, and apparently the declaration of war came in almost in time, which makes it all quasi-legal too. The US had chosen their side long ago, and the embargos against Japan, against the free business they were too, were for all intents and purposes the acknowledgement that America was going to oppose Japan in it's interests.
As to "finish off the winner" between the USSR and Germany after they'd slugged it out, America couldn't have won. Sorry to say that, but the USSR could've easily crushed the Allies in Europe and marched straight to Lisboa if they'd wanted to. The US would've had no chance to fight a country like the USSR, or a victorious, Volga to Atlantic-Germany.

Vietnam.
Well, the French were done and gone by the time America joined, don't you think? Mighty stupid indeed, to go in there and support one dictatorship against another one for the sake of freedom and democracy. But even more stupid was the way they fought. The Bombing of the entire country, and others as well was nothing short of a war crime (even more so than the bombing of Germany and Japan before that) and did nothing to improve other's perception of America.

Iraq.
Very stupid to go there. Sure, there is less casualties now, but it'll go on for a while, and I think there is easily 10,000 in there, especially if the Shiite-Sunni thing goes on now. But this operation ("Iraqi Freedom", jeez how corny) was obviously going to happen. The public in America needs some sort of enemy they can blame for ye olde "9/11" and since you cannot defeat an idea like al Qaeda with guns, but guns is all America has, since it ruined its relationship with the rest of the world, and no one believes a word a US-diplomat says anymore.

So in final verdict, which one would have been the biggest mistake?
The War of Independence!
Instead of founding a democratic movement to ask the British nicely to leave and having the patience to stick it out, they got out guns, shooting until the french came to help (-strongly simplified-) And you end up with a nation that thinks "democracy" is some sort of American national virtue, that violence is a viable solution for complex problems, that "god blessed America" rather than Togo, and that every citizen needs a gun to defend himself from the, also armed, robber/English queen trying to violate his moralistic little suburbian home.

I think America could have been such a different place, a better place. Look at Australia. They managed not to start a war, and now they are going extremely well.

I say we shouldn't have stopped at germany...we should have gone on and attacked russia! Then communism wouldnt have gotten a big start and Korean, and Vietnam might never had happened. And who knows... China could have been democratic.

Alright, where to start...

Chinese and Russian communism ARE NOT THE SAME THING. In fact, China and Russia have been in rather hostile terms for almost fifty years. Russia didn't have anything to do with Korea becoming Communist. Infact, Russia didn't have anything to do with the formation of Communism. See: Karl Marx. He was a German who studied in Britain. Next, China was well on it's way into Communism by WW2. It would never have been democratic. If anything, it would still be an Empire.

Vietnam had nothing to do with Russia. Nothing at all. As in the two had no effect. Zero effect. Just because one country is communist does not mean that all communist countries are it's allies, or part of it's plans.

If we would have pushed into Russia, the casualities would have been more than likely larger than that of Korea and Vietnam COMBINED. And if you think we could have beaten the Ruskies, then you are very arrogant. We and the Russians were almost evenly matched. Not to mention us being half the world away, in a land in which is not in anyway connected to us.

Now that I think about it, you know absolutely nothing about actual history and rely on personal prejudice to make blatantly bad statements.

Jesus Christ! I'm I the only one that thinks this post reads like a propaganda text book? I mean really, “pre-emptive war” "Saudi Arabia," "imminent threat,” and mostly "breeding ground for terrorism" read like they where plagiarized from Forums for Dummies: Liberal Addition. :rolleyes:
Those words have all appeared in the news. Some have been uttered by your president. What is your problem? Besides them being true that is.

BTW, you meant to say "edition", not "addition"?

I await your reply, preferably without the ad hominen attacks.

Russiadidn't have anything to do with Korea becoming Communist.

Wrong. Russia helped install Kim Il-sung shortly after WWII.

Vietnam had nothing to do with Russia. Nothing at all. As in the two had no effect. Zero effect. Just because one country is communist does not mean that all communist countries are it's allies, or part of it's plans.

Completely false. More than 80-85% of North Vietnam's war materials from the U.S.S.R. It was entirely dependent on the Soviet bloc to maintain its war effort.

Jesus Christ! I'm I the only one that thinks this post reads like a propaganda text book? I mean really, “pre-emptive war” "Saudi Arabia," "imminent threat,” and mostly "breeding ground for terrorism" read like they where plagiarized from Forums for Dummies: Liberal Addition. :rolleyes:
If you knew this poster better, this particular post wouldn't surprise you. :(

Vietnam.

The resolution allowing action was based on the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which when we studied it in Vietnam Class at my school, came to the conclusion that it never occurred. More likely it was either a serious twist of the truth or outright lie by those who wanted to go to war.

