NationStates Jolt Archive

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.All angles of one's personal and professional life are scrutinized in politics. Especially when you're in the whitehouse. I'm terribly sorry to inform you that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything. Whoever acuses and claims that something does exist is charged with the task of proving it. Just like Bush and the WMD's. They're still looking...

But Canada6 made the assertion that she doesn't before I said she did.If you looked back through our conversation you'll find that it was you who first brought up the issue of exposing Hillary Clinton in some sort of scandal. You did it twice before I even aknowledged it.

All angles of one's personal and professional life are scrutinized in politics. Especially when you're in the whitehouse. I'm terribly sorry to inform you that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything.

Dude, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but Hillary does have skeletons in her closet. We all have skeletons in our closet (even me)! To say that one doesn't have skeletons, is really naive.

Whoever acuses and claims that something does exist is charged with the task of proving it. Just like Bush and the WMD's. They're still looking...

Ahh... but we weren't the only one's saying he had them now where we? Nope! The French, Russians, Polish, Italians, Brits, Germans, etc all thought Saddam had WMD. Saddam didn't prove to us that he didn't have WMD and thus, we went in. Faulty intel can get you into trouble and that was precisely what it was. Just bad intel. I'm sorry that you liberals can't seem to figure that out.

Ahh... but we weren't the only one's saying he had them now where we? Nope! The French, Russians, Polish, Italians, Brits, Germans, etc all thought Saddam had WMD. Saddam didn't prove to us that he didn't have WMD and thus, we went in. Faulty intel can get you into trouble and that was precisely what it was. Just bad intel. I'm sorry that you liberals can't seem to figure that out.The War was planned long before the bad intel began to surface. What you conservatives can't seem to figure out is that this was a war based on lies. All those other nations you mentioned... they didn't rush into war against Iraq. Most of them were against the whole idea, maintaining faith in the fact that Saddam was not a threat (established in the 9-11 comission) to NATO.

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.

Actually, Serbia was an independant country before and during the Great War. Infact, The first armed conflicts of the Great War were between Austro-Hungaria and Serbia. Then the Russians were like," Yo hommes, those be our peeps!", and they attacked Austro-Hungaria. Then the German's were like "Holy Crap there are Russian troops building up along our border!", at which point the Russians attacked(which was doomed to failure in the beginning; a cavalry charge against entrenched German Machineguns, or "Machinengweher's" in German :D ). Then the German's decided to execute their war plan against France. While a smaller German force stayed behind to stall any French offensives into Western Germany, The largest part of the German western army moved through neutral Belgium, than down towards gay Parrie. But they swirved to go assist their forces in the Rhine, thusfore eliminating any chance of eliminating France early. Then both sides dug in to avoid the enemy's guns/hold their gains/try to stop the German advance, and then, well, you know what happens after that.

Dude, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but Hillary does have skeletons in her closet. We all have skeletons in our closet (even me)! To say that one doesn't have skeletons, is really naive.



Ahh... but we weren't the only one's saying he had them now where we? Nope! The French, Russians, Polish, Italians, Brits, Germans, etc all thought Saddam had WMD. Saddam didn't prove to us that he didn't have WMD and thus, we went in. Faulty intel can get you into trouble and that was precisely what it was. Just bad intel. I'm sorry that you liberals can't seem to figure that out.

Actually Saddam said he didn't have them, and let UN weapons inspectors in to check. The inspectors said they couldn't find a trace of WMD production, or their existance, but Bush said that they obviously (obviously!) were there, and he went along with it. We now know that they never existed and that Bush manipulated information to justify his warplanes (He had been planning to invade since his election, 9-11, unfortunatly, was used as an excuse).

Why must these things degrade into a political debate? This thread is about what wars the US has participated in and their military outcome. Simple enough, no political aspects need be considered.

That said, Canada6 and Killaly, you like to assume way too much. Here are, once again, the FACTS, and not the political aspects or turmoil.

