NationStates Jolt Archive

I wonder, of all of the wars the US has fought in, how many have they actually completed, and of those, how many have they actually won? The ones that come to mind are:
War of 1812 - lost
WWI - won
WWII - won
Vietnam - not finished/lost
Korean war - not finished/lost
Gulf war I - not finished/won
Gulf war II - not finished

I'm sure there are several that I'm missing, but it seems to me that the USA's track record for winning wars is worse than France's, and the only wars they did win were the ones in which they had many powerful allies.

I wonder, of all of the wars the US has fought in, how many have they actually completed, and of those, how many have they actually won? The ones that come to mind are:
War of 1812 - lost
WWI - won
WWII - won
Vietnam - not finished/lost
Korean war - not finished/lost
Gulf war I - not finished/won
Gulf war II - not finished

I'm sure there are several that I'm missing, but it seems to me that the USA's track record for winning wars is worse than France's, and the only wars they did win were the ones in which they had many powerful allies.

What about the War for Independence when they kicked out the English?
You notice the US never seems to win when they start the war (except on their home soil).

They did kick the Spanish out of Cuba and the Phillipines when got booted out later by the natives in Cuba.

The americans should just stay out of wars and put the money towards education or something.

I guess you could say the US won the Cold War.

American Revolution- Won
War of 1812 - Won
Mexican War-Won
Civil War- everyone Loses a civil war
Spanish American War- Won
WWI - won
WWII - won
Vietnam - lost
Korean war - Draw
Gulf war I - not finished/won
Gulf war II - not finished

Flushed out the list a bit, how was 1812 a lost war, granted the US didn’t conquer Canada but the British burned Washington but got there asses kicked outside Baltimore. What makes it a win I think is that Andrew Jackson defeated the British outside New Orleans thwarting there attempts against the Mississippi.

Flushed out the list a bit, how was 1812 a lost war, granted the US didn’t conquer Canada but the British burned Washington but got there asses kicked outside Baltimore. What makes it a win I think is that Andrew Jackson defeated the British outside New Orleans thwarting there attempts against the Mississippi.

It doesn't count as a win if you start a war by invading someone else's territory, and end it by narrowly avoiding having your own territory occupied. It was a failed war of aggression. The only reason it isn't recorded in history as a sad defeat for the US, is because they managed to save some face at the end.

In the war of 1812, the british took over much of New England, including Washington and Boston. As I recall, they also landed on US soil in the south as well. They weren't beaten back by the Americans though, they withdrew, because they didn't want to overextend themselves, as they were also at war with Napoleon.

I wonder, of all of the wars the US has fought in, how many have they actually completed, and of those, how many have they actually won? The ones that come to mind are:

This should be good

War of 1812 - lost

In reality, the War of 1812 was a draw. Neither side won it.

WWI - won

Yep

WWII - won

Yep

Vietnam - not finished/lost

Military victory, diplomatic defeat

Korean war - not finished/lost

Incorrect. Mission was accomplished. The mission was to keep the North from taking South and that is precisely what we did. So no, this wasn't a loss but a victory (and we had a UN mandate)

Gulf war I - not finished/won

Actually it was finished but I assume you mean removing Saddam. In that case, yes you are right.

Gulf war II - not finished

Actually, the war itself is over, the rebuilding however is another story. The war was a success but now we are fighting an insurgency and it looks like they are starting to lose steam. They are still dangerous but the attacks aren't as numerous as they once were.

I'm sure there are several that I'm missing, but it seems to me that the USA's track record for winning wars is worse than France's, and the only wars they did win were the ones in which they had many powerful allies.

You have a warped sense of history apparently.

American Revolution- Won
War of 1812 - Won
Mexican War-Won
Civil War- everyone Loses a civil war
Spanish American War- Won
WWI - won
WWII - won
Vietnam - lost
Korean war - Draw
Gulf war I - not finished/won
Gulf war II - not finished

Correct except for Korea and 'Nam. Korea was a victory. Vietnam was also a military victory as well since our forces never lost a single engagement and we did technically kept South Vietnam Free so no, it wasn't a total defeat. It was a full military victory but thanks to politics, it was a political defeat. Big difference between the two.

Flushed out the list a bit, how was 1812 a lost war, granted the US didn’t conquer Canada but the British burned Washington but got there asses kicked outside Baltimore. What makes it a win I think is that Andrew Jackson defeated the British outside New Orleans thwarting there attempts against the Mississippi.

And the Battle of New Orleans (which took place in 1814) took place after the armistace was signed. We moved the end date back so we can include the Battle of New Olreans. Your right, we didn't lose 1812 but we didn't win it either. That war was a draw.

It doesn't count as a win if you start a war by invading someone else's territory, and end it by narrowly avoiding having your own territory occupied. It was a failed war of aggression. The only reason it isn't recorded in history as a sad defeat for the US, is because they managed to save some face at the end.

Hold on here. The only aggression was done by the Brits. If they haven't been impressing our merchant marine into their navy, we would never have had to declare war. It was a war of Self-Defense and not a war of aggression.

And yes, we were close to losing it but then we turned the tide and sent them scurring back to Canada.

In the war of 1812, the british took over much of New England, including Washington and Boston. As I recall, they also landed on US soil in the south as well. They weren't beaten back by the Americans though, they withdrew, because they didn't want to overextend themselves, as they were also at war with Napoleon.

Actually, not exactly accurate. We did start to push them back near the end of the war. The British began to suffer reversals and thus were more accomadating at the negotiation table.

I don't know why Vietnam was victory (according to some).
Sure the US won the battles, but lost the war.
North Vietnam overran the South Vietnam so the US did not stop the communists taking over the country.

I wonder, of all of the wars the US has fought in, how many have they actually completed, and of those, how many have they actually won? The ones that come to mind are:
War of 1812 - lost
WWI - won
WWII - won
Vietnam - not finished/lost
Korean war - not finished/lost
Gulf war I - not finished/won
Gulf war II - not finished

I'm sure there are several that I'm missing, but it seems to me that the USA's track record for winning wars is worse than France's, and the only wars they did win were the ones in which they had many powerful allies.



The only wars we have "lost" have been Vietnam and, depending on where you live and what your cultural alignment is, the Civil War.

I don't know why Vietnam was victory (according to some).
Sure the US won the battles, but lost the war.
North Vietnam overran the South Vietnam so the US did not stop the communists taking over the country.

Look at when the South was taken over! It was taken over AFTER the US signed a peace accord with the North. When we left, then and only then did the North pick off South Vietnam.

I love it how people have revisionist history. Its sad though really! :(

The only wars we have "lost" have been Vietnam and, depending on where you live and what your cultural alignment is, the Civil War.

And technically, Vietnam wasn't really a loss either since the South wasn't taken over till after all of our men left the area.

Look at when the South was taken over! It was taken over AFTER the US signed a peace accord with the North. When we left, then and only then did the North pick off South Vietnam.

I love it how people have revisionist history. Its sad though really! :(

This means, the US intervention did nothing as the US didn't stop the North winning anyway - it stalled the Communists at best.

And thanks for dragging Australia into it. Let's hope Vietnam does not repeat in Iraq.

And technically, Vietnam wasn't really a loss either since the South wasn't taken over till after all of our men left the area.
*shaking my head sadly*

is it THAT important to you that we won?

to call vietnam a win is as silly as calling the gulf war 1 a loss.

This means, the US intervention did nothing as the US didn't stop the North winning anyway - it stalled the Communists at best.

And thanks for dragging Australia into it. Let's hope Vietnam does not repeat in Iraq.

1. The war was over for the US. Sadly the Communists took advantage of that. If you believe that is a loss, it's your call.

2. Luckily for us, the 'silent majority' in the US isn't as silent as it was in Vietnam. Basically the political loss that occurred in Vietnam isn't near as likely to happen.

ok lets see if i can help.

Revolutionary war/won

The Civil War was technicly a win since well i mean come on it was still america we split then came back together in the end [im southern by the way]

War of 1812/ was a draw since the war ended b4 the battle of new orleans
because of bad communications

ww1 and 2 were won

Vietnam was never officially declared a war, it was a conflict so really no one won we just tried to help. :rolleyes:

Korean war was a win we completed the mission.

Gulf War1 was a win end of story we completed what we wanted to other than kill saddam

Gulfwar 2 won just fighting insurgents now.
there we go

Gulfwar 2 won just fighting insurgents now.
there we go

Works for me, but you might get flamed by others on this one.

I wonder, of all of the wars the US has fought in, how many have they actually completed, and of those, how many have they actually won? The ones that come to mind are:
War of 1812 - lost
WWI - won
WWII - won
Vietnam - not finished/lost
Korean war - not finished/lost
Gulf war I - not finished/won
Gulf war II - not finished

I'm sure there are several that I'm missing, but it seems to me that the USA's track record for winning wars is worse than France's, and the only wars they did win were the ones in which they had many powerful allies.
You need to repeat your high school history classes. :rolleyes:

vietnam wasn't a war it was a conflict buddy, read the history books

1. The war was over for the US. Sadly the Communists took advantage of that. If you believe that is a loss, it's your call.

2. Luckily for us, the 'silent majority' in the US isn't as silent as it was in Vietnam. Basically the political loss that occurred in Vietnam isn't near as likely to happen.

It was a "Limited War" so the US didn't lose it technically is it was not "Full" war. So you are right technically, and hence you didn't win either.

I wonder, of all of the wars the US has fought in, how many have they actually completed, and of those, how many have they actually won? The ones that come to mind are:
War of 1812 - lost
WWI - won
WWII - won
Vietnam - not finished/lost
Korean war - not finished/lost
Gulf war I - not finished/won
Gulf war II - not finished

I'm sure there are several that I'm missing, but it seems to me that the USA's track record for winning wars is worse than France's, and the only wars they did win were the ones in which they had many powerful allies.

Hmm: Ok, WW1/Ww2/Nam is right. Otherwise...

War of 1812: Won. Often called the 2nd war of American Independence, the country did not cease to exist.
Korea: HUH? Has there not been a South Korea since 1945? DRAW.
Gulf War I: Finished/won: The goal of the war was to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait.
Gulf War II: Yes, but still in progress.

Missing from your list, interestingly:
American Civil War: Finished/Won. The insurrection against the Union was defeated.
Spanish-American War: Finished/Won
Mexican-American War: Finished/Won

I'm sure there are several that I'm missing, but it seems to me that the USA's track record for winning wars is worse than France's, and the only wars they did win were the ones in which they had many powerful allies.

By the way, which wars are you referring to when we had powerful allies? Just curious... completely honest question.

It was a "Limited War" so the US didn't lose it technically is it was not "Full" war. So you are right technically, and hence you didn't win either.

Exactly. Never said we won. And like Jon Jons Ayrian race says: it was never really a war.

Exactly. Never said we won. And like Jon Jons Ayrian race says: it was never really a war.

So in the same premise Vietnam was a "Limited War", both engagements in Iraq are also "Limited Wars" - hence the US never wins or loses both? I assume the US is going to get out of Iraq one day. You were helping Kuwait in the same way South Vietnam needed help.

In the war of 1812, the british took over much of New England, including Washington and Boston. As I recall, they also landed on US soil in the south as well. They weren't beaten back by the Americans though, they withdrew, because they didn't want to overextend themselves, as they were also at war with Napoleon.

Try learning about history before you post on the forums about it,

New England wasn’t invaded in the war of 1812, it would have been an error on the British to do so. New England was whole heartedly Federalist, anti-war and pro-British in terms of trade. There was even a meeting of governors in Connecticut to discuss succession from the United States, apparently such notions did not originate in South Carolina fifty years later...

No, New England was not invaded, Washington was burned after a disastrous defeat of the American Army, though the British were forced to evacuated the city after there suffered heavy losses in an act of god, a huge hurricane.

They continued there campaign to Baltimore where the Star-Spangled banner was written. However people forget the land battle, look up the Battle of North Point one time, its a great tale, heroics on both sides.

As for New Orleans it must be accounted as a Victory in the War of 1812 because it was, and thoroughly a one sided victory. If the British capture the city, they would have had control of the Mississippi, an huge victory. Every historian agrees that they would not have given up such an objective, it would have crippled the US economy in the "west". In those days it did not matter that a peace was signed, communications were not instant in those days . If we do not count N.O as a victory in the war by that logic the whole war never occurred, The war was over impressment of the merchant marine, a trouble that was concluded before the war bargain, only word did not reach in time to stop the invasion of Canada.

What exactly constitutes a war here? I noticed Tripoli, Panama, and Grenada didn't find themselves on any list here.

What exactly constitutes a war here? I noticed Tripoli, Panama, and Grenada didn't find themselves on any list here.

You mean this
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d108.htm

DECLARATION OF WAR - An act of the national legislature, in which a state of war is declared to exist between the United States and some other nation. This power is vested in Congress by the Constitution, Art. I. There is no form or ceremony necessary, except the passage of the act.

The public proclamation of the government of a state, by which it declares itself to be at war with a foreign power, and which forbids all and every one to aid or assist the common enemy. A manifesto stating the causes of the war is usually published, but war exists as soon as the act takes effect.

It was formerly usual to precede hostilities by a public declaration communicated to the enemy, and to send a herald to demand satisfaction, but that is not the practice of modern times. In some countries, e.g., England, the power of declaring war is vested in the king, but he has no power to raise men or money to carry it on, which renders the right almost nugatory.

*snip*
America hasn't declared war in the "proper" fashion since 1941. So I guess that means we can strike Vietnam from the record books? :p

Hold on here. The only aggression was done by the Brits. If they haven't been impressing our merchant marine into their navy, we would never have had to declare war. It was a war of Self-Defense and not a war of aggression.

Uh, no. The British impressing american sailors might have been a motive for the war, but it wasn't military aggression. Invading Canada was, however.

It may have been a war to defend American interests, but it wasn't a war of self defense. American territory was never in danger until they attacked British territory.

We officially declared war on Iraq both times, it was Veitnam that was a conflict, congress has the power to declare war.
And congress was used in the gulf wars. Vietnam was not

America hasn't declared war in the "proper" fashion since 1941. So I guess that means we can strike Vietnam from the record books? :p

I guess so - so we have to use more obscure words like invasion, intervention, military assistance, peacekeeping, etc. :)

Yes actually we did declare war in the gulf both times. The congress allowed it.

We officially declared war on Iraq both times, it was Veitnam that was a conflict, congress has the power to declare war.
And congress was used in the gulf wars. Vietnam was not
1) The US has never declared war upon Iraq. The authorizations for the use of force took place instead.

2) What about the Tonkin Gulf Resolution of 1964? The Congress authorized the use of force in Vietnam then.

Yes actually we did declare war in the gulf both times. The congress allowed it.

So what's this "War on Terror" and "War on Drugs" :p
A covert operation to control the world since there's no nation called terror or drug.

So in the same premise Vietnam was a "Limited War", both engagements in Iraq are also "Limited Wars" - hence the US never wins or loses both? I assume the US is going to get out of Iraq one day. You were helping Kuwait in the same way South Vietnam needed help.

Not true. Both are not limited wars. You are right about the 1st Gulf War being similar to our intentions in Vietnam and Korea, but I don't believe that Vietnam is a "limited war" because of that. I believe it is because war was never declared. Now I could be wrong about the 'declared' war for the 1st Gulf War as I don't rightly remember. However, it had much more support then Nam.

The 1st and 2nd Gulf wars were and are still full out wars. And yes, we will leave Iraq one day.

The issue of who won/lost/draw the War of 1812 is more complicated than previous posts suggest. The War encompassed 3 major issues.

1) British hegemony - accusations of Royal Navy ships enforcing blockades and taking American merchant men and pressing them into the navy.

2) Native American Nationalism - at the same time an alliance of Native American peoples was developing and pushing for recognition as an independent sovereign nation. There was some support for this from the British.

3) American hegemony - aggressive continentalists wanted defacto annexation/military control of Canada.

The Continentalists were the biggest proponents of the war, and their interests were primary with 2 and 3. No suprise, most of the first part of the war was fought largely with issues 2 and 3 in mind.

While intially badly embarassed on both fronts, the Amercians eventually destroyed the Native American forces and killed their leadership. So for issue 2 America achieved total victory.

On issue 3 American attempts to invade were repulsed by a mixture of British regulars, Canadian-Nationalist Militia and Native American forces. On the third front America faced total defeat.

This leaves issue one. Throughout the war America achieved small but suprising naval victories over the Royal Navy, though was not able to prevent invasion. In the end though, the invasion came to a stop due to a sequence of hard fought battles combined with British war weariness. I would classify this as a draw/marginal victory for the Americans.

Not true. Both are not limited wars. You are right about the 1st Gulf War being similar to our intentions in Vietnam and Korea, but I don't believe that Vietnam is a "limited war" because of that. I believe it is because war was never declared.