The US prevented a democratic process by supporting Diem in refusing to hold reunification elections when it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win. The division was not meant to be permanent, South Vietnam was not meant to be a nation. It should be noted that the US, the great protector of democracy, has occupied itself many times in the 20th century with preventing democratic elections that would elect communists or socialists.

Diem was a horrible dictator, whose repression of many, notably the Montagnards and Buddhists, is legend. I believe it was the Venerable Quang Doc(sp?) who set himself on FIRE in protest of the oppression brought down by the Diem regime.

Many, many, many people died. 56,000 US soldiers, I believe, and nearly one MILLION vietnamese (both sides). That many didn't have to die. It just sickens me that anyone can try and justify slaughter like that on the idea that one political system is good and the other is evil.

Finally, it had a very negative effect on america. I don't support the military, but the violent anti-military sentiment caused by the war was just kind of disturbing. Also, it helped create and widen the gap between rightwing and leftwing, hawk and dove in america, a gap that has never closed. Peel back some layers of America, you will find this.

Vietnam was no one's business except the vietnamese. The French shouldn't have been aided in trying to maintain a colonial venture there, we shouldn't have aided Diem in denying the nation of vietnam a reunification election, and we should have not committed troops to what was essentially an internal matter.

Vietnam was the biggest mistake.

WW1
WW2
Viet Nam
Iraq

...4 of the 5 were France's biggest mistakes! :D

Vietnam! We had no business sending our troops over there. I really feel for the troops that were injured in that war. How senseless. How the vest of vietnam were treated when they came back is just sickening & it continues to this day. Don't blame the troops who had no choice in many cases. Blame the administration. The hot heads who sent them over in ther first place.

I also feel Iraq was a big mistake. There were better ways of handling this & I don't believe we exahusted all of our options before we dove in. We needed to be more patient with the situation. I think there would be a lot less insurgent mess if we would have done that. Now we have martyrs all over Iraq waiting to tear anthing the US helped build down.

If you knew this poster better, this particular post wouldn't surprise you. :(
And the intention of this post?

And the intention of this post?

Oh I can scarcely begin to wonder. :rolleyes:

f you knew this poster better, this particular post wouldn't surprise you.

Ya, I guess I should know better by know, kinda have to expect this sorta thing. :(

Wheres the damn Americain Revolution on that poll!

Just kidding,

Vietnam.

And the intention of this post?
Just pointing out that a pretty consistent theme running through your posts is a distinctly anti-American bias. We've discussed this before, you and I.

Oh I can scarcely begin to wonder. :rolleyes:



Ya, I guess I should know better by know, kinda have to expect this sorta thing. :(
So, exactly what is your point then? Or is it that you don't really want to debate, and instead just throw out ad hominen attacks?

Just pointing out that a pretty consistent theme running through your posts is a distinctly anti-American bias. We've discussed this before, you and I.
Yes and you never learn do you? You chose to ignore the many times that I have stated that I am NOT anti-American. I have friends that live in America. I have vacationed in the US many, many times, and have enjoyed my visits.

So if YOUR judgement is that I am anti-American that is your problem, not mine.

I am beginning to think that because I am anti-Bush administration, that to you that means anti-America?

Because I am against the war in Iraq, does not make me anti-American. Get it right this time?

Yes and you never learn do you? You chose to ignore the many times that I have stated that I am NOT anti-American. I have friends that live in America. I have vacationed in the US many, many times, and have enjoyed my visits.

So if YOUR judgement is that I am anti-American that is your problem, not mine.

I am beginning to think that because I am anti-Bush administration, that to you that means anti-America?

Because I am against the war in Iraq, does not make me anti-American. Get it right this time?
Actually, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. As you will note if you read the post I made above, I mentioned nothing about you being anti-American. I was talking about your post in this thread, and the theme of many, many of your posts on General.

If you say you're "not anti-American," I have to accept that on face value since I don't know you personally. The only thing I can speak to is what I read that you have posted.

Vietnam.

Not because defending the weak yet democratic South was bad, but because our leaders sucked at running a war. You don't just march into a country, burn down a rainforest, slaughter civilians, and expect the enemy to be your friend. We may have won every battle, but we lost because we didn't focus on the people. If we had gone about it differently, that war could have gone down as a great victory for democracy. Instead, it went down as a foolish blunder.

How about the Philippine-American war 1899-1913? A dirty little war in the true
imperalist fashion.....

Vietnam! We had no business sending our troops over there. I really feel for the troops that were injured in that war. How senseless. How the vest of vietnam were treated when they came back is just sickening & it continues to this day. Don't blame the troops who had no choice in many cases. Blame the administration. The hot heads who sent them over in ther first place.

I also feel Iraq was a big mistake. There were better ways of handling this & I don't believe we exahusted all of our options before we dove in. We needed to be more patient with the situation. I think there would be a lot less insurgent mess if we would have done that. Now we have martyrs all over Iraq waiting to tear anthing the US helped build down.