1. The Bush family has a vendetta against Iraq (an acceptable feeling, but not enough to justify action). Does that mean that the invasion of Iraq just must have been planned before there was any indication of intelligence against Iraq? No. Is there any evidence to prove that it was? No.
2. In addition, UN inspectors were kicked out completely in 1994, and when readmitted years later, complained that they were not able to access certain "restricted" areas that were deemed too sensitive to allow them to inspect. Suspicious? Very.
3. Intelligence regarding Iraq having WMDs was, as someone stated, gathered by multiple nations. Consider that Iraq is notorious for its giant underground bunkers, many of which are still being uncovered to this day. In addition, Iraq is over 35,000 sq. KM larger than the entirety of California, 80%-85% being desert. Beliefs that they might have WMDs hidden somewhere aren't unfounded. However, as we know, it has also yet to be proved.

Whether you think the war in Iraq is just or not, these points cannot be disputed. What can be debated is whether or not it is the US’ place to invade the country, without UN approval, or in what some might consider a rushed and under-planned operation. But, that is a topic for another thread.

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

Thanks. Because it's all true.

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.

Actually, it was a joke. But looking at it now, ya, sorry about that. :rolleyes:

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.

...
Sorry, that's counterfactual. The US was a signatory to the Treaty of Trianon. The text of the treaty can be found here: http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/versa/tri1.htm

Whereas on the request of the former Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Government an Armistice was granted to Austria-Hungary on November 3, 1918, by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, and completed as regards Hungary by the Military Convention of November 13, 1918, in order that a Treaty of Peace might be concluded, and

Whereas the Allied and Associated Powers are equally desirous that the war in which certain among them were successively involved, directly or indirectly, against Austria-Hungary, and which originated in the declaration of war by the former Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Government on July 28, 1914, against Serbia, and in the hostilities conducted by Germany in alliance with Austria-Hungary, should be replaced by a firm, just, and durable Peace, and

Whereas the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy has now ceased to exist, and has been replaced in Hungary by a national Hungarian Government...
Thus, the preamble of a peace treaty signed by the US plenipotentiary explicitly states that the armistice had been extended to Hungary by a separate convention, and that Hungary was a successor of A-H (after all, the old state was 'The Kingdoms and Lands Represented in the Imperial Council and the Lands of the Holy Hungarian Crown of St. Stephen') in right of the erstwhile Kingdom of Hungary.

The US had not concluded separate peace treaties with Algeria (not a part of WWI, but a constituent part of France, a US ally) and Serbia (an ally of the US).

The War was planned long before the bad intel began to surface. What you conservatives can't seem to figure out is that this was a war based on lies. All those other nations you mentioned... they didn't rush into war against Iraq. Most of them were against the whole idea, maintaining faith in the fact that Saddam was not a threat (established in the 9-11 comission) to NATO.
I would hope every military nation has outline plans in place for war with all countries they think may be a threat. It's called planning. I would be worried if for example the Uk did not have plans to counter another invasion of the Falklands, or plans to cope with an attack by Iranian forces. What would be wrong would be having the intention to manipulate a situation so those plans could be used.
Mind they would not have plans for an invasion/ of a territory by an ally, such as the invasion of Granada.

Actually Saddam said he didn't have them, and let UN weapons inspectors in to check. The inspectors said they couldn't find a trace of WMD production, or their existance, but Bush said that they obviously (obviously!) were there, and he went along with it. We now know that they never existed and that Bush manipulated information to justify his warplanes (He had been planning to invade since his election, 9-11, unfortunatly, was used as an excuse).
Exactly... as a matter of fact I'll say more...

In a presidential debate between Bush and Gore... Al Gore defended that the use of US troops in peacekeeping missions should be encouraged. Bush's answer... "I don't think we should be using our troops for "nation building".


Meanwhile somewhere in Lostville County... morons toss their bibles in the air with delight. They rejoice and praise the name.

I would hope every military nation has outline plans in place for war with all countries they think may be a threat. It's called planning. I would be worried if for example the Uk did not have plans to counter another invasion of the Falklands, or plans to cope with an attack by Iranian forces. What would be wrong would be having the intention to manipulate a situation so those plans could be used.Which is precisely what happened with Iraq.

Which is precisely what happened with Iraq.
Now there is the debate. Not if plans existed, but was the international situation manipulated so the conditions for execution of those plans was met.

Now there is the debate. Not if plans existed, but was the international situation manipulated so the conditions for execution of those plans was met.It's quite clear to me that is exactly what has transpired. The testimony of Richard Clarke, the 9-11 comission, and Scott Ritter in how they were pressured in the field into coming up with something big enough to start a war, leaves me no doubt.