The 1st and 2nd Gulf wars were and are still full out wars. And yes, we will leave Iraq one day.

I hope we do leave Iraq. The Australian Prime Minister has placed most of Australia's troops in other nations and most are not in Australia. If we get invaded by Indonesia, we are in big trouble and probably need to borrow some nukes from the US.

Look at when the South was taken over! It was taken over AFTER the US signed a peace accord with the North. When we left, then and only then did the North pick off South Vietnam.

I love it how people have revisionist history. Its sad though really! :(

The US went in SE Asia because they wanted to stop communism from spreading in the region. By 1975 Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia were communist and Thailand had some communist rebels. I think the US lost the war in SE Asia.

I hope we do leave Iraq. The Australian Prime Minister has placed most of Australia's troops in other nations and most are not in Australia. If we get invaded by Indonesia, we are in big trouble and probably need to borrow some nukes from the US.

Im certain that Aulstralia does not need to worry about that. And if they did, I'm also certain that they would have very strong allies helping them out.

You need to repeat your high school history classes. :rolleyes:
Funny thing that, seeing how I got As in those classes. Of course, I'm not American, so I actually learned about the history of the entire world, and not just a single country, so I apologize if my American history isn't completely accurate. I started this thread fully expecting other people to add to the list of wars, knowing full well that it was incomplete.

By the way, which wars are you referring to when we had powerful allies? Just curious... completely honest question.
I was referring to the two world wars.

Here's my justification for each of the wars:

War of 1812 - lost: The Americans were the aggressors, the British managed to not only hold them back, but push into American territory, to seize Washington and Boston. They withdrew later to sign a peace treaty only because they were more interested in their war against the French than in taking American territory. Yes, the battles at Baltimore and New Orleans were lost by the british, but winning individual battles does not win you a war. The Americans declared war on the British and managed only a white peace, and only because the British were involved in another, more important war. This, I would call a loss.

WWI and WWII were both clearly wins for the Americans and their allies.

Vietnam: The Americans went into vietnam to prevent it from becoming communist. It became communist. This, I would call a loss.

Korea: The North Koreans attacked South Korea, the Americans came in and pushed them back to the 38th parallel, and the Americans stupidly decided to invade North Korea, despite warnings from China and discouragement from their allies. Not only that, but some idiot American general decided it would be a good idea to bomb Chinese depots. They were summarily pushed back to the 38th parallel, where eventually a white peace was signed. If the americans had simply stayed where they were after retaking South Korea, I would be inclined to call the war a victory, but because they decided to press on and were quite easily repulsed by the combined North Korean/Chinese/Soviet forces, I would say that at best it was a draw.

Gulf war I: Clearly won, but not finished: Yes, you managed to defend Kuwait, but you had pledged to liberate Iraq and remove Saddam from power, and then left before any of that was done. Had you done those things then, when you actually had the support of most of the Iraqi people, you would have much fewer insurgents than you do today.

Gulf war II: Again, not finished, there are insurgencies occuring nearly every day, and your job there is not yet finished. Yes, the war may be won, but it will not be over as long as the enemy still exists and continues to fight.

I wonder why the US left Somalia when the fight between US Rangers and a small faction (clan) started to escalate. Did they (US government) not know that the same clan that had fought with the Americans had no other clan allies; in fact, they were the perpetrators of the civil war. If the whole purpose to why America entered Somalia was to help out, few thugs have changed their cause. Majority Somali people supported the US involvement, the ones that were against it were the ones who were profiting from the civil war. To expel the whole idea that few Somalians kicked out American troops ( & the UN), officials (American) insist that Al Qaeda was behind the Black Hawk downing, and their reason for that is, the US military overheard Arabic talk on mobile phones between the fighters. That's very hard to comprehend because Somalis can speak Arabic, Somali, Italian, English, and French. Second, Somalians are capitalistic and materialistic, so when they see a wanted man who is insignificant to them, they will sell him out (Osama Bin Laden for example) for $55 million dollars, trust me, he would not last in Somalia within an hour.

Somalia... dear Lord that was one mess we should have never gotten ourselves into. You can blame Clinton for that.

Oi....You Americans astound me. It's not your fault, but sometimes your historical information is flawed. The war of 1812 was not an American victory, nor was it so much a British victory. Details of the whole thing have been biased to death by American history textbooks. America invaded Canada, there was some short periods of occupation, then the British turned around and pushed American forces back to almost virginia. A treaty was signed so that we would be nice and let you have your land back, but it taught a lesson: Don't mess with the Brits. I don't even know why America attacked in the first place. What'd they want? :confused:

Oi....You Americans astound me. It's not your fault, but sometimes your historical information is flawed. The war of 1812 was not an American victory, nor was it so much a British victory. Details of the whole thing have been biased to death by American history textbooks. America invaded Canada, there was some short periods of occupation, then the British turned around and pushed American forces back to almost virginia. A treaty was signed so that we would be nice and let you have your land back, but it taught a lesson: Don't mess with the Brits. I don't even know why America attacked in the first place. What'd they want? :confused:
Don't mess with you huh? Does saving your asses in WWII count as "messing with you"? We've both kicked and saved your butts, so you really have no room to talk.

Don't mess with you huh? Does saving your asses in WWII count as "messing with you"? We've both kicked and saved your butts, so you really have no room to talk.

Funny, his location says Canada, not Great Britain.

Another thing the Americans wanted from the War of 1812 was for the Brits to leave the forts in the "West" that had "forgotten" to abandon after they recognized our independance in 1788.

So, the Brits stop kidnapping our sailors, stopped supplying the Indians for forming their own country, and left our terrirtory they occupied.

The Americans stopped invading Canada.

Wars are fought in battles but won with objectives. 1812= a win for the USA.

If enslaving citizens of the united states isn't an act of war, I don't know what is.

It's also a really cute thread, and it shows that people other than americans are no better. During this whole war in Iraq, when people have been insulting Chirac et. al. for not getting on the wagon, I point out that it's their perogative as they saved the day at Yorktown. By the inverse, I guess it's trendy to take a shit on america for the actions of one president, and overlook the US defeating the Japanese and Germans and taking their leaders to task for unprovoked war, human experimentation, repression, and outright genocide. Try and remeber the good along with the bad, eh?

Another thing the Americans wanted from the War of 1812 was for the Brits to leave the forts in the "West" that had "forgotten" to abandon after they recognized our independance in 1788.

So, the Brits stop kidnapping our sailors, stopped supplying the Indians for forming their own country, and left our terrirtory they occupied.

The Americans stopped invading Canada.

Wars are fought in battles but won with objectives. 1812= a win for the USA.

Study the objectives and sequence of events better.

Invasions of Canada did not stop because the British promised to stop kidnapping sailors(which they didn't, it stopped because the war with Napoleon was over, and there was not longer any reason for it to happen anymore).

The invasions of Canada stopped because the American forces were soundly defeated and forced on the defensive. The war ended sometime later when the counter invasion by the British bogged down.

The results for the Americans is decidedly mixed. Some objectives were met, others were not.

WWI - won
WWII - won
.

i always thought the allies won these two..??.. oh and the coalition on GW 1 and 2

What's this I hear about Vietnam being a military victory? Am I supposed to laugh at that?

What's this I hear about Vietnam being a military victory? Am I supposed to laugh at that?

i dont think so.. but i did

In the war of 1812, the british took over much of New England, including Washington and Boston. As I recall, they also landed on US soil in the south as well. They weren't beaten back by the Americans though, they withdrew, because they didn't want to overextend themselves, as they were also at war with Napoleon.


Now would that be the same as the US withdrawing from Vietnam? So many people consider that a loss for the US. I mean seriously. If your enemy is not occupying your land at the end. Then however that happened so be it. The Vietnamese Commies just celebrated there victory the other day. After of course the American military did a withdrawl.

The Korean War never actually ended. Actually, there is a cease-fire agreement, so the fighting could start up again if anyone got stupider.

Don't mess with you huh? Does saving your asses in WWII count as "messing with you"? We've both kicked and saved your butts, so you really have no room to talk.


!!!!it is not ass it is arse!!!!!! if you must abuse the ENGLISH language please speak french....oh wait...you would be if we hadnt sporned you

I wonder, of all of the wars the US has fought in, how many have they actually completed, and of those, how many have they actually won? The ones that come to mind are:
War of 1812 - lost
WWI - won
WWII - won
Vietnam - not finished/lost
Korean war - not finished/lost
Gulf war I - not finished/won
Gulf war II - not finished

I'm sure there are several that I'm missing, but it seems to me that the USA's track record for winning wars is worse than France's, and the only wars they did win were the ones in which they had many powerful allies.

1812 wasn't lost. Nor was it won. A treaty was signed to resolve the issues. No side however was able to claim victory due to the events that took place.

Vietnam is a war we legitimately lost.

Korean war isn't technically over. We however somewhat won. It was a stalemate however in regards to China. Why? South Korea was saved while North Korea got ****ed over.

We also won the Spanish-American War and the Mexican-American war.

What's this I hear about Vietnam being a military victory? Am I supposed to laugh at that?

No, becuase it was a military victory.

1.5 million dead Vietnamies > 50,000 dead Americans

You decide.

It was however a loss once we withdrew. Becuase five years after leaving, the north went in and took the south. Although that was a breach in the Treaty, the U.S. did not want to get involved again.

I have'nt seen the thing in Lebanon anywhere...

I regret to inform that the North was well into the South way before the Americans abandoned the war.

So in the same premise Vietnam was a "Limited War", both engagements in Iraq are also "Limited Wars" - hence the US never wins or loses both? I assume the US is going to get out of Iraq one day. You were helping Kuwait in the same way South Vietnam needed help.

Actually... no. Both Iraq Wars were full wars. The first one, we used all available force to drive him out of Kuwait. It wasn't that hard either.

In the second, we used the full might of the US military to oust Saddam from power so I'm wondering where you got this limited war thing for Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

I wonder, of all of the wars the US has fought in, how many have they actually completed, and of those, how many have they actually won? The ones that come to mind are:
War of 1812 - lost
WWI - won
WWII - won
Vietnam - not finished/lost
Korean war - not finished/lost
Gulf war I - not finished/won
Gulf war II - not finished

I'm sure there are several that I'm missing, but it seems to me that the USA's track record for winning wars is worse than France's, and the only wars they did win were the ones in which they had many powerful allies.
Ok. You have a terrible grasp of History. Here we go:

War of Independence- We beat the British, really, with French help

War with Tripoli- Tripoli was making countries pay to use the Mediterranean, we didn’t want to pay, and thus our first amphibious victory.

War of 1812- a draw, but Jackson still rocked their world

War of Texas Independence- Maybe it doesn’t count, but it is worth mentioning, they won.

Mexican American War- We beat the Mexican Army, even though it was larger organized force and ours was a ragtag militia.

American Civil War- The union was preserved, so I count it as a win.

Spanish American War- US victory, Spain loses last vestiges of Empire

WWI- US assisted France and Britain in defeating Prussian Germany

WW2- Defeated Imperial Japan, and Mussolini’s Italy. Beat Nazi Germany with British help, and Soviet “not really” help (see Poland)

Korean Conflict- UN mandate accomplished

Iranian Revolution- Agent Kim Roosevelt did his job well

Guatemalan Revolution- Mass deception equaled victory

Bay of Pigs- Kennedy idiocy led to slaughter of Cubans

Vietnam Conflict- Kept the South free. Signed treaty with North, which only invaded after Nixon resigned, because they knew Ford was weak.

Various Involvements in South America- Kept Communists out of power, but other types of dictators in.

The Cold War- USSR collapsed, not the US

Gulf War I- International Coalition accomplished its mission

The Balkans- US provided crucial air support.

Somalia- Clinton idiocy led to retreat

Gulf War II- US Victory

*sigh*

What do I love better than Anti-American threads in the morning? Oh right, a swift kick to the balls.

Uh, no. The British impressing american sailors might have been a motive for the war, but it wasn't military aggression. Invading Canada was, however.

Oh excuse me but impressing someone else's people into your military is a violation of international law and an act of war. We only declared war because Britain didn't stop. Though in reality they did but word didn't reach till AFTER the declaration of war was approved.

I suggest you learn history some more Nimzonia.

It may have been a war to defend American interests, but it wasn't a war of self defense. American territory was never in danger until they attacked British territory.

Sorry Nimzonia but once you fire on a sovereign nation's ship (which by marittime laws indicate that ship belongs to that country, its an attack on that nation. Therefore, it was a war of self-defense.

I wonder, of all of the wars the US has fought in, how many have they actually completed, and of those, how many have they actually won? The ones that come to mind are:
War of 1812 - lost
WWI - won
WWII - won
Vietnam - not finished/lost
Korean war - not finished/lost
Gulf war I - not finished/won
Gulf war II - not finished

I'm sure there are several that I'm missing, but it seems to me that the USA's track record for winning wars is worse than France's, and the only wars they did win were the ones in which they had many powerful allies.

-War of 1812 was not a loss, as many others have explained, it was clearly a draw.

-WWI & WWII, or as you might not remember, "the big ones"...the Vietnam and Gulf Wars pale in compairison to WWII and the threat to humanity that Nazism and Fascism presented.

-Vietnam war, military victory, horrendus political defeat

-Korean war, a loss?...hardly! I believe South Korea is still a democratic republic as to this very day, wasnt the goal to stop the spread of Communism to the entire peninsula and keep the South free? Though unification has not yet occured I would count this is a victory.

-Gulf War I, a loss I agree...If we had gotten Saddam at the end of the first Gulf War then there would be no need for the second (presumably)

-Gulf War II, not sure that you can call this a victory/defeat yet...if Iraq becomes a flourishing democracy because of the war then I believe it could be considered a huge victory but if everything falls apart and this war was just a waste of time and rescources then I would most definately call it a defeat.

You also failed to mention the Revolutionary war, which was of course a victory.

*sigh*

What do I love better than Anti-American threads in the morning? Oh right, a swift kick to the balls.

lol

Vietnam Conflict- Kept the South free. Signed treaty with North, which only invaded after Nixon resigned, Not true. The offensive began in March 11 1975. Nixon resigned on August 9th.

The US went in SE Asia because they wanted to stop communism from spreading in the region. By 1975 Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia were communist and Thailand had some communist rebels. I think the US lost the war in SE Asia.

None of that happened till after the US pull out of Vietnam and only after South Vietnam fell to the North.

None of that happened till after the US pull out of Vietnam and only after South Vietnam fell to the North.They pulled out to avoid the massacre. They pulled out becuase South Vietnam was in shambles despite american efforts. There was only two ways to go... stay and be slaughtered or leave. They left. They were defeated.

Funny thing that, seeing how I got As in those classes. Of course, I'm not American, so I actually learned about the history of the entire world, and not just a single country, so I apologize if my American history isn't completely accurate. I started this thread fully expecting other people to add to the list of wars, knowing full well that it was incomplete.

Well.... the list is rather long.

I was referring to the two world wars.

What powerful ally did we have in the Pacific? NONE!

Here's my justification for each of the wars:

Should be good!

War of 1812 - lost: The Americans were the aggressors

Inaccurate. We were not the aggressors. I suggest you re-read the fact that the British were impressing our merchant marine into their navy. That is a violation of international law and an act of war. Therefor, it was a war of self-preservation and a war of self-defense.

the British managed to not only hold them back, but push into American territory, to seize Washington and Boston. They withdrew later to sign a peace treaty only because they were more interested in their war against the French than in taking American territory. Yes, the battles at Baltimore and New Orleans were lost by the british, but winning individual battles does not win you a war. The Americans declared war on the British and managed only a white peace, and only because the British were involved in another, more important war. This, I would call a loss.

This is what I call not knowing the full scope of the War of 1812. Itwasn't a loss and most historians conclude that it was indecisive. Most of them concluded that it was a draw and that neither side really won. No one got what they wanted and the borders went back to pre war of 1812. To me this was a draw and not a british victory.

WWI and WWII were both clearly wins for the Americans and their allies.

Accurate.

Vietnam: The Americans went into vietnam to prevent it from becoming communist. It became communist. This, I would call a loss.

The South didn't become communist until AFTER THE US PULLED OUT.

Korea: The North Koreans attacked South Korea, the Americans came in and pushed them back to the 38th parallel, and the Americans stupidly decided to invade North Korea, despite warnings from China and discouragement from their allies. Not only that, but some idiot American general decided it would be a good idea to bomb Chinese depots. They were summarily pushed back to the 38th parallel, where eventually a white peace was signed. If the americans had simply stayed where they were after retaking South Korea, I would be inclined to call the war a victory, but because they decided to press on and were quite easily repulsed by the combined North Korean/Chinese/Soviet forces, I would say that at best it was a draw.