Well... I guess a land invasion probably could have been avoided, we have the megatonnage, and it would certainly help deal with decaying warhead cores to expend them in a massive above-ground test.

On the other hand, the Sanctions required constant attention, were being circumvented by UN members who'd voted them into place, and were killing more civilians each month than the current situation has in the last year.

Under the conditions that prevailed prior to reopening the conflict, it was a sustained and ultimately futile siege that the Americans were obliged to maintain-a situation that was actually more of your 'martyr generator' than the fighting right now is, since maintaining the cordon (and the security of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) required U.S. boots on the Islamic Holy Land-a situation that many muslims find quite intolerable-but without a definite end to the situation, one that the U.S. could not (due to their agreements and statements) withdraw from.

to end the siege, the U.S. had to end the Ba'athist Regime. The beneficiaries of this have been primarily the Shi'ite Majority in Iraq, and the Kurds-both of whom were ruthlessly oppressed under the primarily Sunni Ba'athists. Ending the Siege is the only way that a general withdrawal of American forces from the region is even possible given the character of the U.S. post-1945.

Most of the "Insurgency" is foreign-born and foreign-sponsored, American troops are killing lots of Syrians, Saudis, Yemeni, etc. in comparison with the number of Iraqis (most of whom just want things to end, I would suspect. There have been numerous credible reports of "Resistance" operations fouled by the locals because they're sick of the whole thing.)

Still... I guess it would be okay to uncork the WMD genie next time, after all, if America is to be the "Evil Empire", we might as well start using the Star Destroyers, right? AFter all, you can drill through glass...

How about the Philippine-American war 1899-1913? A dirty little war in the true
imperalist fashion.....

Stupid Philipinos. We were gonna give 'em their independence after we had built them a good infrastructure and made sure they would be safe from Imperialist powers(I.E. Japan), but nooooo, they wanted independence now.

Actually, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. As you will note if you read the post I made above, I mentioned nothing about you being anti-American. I was talking about your post in this thread, and the theme of many, many of your posts on General.

If you say you're "not anti-American," I have to accept that on face value since I don't know you personally. The only thing I can speak to is what I read that you have posted.
However, since WE have discussed this very issue before, why did you feel that it was relevant to point out once again, what you call "a distinctly anti-American bias".

That is why I asked you the "intention" of your post. Like I stated, "if YOUR judgement is that I am anti-American that is your problem, not mine."

If you want to go start another anti-American thread, be my guest.

In the meantime, this thread asked a specific question, and I replied with my honest opinion. If you want to debate my assertions fine, be my guest, but if you want to try and pin YOUR label on me, I am not receptive.

How about the Philippine-American war 1899-1913? A dirty little war in the true
imperalist fashion.....
There was no "Philippine-American War." There was, however, a Spanish-American War, which has been shown to have been an early flexing of America's newly found muscle. So, in that sense, yes, it was rather "imperialistic."

World War II, hands down.

Wtf is wrong with you if we hadnt entered world war two europe would have been completely conquared by hitler and that could have led to him invading america and given him more time to develope the atomic bomb how would you like that if hitler had began his invasion of america with incinerating New York. How would like it if instead of the battle of normandy there was was a battle of long island. I think world war two is our best choice ever to go to war.

Also ive just read a couple of posts about how Soviets had nothing to do with Vietnam or korea. Wtf? did none of you take history classes the soviet union had everything to do with vietnam and korea. Both those wars were trying too stop the spread of communism which was spread in the first place by the soviets and the soviets supplied most of those countries with arms and technology. Were do you think all the AK-47's came from in both wars. And to say the soviets had nothing to do with korea :eek: The beggening of the war in korea was 90,000 soviet armed trained and funded north koreans invaded south korea. Not to mention the fact that china got involved which had been turned communist by the SOVIET backed red chinese in the chinese civil war.

All i have to say is wow at the amount of ignorance there is on this subject.

However, since WE have discussed this very issue before, why did you feel that it was relevant to point out once again, what you call "a distinctly anti-American bias".

That is why I asked you the "intention" of your post. Like I stated, "if YOUR judgement is that I am anti-American that is your problem, not mine."

If you want to go start another anti-American thread, be my guest.

In the meantime, this thread asked a specific question, and I replied with my honest opinion. If you want to debate my assertions fine, be my guest, but if you want to try and pin YOUR label on me, I am not receptive.
( shrug ) Suit yourself. I didn't flame you, or cast aspersions on you, or resort to any sort of ad hominim insults.

Considering that America's involvement in WWI caused WWII, and WWII caused America to loose its isolationist mentality, I would have to say that WWI was America's biggest mistake.

Now, America thinks that it has a duty to get involved in foreign parts of the world it has no business in.

World War II, hands down.

?