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.

Have you never heard the term War By Proxi? While the Brits and French are past masters at it, Russia and China have been doing it for a while, so what makes you think that they don't count. The Invasion of Cuba by US backed exiles counts as one of your wars, as does the "peace keeping" in Somalia, and while you may choose to ignor them I can assure you neither Cubans nor Somalis do count them the way you do.

Also, this talk of how good the US is at fighting misses and valuble point, you have fought signifcantly fewer wars than your counterparts on the security council, partly because you are the baby of the bunch, and partly because you are outside the sphere of influence of the other powers. Had you been withing the geopraphic sphere of German Influence in 1914 or 1939 you would have easily been beaten.

The War was planned long before the bad intel began to surface. What you conservatives can't seem to figure out is that this was a war based on lies.

Since no one else has been able to prove this, I'm asking you to prove it.

All those other nations you mentioned... they didn't rush into war against Iraq. Most of them were against the whole idea, maintaining faith in the fact that Saddam was not a threat (established in the 9-11 comission) to NATO.

However, Saddam violated 17 UN Resolutions and a UN Cease-fire. Once a Cease-fire is broken, its war all over again.

Actually Saddam said he didn't have them, and let UN weapons inspectors in to check.

If he didn't have then then why did he drag his feet during inspections? Why did he insist on being notified on where they were going to inspect when they were supposed to be surprise inspections? Why did he label certain areas off limits to weapons inspectors? This isn't cooperating with weapons inspectors.

The inspectors said they couldn't find a trace of WMD production, or their existance, but Bush said that they obviously (obviously!) were there, and he went along with it.

See above statement.

We now know that they never existed and that Bush manipulated information to justify his warplanes (He had been planning to invade since his election, 9-11, unfortunatly, was used as an excuse).

Prove that the information was manipulated please? I guess you forgot that most of this God Forsaken planet thought he had them. If he didn't have them then why were there 17 UN Resolutions on Iraq? Why didn't Saddam allow full inspections WITHOUT interference?

...

However, Saddam violated 17 UN Resolutions and a UN Cease-fire. Once a Cease-fire is broken, its war all over again.
Would you mind to state the exact nature of the supposed Iraqi violation of the ceasefire?

If he didn't have then then why did he drag his feet during inspections? Why did he insist on being notified on where they were going to inspect when they were supposed to be surprise inspections? Why did he label certain areas off limits to weapons inspectors? This isn't cooperating with weapons inspectors.
Probably Mr Hussein had his own reasons--indeed, we all know now that the had no WMDs in 2003.


... If he didn't have them then why were there 17 UN Resolutions on Iraq? Why didn't Saddam allow full inspections WITHOUT interference?
Were all the resolutions concerned with the question of WMD? I seriously doubt that.

Would you mind to state the exact nature of the supposed Iraqi violation of the ceasefire?

A big one? Non-cooperation with UN Weapons Inspectors as outlined in the Cease-fire agreement.

Probably Mr Hussein had his own reasons--indeed, we all know now that the had no WMDs in 2003.

Those reasons being he had something to hide? By not complying with UN Weapons inspectors, he showed the world that he had something to hide. If he just fully cooperated and let them do their work, I don't think there would've been 17 UN Resolutions on Iraq and our forces wouldn't be there today, enforcing those UN Resolutions.

Were all the resolutions concerned with the question of WMD? I seriously doubt that.

Some of them yes and others was for their non-compliance with previous UN Resolutions. Only so many resolutions before someone decides to enforce those already on the books.

If he didn't have then then why did he drag his feet during inspections? Why did he insist on being notified on where they were going to inspect when they were supposed to be surprise inspections? Why did he label certain areas off limits to weapons inspectors? This isn't cooperating with weapons inspectors.

No it isn't, but it is the quickest route to a coup. People forget that Saddam, like Bush and Blair, had to worry about internal problems and threats, but unlike Bush and Blair that could have ment a bullet in front of a firing squad or the like. Saddam could not, for his own image's sake, surcome to US presure, and like Iran, the more the US saber rattles, the more it throws it's weight arround the most resistant those administrations have to look.