But the South didn't fall to North Korea and for your information, the Chinese pushed out right past Souel South Korea and we had to retake the city and we pushed them back across the 38th Parallel. Yes we had to push them out of South Korea. It was a victory and not a defeat.

God I hate revisionist history.

Gulf war I: Clearly won, but not finished: Yes, you managed to defend Kuwait, but you had pledged to liberate Iraq and remove Saddam from power, and then left before any of that was done. Had you done those things then, when you actually had the support of most of the Iraqi people, you would have much fewer insurgents than you do today.

Yes it was a victory but the goal then wasn't to push into Iraq. That is something you don't seem to understand. The goal was to push him out of Kuwait and this we did. It wasn't till AFTER the 1st gulf war that we tried a shi'ite uprising and damn the president for backing out of it at the last minute (as most presidents do)

Gulf war II: Again, not finished, there are insurgencies occuring nearly every day, and your job there is not yet finished. Yes, the war may be won, but it will not be over as long as the enemy still exists and continues to fight.

Ok here I will agree with you.

Somalia... dear Lord that was one mess we should have never gotten ourselves into. You can blame Clinton for that.

Amen to that. That was Clinton's fault. We should've just taken them out but nooo suffer 18 casualties and he orders us to flee like cowards.

Oi....You Americans astound me. It's not your fault, but sometimes your historical information is flawed. The war of 1812 was not an American victory, nor was it so much a British victory.

This American already knew it was a draw. However, most see it as an American Victory whereas I'm sure that Britain looks at it like a victory for them. However, NO ONE won this war. It was a draw :)

Details of the whole thing have been biased to death by American history textbooks.

Understatement of the year.

America invaded Canada, there was some short periods of occupation, then the British turned around and pushed American forces back to almost virginia. A treaty was signed so that we would be nice and let you have your land back, but it taught a lesson: Don't mess with the Brits. I don't even know why America attacked in the first place. What'd they want? :confused:

Are you forgetting the fact that we pushed you out of Virginia and drove you north back towards Canada before the Cease-Fire was signed?

What's this I hear about Vietnam being a military victory? Am I supposed to laugh at that?

Show me an American military defeat in Vietnam. I can tell you, you won't find one. The US won every single military engagement in Vietnam. So tell me how it wasn't a military victory?

They pulled out to avoid the massacre. They pulled out becuase South Vietnam was in shambles despite american efforts. There was only two ways to go... stay and be slaughtered or leave. They left. They were defeated.

But South Vietnam remained when we pulled out. Therefor, no it wasn't a military loss. South Vietnam fell AFTER the US pull out because the North knew they couldn't keep it up.

Show me an American military defeat in Vietnam. I can tell you, you won't find one. The US won every single military engagement in Vietnam. So tell me how it wasn't a military victory?
Erm... so the US army kept winning in Vietnam, battle after battle... and when Mr Nixon thought it had defeated the evil Communist foe and accomplished its mission, he signed a peace accord and withdrew the troops, leaving behind a prosperous and secure South Vietnam.

Something is wrong with that picture, I guess.

Erm... so the US army kept winning in Vietnam, battle after battle... and when Mr Nixon thought it had defeated the evil Communist foe and accomplished its mission, he signed a peace accord and withdrew the troops, leaving behind a prosperous and secure South Vietnam.

Something is wrong with that picture, I guess.

We left because the people got tired of the casualties and it was an unpopular war. We did win it militarily but politically, it was a disaster.

Erm... so the US army kept winning in Vietnam, battle after battle... and when Mr Nixon thought it had defeated the evil Communist foe and accomplished its mission, he signed a peace accord and withdrew the troops, leaving behind a prosperous and secure South Vietnam.

Something is wrong with that picture, I guess.
Also, not saying that you believe it , but John Kerry said it, so I figure that it’s a common misconception that Nixon started Vietnam. That is wrong. It was Johnson.

Also, not saying that you believe it , but John Kerry said it, so I figure that it’s a common misconception that Nixon started Vietnam. That is wrong. It was Johnson.
I've just written that it was Nixon who ended the involvement of America in Vietnam.

Also, not saying that you believe it , but John Kerry said it, so I figure that it’s a common misconception that Nixon started Vietnam. That is wrong. It was Johnson.

Actually, you can almost blame Eisenhower and Kennedy as well.

I've just written that it was Nixon who ended the involvement of America in Vietnam.
I’m sorry. Sarcasm sometimes confuses me.

Actually, you can almost blame Eisenhower and Kennedy as well.
Wrong. You can blame them. Not almost.

We left because the people got tired of the casualties and it was an unpopular war. We did win it militarily but politically, it was a disaster.
'Tired of the casualties?' Yes, it's undeniable. But were you closer to defeating the Communists in 1972 than you were 1965? I don't think so.

And the US withdrawal wasn't only a matter of Nixon's politics--he wasn't a 'peacenik' for all I know.

'Tired of the casualties?' Yes, it's undeniable. But were you closer to defeating the Communists in 1972 than you were 1965? I don't think so.

And the US withdrawal wasn't only a matter of Nixon's politics--he wasn't a 'peacenik' for all I know.

The fact remains though that the US won every single military engagement over the VietCong. Nothing can change that fact. So yes, militarily, we won Vietnam but politically, we didn't.

Wrong. You can blame them. Not almost.
Why blame Eisenhower? He stayed away from Vietnam despite French requests for assistance.

The fact remains though that the US won every single military engagement over the VietCong. Nothing can change that fact. So yes, militarily, we won Vietnam but politically, we didn't.
The US defeated militarily the Vietnamese communists by 1973? Sorry, that wasn't the case.

Don't forget the first and second simonal wars.

What about the War for Independence when they kicked out the English?
.

The "War" for Independance was'nt a war, it was a revolution.

Why blame Eisenhower? He stayed away from Vietnam despite French requests for assistance.

I believe that Eisenhower, sent in observers.

Ahh here we go. The USA was furnishing 78% of the cost of the French war effort by 1954. Eisenhower pledged in 1954 to assist the Diem government in "developing and maintaining a strong, viable state capable of resisting attempted subversion or aggression through military means." (encyclopedia americana vol.28 page 12a) He did send military advisors to the region. and Kennedy increased our number of adviser personel to 16,000 by 1963 when the diem government was getting harrassed. In november the Diem government was overthrowned and he was taken out, ironically in the same month and year as President Kennedy (same source)

The US defeated militarily the Vietnamese communists by 1973? Sorry, that wasn't the case.

You still haven't shown me where we lost a battle.

You still haven't shown me where we lost a battle.

You lost the battle of public opinion, ironically the single-most important battle that faced the Nixon admin.

i have never seen anyone before today put for the notion that we WON vietnam.

did someone TEACH you that? did you read it on the net? did it just spring into your head full blown?

i was 16 in 1973 and no one at that time thought that we left vietnam with a win under our belts. NO ONE. it was "peace with honor" whatever the fuck that meant. no one believed that the southvietnamese could hold their country against resumed hostilities by the north. no one thought they had the will to fight. turns out that they didnt.

we left vietnam with the understanding that it was not a win, it was the only way out. our military superiority just wasnt ever going to let us win. our need to not escalate it into ww3 against the soviets meant that we couldnt nuke them into the stone age. all we could do is walk away in a manner that left us with as much dignity as possible


do y'all think that the soviets won their conflict with afghanistan too?

I believe that Eisenhower, sent in observers.

Ahh here we go. The USA was furnishing 78% of the cost of the French war effort by 1954. Eisenhower pledged in 1954 to assist the Diem government in "developing and maintaining a strong, viable state capable of resisting attempted subversion or aggression through military means." (encyclopedia americana vol.28 page 12a) He did send military advisors to the region. and Kennedy increased our number of adviser personel to 16,000 by 1963 when the diem government was getting harrassed. In november the Diem government was overthrowned and he was taken out, ironically in the same month and year as President Kennedy (same source)
Eisenhower didn't send the troops to Vietnam, probably because he had some misgivings about Asian wars. (Korea had just been over.) What's so bad with helping South Vietnam, so that Mr Eisenhower is to blame for the American defeat? The US assisted a lot of countries, and some of them had unsavoury regimes.

Also I've read somewhere (Ambrose?) that several US generals advised Eisenhower to help the French attack North Vietnam with nuclear weapons.

You lost the battle of public opinion, ironically the single-most important battle that faced the Nixon admin.

Care to show me a military battle we lost? Oh wait, you can't. BTW: South Vietnam was still in existence when we left. It was only after we left did the North take it over.

Masterful move. Sign a peace treaty with the US to get us to leave and when we do, attack. Brillent piece of tactics.

However, when we were there, the north vietnamese never won a single solitary engagement.

You still haven't shown me where we lost a battle.
I don't know your individual battles in Vietnam -- I don't care about them. :) Moreover, I haven't tried... but you don't want to answer my direct question (again!)

So, were the Vietnamese communists defeated, in military sense of that word, by January 1973?

i have never seen anyone before today put for the notion that we WON vietnam.

did someone TEACH you that? did you read it on the net? did it just spring into your head full blown?

i was 16 in 1973 and no one at that time thought that we left vietnam with a win under our belts. NO ONE.

Fast-forward to the Fascist States of America, circa 2001-the present, a special time and place where America lost no battles, made no mistakes, and everybody was feeling only happy-happy-joy-joy feelings about their rulers.

Except for the other 50% of the American people. And of course, the rest of the planet, but until they all smarten up and think conservatively (whatever the Hell that's supposed to mean, anymore), their take on things can be easily put down as simple malcontent and churlishness.

...


do y'all think that the soviets won their conflict with afghanistan too?
Not me!

Care to show me a military battle we lost? Oh wait, you can't. BTW: South Vietnam was still in existence when we left. It was only after we left did the North take it over.

Masterful move. Sign a peace treaty with the US to get us to leave and when we do, attack. Brillent piece of tactics.

...
So the US Government (Republican, BTW ;-) was inveigled by the Vietnamwese communists into signing a peace accord, which turned a won war into a lost war? Wow... the Communists knew how to work miracles in 1973!

I don't know your individual battles in Vietnam -- I don't care about them. :) Moreover, I haven't tried... but you don't want to answer my direct question (again!)

So, were the Vietnamese communists defeated, in military sense of that word, by January 1973?

You lose a battle, your defeated in that battle. YOu lose every battle, your defeated. We may not have destroyed the North Vietnamese Army or support but they never won a single engagement against American forces. So yes, militarily, they were defeated. They just played the game to inflict as many casualties to turn public opinion and politicians and the media got caught up in their scheme and managed a peace treaty that recognized both North and South Vietnam. It wasn't till after our troops left did they reattack South Vietnam.

Again, it was a brilliant strategy employed by the North. Fight hard enough to get a peace treaty and then attack when we leave. Gotta give them credit for that.

Now that I answered yours, answer mine. Name me a military battle in Vietnam that the US lost.

Fast-forward to the Fascist States of America, circa 2001-the present, a special time and place where America lost no battles, made no mistakes, and everybody was feeling only happy-happy-joy-joy feelings about their rulers.

Unlike The Socialist Union of Canada... but that's a different story. We've made mistakes Dobbsworld. Just like Canada has made mistakes. Every nation makes mistakes. Only a fool would think otherwise.

Except for the other 50% of the American people. And of course, the rest of the planet, but until they all smarten up and think conservatively (whatever the Hell that's supposed to mean, anymore), their take on things can be easily put down as simple malcontent and churlishness.

Nice jab! However, us 52% of the people made a choice for president. What are you trying to do? Call us all stupid for not believing in Kerry who puts people to sleep as he speaks? Who doesn't have any leadership abilities whatsoever and ran on nothing during his campaign?

So the US Government (Republican, BTW ;-) was inveigled by the Vietnamwese communists into signing a peace accord, which turned a won war into a lost war? Wow... the Communists knew how to work miracles in 1973!

Their whole goal wasn't to defeat the US. Their goal was to inflict enough casualties to turn public opinion against the war. That strategy worked. How many vietnamese died again? Far to many. Of course, that was before smart bombs became smarter.

The history of Vietnam isn't as black and white as people make it out to believe. As I said, militarily, we did win. We won every battle and kept the north from taking over the south. However, it was after peace was achieved and we left that the North re-attacked and took over South Vietnam.

But South Vietnam remained when we pulled out. Therefor, no it wasn't a military loss. South Vietnam fell AFTER the US pull out because the North knew they couldn't keep it up.

Show me an American military defeat in Vietnam. I can tell you, you won't find one. The US won every single military engagement in Vietnam. So tell me how it wasn't a military victory?
The US pulled out becuase there was no hope for victory. The people at home would not stand to watch a massacre and the administration did not wish to be responsible. They did the sensible thing. Retreat and let the South Vietnamese be massacred alone, if you can consider that to be sensible. There were no battles in the Vietnam war. Battles as in organised confrontations between two armed forces. The Americans didn't know the terrain and they didn't know the enemy. They had no clue wether they were attacking a village or a military encampment. They had no clue as to when or where the enemy would strike. They would send out patrolls, the patrol would be ambushed and slaughtered and an napalm airstrike would be called in. The US barely managed to hold off the Northern Invasion, until the South had nothing left to give. They wore the south out faster than the US did to the North. We finally gave up on the War alltogether as the loss would have been to great for the nation to deal with.

I fail to see how delaying the inevitable can be a considered a victory. Any way you slice it the US lost that war.

Don't mess with you huh? Does saving your asses in WWII count as "messing with you"? We've both kicked and saved your butts, so you really have no room to talk.

"Saving their asses"!?
if it hadnt been for japan, you people would have never entered the war, so stop the high-and-mighty, you entered the war of necessity, not generousity.

"Saving their asses"!?
if it hadnt been for japan, you people would have never entered the war, so stop the high-and-mighty, you entered the war of necessity, not generousity.
So you bite the hand that feeds.......;)

Just be happy we entered the war when we did. And be happy we still put up with everyone calling us war-mongerers of the 20th century. It's really not fair to call us that when we entered WW2 on the Allied side and gave it all that we did...

You lose a battle, your defeated in that battle. YOu lose every battle, your defeated. We may not have destroyed the North Vietnamese Army or support but they never won a single engagement against American forces. So yes, militarily, they were defeated. They just played the game to inflict as many casualties to turn public opinion and politicians and the media got caught up in their scheme and managed a peace treaty that recognized both North and South Vietnam. It wasn't till after our troops left did they reattack South Vietnam.

Again, it was a brilliant strategy employed by the North. Fight hard enough to get a peace treaty and then attack when we leave. Gotta give them credit for that.

Now that I answered yours, answer mine. Name me a military battle in Vietnam that the US lost.


If you think that the Vietnamese communists were defeated militarily by 1973... Though, in my opinion, if you did not destroy either the regular army of North Vietnam or Viet Cong, you cannot claim military victory. Why then the defeated army was able to attack and take over South Vietnam?

Operation Lam Song 719 wasn't what I'd call a success... though it was mostly an ARVN operation, I'd like to add.

"Saving their asses"!?
if it hadnt been for japan, you people would have never entered the war, so stop the high-and-mighty, you entered the war of necessity, not generousity.


Also, it was the Russians who really won the second world war. 3/4 of German soldiers were in the east. The Soviets occupied what had recently been German occupied eastern Europe. The Soviets captured Berlin. The Soviets won the war.

Nice jab! However, us 52% of the people made a choice for president. What are you trying to do? Call us all stupid for not believing in Kerry who puts people to sleep as he speaks? Who doesn't have any leadership abilities whatsoever and ran on nothing during his campaign?
You make it so easy. I'll borrow a page from the right's playbook, here...

"Ah! So all you have are personal attacks to be made on Mr. Kerry's oratory and the typical Republican lies about substance and leadership ability?"

You're just fishing for me to go and call Americans stupid. The sad part is, I don't have to. There's more than enough Americans on these forums who know only too damn well just how stupid certain Americans are, and they know that try as they might to make personal amends for all the troglodytic sputum, vitriol and the publicly-stated, backwoods parochial outlook that dogs America's every step on the world stage - all their efforts come to naught because of the overwhelming arrogance and attention-whoring the American right frankly demands of itself.

So you see, while it might occasionally prove refreshing for me to call you all stupid, I don't have to. You (collectively) state it unequivocally, for the entire world to hear, each and every day. More's the pity.

Their whole goal wasn't to defeat the US. Their goal was to inflict enough casualties to turn public opinion against the war. That strategy worked. How many vietnamese died again? Far to many. Of course, that was before smart bombs became smarter.

The history of Vietnam isn't as black and white as people make it out to believe. As I said, militarily, we did win. We won every battle and kept the north from taking over the south. However, it was after peace was achieved and we left that the North re-attacked and took over South Vietnam.
Haven't you thought that the Vietnamese communists simply could not engage in a full-scale conventional war with the superpower? It would have been completely unreasonable for them. They had to invent something different in order to win the prolonged conflict. The US didn't found out how to counter the military strategy of Mr Ho and his friends--and it was a loss.