Listen, if we hadn't entered WWII, then not only would the Nazi's and japs both take over large amounts of the world and become super-powers, while we sat there with our sissy little army the size of the portugese army(it's true, before war broke out we were a sad, sad little nation), we could never face off against both the Jap's and the Germans alone. Oh, and don't say that the Soviets would beat the Nazis. If Japan were to invade Russia as well, the Soviets would be doomed.

There was no "Philippine-American War." There was, however, a Spanish-American War, which has been shown to have been an early flexing of America's newly found muscle. So, in that sense, yes, it was rather "imperialistic."

Erm, it's referred to as a war by the US Library of Congress.

There was no "Philippine-American War." There was, however, a Spanish-American War, which has been shown to have been an early flexing of America's newly found muscle. So, in that sense, yes, it was rather "imperialistic."

Wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War

Considering that America's involvement in WWI caused WWII, and WWII caused America to loose its isolationist mentality, I would have to say that WWI was America's biggest mistake.

Now, America thinks that it has a duty to get involved in foreign parts of the world it has no business in.
Oh GROAN! So much misinformation, so little time! :(

It was the friggin' Treaty of Versallies that was largely to blame for the start of WWII, not America's rather belated and rather small involvement. The Treaty required Germany to establish the Wiemar Republic, something which didn't work, and which didn't fit the German mentality or political landscape at the time. The Treaty also required Germany to pay such heavy reparations that the failure of the German economy was virtually assured. Enter Hitler, stage right!

America has a duty to get involved in any part of the world it so chooses. Live with it!

Wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War

Right: that was no war. It was an attempt to put down a bloody insurrection.

( shrug ) Suit yourself. I didn't flame you, or cast aspersions on you, or resort to any sort of ad hominim insults.
Wordsmith all you want, the fact remains that your post was not on topic and was directed to another poster, about me:

If you knew this poster better, this particular post wouldn't surprise you. :(

You think Nam was a bigger mistake than Iraq and I feel the opposite is true.
C'est la guerre!!

Right: that was no war. It was an attempt to put down a bloody insurrection.

It was a war.

And insurrection=rebellion=war.

If that wasn't a war, then the revolution wasn't a war.

You think Nam was a bigger mistake than Iraq and I feel the opposite is true.
C'est la guerre!!

Nam was way worse.

More people died(something tells me 50,000 americans and over 3,000,000 Iraqis aren't going to die from Iraq :p), we were weaker after it (we really were. Everyone sat there and laughed at us), and more Americans were against it.

Of course, Iraq is bad too, but only because, in true wacko president fashion, our plans were messed up. If we had good tactitians in office, we could have pwned Iraq and 'Nam and the world would be a better place.

Of course, there'd prolly be another war after 'Nam when some cocky president(who has NO military planning skills what-so-ever) invaded some other country, and we'd have another 'Nam.

Wordsmith all you want, the fact remains that your post was not on topic and was directed to another poster, about me:

You think Nam was a bigger mistake than Iraq and I feel the opposite is true.
C'est la guerre!!
Vive le guerre! :D

Vietnam followed closely by Iraq and then WWI.
we achieved nothing but lose soldiers, respect, and trust in vietnam.
There was no reason to invade iraq and now we're gonna be stuck there for a couple of decades (or centuries).
WWI was an idiotic war from the beggining. good thing is, we weren't involved the entire time.
and the revolutionary war wasn't the brightest idea ever either. but hell, it worked so i'm not gonna complain

Vive le guerre! :D
It is "la" guerre. Don't you know that to "wage war" (la guerre) is a feminine noun?

It was a war.

And insurrection=rebellion=war.

If that wasn't a war, then the revolution wasn't a war.
Have you consulted a dictonary lately?

War ... A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

Rebellion ... Open, armed, and organized resistance to a constituted government.

Insurrection ... The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.

Revolution ... The overthrow of one government and its replacement with another.

If you can't comprehed the difference, this alleged discussion is over.

It is "la" guerre. Don't you know that to "wage war" (la guerre) is a feminine noun?
No. I don't speak French and most English nouns are gender neutral. :)

However, it makes sense to me that "war" would be in the feminine gender. :D

Have you consulted a dictonary lately?

War ... A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

Rebellion ... Open, armed, and organized resistance to a constituted government.

Insurrection ... The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.

Revolution ... The overthrow of one government and its replacement with another.

If you can't comprehed the difference, this alleged discussion is over.


Open Revolt. Isn't that what we had back in the 1770's?

Open Revolt. Isn't that what we had back in the 1770's?

Revolt ... To attempt to overthrow the authority of the state; rebel.

Revolt ... To attempt to overthrow the authority of the state; rebel.

Exactly, we rebelled, thus making an Open Revolt a rebellion. Also, an insurrection is an Open Revolt.

So, we were just like the Filipinos in nearly every sense: we were being opressed by a country an ocean away and wanted them out of our land. So, we rebelled. Why is it in our case that our rebellion is a "war" and there's isn't?

1812 isnt on the list?