Since no one else has been able to prove this, I'm asking you to prove it.Scott Ritter.
Richard Clarke.
Paul O'Neill (former secretary of the treasury) for instance said that an attack was planned from the very beginning. In fact Paul O'Neill has stated several times that the very first security council meetings of the Bush administration were spent on planning an invasion of Iraq. Way before 9/11 ever happened. Part of the Bush campaign was in fact based on overthrowing Saddam.

Add to that the 9-11 comission and the fact that no WMD's have been found or ever will be.... that's all the proof necessary, of the lies. The Bush administration has in fact stated several times that the Iraq invasion had been planned many years prior to the 9/11 terrorist attack.

The proof is right in front of you. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

However, Saddam violated 17 UN Resolutions and a UN Cease-fire. Once a Cease-fire is broken, its war all over again.Iraq violated resolutions but those violations where dealt with by the Clinton administration. Operation Desert Fox for example.

The Invasion of Iraq itself was also a violation of the UN Charter. Should the world unite and overthrow Bush's government?

If you require further proof. Look up the Yellowcake forgery and the Downing Street memo.


It's people like you that believe anything that is shoved down your throat and that are incapable of questioning or at least doubting the honesty of your republican presidents that make me sick to my stomach.

*snip*

ok now can you prove that it was manipulated and that we planned to attack Iraq regardless? You haven't proved your case Canada6.

Iraq violated resolutions but those violations where dealt with by the Clinton administration. Operation Desert Fox for example.

HAHA!! That was nothing. Four day bombing Campaign? HAHAHA!!! Don't make me laugh. It only strengthen Saddam's resolve. Even after they were allowed back in, they STILL weren't cooperating with those wonderful UN Resolutions.

The Invasion of Iraq itself was also a violation of the UN Charter. Should the world unite and overthrow Bush's government?

Bull. No where in that charter does it state that a nation gave up its right to wage war. No where. Shall we go through the list of wars that didn't have UN resolutions? The US is a Soveriegn state. By being sovereign, we can do what we want, when we want to do it provided that what we do is in compliance with international law. The Iraq war is in compliance with international law so the world doesn't have a leg to stand on. And why would you want to anyway? The rest of the world would suffer casualties on our soil because the people will fight back. Remember something, our civilians are armed and we have the ammo for our guns too. It'll be a blood bath and those that do try to land would get slaughtered.

Just to be an absolute pain...American war of independence was never won by the Americans....technically you didn't exist as a sovreign nation, so the British lost to themselves :)

If you require further proof. Look up the Yellowcake forgery and the Downing Street memo.

And where did we get the yellow cake info? FROM THE BRITISH!!!!!!!

It's people like you that believe anything that is shoved down your throat and that are incapable of questioning or at least doubting the honesty of your republican presidents that make me sick to my stomach.

Sorry dude, but I go by what I see. I see Saddam not cooperating. I see violations of 17 UN Resolutions. I see violations in the UN Cease-Fire. Now its people like you that don't give a damn about the liberation of 25 million people and its people like you that make me sick.

Just to be an absolute pain...American war of independence was never won by the Americans....technically you didn't exist as a sovreign nation, so the British lost to themselves :)

July 2, 1776: America votes to declare themselves independent of Great Britain

July 4, 1776: Declaration of Independence signed by the 2nd Continental Congress

Once this was done, the US did become a sovereign state.

In 1777 France signs a treaty with the US to help us militarily defeat the British. Now if we were not an independent country at the time, France wouldn't be able to do this. France recognized our independence and then offered full scale military aid. Interesting isn't it?

The Convention on warfare signed after world war 2 clearly states that no nation can engage in acts of war except when their sovergnty or national intrests are directly threaterned or when another nation is attacked and they go to the aid of that contry or to prevent acts of genocide. The US introduced that Convention. Most wars since 1945 have therefore been illegal, however until 2003 there was no mechanism to try war criminals, there is now, and if a soverign Iraq signs up to the ICC then expect to see US generals hauled up to the Hague to stand trial.

As for soverignty, none of us are any more, and you can thank the US for that; our ecconomies are so inerdependant that we are stuck together and what affects on affects all.

The Convention on warfare signed after world war 2 clearly states that no nation can engage in acts of war except when their sovergnty or national intrests are directly threaterned or when another nation is attacked and they go to the aid of that contry or to prevent acts of genocide. The US introduced that Convention. Most wars since 1945 have therefore been illegal, however until 2003 there was no mechanism to try war criminals, there is now, and if a soverign Iraq signs up to the ICC then expect to see US generals hauled up to the Hague to stand trial.