Also, it was the Russians who really won the second world war. 3/4 of German soldiers were in the east. The Soviets occupied what had recently been German occupied eastern Europe. The Soviets captured Berlin. The Soviets won the war.
...:rolleyes:

While the Americans and the British just stayed on the west side and made out with German soldiers all night long under the explosions of cannonfire. Romantic, eh?

Haven't you thought that the Vietnamese communists simply could not engage in a full-scale conventional war with the superpower?

I was wondering when you were going to come out and say this. Yes I have and no they couldn't entangle with us conventionaly. So what did they employ? Guirrela warfare tactics. Didn't win them anything but death.

It would have been completely unreasonable for them.

Yep because your going up against a better armed military. Can't say better trained because we were using draftees and they weren't that well trained to begin with.

They had to invent something different in order to win the prolonged conflict.

Gurella war isn't anything new my friend.

The US didn't found out how to counter the military strategy of Mr Ho and his friends--and it was a loss.

Politically yes. Militarily, no. Politically because 1) LBJ lied to the US to begin with (not something you want to do) and 2)handcuffed our choice of targets. Militarily, we defeated them at everyturn and when the military wanted to pursue (standard tactics), the politicians said no. The military was really pissed off about that.

Haven't you thought that the Vietnamese communists simply could not engage in a full-scale conventional war with the superpower? It would have been completely unreasonable for them. They had to invent something different in order to win the prolonged conflict. The US didn't found out how to counter the military strategy of Mr Ho and his friends--and it was a loss.

Oh the Viet Cong and NVA could win the battles they wanted to fight, but facts are facts, every major military battle was a victory for the US armed forces. There was no Dien Bien Phu in the VIetnam war.

The US won Tet, Kaisong, the only disaster to occur in the vietnam war were political ones, the Ho Chi Minh won the politcal war the US won the military war

WW2- Defeated Imperial Japan, and Mussolini’s Italy. Beat Nazi Germany with British help, and Soviet “not really” help (see Poland)


I regret to announce, that it was the brits and soviets that beat nazi germany, wtih YOUR help. "and soviet "not really" help"??? may i remind you that it was the soviets that took berlin and the führer-bunker, therfore the soviets won wwII

...:rolleyes:

While the Americans and the British just stayed on the west side and made out with German soldiers all night long under the explosions of cannonfire. Romantic, eh?

sorry, I am not denying the HUGE part America, Britain and France played in liberating western Europe, but the Soviets beat the Germans. BUT if America and Britain had not liberated Western Europe, then ALL Europe would have been under Stalin's control. Which would have been the worst case scernario.

I regret to announce, that it was the brits and soviets that beat nazi germany, wtih YOUR help. "and soviet "not really" help"??? may i remind you that it was the soviets that took berlin and the führer-bunker, therfore the soviets won wwII
The Soviets were working alongside the Allies, thus they won the war for the Allies.

The Allies won. Stop swiping glory from the British and Americans.

...:rolleyes:

While the Americans and the British just stayed on the west side and made out with German soldiers all night long under the explosions of cannonfire. Romantic, eh?
The Allies won the war together, make no mistake about it... but I think it is sensible to say that the USSR could have defeated Germany on its own if the US and the UK had not landed in Normandy in 1944. We were likely to take over the whole of Europe in that scenario and make it Communist, of course.

Lest we forget...

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/images/ww2-3.gif

Each symbol indicates approximately 100,000 dead

I regret to announce, that it was the brits and soviets that beat nazi germany, wtih YOUR help. "and soviet "not really" help"??? may i remind you that it was the soviets that took berlin and the führer-bunker, therfore the soviets won wwII

WRONG! They help us win World War II but if they truly won the war by themselves, western europe would've been communist. And the only reason why they got Berlin was because Eisenhower let them have it.

And another thing, the Germans surrendered to the Americans/Brits first and not to the Soviets. :rolleyes:

I was wondering when you were going to come out and say this. Yes I have and no they couldn't entangle with us conventionaly. So what did they employ? Guirrela warfare tactics. Didn't win them anything but death.
Didn't win them anything but South Vietnam, I'd like to say.


Yep because your going up against a better armed military. Can't say better trained because we were using draftees and they weren't that well trained to begin with.
So they didn't! Good for them, bad for you.


Gurella war isn't anything new my friend.
And the US failed to cope with it?




Politically yes. Militarily, no. Politically because 1) LBJ lied to the US to begin with (not something you want to do) and 2)handcuffed our choice of targets. Militarily, we defeated them at everyturn and when the military wanted to pursue (standard tactics), the politicians said no. The military was really pissed off about that.
So, the US army didn't destroy because Mr Johnson had tied their hands... but in 1969 the Government changed. No Johnson, no McNamara... what obstacles prevented Mr Nixon, Mr Laird, and General Abrams from doing whatever they wanted to with VC and NVA?

Didn't win them anything but South Vietnam, I'd like to say.

Only after we pulled out after signing a peace treaty. I guess you keep forgetting that. Alwell...can't be helped.

So they didn't! Good for them, bad for you.

Taught us some lesson on how to cope with it. We're using that now in Iraq. Amazing how one war can prepare you for the samething in a different war. BTW, the guirella war didn't win them the war either.

And the US failed to cope with it?

We did redefine our tactics to cope with it. It also prepared us for the insurgency in Iraq. We applied the lessons learned from Vietnam there. Interesting I'd say.

So, the US army didn't destroy because Mr Johnson had tied their hands... but in 1969 the Government changed. No Johnson, no McNamara... what obstacles prevented Mr Nixon, Mr Laird, and General Abrams from doing whatever they wanted to with VC and NVA?

All bets were off and a tremendous air campaign started. I believe it was Linebacker I and II? Also, he didn't say not to hit certain targets the way LBJ did. But by that time, the people wanted the troops home due to the casualty numbers. No wonder half of america is soft when it comes to casualties.

the war of 1812 was not lost it ended in a mutiual agreement between the two countrys korea is still going on and by no means lost vietnam was finished but ended ina mutal agreement when the US was winning and after the peaace they atacked south vietnam but the US decied not to get involved first gulf war is finished short the US has never lost a war nomatter what those damn hippies say

Only after we pulled out after signing a peace treaty. I guess you keep forgetting that. Alwell...can't be helped.
You're wrong, my friend. I know that the Vietnamese communists drove out the French, then they drove out the Americans, and then they took over South Vietnam. And I know that full well...


All bets were off and a tremendous air campaign started. I believe it was Linebacker I and II? Also, he didn't say not to hit certain targets the way LBJ did. But by that time, the people wanted the troops home due to the casualty numbers. No wonder half of america is soft when it comes to casualties.
Linebacker I and II took part in 1972, not 1969.

Some people in your country do not like when US soldiers die in some faraway land defending an ignoble and corrupt dictatorship? Good people, I'd say...

The Soviets were working alongside the Allies, thus they won the war for the Allies.

The Allies won. Stop swiping glory from the British and Americans.

oh believe me, i wouldnt swipe glory from anyone, but fact is that the dude claimed that the US won WW2 with help from england, and minimal help from the soviet union, when in fact, the soviets were the ones who took berlin, yes, the allies won, NOT the americans, or british, or soviets (though IF you have to nominate a single country that won the european campaign, it was the USSR, since they reached, and took, the führer-bunker first)

You're wrong, my friend. I know that the Vietnamese communists drove out the French, then they drove out the Americans, and then they took over South Vietnam. And I know that full well...

They didn't drive us out. Our own populace drove us out.

Linebacker I and II took part in 1972, not 1969.

Way to miss the obvious. I know full well when they took place. My father did a paper on Linebacker II for Air War College.

Some people in your country do not like when US soldiers die in some faraway land defending an ignoble and corrupt dictatorship? Good people, I'd say...

I don't like it either but I'm one of those that once engaged, we stay engaged till the job is done.

Don't feel like going through all 9 pages.

I hope somebody pointed out the Korean War never ended.

WWII was an allied victory. The Soviets couldn't do on their own just like the US couldn't have done it on their own.

If the Soviets were capable, then there would not have been a need for the Murmansk convoys. Early in the war they needed equipment to fight while the Urals got built and running.

WWII was an allied victory. The Soviets couldn't do on their own just like the US couldn't have done it on their own.

This isn't entirely accurate.

If the Soviets were capable, then there would not have been a need for the Murmansk convoys. Early in the war they needed equipment to fight while the Urals got built and running.

Early on yes. However, they were pushing the Germans back before the US and Britain and Canada invaded France. The USSR could've taken Germany on alone and still won when their factories got up and running.

Funny, his location says Canada, not Great Britain.
Hmmm.... he said something about "don't mess with the Brits" so I assumed he was British. Oh well, I stand by my statement.

They didn't drive us out. Our own populace drove us out.For the simple reason that the administration tried it's best to keep the fact that, victory was not possible, a secret from the populace.

WWII was an allied victory. The Soviets couldn't do on their own just like the US couldn't have done it on their own.
Here! here! According to some, in fact, it was Hitler who defeated himself by betraying his treaty with Russia. He was then fighting a war on three fronts: Rommel in North Africa; Across the Channel; and in the near-unwinnable Russian steppes. If he'd moved the men from Operation Barbarossa across the channel and properly supplied Rommel he would have won both theaters.

Then maybe he could have surpassed every conqeuror in modern history and won a land war against Russia. If Hitler hadn't been preoccupied with the fiesty and determined Russians (and later, entirely driven back by them and overrun by them) the Allies in the West would have had no D-day. Or, at least, it would have been a lot different, and most likely a disaster.

Anyway, I agree completely with The Black Forrest here.

"Saving their asses"!?
if it hadnt been for japan, you people would have never entered the war, so stop the high-and-mighty, you entered the war of necessity, not generousity.
Hey, I wasn't saying we did it out of generosity. Just stating the facts.

Hey, I wasn't saying we did it out of generosity. Just stating the facts.
If you used the words "saved their asses", then you clearly didn't.

The Soviets won WWII. As Corneliu already pointed out, they probably could have won it by themselves.
The US and the Brits could not. They were fighting a rather small part of the German Army in the West, a few elite units and invalids.
How do you think the US Army could have fared against the full strength of the German Forces?

EDIT: Am I the only one who wonders why Korea was a victory because you achieved the objective of saving the South, while Vietnam was a victory although the South was taken (saving the South was your objective, and whether you were still involved or not, that objective was not achieved).

Despite today's anti-americanism. American, British and Canadian presence was vital in Europe's Western Front. Within a month after D-day they had over 1million troops in France. It was most certainly decisive in turning the tide as much as the battle of Stalingrade was on the Eastern Front. The Russians took Berlin it's true. That was Victory in Europe. Let's not forget that the Americans reclaimed most of the pacific singlehanded.

Despite today's anti-americanism. American, British and Canadian presence was vital in Europe's Western Front. Within a month after D-day they had over 1million troops in France. It was most certainly decisive in turning the tide as much as the battle of Stalingrade was on the Eastern Front. The Russians took Berlin it's true. That was Victory in Europe. Let's not forget that the Americans reclaimed most of the pacific singlehanded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_casualties_by_country

On the 22nd of June 1944 the Soviets launched an attack too. A single offensive. With 2.5 million men.

Anything that happened in the West was absolutely dwarved by the Eastern Front.
The war was over by D-Day. It was turned in Moscow, in Stalingrad and in Kursk.

But in the Pacific the Americans won fair and square.

The Allies won the war together, make no mistake about it... but I think it is sensible to say that the USSR could have defeated Germany on its own if the US and the UK had not landed in Normandy in 1944. We were likely to take over the whole of Europe in that scenario and make it Communist, of course.

Lest we forget...

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/images/ww2-3.gif

Each symbol indicates approximately 100,000 dead

All this map tells me is that the Russian winter is cold, and that the Soviets value life so little that they threw away their soldier's lives like spent brass. :p

))(emote: DUCKS!!!)((

I don't know why Vietnam was victory (according to some).
Sure the US won the battles, but lost the war.
North Vietnam overran the South Vietnam so the US did not stop the communists taking over the country.

For the time period while the U.S. was actually fighting the war, they did. Political interference from day one prevented U.S. forces from finishing/resolving the situation prior to pullout (S. Vietnam was overrun in 1975, U.S. ground forces were pulled out in 1973.)
By '75, American support for the government out of Saigon was cosmetic and insubstantial. Without air-cover or modern Armour support, S. Vietnamese (ARVN) forces were in an untenable position made more so as the bulk of the fighting for over 20 years was in their home territory (The result of a political decision not to invade N.Vietnam even while NVA troops were crossing southward.)
Playing Pure Defense is a long, painful route to utter defeat that stops at "Stalemate" for a time, but can never result in victory.
The strategy of only playing defense was chosen under the Johnson administration to mollify the Soviets, and maintained under Nixon to make nice with the Red Chinese, and to allow the withdrawal of U.S. and Allied forces from the theatre more quickly. (keeping his promise to end the war, which is what got the man elected in 1968.)

In the case of Korea, it wasn't a U.S. war-it was a U.N war. This is the main reason that the DMZ and such remain in existence today, and why 300 POW's remained in Communist hands after the Armistice was signed. It is interesting to note, as an aside, that the Communists learned from Korea-but not the west. The armistice in Paris signed in 1972 was modeled heavily on the armistice signed to conclude the Korean conflict. The major difference being that U.S. forces did not remain in-theatre after Vietnam-but did and do in Korea. Notice that Saigon is now "Ho Chi Minh City" while South Korea is still governed from a city named "Seoul".

The lesson learned was how to create domestic pressure for a pullout. once U.S. forces (and their superior technological and logistical structures) were removed from Vietnam, it was merely a matter of time before the South fell. Such pressures were absent in Korea for a number of reasons (mainly having to do with a combination of Treaty provisions, and an absence of Tee-vee friendly propoganda that could be generated.)

In this way, John Kerry, Jane Fonda, Abby Hoffmann, and much of the baby-boomer "New Left" proved an effective weapon in support of Communist Aggression-a weapon immune to prosecution since Vietnam was never formally declared a "War" by Congress.

Those who underestimate the power of propoganda are doomed to suffer its impacts first-hand.

All this map tells me is that the Russian winter is cold, and that the Soviets value life so little that they threw away their soldier's lives like spent brass. :p

...
The Russians are immune to cold, I s'pose?

Yes, nobody in the Supreme Command counted the lives of Russian soldiers. But they took a hell of the lot of Germans with them. didn't they?

didn't they?
They certainly did.

For the time period while the U.S. was actually fighting the war, they did. Political interference from day one prevented U.S. forces from finishing/resolving the situation prior to pullout (S. Vietnam was overrun in 1975, U.S. ground forces were pulled out in 1973.)
By '75, American support for the government out of Saigon was cosmetic and insubstantial. Without air-cover or modern Armour support, S. Vietnamese (ARVN) forces were in an untenable position made more so as the bulk of the fighting for over 20 years was in their home territory (The result of a political decision not to invade N.Vietnam even while NVA troops were crossing southward.)
The South Vietnamese had tanks (M48 and M41, IIRC) and aeroplanes, too...

Playing Pure Defense is a long, painful route to utter defeat that stops at "Stalemate" for a time, but can never result in victory.
...
Exactly. Unfortunately for the American army, the US war effort was doomed to failure from the start.

They didn't drive us out. Our own populace drove us out.
Kind of a second Civil war?



Way to miss the obvious. I know full well when they took place. My father did a paper on Linebacker II for Air War College.
Your father probably did, but what about you?

but in 1969 the Government changed. No Johnson, no McNamara... what obstacles prevented Mr Nixon, Mr Laird, and General Abrams from doing whatever they wanted to with VC and NVA?

As you can see, I was talking about the very beginning of the Nixon rule, a change in government--about 1969, IOW. And you chose to respond me with that:

All bets were off and a tremendous air campaign started. I believe it was Linebacker I and II?
Why did you choose to answer me with reminding me of the events which took place in 1972? I don't know.


I don't like it either but I'm one of those that once engaged, we stay engaged till the job is done.
And what the finished job would have been like in Vietnam?

Just to Clarify No War Known as Viet Nam was ever lost by America or any of its Allies(Except The French Indochina War :eek: )

Nam Was Not Lost!