Vietnam was probably the worst run non-French war in History.

The problem were:

Trying to run the war from the White House
Using the body-count as a metric of success
Insufficient effort to enable SVN to fight the war themselves (until 1969)
Insifficient interdiction of NVN's supplies
They didn't know if they wanted to win
They didn't know what victory was
They didn't know what needed to be done in order to get victory
They didn't know if they wanted to do what needed to be done to get victory

Though, it has to be said that these problems affected mainly the Johnson Administration. The Nixon Administration ran the war much better.

Tet destroyed the VC as a viable force, but the guerilla strategy of the Communists continued using PAVN troops infiltrated down the trail.

They replaced that goof Westmoreland with Abrams
They established a new strategy requiring that the ARVN to most of the ground fighting, the US would do training, fire-support, and supplying the ARVN.
They withdrew most of the ground troops, virtually all by 1973. This took the steam out of the political opposition to the war

The gurerilla strategy had been defeated by this strategy, and by 1972, the Soviets (who were running the North's war) were getting impatient. They wanted the North to switch tactics to the traditional combined arms assault, and gave the North tanks with which they'd do it.

The Christmas Invasion of 1972 was repulsed mainly by the South, with the US providing the air support, and supplies. By this time, the VNAF was acquiring its first jet fighters, the F-5 Freedom Fighter.

SVN could have held out, and eventually won under the Nixon Administration's Vietnamisation Strategy, if it weren't for some people breaking into a hotel called The Watergate.

If Iraq was a mistaken, its a funny sort of mistaken war. If you set out on something, and accomplish your objectives, and do it at a cost that pales into comparison with similar ventures, you don't call it a mistake.

WWI

Simply, if the US hadn't broken the standstill, both sides would have eventually surrendered. They would have been both very damaged, and probably would have agreed on joint payment, et al. However, with the US coming in and causing a decisive win for the Allies and the establishment of the Treaty of Versailles, they plunged Germany into depression, which in turn caused WWII. Also, though the bolschevek revolution in Russia still would have happened, it probably would not have spread through war-ravaged Europe. All in all, WWI was one of the worst mistakes in history.

Well... I guess a land invasion probably could have been avoided, we have the megatonnage, and it would certainly help deal with decaying warhead cores to expend them in a massive above-ground test.

On the other hand, the Sanctions required constant attention, were being circumvented by UN members who'd voted them into place, and were killing more civilians each month than the current situation has in the last year.

Highly unaccountable statistic would you say?

Under the conditions that prevailed prior to reopening the conflict, it was a sustained and ultimately futile siege that the Americans were obliged to maintain-a situation that was actually more of your 'martyr generator' than the fighting right now is, since maintaining the cordon (and the security of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) required U.S. boots on the Islamic Holy Land-a situation that many muslims find quite intolerable-but without a definite end to the situation, one that the U.S. could not (due to their agreements and statements) withdraw from.

to end the siege, the U.S. had to end the Ba'athist Regime. The beneficiaries of this have been primarily the Shi'ite Majority in Iraq, and the Kurds-both of whom were ruthlessly oppressed under the primarily Sunni Ba'athists. Ending the Siege is the only way that a general withdrawal of American forces from the region is even possible given the character of the U.S. post-1945.

We never should have been involved in the first place! EVER! Your 2 wrongs make a right do not hold water.

Most of the "Insurgency" is foreign-born and foreign-sponsored, American troops are killing lots of Syrians, Saudis, Yemeni, etc. in comparison with the number of Iraqis (most of whom just want things to end, I would suspect. There have been numerous credible reports of "Resistance" operations fouled by the locals because they're sick of the whole thing.)

Who cares who the insurgents are. The fact remains that they are there because of our involvment in this & will continue to be for a long time to come.

Still... I guess it would be okay to uncork the WMD genie next time, after all, if America is to be the "Evil Empire", we might as well start using the Star Destroyers, right? AFter all, you can drill through glass...

Where are these weapons?

WWI

Simply, if the US hadn't broken the standstill, both sides would have eventually surrendered. They would have been both very damaged, and probably would have agreed on joint payment, et al. However, with the US coming in and causing a decisive win for the Allies and the establishment of the Treaty of Versailles, they plunged Germany into depression, which in turn caused WWII. Also, though the bolschevek revolution in Russia still would have happened, it probably would not have spread through war-ravaged Europe. All in all, WWI was one of the worst mistakes in history.
I sincerely hope this isn't devolving into another dreary "Everything since the Stone Age is really America's fault" thread. :(

If Iraq was a mistaken, its a funny sort of mistaken war. If you set out on something, and accomplish your objectives, and do it at a cost that pales into comparison with similar ventures, you don't call it a mistake.
"Funny sort of mistaken war"? Perhaps you have a different sense of humour than most others?

The objectives have all been accomplished in Iraq? I don't think so.

The "cost that pales into comparison with similar ventures (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-07-cover-costs_x.htm)"?

The Pentagon is spending nearly $5 billion per month in Iraq and Afghanistan, a pace that would bring yearly costs to almost $60 billion. Those expenses do not include money being spent on rebuilding Iraq's electric grid, water supply and other infrastructure, costs which had no parallel in Vietnam.

In Vietnam, the last sustained war the nation fought, the United States spent $111 billion during the eight years of the war, from 1964 to 1972. Adjusted for inflation, that's more than $494 billion, an average of $61.8 billion per year, or $5.15 billion per month.

President Bush announced Sunday that he will ask Congress for $87 billion for U.S. operations next year in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere — $66 billion for military and intelligence efforts, $21 billion for reconstruction.

The date of the above article: Posted 9/7/2003

I would imagine that the war in Iraq has surpassed the adjusted for inflation cost of the Vietnam War, since this post is almost 2 years after above post?

I sincerely hope this isn't devolving into another dreary "Everything since the Stone Age is really America's fault" thread. :(
Actually, it is more like the Ice Age. In Nam, America was skating on thin ice and in the Iraq War, they fell through!! :eek:

The Annexing of the Confederacy was the worst war ever. I am not pro slavery; however, the war more about unfair trade than slavery. It was a nation. There was a law that states could secede from the Union. It was removed after the war. It was a completely unjust invasion.

Well... I guess a land invasion probably could have been avoided, we have the megatonnage, and it would certainly help deal with decaying warhead cores to expend them in a massive above-ground test.
Of course you are not advocating genocide are you?

On the other hand, the Sanctions required constant attention, were being circumvented by UN members who'd voted them into place, and were killing more civilians each month than the current situation has in the last year.
Circumvented by who? Perhaps you should research US involvement in the Sanctions Program?

Most of the "Insurgency" is foreign-born and foreign-sponsored, American troops are killing lots of Syrians, Saudis, Yemeni, etc. in comparison with the number of Iraqis (most of whom just want things to end, I would suspect. There have been numerous credible reports of "Resistance" operations fouled by the locals because they're sick of the whole thing.)
The large majority of "insurgents" are Sunni Iraqis.

Still... I guess it would be okay to uncork the WMD genie next time, after all, if America is to be the "Evil Empire", we might as well start using the Star Destroyers, right? AFter all, you can drill through glass...
Back to the genocide way of thinking?

The biggest mistake must'we been Vietnam.

probably every damn war the US has been involved in, from the massacre of the native american indians, to the stealing of texas from mexico to the relatively new wars mention in this thread

yeah, i though the US should just stayed the hell out of WWI, but i though Veitnam was a biiger mistake. What i think is that the only foreign war that was justified was WWII. Because we were attacked in that war.

and BTW...it was 56,000 US Soldiers.

Well, of all those wars WWII was the most justifiable, as far as US involvement goes, but, there's some pretty good evidence that we knew of the plan of the Japanese attack before it happened... so something... should of been done prior to diminish the harm done. However, when you're attacked, you're attacked. And its not like the Japanese, after we canceled their original plan would have just backed down, they would have found another way. But with the US playing the great patriarch to the world, we should have intervened with Hitler much sooner... it would have been the right thing to do in my eyes. However FDR is still the best president the US ever had.

probably every damn war the US has been involved in, from the massacre of the native american indians, to the stealing of texas from mexico to the relatively new wars mention in this thread

I'll have to agree with that!

Of course you are not advocating genocide are you?


Circumvented by who? Perhaps you should research US involvement in the Sanctions Program?


I spent too many months sitting in that region as part of the "Enforcement", my next-door neighbour knew guys on the USS Cole.
It was a sustained and unsuccessful siege. Since the documents are being released, it looks a lot like one American oil company was in cahoots with the French Government, the Germans, and the Russians (along with other members of the UN brass) to profit by circumventing the efforts of those tasked with enforcing the sanctions. None of this made things very good for the guys on the sharp end, who were tasked with a mission being sabotaged by the same people who put them there in the first place.

In contrast, the flat-out invasion and toppling of the Ba'athists is cleaner by miles than being hung out there as a target for asswipes on both sides of the line, trying to enforce sanctions that weren't working on the people they were supposed to be working on.


The large majority of "insurgents" are Sunni Iraqis.


Hmmm? Source? I still have contacts who've been "Over there" and most of the jihadis they've been up against were from out-of-country.


Back to the genocide way of thinking?

As they say, sarcasm doesn't translate on the internet. You can't enforce indefinite sanctions on a sociopathic regime-you only harm the innocent and thereby build sympathy for the human predators.
It's cleaner by far to either conquer or kill, because the war ends decisively, that, and your collateral is a lot less than starvation-tactics.