We officially declared war on Iraq both times, it was Veitnam that was a conflict, congress has the power to declare war.
And congress was used in the gulf wars. Vietnam was not
No, in Iraq version 1.0, the UN asked for troops to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, and we obliged. In fact the only formal declaration which took place was by the Governor of California so that California Militiamen would be sent to aid UN forces.
In Iraq 2.0, Congress bravely pussied their way out of declaring war by (unconstitutionally, I might add) delegating their power to declare war on Iraq to the President if "all diplomatic actions fail". Bush attempted no diplomatic actions, Hussein asked Bush for a public debate (and don't try to "1984" my memory on this one, I DISTINCTLY remember that.) and Bush denied him.
Viet Nam just sort of happened. We were "policing" and... it was a bunch of B.S., a lot of people died, and we lost ultimately. Don't give me that "we never lost a battle" stuff. The war had no exit strategy. We were trying to prevent Viet Nam from becoming communist, and guess what. They're communist.

!!!!it is not ass it is arse!!!!!! if you must abuse the ENGLISH language please speak french....oh wait...you would be if we hadnt sporned you
Sporned us? What the hell does that mean? Also, French is one of the official languages in both Vermont and Louisiana. So much for your "sporning", I guess.

The war of 1812 was technically a draw.

The White House was burned to the ground....that means we couldnt militarily keep our enemies from our HQ.

Fortunately, its a long way back across the "Pond" and Britian wasnt really keen on sending the kind of troops it would have taken to win.


As for 'Nam.

We didnt lose....we let them win.

We werent willing to pay the cost that complete victory would have exacted.
Too many american lives, and way, way, too much money.
In the end, it just wasnt worth it.
Maybe it wasnt worth it when it started, huh?

Just to Clarify No War Known as Viet Nam was ever lost by America or any of its Allies(Except The French Indochina War :eek: )

Nam Was Not Lost!


Thats becuase Vietnam was not officially a war.

Congress never declared war.

But we lost anyway.

History of US military influence around the world...
http://www.adbusters.org/jams/history/flash.html

History of US military influence around the world...
http://www.adbusters.org/jams/history/flash.html

i dont think ive seen so much patriotism in one link....and i usually write the contenders...

i dont think ive seen so much patriotism in one link....and i usually write the contenders...
How about reading the thing, dear Edmund? Not much reason for patriotism in it, I'd say... :rolleyes:

How about reading the thing, dear Edmund? Not much reason for patriotism in it, I'd say... :rolleyes:

come on the 1st page alone is typicaly what i mean.
the rest i agree with you but the first page and the sub-title... :eek:

The Russians are immune to cold, I s'pose?

Yes, nobody in the Supreme Command counted the lives of Russian soldiers. But they took a hell of the lot of Germans with them. didn't they?

It's a bit easier to bear when you have home court advantage.

Er, yes... but at what cost?
All I'm saying is that had the diversion to Kursk not been made, or had the Germans merely engulfed Stalingrad and flattened it, the USSR would have been pushed behind the Urals due to their tactics and general disorganization at that point in the Great Patriotic War. They were losing so many men so quickly... and often so needlessly.

It's a bit easier to bear when you have home court advantage.
Oh really? Even for our soldiers who hailed from Central Asia or Trans-Caucasus?

Er, yes... but at what cost?
The cost was tremendous.

All I'm saying is that had the diversion to Kursk not been made, or had the Germans merely engulfed Stalingrad and flattened it, the USSR would have been pushed behind the Urals due to their tactics and general disorganization at that point in the Great Patriotic War. They were losing so many men so quickly... and often so needlessly.
Had Hitler surrendered to us in 1943, we would have taken all of Europe immediately... what's the point of such conjectures?

I wonder, of all of the wars the US has fought in, how many have they actually completed, and of those, how many have they actually won? The ones that come to mind are:
War of 1812 - lost
Huh? Besides Perry's victory on Erie, the burning of York (which gets roughly the same number of points as burning DC at the time, and unlike the DC burning the US forces returned at a later date, something the British forces never did,) American success in disrupting the British Merchant Marine, the Battle of Lake Champlaign, removing the threat of Tecumseh, confirmation of America's independence from Great Britain

What about Mexico, Civil War, Spanish American War and a whole mess of smaller conflicts?
WWI - won
Aye.
WWII - won
Aye.
Vietnam - not finished/lost
More of a sort-of than anything.
Korean war - not finished/lost
Certainly there was no clear victor, but all the same the US and allies drove the North Koreans out of the ROK and actually acquired a somewhat superior tactical defensive position over the beginning of the war. That is not a loss in my book.
Gulf war I - not finished/won
You might want to note that the goal of the military in this was the liberation of Kuwait from Iraqi forces and keeping the Iraqis out of Saudi Arabia.
Gulf war II - not finished

Oh really? Even for our soldiers who hailed from Central Asia or Trans-Caucasus?

Still had the advantage of locals that are sympathetic to the cause, and much shorter supply lines.

Had Hitler surrendered to us in 1943, we would have taken all of Europe immediately... what's the point of such conjectures?

Because Kursk wasn't a done deal. How Stalingrad played out wasn't a done deal. And the odds of Hitler surrendering in 1943 was zero.
Seriously, had the Red Army not been using Napoleonic tactics in early WW2, they'd have fared much better. That's all.

Still had the advantage of locals that are sympathetic to the cause, and much shorter supply lines.
... which stretched sometimes to Siberia and even to Iceland. :)



Because Kursk wasn't a done deal. How Stalingrad played out wasn't a done deal. And the odds of Hitler surrendering in 1943 was zero.
Something in Hitler's head could've gone awry... not that his mind was working entirely within the limits of reasonable, I'd like to add. ;)

Seriously, had the Red Army not been using Napoleonic tactics in early WW2, they'd have fared much better. That's all.
Quite so. Stalin could've found better things to do than purging the Army command in 1937, for example.

For the simple reason that the administration tried it's best to keep the fact that, victory was not possible, a secret from the populace.

Oh how naive. Victory was most definitely possible but when we had the enemy on the ropes, what did LBJ do? He backed off. Why? Because he didn't want to upset the Chinese nor the USSR.

Notice that we didn't hit key industrial areas of the North prior to Nixon taken over? Why? Because according to LBJ, it would've brought China and the USSR into the conflict. I don't believe this for a second.

Once Nixon took office, things started to change.

And before you say something, yes, I do know that the enemy was on the ropes and I do know that LBJ backed off of them (not good.) I do know that LBJ micromanaged the war. Anyone that studied Vietnam can see that. Nixon, didn't micromanage it.

The war was most certainly winable if we pressed our full advantage against them. After Tet, there was nothing left to stop us from marching into the North Vietnamese Capitol. LBJ didn't order it.

Yes it was a victory but the goal then wasn't to push into Iraq. That is something you don't seem to understand. The goal was to push him out of Kuwait and this we did. It wasn't till AFTER the 1st gulf war that we tried a shi'ite uprising and damn the president for backing out of it at the last minute (as most presidents do)
And that was a president of which party again? Wait for it... waaaait for it...
REPUBLICAN! And who supplied Saddam with 100% of his WMDs, which he destroyed in accordance to UN treaty before we invaded him unprovoked as the agressors in an unconstitutional war? REAGAN! And who convinced the Shi'ites and the Kurds to revolt against Hussein, knowing full well that Hussein had American-made WMDs, and would never tolerate an insurrection? BUSH! And which President's ambassador to Iraq was asked the question by Iraqi officials, "Would the United States object if we reclaimed our lands in Kuwait?" and responded, "No, I don't think The United States would have an opinion on that."? BUSH'S! And who used an unconstitutional power granted to him by congress to declare war against Iraq because Hussein attacked his own people with Anthrax (which we gave him, and he used because Bush told Shi'ites and Kurds to revolt, and refused to actually help, although Hussein had WMDs), and he had WMDs (which he destroyed in the 90's in accordance with the UN peace treaty), and then publicly announced that we we invaded a Nation unprovoked for different reasons than he said before three times, and despite that, had the gall to call his opponent a flip-flopper? W!
I can tell that you're at least GOP-sympathetic, because you didn't mention which president didn't back up his desire for a rebellion. So I thought that you'd like a concise history of the Iraq War and Gulf War.

And the US withdrawal wasn't only a matter of Nixon's politics--he wasn't a 'peacenik' for all I know.
Which is ironic, because I'm fairly certain he was a Quaker. But don't quote me on that, I don't know for sure.

In the war of 1812, the british took over much of New England, including Washington and Boston. As I recall, they also landed on US soil in the south as well. They weren't beaten back by the Americans though, they withdrew, because they didn't want to overextend themselves, as they were also at war with Napoleon.

recheck your facts... the British conducted a raid that burned Washington but then was repulsed at Baltimore and the ground commander, General Ross, was killed. The British occupied portions of northern Maine, but held no other American territory at wars end. In addition to the conquest justification (lets grab Canada), the war was also fought because the British felt it was ok to grab American citizens of American ships for conscription into the Royal Navy, seize American shipping at will, and supplied arms to the Indians in what is now the US Midwest and South.

The war is a tie in that both sides agreed to status quo anti bellum in the Treaty of Ghent. British offensives aimed into New York state and Louisiana having been defeated, and US offensives into Canada having been defeated.

Its very notable that for the rest of the 19th Century the British were extremely leery about fighting the Americans again.... in spite of several crisis over that time.

Vietnam is a boring topic. America lost, end of story. If it had won, Vietnam would still be partitioned today.

Let's go back to the War of Independence. The only reason the British lost was because we had to fight the French, the Dutch and the Spanish (all world powers at the time) at the same time as repressing the rebellion. As America is discovering in Iraq, occupying a country which is hostile to your presence is not easy. This is not even a fair comparison when one compares the relative size of the countries; Britain militarily occupying the United States would always be more difficult than the US occupying Iraq.

how many wars have the americans won without help or have only bothered to turn up late when their own interests were threatened?

And that was a president of which party again? Wait for it... waaaait for it...
REPUBLICAN!

And who authorized the invasion of Kuwait? Wait for it....waaaait for it...

THE UNITED NATIONS! You really need to learn history my friend. It was a UN authorized mission and they didn't authorize the removal of Saddam Hussein in 1991. :rolleyes:

how many wars have the americans won without help or have only bothered to turn up late when their own interests were threatened?

1812 (though it was a draw)
Mexican War
Civil War
Spanish American War
Pacific theater of WWII

I seem to remember it quite differently:

Revolutionary War: Won (with help)
Quasi War: Won
First Barbary War: Draw
War of 1812: Draw
Second Barbary War: Won
Mexican War: Won
Civil War: Won
Spanish-American War: Won
Phillippine Insurrection: Won (sort of)
World War I: Won
World War II: Won
Korean War: Draw
Vietnam War: Lost
First Persian Gulf War: Won (sort of)
Second Persian Gulf War: Still fighting

Since the treaty resulted in status quo antebellum, it is inaccurate to say the British "won" the War of 1812. Yes, the United States failed to conquer Canada, but the British failed to get the Indian buffer state they wanted between Canada and the United States.

As for the whole issue of impressment and neutral rights, time has vindicated the American view of neutral rights, not the British one.

Vietnam is a boring topic. America lost, end of story. If it had won, Vietnam would still be partitioned today.

Or be united under a democratic Vietnam and not one of Communist. Anyway, in 1973 when we left, South Vietnam still existed. It was in 1975 that they didn't exist. So no, militarily it was not a defeat.

Let's go back to the War of Independence. The only reason the British lost was because we had to fight the French, the Dutch and the Spanish (all world powers at the time) at the same time as repressing the rebellion.

Not to mention that most of Europe diplomatically isolated you. You weren't well liked you know? Anyway, those nations didn't get involved until 3 years later or not till near the end of the war. Its what happens when you issue an ultimatum to the Dutch. That was when they declared war. Spain joined in an alliance with France but not with the US I might add. The other nations in Europe formed an "Armed Neutrality" against Britain and thus forced you to back down. If you had just pressed home your attack up in NY istead of waiting, you might've actually defeated us. You hesitated and hestation loses wars.

As America is discovering in Iraq, occupying a country which is hostile to your presence is not easy.

Kinda hard to call it an occupation when infact, Iraq is a soveriegn country. We are now rebuilding their military and now some of those units are conducting operations of their own without US Support. Only green units are getting coalition support but those that have experience now are doing ops on their own. A good sign in my book.

This is not even a fair comparison when one compares the relative size of the countries; Britain militarily occupying the United States would always be more difficult than the US occupying Iraq.

Well... if George III just backed off and let us handle our own affairs instead of taxing us to death, we wouldn't have had to revolt.

...

Once Nixon took office, things started to change.

And before you say something, yes, I do know that the enemy was on the ropes and I do know that LBJ backed off of them (not good.) I do know that LBJ micromanaged the war. Anyone that studied Vietnam can see that. Nixon, didn't micromanage it.

The war was most certainly winable if we pressed our full advantage against them. After Tet, there was nothing left to stop us from marching into the North Vietnamese Capitol. LBJ didn't order it.
Nixon didn't order it, too. Why?

Nixon didn't order it, too. Why?


I thought about this....but then I remembered Korea....

Remember how the americans and UN forces were basically about to liberate the rest of North korea..the minute they got near china suddenly a couple 100,000 chineese come flying over the border...

North Vietnam borders China as well...would they have done the same thing? All reports say they had massed a large army along the border...

Or be united under a democratic Vietnam and not one of Communist. Anyway, in 1973 when we left, South Vietnam still existed. It was in 1975 that they didn't exist. So no, militarily it was not a defeat.

...
I think that your separation of 'political defeat' and 'military win' is unjustifiable. After all...
War is merely the continuation of policy by other means.
The Vietnam war was lost by the US--not only in Saigon, but first and foremost in Washington. Wars consist not only from battles of armies, but of battles of minds--and the latter were lost by the US.

I thought about this....but then I remembered Korea....

Remember how the americans and UN forces were basically about to liberate the rest of North korea..the minute they got near china suddenly a couple 100,000 chineese come flying over the border...

North Vietnam borders China as well...would they have done the same thing? All reports say they had massed a large army along the border...
It was a theoretical possibility, of course... but, and that was more important, the victory over North Vietnam was never a political and military objective of the US. Strange but true... The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution enunciated American aims in such a way:

...take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.

I think that your separation of 'political defeat' and 'military win' is unjustifiable. After all...

You have to put it into perspective. Militarily speaking, it was a victory. Politically speaking it was not. No 2 ways about it.

You have to put it into perspective. Militarily speaking, it was a victory. Politically speaking it was not. No 2 ways about it.
The Vietnamese communists didn't raise their flag over the US Capitol, that's for sure. But I haven't seen the Stars and Stripes over Uncle Ho's mausoleum, too... you have two admit not only two ways, but much more... :)

The Vietnamese communists didn't raise their flag over the US Capitol, that's for sure. But I haven't seen the Stars and Stripes over Uncle Ho's mausoleum, too... you have two admit not only two ways, but much more... :)

Oh brother. Look. When we pulled our forces out, South Vietnam still existed. You cannot deny that. In 1975 did North Vietnam take over South Vietnam. The US did not get involved in that so what happened after we left, cannot be attributed to us. We weren't there and if we were there, the North wouldn't have taken over the South.

And who authorized the invasion of Kuwait? Wait for it....waaaait for it...

THE UNITED NATIONS! You really need to learn history my friend. It was a UN authorized mission and they didn't authorize the removal of Saddam Hussein in 1991. :rolleyes:
I wasn't saying that the US went in without authorization, or help for that matter, I'm saying that the Kurdish and Shi'ite rebellions, which Bush advocated were done without anyone's authorization other than our own, and in fact Schwartzkopf warned Bush against doing it. Way to miss the point.

I wasn't saying that the US went in without authorization, or help for that matter, I'm saying that the Kurdish and Shi'ite rebellions, which Bush advocated were done without anyone's authorization other than our own, and in fact Schwartzkopf warned Bush against doing it. Way to miss the point.

Oh I didn't miss the point dude! I love history and I study as much of it as I can. A rebellion wasn't going to work in Iraq because of how the cease-fire was written. It would've worked only if we supplied troops and equipment for both the Shi'ites and Kurds. We didn't do that and so when they did rebel, they were left to Saddam's tender care.

Oh I didn't miss the point dude! I love history and I study as much of it as I can. A rebellion wasn't going to work in Iraq because of how the cease-fire was written. It would've worked only if we supplied troops and equipment for both the Shi'ites and Kurds. We didn't do that and so when they did rebel, they were left to Saddam's tender care.
We only supplied them with the false hope that we WOULD help them overthrow Hussein, which we didn't.

As for 1812, what I've heard is that those in power were the sons of the Revolution, and they wanted to finish the job their fathers started, i.e. conquer Canada. Our merchant marine was being Shanghaied, so we declared war on Britain, and invaded Canada. The Limeys burnt down our Capitol, the Library of Congress, the Executive Mansion (it wasn't even white at the time, we painted it white to cover the charred wood. Theodore Roosevelt was the first president to call it the "White House"), and every building except for the Patent Office. We pushed them back into Canada, the Treaty was signed, we got our merchant marine back, and we stopped eyeing Canada as territory.