WW2.
Its so easy to blame the Japanese, isn't it. They didn't have a choice, they had to attack then, and apparently the declaration of war came in almost in time, which makes it all quasi-legal too. The US had chosen their side long ago, and the embargos against Japan, against the free business they were too, were for all intents and purposes the acknowledgement that America was going to oppose Japan in it's interests.
As to "finish off the winner" between the USSR and Germany after they'd slugged it out, America couldn't have won. Sorry to say that, but the USSR could've easily crushed the Allies in Europe and marched straight to Lisboa if they'd wanted to. The US would've had no chance to fight a country like the USSR, or a victorious, Volga to Atlantic-Germany.

So in final verdict, which one would have been the biggest mistake?
The War of Independence!
Instead of founding a democratic movement to ask the British nicely to leave and having the patience to stick it out, they got out guns, shooting until the french came to help (-strongly simplified-) And you end up with a nation that thinks "democracy" is some sort of American national virtue, that violence is a viable solution for complex problems, that "god blessed America" rather than Togo, and that every citizen needs a gun to defend himself from the, also armed, robber/English queen trying to violate his moralistic little suburbian home.

Your whole ****ing opinion means **** due to these phrases. You invalidated your credibilty and verified your damned stupidity. You need to study FAR more history than you think you know. Not just skimmed rebel college professors' summery of history either. Its VERY obvious you don't know much of the cultures and perspectives of the time as made obvious of your summery of the Revolutionary war. All you did was focused on the jingoistic aftermaths of the decisions of the people acting like you are somehow ****ing better even though you didn't exist in their times NOR their situations. You need to read more than one or two books on the subject and get an actual better perspective from documents and dates of intrest.

"I don't think so."

Iraq has an elected government, there's no chance of terrorists getting into power, nor any chance of Saddam getting back in.

"costs"

I was talking about cost in lives, and what the US has spent in Iraq is less than the money lost on 9/11.

The cost of victory in Iraq is the same as WW2; less than defeat.

"I would imagine"

Imagination's fun, but lets see some real figures.

"I don't think so."

Iraq has an elected government, there's no chance of terrorists getting into power, nor any chance of Saddam getting back in.

"costs"

I was talking about cost in lives, and what the US has spent in Iraq is less than the money lost on 9/11.

The cost of victory in Iraq is the same as WW2; less than defeat.

"I would imagine"

Imagination's fun, but lets see some real figures.

Ok, where are your figures stating how terrorists can't get into power in Iraq?

Your whole ****ing opinion means **** due to these phrases. You invalidated your credibilty and verified your damned stupidity. You need to study FAR more history than you think you know. Not just skimmed rebel college professors' summery of history either. Its VERY obvious you don't know much of the cultures and perspectives of the time as made obvious of your summery of the Revolutionary war. All you did was focused on the jingoistic aftermaths of the decisions of the people acting like you are somehow ****ing better even though you didn't exist in their times NOR their situations. You need to read more than one or two books on the subject and get an actual better perspective from documents and dates of intrest.

But dont actually try to argue what was wrong, and what was actually the truth. Thats blasphemous.

WWII? That's probably the most justified war in human history.

Iraq? Simply compare the casualities to Vietnam. Iraq is smalltime; period.

An argument can be made either way - in casualty terms, Vietnam wins hands down.

However, Iraq is going to cost the US taxpayer the bones of $1 TRILLION dollars over the coming years - that will have a *profound* effect on the entire USA, seriously impacting on the lives of millions of Americans.

I think the argument is swayed towards Iraq as Vietnam was more 'naive' - people knew well in advance just how fubar Iraq would get, and still went in.

WWI was almost a mistake. The war was entered for the wrong reasons. The aftermath of the War was the biggest mistake in recent history, but that isn't really the war itself and France is just as much to blame as America.
WWII was a mistake insofar the US took so long to get directly involved in the first place.
Korea was morally justified and with a UN mandate. It can be considered moderately successful (if you value that S. Korea still exists more than the rift between the countries)
Vietnam was morally justified insofar as whose side the US was on. How the US fought the war was a big mistake, and some of those have been learned from.
Iraq was complete idiocy. It ruined the UN's stance in the world, its killed a lot of civilians on the decision of the President, and not themselves, it bought N. Korea and Iran time to obtain nuclear weapons, and it taught rogue states that its better to have WMDs when the US does come. What's more, it turned a stable (albeit cruel) state into a front for the war on terror. We didn't have to fight terrorists in Iraq when Saddam took care of them, now, however, we do.

I voted Korea, more because of the current situation there, and the fact that the war isn't technically over, more than any actual events during the war itself.

I don't know how the war might have been ended in any way other than what actually happened, given the level of stalemate at the "end" of the war, but if there was any way to gain the upper hand at that point, short of nuclear weapons, it should have been attempted.

Also...I figured some misstatements and erroneous information would be presented about various wars, but I am frankly astonished at the lack of knowledge that most people have shown to possess regarding WWI.