Also, I'm curious as to with how many European nations we have been at a status of war. I think it's every one other than Greece, Portugal, Scandanavia, Benelux, Switzerland (obviously), and France (The XYZ affair SO doesn't count). Here's how I have it:
Germany (World Wars I & II)
Italy (World War II)
UK of England & Ireland (Revolutionary War, War of 1812)
Spain (Spanish-American War)
Warsaw Pact Nations (Cold War)
Austria (World War I)
Hungary (World War I)
Turkey (World War I)
Russia and Former USSR (Cold War)
Yugoslavia (Cold War, Kosovo)
The question is, what's our beef with Europe?

The question is, what's our beef with Europe?
The chief foreign policy goal of the United States for the past 220 years has been to prevent the rise of a Eurasian hegemon, almost all of these nations have at some point or another engaged in a drive to become one. In other words, we want Europe to be divided. Now the reason we don't oppose the EU on this basis is because the EU really isn't a nation, it's still quite divided.

, Scandanavia, Benelux, Switzerland (obviously), and France (The XYZ affair SO doesn't count).

The question is, what's our beef with Europe?

The XYZ Affair, also known as the Quasi War with France, does count... it was just a limited war. We won that one by the way.

The beef with Europe is that a peaceful and stable Europe is in the vital interest of North America (which is why Canada is in NATO too).

In addition, the historic strategy of the US has been to ensure that Europe is not united under a regime hostile to the US, as a united Europe is very capable of building a large enough fleet to transport a large enough army to conquer the US. As the British had the same strategy for most of its history, it resulted in a natural alliance between the US and Britian.

After all, the Europeans already conquered the Americas once (just ask the Native Americans), and therefore its just as possible they could do it again.

A similar strategy exists in the Pacific in regards to Asia, which is why Japan and the US remain Allied (Japan has the same concerns Britian has on the other side of the world)

The other US strategic tenet is to ensure it is the dominant military power in the Western Hemisphere, which was fairly easy, as North America had a larger population than South or Central America until late in the 20th Century, and only Brazil is big enough to be even a relatively close rival as far as economic strength is concerned (and it has a long way to go to catch up)

several good books exist on this topic

-snip-
Maybe you can explain this to me.

Korea was not a US Defeat. Why? Because South Korea still exists. Military considerations apparently play no role in that reasoning.

Vietnam was not a US Defeat. Why? Because you weren't fighting anymore by 75.

But South Vietnam no longer exists. So you did not achieve your objective, did you?

The XYZ Affair, also known as the Quasi War with France, does count... it was just a limited war. We won that one by the way.
I realize that I'm being hypocritical counting the Cold War, and not the Quasi War.

Maybe you can explain this to me.

I'll try

Korea was not a US Defeat. Why? Because South Korea still exists. Military considerations apparently play no role in that reasoning.

And we didn't lose in Korea did we? No we didn't so I have to wonder where your going with this. The goal there was to keep the North from taking the South. This we accomplished. Besides that, legally speaking, the war is still going on since we only have a cease-fire agreement and not an actual peace accord.

Vietnam was not a US Defeat. Why? Because you weren't fighting anymore by 75.

We signed a peace accord and got out. South Vietnam still existed when we did pull out. It wasn't until all of our troops left Vietnam that South Vietnam was re-attacked by the North and was taken over.

But South Vietnam no longer exists. So you did not achieve your objective, did you?

We did until we left! It was still in existance when we left. After that, it fell to the North. It fell to the North after we signed a peace agreement with the North, ending the Vietnam War. Since the war was over, and South Vietnam still existed after Vietnam War was over, how was it a defeat?

We only supplied them with the false hope that we WOULD help them overthrow Hussein, which we didn't.[/quoite]

And if Saddam wasn't allowed to fly his choppers, the rebellion probably would've succeeded.

[quote]As for 1812, what I've heard is that those in power were the sons of the Revolution, and they wanted to finish the job their fathers started, i.e. conquer Canada. Our merchant marine was being Shanghaied, so we declared war on Britain, and invaded Canada. The Limeys burnt down our Capitol, the Library of Congress, the Executive Mansion (it wasn't even white at the time, we painted it white to cover the charred wood.

Do you know why DC was burnt? It was because we burnt down the City of York, present day Toronto incase you don't know. It was in retaliation for that. Guess what though? It didn't matter! They lost at Baltimore both on the ground and at Sea. Fort McHenry remained standing and the British left. Shortly thereafter, the British began to suffer a reversal and were tossed backward. Yes, DC was burned. York was burned too and it was that burning that prompted DC to be burned.

Theodore Roosevelt was the first president to call it the "White House"), and every building except for the Patent Office. We pushed them back into Canada, the Treaty was signed, we got our merchant marine back, and we stopped eyeing Canada as territory.

Yep! Accurate. Kinda makes the War of 1812 a draw don't you think?

Also, I'm curious as to with how many European nations we have been at a status of war. I think it's every one other than Greece, Portugal, Scandanavia, Benelux, Switzerland (obviously), and France (The XYZ affair SO doesn't count).

Actually, I think we did have a little thing with Greece and the XYZ affair does count since it was part of a Quasi War we had with the frogs.

Here's how I have it:
Germany (World Wars I & II)
Italy (World War II)
UK of England & Ireland (Revolutionary War, War of 1812)
Spain (Spanish-American War)
Warsaw Pact Nations (Cold War)
Austria (World War I)
Hungary (World War I)
Turkey (World War I)
Russia and Former USSR (Cold War)
Yugoslavia (Cold War, Kosovo)
The question is, what's our beef with Europe?

How about tyranny? How about genocide?

We did until we left! It was still in existance when we left. After that, it fell to the North. It fell to the North after we signed a peace agreement with the North, ending the Vietnam War. Since the war was over, and South Vietnam still existed after Vietnam War was over, how was it a defeat?
So in other words, in 1964 (and before that) you had the objective of saving the South, and in 1975 you didn't?

So in other words, in 1964 (and before that) you had the objective of saving the South, and in 1975 you didn't?

We saved the South but signed a peace accord and we pulled all of our troops out. Then they re-attacked the South.

Let me ask you this, after losing 55,000 the first time, do you think the people would go for a 2nd round?

The US did not declare war on Turkey in WWI, nor Hungary per se (Austria-Hungary yes, Hungary no). Hungary had to wait for WWII for the US to really declare war on them, Bulgaria and Romania in the famous day of 3 war declarations, June 5, 1942.

To throw some fat on the fire, has anyone yet pointed out that the British burning of Wahington was a crime against humanity?

So in other words, in 1964 (and before that) you had the objective of saving the South, and in 1975 you didn't?

If you want a nitpick, the US was involved in some form or another since WWII.

Yep! Accurate. Kinda makes the War of 1812 a draw don't you think?
Well, yeah. Obviously, man. I was describing a draw, I just didn't say it outright.

Actually, I think we did have a little thing with Greece and the XYZ affair does count since it was part of a Quasi War we had with the frogs.Did we fight Greece? I am unaware. And I already said I was being hypocritical by including Russia/USSR, and excluding France.

The US did not declare war on Turkey in WWI, nor Hungary per se (Austria-Hungary yes, Hungary no). Hungary had to wait for WWII for the US to really declare war on themThen, according to your logic we've never declared war on Austria, either. And Turkey was the Ottoman Empire, against whom we declared war. If you think that we would have to go to war with the current versions of European Nations, then we've only fought UK & Spain. We fought Imperial & Nazi Germany, but not the German Federal Democratic Republic. So that we fought the Ottoman Empire counts as fighting Turkey.

Oh brother. Look. When we pulled our forces out, South Vietnam still existed. You cannot deny that. In 1975 did North Vietnam take over South Vietnam. The US did not get involved in that so what happened after we left, cannot be attributed to us. We weren't there and if we were there, the North wouldn't have taken over the South.
'Cannot be atributed?' Why? The US left South Vietnam to the mercy of fate and the Communists, which was definitely contradicting the aim of the US involvement stated in the Tonkin Gulf resolution. South Vietnam was neither safe nor secure in 1973, and Mr Thieu knew that...

We saved the South but signed a peace accord and we pulled all of our troops out. Then they re-attacked the South.

Let me ask you this, after losing 55,000 the first time, do you think the people would go for a 2nd round?
Russia did exactly that in Chechnya. We returned there after a lost war, and did that with a vengeance. It's nothing to be proud about, but it happened.

Russia did exactly that in Chechnya. We returned there after a lost war, and did that with a vengeance. It's nothing to be proud about, but it happened.

That's because Russia doesn't know when to give up. Your still suffering violence because of it. Just let Chechnya go. Let them be independant.

American Revolution- Won
War of 1812 - Won Stalemate
Mexican War-Won
Civil War- everyone Loses a civil war
Spanish American War- Won
WWI - won
WWII - won I'm Sure most Russians would disagree
Vietnam - lost
Korean war - Draw
Gulf war I - not finished/won
Gulf war II - not finished

Flushed out the list a bit, how was 1812 a lost war, granted the US didn’t conquer Canada but the British burned Washington but got there asses kicked outside Baltimore. What makes it a win I think is that Andrew Jackson defeated the British outside New Orleans thwarting there attempts against the Mississippi.

Slight adjustments

Oh, I forgot,

Pacification of Somaila - LOST
Invasion of Cuba - LOST
Proxi wars in South America - MIXED RESULTS

'Cannot be atributed?' Why? The US left South Vietnam to the mercy of fate and the Communists, which was definitely contradicting the aim of the US involvement stated in the Tonkin Gulf resolution. South Vietnam was neither safe nor secure in 1973, and Mr Thieu knew that...

We know that. I read the peace accord and I didn't like what I was reading. But the fact remains though that we had a peace treaty with them and left Vietnam. Sorry but once we leave, its none of our business what comes next. Politically, it was a defeat but militarily, it was a victory.

Oh, I forgot,

Pacification of Somaila - LOST
Invasion of Cuba - LOST
Proxi wars in South America - MIXED RESULTS

1. We didn't invade Cuba. The only time we did invade Cuba was during the Spanish American war-Won
2. Look at who actually invaded. We did not use military support to support the operation. It was done by exiles and nationalists. They were defeated because we didn't supply support that Kennedy said he'll give. He let them hang. Therefor, we didn't lose.
3. It was never our goal to pacify Somalia. We were there to feed the hungry. After Black Hawk Down, that was precisely what the military wanted to do. Take down Somalia. Clinton said no and withdrew our troops. Clinton was a coward in this regard and is one of the reasons why he was hated among the military.

That's because Russia doesn't know when to give up. Your still suffering violence because of it. Just let Chechnya go. Let them be independant.
'Been here, done that.' In 1996 Chechnya obtained de facto independence. Nothing improved.

'Been here, done that.' In 1996 Chechnya obtained de facto independence. Nothing improved.

That's because it wasn't full fledge independancy. Nice try with the technical terms.

That's because it wasn't full fledge independancy. Nice try with the technical terms.
If Texas rebelled and resorted to terrorism and suicide bombers in order to obtain independance... would the USA simply let go of Texas?

If Texas rebelled and resorted to terrorism and suicide bombers in order to obtain independance... would the USA simply let go of Texas?

If it proved expensive, probably. I doubt highly though that Texas would split from the union though I know that some of them want too. I think your more than likely to see Puerto Rico break ties with the US however.

... But the fact remains though that we had a peace treaty with them and left Vietnam. Sorry but once we leave, its none of our business what comes next. ...
I see.. the allies of America should take note of that, I think.

Politically, it was a defeat but militarily, it was a victory.
I still fail to understand why you're gainsaying the maxim of Clausewitz and divide American objectives into military and political.

That's because it wasn't full fledge independancy. Nice try with the technical terms.
What the hell 'full-fledged independence' is, in your opinion?

I see.. the allies of America should take note of that, I think.

Why do you think we're not leaving Iraq until that job is done? We learned our lessons from Vietnam and that won't happen again.

I still fail to understand why you're gainsaying the maxim of Clausewitz and divide American objectives into military and political.

Because they are 2 seperate identities. You have to break it down. I could say that World War II was a military victory for the alliance but a diplomatic defeat for the western allies! Why? though we liberated millions of people, more people were enslaved in Eastern Europe.

Look at history long enough, you'll see that you can achieve a military objective (defeating Saddam, nazism, fascism, imperialism, liberating people) but still lose things politically (WWII, Vietnam)

What the hell 'full-fledged independence' is, in your opinion?

Leaving them alone and not attacking them. They tried to gain it through peace but when they did, Russia attacked and they fought back. You did that not once, but twice. Sounds familiar doesn't it? US fought in the Revolutionary War and won it, then fought Britain again and it wound up a draw but the US remained free.

All Chechnya wants is full political independence. Your not going to give that to them because your afraid that other provences will do the same.

Why do you think we're not leaving Iraq until that job is done? We learned our lessons from Vietnam and that won't happen again.
We'll see... For example, President Hillary Clinton can have a different opinion on that.



Because they are 2 seperate identities. You have to break it down. I could say that World War II was a military victory for the alliance but a diplomatic defeat for the western allies! Why? though we liberated millions of people, more people were enslaved in Eastern Europe.

Look at history long enough, you'll see that you can achieve a military objective (defeating Saddam, nazism, fascism, imperialism, liberating people) but still lose things politically (WWII, Vietnam)
So Clausewitz was completely wrong... wow...

You're disinclined to view the military conflicts in terms of achieving objectives, and it is something new to me.

Tell me, how the 'enslavement' (a loaded term, BTW--no chattel slavery existed in Eastern Europe after WWII, I think) of some peoples can qualify as a diplomatic defeat, if the wrestling them from Soviet control was never an objective of WWII Allies, neither the Western ones nor, understandably, the Soviet Union?

A non-existent objective cannot be met... and cannot be failed to meet.

Leaving them alone and not attacking them.

Done in 1996. But the Chechen separatists continued to kidnap our citizens, set terrorist camps, etc... and then, in 1999, they crossed the border into Dagestan--they wanted to set some Islamic state there.

BTW, wanna have a proof that Chechnya was a sovereign state then?

We'll see... For example, President Hillary Clinton can have a different opinion on that.

Ahh but Hillary isn't President.

So Clausewitz was completely wrong... wow...

You're disinclined to view the military conflicts in terms of achieving objectives, and it is something new to me.

I have an unorthodox way at looking at things. I define things as military and political objectives. Military objectives can be achieved but political objectives are harder to achieve.

Tell me, how the 'enslavement' (a loaded term, BTW--no chattel slavery existed in Eastern Europe after WWII, I think) of some peoples can qualify as a diplomatic defeat, if the wrestling them from Soviet control was never an objective of WWII Allies, neither the Western ones nor, understandably, the Soviet Union?

The USSR promised them to have elections and promised to free them. Guess what? That didn't occur. They may have left but the USSR set up puppet governments throughout Eastern Europe that were under their direct control. Those nations did nothing unless the USSR gave its permission. The USSR played the political game by making it look like they were independent but in reality they weren't independent and the USSR promised that they would be independent. Though we achieved our primary military objective, the full political objective was not realized until 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

A non-existent objective cannot be met... and cannot be failed to meet.

Define a non-existent objective!

Ahh but Hillary isn't President.Not yet.

Done in 1996. But the Chechen separatists continued to kidnap our citizens, set terrorist camps, etc... and then, in 1999, they crossed the border into Dagestan--they wanted to set some Islamic state there.

BTW, wanna have a proof that Chechnya was a sovereign state then?

Did you recognize them as independent? Did you have an actual embassy in Grozny? I do know that you still controled the strings from behind the scenes. Does the term Kremlin backed candidates mean anything to you?

Not yet.

And never will be. She has been involved in way to many things. She's a political liability and her record will be exposed and she'll be utterly destroyed.

Ahh but Hillary isn't President.
I'm talking about 2009--I guess you'll still be in Iraq then.


...


Define a non-existent objective!
The objective of WWII (1939-1945) to keep the Eastern Europe free of Soviet predominating influence. Non-existent.

I'm talking about 2009--I guess you'll still be in Iraq then.

I guess we won't be.

The objective of WWII (1939-1945) to keep the Eastern Europe free of Soviet predominating influence. Non-existent.

Define a non-existent objective. You haven't defined it yet.

Did you recognize them as independent? Did you have an actual embassy in Grozny? I do know that you still controled the strings from behind the scenes. Does the term Kremlin backed candidates mean anything to you?
Corneiu, you're not informed on international law and Chechnya well, and that's why.

1) The diplomatic recognition of a state is not, according to the stated US policy, among the conditions of statehood.

2) Controlled whom, Maskhadov in 1996? Wow... why didn't we simply bribed him to lose the war?

3) Kremlin-backed candidates... Wow again. Do you think that there was a genuine, as-American-as-apple-pie political process in 1996-1999 Chechnya? I'm at a loss... BTW, who was the Kremlin-backed candidate in 1997 presidential election?

And never will be. She has been involved in way to many things. She's a political liability and her record will be exposed and she'll be utterly destroyed.She is a popular choice... as for your accusations ... that's never seemed to stop bush.

...

Define a non-existent objective. You haven't defined it yet.
Ah!

'Non-existent. adj. Not existing or not real or present.' (COED)
'Objective n. 1)A goal or aim...' (COED)

You can compose a definition now.

Corneiu, you're not informed on international law and Chechnya well, and that's why.

Don't start this again. I actually have web pages printed out on the state of Chechnya, including wikipedia (after I confirmed it with a few other websites, also printed)

1) The diplomatic recognition of a state is not, according to the stated US policy, among the conditions of statehood.

It is for me. If we follow that logic, then the Civil War, wasn't a Civil War after all but a war between two totally seperate different nations. In your case, your fighting a civil war as well but is it a civil war?

2) Controlled whom, Maskhadov in 1996? Wow... why didn't we simply bribed him to lose the war?

But did you actually win it the 1st time?

3) Kremlin-backed candidates... Wow again. Do you think that there was a genuine, as-American-as-apple-pie political process in 1996-1999 Chechnya?

Nope since Russia has been medling in Chechnian affairs for years even after you promised them de facto rule. You were still meddling in their affairs and I don't blame them one bit for fighting back. I don't like the extremists among them nor the extremists attacks on civilians, I applaud those that are fighting within the rules of war and those that are doing it through peaceful means.

I'm at a loss...

Not surprising!

BTW, who was the Kremlin-backed candidate in 1997 presidential election?

Why don't you tell me? Oh wait, that's because Russia wasn't going to say we support this candidate over that one. Russia ain't stupid you know.

She is a popular choice... as for your accusations ... that's never seemed to stop bush.

Popular yes, but a political liability.

Ah!

'Non-existent. adj. Not existing or not real or present.' (COED)
'Objective n. 1)A goal or aim...' (COED)

You can compose a definition now.

Ok so how would you know if an objective was existent or not? We don't always reveal what our objectives are you know so what could be a non-existent objective, could very well be an existent objective.

I see a war between the Americans and everyone else coming on in this thread....

Don't start this again. I actually have web pages printed out on the state of Chechnya, including wikipedia (after I confirmed it with a few other websites, also printed)
Glad for you.



It is for me. ...
Fortunately, the interpretation of international law by you, your parents, and your classmates is not binding for me... or any country at all.


But did you actually win it the 1st time?
We lost.

So why didn't we pay Maskhadov to lose the war to Russia and retire to a sunny resort with a sizable sum on his bank account?



Nope since Russia has been medling in Chechnian affairs for years even after you promised them de facto rule. You were still meddling in their affairs and I don't blame them one bit for fighting back. I don't like the extremists among them nor the extremists attacks on civilians, I applaud those that are fighting within the rules of war and those that are doing it through peaceful means.
Meddling--how? Would n't you mind to support your accusations with something?

Applaud them as lomg as you like, and don't forget to applaud to Iraqi soldiers who fought within the rules of war, too.



Not surprising!
Nice.



Why don't you tell me? Oh wait, that's because Russia wasn't going to say we support this candidate over that one. Russia ain't stupid you know.
You're soo informed on Chechya, and surrounded with printed-out web pages... I wanna hear it from you.

So, his given name and his surname?

Ok so how would you know if an objective was existent or not? We don't always reveal what our objectives are you know so what could be a non-existent objective, could very well be an existent objective.
Rumsfeldesque...

Rumsfeldesque...

Interesting consider I never heard Rumsfeld say what I just said or anything close to it. Nice dodge btw. You just proved my point that you can't disprove if there's a non-existent objective or not.

Interesting consider I never heard Rumsfeld say what I just said or anything close to it. Nice dodge btw. You just proved my point that you can't disprove if there's a non-existent objective or not.

Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know.

'It is hard to find a black cat in a dark room... especially when there is no cat.'

This should be good



In reality, the War of 1812 was a draw. Neither side won it.



Yep



Yep



Military victory, diplomatic defeat



Incorrect. Mission was accomplished. The mission was to keep the North from taking South and that is precisely what we did. So no, this wasn't a loss but a victory (and we had a UN mandate)



Actually it was finished but I assume you mean removing Saddam. In that case, yes you are right.



Actually, the war itself is over, the rebuilding however is another story. The war was a success but now we are fighting an insurgency and it looks like they are starting to lose steam. They are still dangerous but the attacks aren't as numerous as they once were.



You have a warped sense of history apparently.

First of all, 1812 was an obvious victory for Canada, Britain, and the Mohawks. Your objectives were to conquer Canada, ours were to keep it of your hands. You didn't gain any ground in Canada (though Canada did get some land in Main south of the St. Lawrence, Though we had to give up our gains in Michigan in the Treaty. Plus, we wipped 4 American invasions (at Lundy's Lane, which iscreadited as being the bloodiest battle of the war, Queenston Heights, Montreal, and Somewhere North of London)! Though you did beat us up to that place North of London (can't remember the damned named!).

WW1 was a victory (even though you waited until 1917!), same with WW2.

You can't actually say that you won the Korean War because it hasn't ended (young whipersnappers and their impulsivness!) The Sounth never sifned the peace treaty, which is where the DMZ came from.

Do you understand your mission in Viet Nam? It was to reunite Viet Nam under the corrupt (yet democratic) southern government (which was hard to do once South Viet Nam was conquered :D ).

Gulf War, no problem with your analysis.

Well, Mission Accomplished was declared after the Baath party was defeated. The war is technically over because the U.S. isn't at war with the new government. The insurgency; it's not even lossing steam. May i remind you that over 150 ppl were killed by car bombs last weekend? And of the fact that attacks are either on a slow rise or are steady? Even though you do seem to kill insurgents, the fact that you are still killing Iraqi civilians is reason enough for more to sign up. Maybe it will eventually stop, but despit what that dipshit cheney says, it is not "in its last throws(spelling)",especially since the attacks are now going on at about a few hundred a month.

I would also like to make a list of all the countries i've found that the U.S. has invaded and how many times: Cuba 5 times, Nicaragua 5 times, Honduras 7 times (owch), the Dominican Republic 4 times, the Philipines, Haiti twice, Guatemal once Panama twice, Mexico three times, and Columbia 4 times, Russia once, China once, and certain North African Countries (WW2)! And this is just between 1898 and 1934! America also invaded Germany once, Canada twice(including revolutionary war), Panama again, Dominican Republic again (1965), North Korea (1950-53), Japan once, Italy once, Vietnam once, Lebanon once (1982-83), Grenada once (1983, right after Lebanon), Libya (1986, though i doubt all those innocent citizens they bombed knew anything about terrorist activities in Germany), Peru once, Peurto Rico once, El Salvidor once, Afganistan once (maybe twice, not sure), Iraq twice, and Saudi Arabia once. Not to mention all those innocent First Nation's Women and children they slaughtered in the "Wild Wild West".

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it (or maybe sticking it in your brain would be more efficient!).

'It is hard to find a black cat in a dark room... especially when there is no cat.'

And hard to find a black cat in the dark especially if there is a black cat.

And hard to find a black cat in the dark especially if there is a black cat.
The presence of the cat makes the task easier...

Nice quip, but I'm waiting for your answers regarding Chechnya, Corneliu. Care to back up your assertions with facts.

American Revolution- Won
War of 1812 - Won
Mexican-American War-Won
Civil War - Won
Spanish-American War- Won
WWI - Won
WWII - Won
Vietnam - lost
Korean War - Draw
Gulf War I - Won
Afghan War - Won
Gulf war II - Won

Apparently some more adjustments were necessary. I get the feeling that some people don't understand that when you achieve your military or political objectives, you win.

- Any idea that the War of 1812 was a stalemate is ludicrous. The Americans were fighting a defensive war. The peace treaty restored the status quo, with the exception that the British stopped impressing American sailors and stopped harassing American shipping... the very reasons they went to war in the first place. Clearly the Americans were successful in defending themselves, and achieved all of their objectives.

Remember, in 1814 the British no longer had to worry about Napoleon, and launched a massive three-pronged offensive at the US. The diversionary force enjoyed success at Washington before being stopped at Baltimore. The main force was stopped cold at Lake Champlain. The other large force was stopped cold at New Orleans. The campaign was, overall, a dramatic failure. And if the Brits didn't rush to the peace table (immediately after Lake Champlain, but before New Orleans), it would have taken them too long to put another force of that magnitude together and send them across the ocean, by which time they would have to be diverted to attempt to liberate American Canada.

The Americans also gained full control of Lake Erie, which paved the way to the Erie Canal and the establishment of major industrial centers all along the Great Lakes.

- The Civil War can be scored a win. The Union states remained a member of the United States of America, and the secessionist states withdrew and formed their own nation. This is quite different from the internal power-grab that typifies European rebellions. The Confederacy even had its own Constitution, and could therefore be considered a foreign power. Had they won, a foreign power they would have been. The USA was on only one side in that war, and that side won.

- The Allied victory certainly owes a lot to Soviet contributions. But to give the Soviets full credit for a combined effort is ludicrous. The Soviets never had to turn their attentions to the Japanese, because an overwhelmingly American-dominated force occupied them completely. And Stalin's fervid cries for the opening of a western front shows exactly how important that was to them. So you can make the argument that the victory would have been impossible without the Soviets, but you can equally argue that the Soviets would have been obliterated without help. WWII was a team effort, and you have to give credit where credit is due.

- Vietnam is curious, in that, while the war is undoubtedly scored as a loss (they did fail to achieve any of their goals), nonetheless the American forces never lost a single battle. It really boiled down to who wanted it more. The North Vietnamese were willing to pay any price. The Americans were only willing to pay so much. And the South Vietnamese were too corrupt to make a worthwhile effort.

- The first Persian Gulf War was an unequivocal win. The coalition forces withdrew from Iraq because they had achieved all of their military and political objectives. Removing Saddam from power was never a stated objective.

- The Afghanistan invasion was an unequivocal win. Although Bin Laden was not captured, he was sent on the run. The other stated goal of toppling the Taliban and replacing it with a democratic government was achieved.

It's worth pointing out that Afghanistan has been a battleground throughout history, and before 2001 no foreign invader had accomplished a victory since Tamarlane. That includes the Soviet invasion and three wars with Great Britain.

- The second Persian Gulf War was an unequivocal win. The Iraqi Army was completely dismantled, and Saddam was removed from power (a stated objective this time around). Though the occupation is going poorly, the actual war is over.

*snip*

Go back and learn some more history. You didn't get anything either and neither did we. The War of 1812 was a draw and we have proven it was a draw throughout this entire thread. Sorry if you can't come to terms with that.

WW1 was a victory (even though you waited until 1917!), same with WW2.

Yep it was!

You can't actually say that you won the Korean War because it hasn't ended (young whipersnappers and their impulsivness!) The Sounth never sifned the peace treaty, which is where the DMZ came from.

And the US, NK, and the UN didn't sign any peace treaty either. We all signed a Cease-Fire that is still in effect. Under international law, the war is still going on, however, the South remains free to this day and that means, back then , it was a victory.

Do you understand your mission in Viet Nam? It was to reunite Viet Nam under the corrupt (yet democratic) southern government (which was hard to do once South Viet Nam was conquered :D ).

Which happened in 1975, after the US left the country. :rolleyes:

Gulf War, no problem with your analysis.

I'm so glad!

Well, Mission Accomplished was declared after the Baath party was defeated.

And that was the mission when we launched our attack. Now that was accomplished, the new mission is rebuilding Iraq and getting it stable so that they can run their own affairs and we can leave.

The war is technically over because the U.S. isn't at war with the new government.

How can we be at war when we are helping them establish a new government?

The insurgency; it's not even lossing steam. May i remind you that over 150 ppl were killed by car bombs last weekend?

I know but how do you know that they aren't losing steam? The Number of attacks have dropped. Now this could mean that they are running out of people or that they are regrouping and preparing a new offensive. I'm placing bets on a new offensive.

And of the fact that attacks are either on a slow rise or are steady? Even though you do seem to kill insurgents, the fact that you are still killing Iraqi civilians is reason enough for more to sign up.

Sign up for the Iraqi military and police you mean! You do know that the more they kill the more people they drive to sign up to defend Iraq from the terrorists right?

Maybe it will eventually stop, but despit what that dipshit cheney says, it is not "in its last throws(spelling)",especially since the attacks are now going on at about a few hundred a month.

And according to the generals on the ground inside Iraq that those numbers are dropping.

*snip*

Nice job of research. That's all I can say on that.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it (or maybe sticking it in your brain would be more efficient!).

Why don't you blow it out of your tailpipe? Insults get you nowhere but an insult hurled back. I"m known to hurl insults right back at those that insult me.

The presence of the cat makes the task easier...

How can you see a black cat in the dark?

Nice quip, but I'm waiting for your answers regarding Chechnya, Corneliu. Care to back up your assertions with facts.

WHy should I? No matter what I say, your not going to be convinced. I can have a very convincing arguement but you won't hear it because you already believe in something. Its no use to argue with a closed minded individual.

Not to mention, it is off topic.

How can you see a black cat in the dark?
As Tom Clancy pointed out in Rainbow 6, I believe, the night isn't completely black. That is why the ninja suits are a dark grey so it blends in better to the night background. Thus if the cat is completely black, it would be darker than the night and you could see it. However, if it was a dark grey cat, it would be a little harder to see in the dark. That is where NVGs come in handy, though it would still be hard to see because the colors would till be very close as it only amplifies light 200 times. The best way to see a cat in the dark would be with infrared goggles, as the cat gives off heat, yet the surrounding night would be colder than if it were day. And that, Corneliu, is how you see a black cat in the dark. :p

As Tom Clancy pointed out in Rainbow 6, I believe, the night isn't completely black. That is why the ninja suits are a dark grey so it blends in better to the night background. Thus if the cat is completely black, it would be darker than the night and you could see it. However, if it was a dark grey cat, it would be a little harder to see in the dark. That is where NVGs come in handy, though it would still be hard to see because the colors would till be very close as it only amplifies light 200 times. The best way to see a cat in the dark would be with infrared goggles, as the cat gives off heat, yet the surrounding night would be colder than if it were day. And that, Corneliu, is how you see a black cat in the dark. :p

LOL! Good one Achtung. Ok you win on that score :D

snip

ok, first of all, the US has intervened in Latin America and the Caribbean far more times than those listed, going back to before the US Civil War, including operations against pirates in conjuction with the Royal Navy after the War of 1812, plus a few things during the Revolution and War of 1812.

In every case the US achieved its objective, but those aren't really wars, any more than most of the conflicts or interventions the British Empire engaged in were. A full list of operations short of war the US has been involved in can be found in the book "The Savage Wars of Peace." which is easily found on Amazon and possibly local Public libraries.

The War of 1812 was primarily fought by the British Army and Royal Navy and the US Army and Navy. Canadian militia were involved, and generally fought reasonably well defensively. As did US militia except at Blandensburg, and even some of them fought well too (the battle just before Washington DC fell).

NO, as in zero, Canadian militia, or fencibles, were present at the burning of Washington. No US territory was permanently lost, and no Canadian territory was lost. The US invasion of 1812 was bungled in every possible way, 1813 operations were pretty much just raids (which is when Toronto, then York got burned)

In 1814, the British attempted a full scale invasion into New York and Lousiana, and launched a massive raid aimed at destroying Washington DC, Baltimore and capturing the US government. Only the burning of Washington was successful, everywhere else the British Army was defeated with heavy casualties by the US Army and State Militias. At sea the US merchant marine was basically locked into port, but several hundred US privateers, plus some US warships, were inflicting serious damage on British shipping, driving up insurance rates, and added to the already severe strain the Napoleonic Wars were causing Britian by 1814, caused the British Mercantile interests to demand peace.

So peace came. The war was a Draw for everyone except the Indians, who definitely lost. As the Mohawks are independent in no real sense, you can hardly say they won. At least not in US territory. The dream of an Indian buffer state between the US and the Mississippi River was ended totally.

The US suffered defeat in Vietnam though. However, there was never a policy goal of conquering North Vietnam and reunifying the country. The goal was to preserve South Vietnam and buy time for the rest of Asia to acheive stability. The latter was definitely attained, as a look at late 1970s and 1980s will show you. However the goal of defending South Vietnam ultimately failed completely, as is also clearly obvious. Although the US was successful on the battlefield, it lost the political battle. The North Vietnamese won the political battle by staying in the fight long enough to exhaust the will of the American people, in spite of horrendous casualties.