History, it seems, is no longer a required course at some schools. :(

The UN's stance needed to be ruined, and anyway, it already was, ever heard of Rwanda?

Genocide by machete, courtesy of Kofi Annan.

The UN's corruption in Iraq also needed to be exposed.

"We didn't have to fight terrorists in Iraq when Saddam took care of them, now, however, we do."

That justifies Saddam Hussein's repression, and the long-term threat he posed to the West?

Bollocks.

Read "The Connection" by Stephen F. Hayes.

Saddam was certainly inclined to 'take care' of terrorists, al Zarqawi got treatment for wounds sustained in Afghanistan. If Iraq was opposed to terrorism, why would a terrorist go there for treatment, especially considering that people in Iraq who Saddam didn't like tended to have unfortunate accidents?

Saddam 'took care' of Palestinian terrorists by sending them money.

He 'took care' of assorted Islamic terrorists by training them at Salman Pak. Part of this training was conducted in an old airliner, and involved hijacking with improvised weapons like cutlery, sound familiar?

PBS: Gunning for Saddam (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/general.html)

PBS: Gunning for Saddam (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html)

The UN's stance needed to be ruined, and anyway, it already was, ever heard of Rwanda?

Genocide by machete, courtesy of Kofi Annan.

The UN's corruption in Iraq also needed to be exposed.
So because the UN is less than perfect the US is? One reason for why the UN is so weak is because the US ignores it.

"We didn't have to fight terrorists in Iraq when Saddam took care of them, now, however, we do."

That justifies Saddam Hussein's repression, and the long-term threat he posed to the West?

Really? Why did I say "cruel" then? My point was that Saddam's regime kept a lot of terrorist activity repressed because it was directed at him.
Another of my questions is "Why Iraq?" Do you think people suffer less in N. Korea? Are you justifying N. Korea's regime?

Bollocks.

Read "The Connection" by Stephen F. Hayes.

Saddam was certainly inclined to 'take care' of terrorists, al Zarqawi got treatment for wounds sustained in Afghanistan. If Iraq was opposed to terrorism, why would a terrorist go there for treatment, especially considering that people in Iraq who Saddam didn't like tended to have unfortunate accidents?

Saddam 'took care' of Palestinian terrorists by sending them money.

He 'took care' of assorted Islamic terrorists by training them at Salman Pak. Part of this training was conducted in an old airliner, and involved hijacking with improvised weapons like cutlery, sound familiar?

I never denied that Iraq sponsored terrorists, but it wasn't nearly the safe haven as Afghanistan was, which wasn't Bush's priority directly after Sept. 11. Bush attacked Iraq on the grounds of Iraq supplying the terrorists with WMDs and not because it sponsored terrorism, which Syria and Iran do too. Iran wasn't the terrorist hotspot it became after the war. It wasn't even near. Besides, you didn't go into my more valuable points about Bush buying N. Korea and Iran time as well as motivation to obtain nuclear weapons.

"So because the UN is less than perfect the US is? One reason for why the UN is so weak is because the US ignores it."

So, such a corrupt, impotent organisation deserves to be ignored.

But, just to humour you, lets look at several situations:

Question, can the UN react in:

Iraq; No, France, Russia, and China had extensive oil contracts with Iraq, and would surely lose them.

Iran; No, China and Iran have close relations

North Korea; No, China doesn't want the North to fall

Sudan; No, Russia arms them, France buys oil from them.

"less than perfect"

You must be joking, they won't even call what's happening in Darfur genocide, they can't make a definition of terrorism because it might include Arab terrorists who blow up school buses and cafes because there are Jews therein, they wouldn't allow blue helmets to stop the genocide in Rwanda, their troops have been accused of raping people they're meant to protect, and engaging in sex-trafficing, they stole billions from starving Iraqis, and allowed Saddam to enrich himself.

If you are joking, it is the cruellest, most bitter, joke of the century.

"My point was that Saddam's regime kept a lot of terrorist activity repressed because it was directed at him."

In other words, he would help any terrorist group, provided they didn't have bringing Saddam down on their agenda.

"Are you justifying N. Korea's regime?"
"Syria and Iran"

Around the World in 80 Dictators isn't an argument, its a lame excuse.

If Bush had invaded Iran instead of Iraq, you'd probably catalogue Saddam Husseins' atrocities, and accuse people of justifying his tyranny.

Someone else expressed the correct answer to your, errrm, valuable point, The Serenity Prayer:

God grant me the Serenity to accept the things I Cannot change

Courage to change the things I can

And Wisdom to know the difference…

Iran is far bigger than Iraq, and has had less restrictions on rearmament. North Korea has had little restrictions on armament, and having China next-door is problematic at best. Syria was far less a threat than Iraq could be because Syria didn't have the petrodollars to fund being a threat, Saddam did.

Serenity, Courage and Wisdom.