The South Vietnamese, including the Viet Cong /NLF (who were southern Vietnamese) definitely lost too, as even the surviving Viet Cong were mostly purged after unification.

We (the US) failed to achieve our goals in Somalia, which was to create a stable Somalia. When we left, so did nearly everyone else, so you can definitely say everyone lost there, especially the Somalis, who are nearly as worse off now than they were then, although some of the worst of the warlords are finally dead.

We failed to get Pancho Villa in 1916, although it is notable that intervention did end Mexican bandit raids that had troubled the Rio Grande region for decades.

We won the first main part of Korea (which was saving South Korea) but failed to reunify Korea. On the other hand, we managed to avoid blundering into World War III, so thats a plus. It was a very real danger at the time.

The first war with the Barbary Pirates didn't go too well, but we did manage to get a draw.

The First Gulf War was a US win, although limited in effect, as that all objectives were acheived, although perhaps the one removing Saddam might have been useful, current experience makes that questionable. Hard to say.

The Second Gulf War, the destruction of Saddams regime has been successful, the second part of the current war, building a nation, is ongoing.

Tearing down regimes is always harder than building new ones, Vietnam and Somalia tell us that much. However, the Republic of South Vietnam was very stable by 1972 when the US finished most of its withdrawl, and the insurgency was over with by that time. South Vietnam fell however to an armored invasion by North Vietnam that it simply was too outgunned to fight. They (the South Vietnamese) depended on US to provide the firepower they lacked and we stood by and watched in 1975. That is why there is no longer a Republic of South Vietnam.

- Any idea that the War of 1812 was a stalemate is ludicrous. The Americans were fighting a defensive war. The peace treaty restored the status quo, with the exception that the British stopped impressing American sailors and stopped harassing American shipping... the very reasons they went to war in the first place. Clearly the Americans were successful in defending themselves, and achieved all of their objectives.
Ha! Our objectives were more than that. We were the ones who turned it from a Naval War into a Land War. It was only after we invaded Canada that England invaded our borders. If we were to have won, Old Glory would be flying over Toronto, Ottawa, Montréal, and Halifax. But we failed in our objective of conquering British North America, and the British returned our Merchant Marine, and were pushed out of our nation (most notably out of the North-West Territory, where they still had forts), so both we and the Brits succeeded and failed. Therefore, it was a draw.

How can you see a black cat in the dark?
Use your hands... :)


WHy should I?
There is no compulsion in NS discussions... :)

No matter what I say, your not going to be convinced. I can have a very convincing arguement but you won't hear it because you already believe in something.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!

I don't believe in anything, unfortunately--but I lived here in the 90s, and I remember all that very well. And I've talked to a lot of people involved in the whole Chechnya thing...

Its no use to argue with a closed minded individual.
I'm close-minded, narrow-minded, etc, that's for sure... my mind is not open to making assertions that I'm not ready to back up, for example.

Not to mention, it is off topic.
OT? Well, OT...

Somalia... dear Lord that was one mess we should have never gotten ourselves into. You can blame Clinton for that.

Iraq... dear lord! That was one mess we should never have gotten ourselves into. You can blame Bush for that one.

"Black Hawk Down" happens on a weekly basis now, we just don't have so many conservatives whining about it. And at least Clinton didn't have to lie to get us into Somalia

No, becuase it was a military victory.

1.5 million dead Vietnamies > 50,000 dead Americans

You decide.

It was however a loss once we withdrew. Becuase five years after leaving, the north went in and took the south. Although that was a breach in the Treaty, the U.S. did not want to get involved again.

Good definition for victory in a war: we killed more people. Also the definition of a better murderer.

Rev.-victory
1812-draw/victory
mexican war-victory
civil war-everybody loses those
spain-victory
both WW's-victory
Korea-victory. We kicked NK out of Korea.
Vietnam-technicly a victory. South Veitnam was conquered AFTER we left.
Gulf WArs 1 and 2-victories
Afghanistan-victory

If I wanted to, I could start at the Seven Year's War, but since this is a question of the United States, I will start with the war that won its independence.

Revolutionary War
The war started off badly for the Americans, who lost battles across New England. When the tide began to turn, colonists were able to convince France to help against their mutual enemy. This helped the momentum, and along with some very decisive victories (Washington attacking the Hessian army on Christmas), led to the nation's independence.

Victory.


War of 1812
This was provoked by Britain through their policy of impressment that resulted in about 6,000 American citizens being seized and forced to fight for the British. Following incidents where British ships fired on American vessels, and even more strained relations, the US Congress declared war. Final outcome: Treaty of Ghent returning both nations to status quo. Impressment was stopped, the US gained international respect for holding off a British invasion (especially at the duck-shoot in New Orleans commanded by soon-to-be president Andrew Jackson), and later, minor border issues were resolved.

Stalemate.


Mexican-American War
Growing conflicts between Texas and Mexico ultimate resulted in President Polk declaring war against Mexico and seizing a large amount of territory. At the conclusion, a large sum of about 10-13 million US dollars was paid to the Mexican government as a form of reconciliation.

Victory.


Civil War
Many would say that no one won the Civil War. But, remember, we are looking at what wars the United States of America has won. The United States would be represented by the Union in order to preserve our law and federal government. Ultimately, the Union defeated the seceding Confederate states, and so, the United States of America was victorious.

Victory.


Spanish-American War
With the sinking of the USS Maine in the Havana harbor and the rise of Yellow Journalism, our government took a hawk position and went to war with spain, ultimately securing a number of Spanish colonies such as Cuba, the Phillipines, and Puerto Rico. A large sum was paid to Spain, much as was done at the conclusion of the Mexican-American war. The United States was for the first time considered a world power.

Victory.


World War I
Both sides beginning to crumble, the sinking of the Lusitania with 128 American passengers and the infamous Zimmerman Note send by Britain having the US screaming for blood, America joined the war, bringing a quick end to the Great War.

Victory.


World War II
Tough oil embargos from the US lead Japan to believe we have taken a hostile stance towards them. In what they consider to be a first-strike attack, they unleash on Pearl Harbor. Before this, the US' aid was limited in sending supplies and loans to Allied forces. Now, it was total war. The Battle of Midway marked the turning point for the Pacfic Theatre in June of '42, and Operation Torch and the following assault of the Italian peninsula make Germany-held Europe the only true enemy power in Europe. By early '43, the results of Stalingrad have German forces in retreat on the Eastern Front. June 6th, 1944, the beaches of Normandy are seized by American, British, and Canadian armies, beginning the liberation of France. It is now a race to Berlin, which the Soviets decide to win no matter the human or material costs. Germany surrenders, followed by the unconditional surrender of Japan on August 15th following the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima on August 9th and Nagasaki three days later.

Victory.


The Korean War
The single goal of the Korean War was not to unite the nation, but to stage a defense of South Korea and maintain the 38th parallel. On the one UN Security Council meeting that happened to be boycotted by the USSR (a major power of the UN that could veto any decisions presented), the other powers agreed to defend South Korea. This was the first and last time the UN has declared war. When the advance into the North was approaching Chinese boarders, the newly formed People's Republic of China began sending streams of troops to support the North Korean forces. General Douglas MacArthur suggested using nuclear weapons against China to President Truman, who quickly shot down the idea. MacArthur was soon dismissed from duty by Truman. Ultimately, the 38th parallel was held, and the conflict's objective had been held.

Victory.


Vietnam
In order to emphasize the results of this war, as Wikipedia states, "The war was fought to decide whether Vietnam would be united under a Communist government, or would remain indefinitely partitioned into the separate countries of North and South Vietnam." As per the Truman doctrine, the former choice could not be tollerated. By the end of the war when an armistice was signed, there was a total of approximately 50,000 American casualties and over 3,000,000 Indochinese casualties. In addition to US forces never losing an important battle, and with former-French southern Indochinese territories remaining independent from Communist rule during and at the conclusion of the battle, the result is clear. Unfortunately, we all know the ultimate outcome of the nation of Vietnam.

Victory.


The Gulf War

As Hussein invaded Kuwait, he could never have expected such a response from US forces. US technology dictated the outcome, which was absolutely one-sided.

Victory.


The Second Gulf War
Iraqi military forces were decimated upon the assault of coalition forces. Once again, though immensely superior technology and command, military victory was achieved, and the nation essentially placed under coalition control. Constant terrorist attacks and bombings still pursue, but the ultimate objective of war was met - the invasion and conquest of Baghdad.

Victory.


I will skip such things as the Aroostook War, Cold War, and police actions/peace-keeping missions worldwide, which automatically makes 95% of all those aforementioned nations we have "invaded" moot. One could also argue over whether or not the War of 1812 was in fact a US victory, but on these decisions I chose to essentially "go by the textbook" to minimize any counters against my points.

Somalia- Clinton idiocy led to retreat

Gulf War II- US Victory


Somalia- Chicken-dove Republicans in Congress and elsewhere pushed pretty hard for that retreat. Where do all those pacifist Republicans go when we don't have a Democrat in the Oval Office... ?

Afghanistan- Should have been a victory, but we decided to waste our resources on Iraq. bin Laden runs free, but we've forgotten about him anyway. Not over till we pull out.

Gulf War II- Not over yet. But we'll probably kill more Iraqis than Americans before we leave with air tails between our legs, so it will be a victory by body count.

How can you see a black cat in the dark?
Keep looking, eventually you will step on it. If the secret objectives or cat don't exist you won't find anything.

Popular yes, but a political liability.Not to her constituents.

Haven't you thought that the Vietnamese communists simply could not engage in a full-scale conventional war with the superpower? It would have been completely unreasonable for them. They had to invent something different in order to win the prolonged conflict. The US didn't found out how to counter the military strategy of Mr Ho and his friends--and it was a loss.
The communists got what they wanted. Victory for them defeat for us. If the definition of victory is that the enemy couldn't stand up and fight us in the accepted manner then we lost the Revolutionary War. We lost militarily in Vietnam because we couldn't figure out how to fight the kind of war we were actually in. None of our supposedly victorious battles in Vietnam mattered because they didn't reduce the resolve of the enemy. Every person we killed was replaced by more than one new recruit.

We lost militarily in Vietnam. If we had invaded in Vietnam the kind of battles we were winning might have mattered. As it was, lives lost in victorious battles were as pointless as those that might have been fought in defeats.

To say the we won because the enemy couldn't stand against the full force of our army is delusional if their military action attained the goals we did not want them to attain.

Then, according to your logic we've never declared war on Austria, either. And Turkey was the Ottoman Empire, against whom we declared war. If you think that we would have to go to war with the current versions of European Nations, then we've only fought UK & Spain. We fought Imperial & Nazi Germany, but not the German Federal Democratic Republic. So that we fought the Ottoman Empire counts as fighting Turkey.No, the US never declared war on the Ottoman Empire either. The US entered the war gradually, declaring war on Germany in April of 1917, A-H in december of 1917 and the war ended before the US could declare war on the Ottoman Empire.

The A-H Empire was a political union not a single nation-state, both the Empire and the Kingdom were autonomous states with thier own governments and local autonomy. The usual legalistic formulation is that while the citizens of Hungary may have been declared war upon by the US due to thier alligence to the A-H Empire, the Kingdom of Hungary was not declared war upon by the US. Pretty standard practice, when a declaration of war is made against a union of states, it is not split into multiple declarations of war against all the members, but is instead only against the union and is applicable to the members only insofar as they maintain membership in the union. Thus, the EU could declare war upon the US, and if California seceeded from the US. the EU would not also automatically be in a state of declared war with California.

The same argument could apply to Austria as well, but there are some difficulties. See, under some treaty (I think the Treaty of Trianon, but not sure) Austria assumed / was forced to assume the sucession for the imperial part of the A-H Empire. This confuses the issue of Austria and one could argue that the declaration of war with Austria-Hungary is applicable to Austria, so I refrained from mentioning it.

...
The A-H Empire was a political union not a single nation-state, both the Empire and the Kingdom were autonomous states with thier own governments and local autonomy. The usual legalistic formulation is that while the citizens of Hungary may have been declared war upon by the US due to thier alligence to the A-H Empire, the Kingdom of Hungary was not declared war upon by the US.
...
The same argument could apply to Austria as well, but there are some difficulties. See, under some treaty (I think the Treaty of Trianon, but not sure) Austria assumed / was forced to assume the sucession for the imperial part of the A-H Empire. This confuses the issue of Austria and one could argue that the declaration of war with Austria-Hungary is applicable to Austria, so I refrained from mentioning it.
Actually, the US (along with Britain, France, Italy, and Japan) signed a peace treaty with Hungary, the Treaty of Trianon, in 1920. It implies that there was a state of war between those countries and Hungary.

Not to her constituents.

Oh how naive you are to the realm of American Politics. Who precisely are her constituents? The State of NY? Yep, those are her constituents but to the rest of the country, she is most definitely a political liability. If she ever got into a massive national race, she'll be so exposed, it'll make playboy look tame!

We lost militarily in Vietnam.

I'm sorry but how did we lose militarily in Vietnam? How many battles did the Viet Cong actually won? Sorry but militarily speaking, we won Vietnam so tell me how we lost it militarily please.

Oh how naive you are to the realm of American Politics. Who precisely are her constituents? The State of NY? Yep, those are her constituents but to the rest of the country, she is most definitely a political liability. I understand enough in the realm of American Politics to say that you don't speak for the "rest of the country". In your opinion, she is a political liability. That would be true if she weren't currently a senator.
If she ever got into a massive national race, she'll be so exposed, it'll make playboy look tame!Spare me.

I understand enough in the realm of American Politics to say that you don't speak for the "rest of the country". In your opinion, she is a political liability. That would be true if she weren't currently a senator.

And she is losing support there too. However, if you follow her long enough, you'll be able to see where she is a liability and if she ever ran for the White House, all of it will come out.

Spare me.

Why?

Why?Because you are sugesting that she still has skeletons to hide after 8 years in the whitehouse.

I wonder, of all of the wars the US has fought in, how many have they actually completed, and of those, how many have they actually won? The ones that come to mind are:
War of 1812 - lost
WWI - won
WWII - won
Vietnam - not finished/lost
Korean war - not finished/lost
Gulf war I - not finished/won
Gulf war II - not finished

I'm sure there are several that I'm missing, but it seems to me that the USA's track record for winning wars is worse than France's, and the only wars they did win were the ones in which they had many powerful allies.

Don't forget Somalia and Afghanistan.

Because you are sugesting that she still has skeletons to hide after 8 years in the whitehouse.

That's because she does Canada6. To say anything different is naive.

That's because she does Canada6. To say anything different is naive.Then prove it. Otherwise your statement holds no water and is an empty accusation based as usual, on a diference of political orientation.

Actually, the US (along with Britain, France, Italy, and Japan) signed a peace treaty with Hungary, the Treaty of Trianon, in 1920. It implies that there was a state of war between those countries and Hungary.
Not insofar as a declaration of war. The US (and most countries actually) has signed far more peace treaties than it has declared wars. In the case of A-H the armistice was signed with A-H and then a whole slew of peace treaties were concluded with the many countries which A-H fragmented into after the armstice. The US had seperate peace treaties with Austria and Hungary in 1921, the US was not a signatory to the Treaty of Trianon. The US also had seperate peace treaties with Algeria, Serbia and so on.

A peace treaty (hopefully) resolves hostilities, a declaration of war commences that subset of hostilities known as "war". Despite never having declared war on France before or during the Quasi-war of the late 18th Century, the US signed the Treaty on Montefortaine (?sp), a peace treaty between the US and France for an example of a peace treaty without a declaration of war.

Let me ask you this, after losing 55,000 the first time, do you think the people would go for a 2nd round?
Depends on whether it is the objective, hey?
Maybe it just turned out that a communist Vietnam wasn't as existential a threat afterall...

Depends on whether it is the objective, hey?
Maybe it just turned out that a communist Vietnam wasn't as existential a threat afterall...Exactly.

Then prove it. Otherwise your statement holds no water and is an empty accusation based as usual, on a diference of political orientation.

Prove that she doesn't. I wasn't in the white house during the Clinton Presidency. I was to busy with school and being a kid to care about his presidency.

As for her skeletons, prove that she doesn't.

Depends on whether it is the objective, hey?
Maybe it just turned out that a communist Vietnam wasn't as existential a threat afterall...

Actually, the people wouldn't tolerate a second round because the 1st round was literally based on lies. If Ford sent troops back in to defend South Vietnam, I don't think the people would've believed him and they would've crucified him.

Prove that she doesn't. I wasn't in the white house during the Clinton Presidency. I was to busy with school and being a kid to care about his presidency.

As for her skeletons, prove that she doesn't.

Ok but you are the one who said she does.

What are they?

Are you speculating?

Ok but you are the one who said she does.

What are they?

Are you speculating?

But Canada6 made the assertion that she doesn't before I said she did.