And what war convention would that be? Care to provide me proof of said convention please? As for the Hague, our forces can't be hauled before them!

As for soverignty, none of us are any more, and you can thank the US for that; our ecconomies are so inerdependant that we are stuck together and what affects on affects all.

We still do things independently of other nations like Diplomacy and Militarily. So tell me, how we are no longer independent!

July 2, 1776: America votes to declare themselves independent of Great Britain

July 4, 1776: Declaration of Independence signed by the 2nd Continental Congress

Once this was done, the US did become a sovereign state.

In 1777 France signs a treaty with the US to help us militarily defeat the British. Now if we were not an independent country at the time, France wouldn't be able to do this. France recognized our independence and then offered full scale military aid. Interesting isn't it?

Unilateral declarations of Independance are not legally binding, and never have been. The US was legally a cabal of rebelious colonies up to the point at which Britain recognised your independance - regardless of your or France's opinion. Coming from the only other country to have declare UDI against Britain, I can say this with some knowlegde.

It was in France's interests to accept the colonies as a sovreign nation...indeed many countries have supported disputed territories before in hope of having a friendly ally in that new country, but only when the afore-governing nation accepts independence, or a significant number of foreign nations recognise independence can the establishing nation call itself independet (forgive the verboseness of that paragraph).

Under that theory, the USA was accepted when the British Parliament accepted it as a sovreign nation, not when France wanted an ally to help it out in Canada!

It was in France's interests to accept the colonies as a sovreign nation...indeed many countries have supported disputed territories before in hope of having a friendly ally in that new country, but only when the afore-governing nation accepts independence, or a significant number of foreign nations recognise independence can the establishing nation call itself independet (forgive the verboseness of that paragraph).

Under that theory, the USA was accepted when the British Parliament accepted it as a sovreign nation, not when France wanted an ally to help it out in Canada!

ok now can you prove that it was manipulated and that we planned to attack Iraq regardless? You haven't proved your case Canada6.Scott Ritter proves it for me when he testified that he was pressured to come up with a cause for invasion. He resigned immediately after he recieved those orders.

HAHA!! That was nothing. Four day bombing Campaign? HAHAHA!!! Don't make me laugh. It only strengthen Saddam's resolve. Even after they were allowed back in, they STILL weren't cooperating with those wonderful UN Resolutions.In other words Bush's penis is bigger than Clinton's? :rolleyes:

After those 4 days of bombing they allowed the inspectors back in the country. However they did not co-operate fully because they found out that the americans had been using the inspections to gather military inteligence without the UN's knowledge.

Bull. No it is not. Any war that isn't approved by the UN is a violation of the charter, wether you like it or not.

No where in that charter does it state that a nation gave up its right to wage war. No where. No where does it say on that charter that a nation must give up its right to arm itself with whatever weapons it desires.

The US is a Soveriegn state. By being sovereign, we can do what we want, when we want to do it provided that what we do is in compliance with international law. OK
The Iraq war is in compliance with international lawNo it is not.

And where did we get the yellow cake info? FROM THE BRITISH!!!!!!!It is still a forgery. Bush's involvement in The Downing Street Memo is undeniable.

Sorry dude, but I go by what I see. I see Saddam not cooperating. I see violations of 17 UN Resolutions. I see violations in the UN Cease-Fire. Now its people like you that don't give a damn about the liberation of 25 million people and its people like you that make me sick.According to Bush the Iraq invasion had nothing to do liberating 25 milion people. It was part of the War on Terrorism. however the 9-11 comission concluded that Iraq had nothing to do with Terrorism. They lied.

Shall I go through a list of other nations, some with much larger populations that require liberation from oppressive governments?

Scott Ritter proves it for me when he testified that he was pressured to come up with a cause for invasion. He resigned immediately after he recieved those orders.

PROVE THE DAMN THING WAS MANIPULATED! You can't prove it so why are you still holding onto this piece of fiction?

After those 4 days of bombing they allowed the inspectors back in the country. However they did not co-operate fully because they found out that the americans had been using the inspections to gather military inteligence without the UN's knowledge.

And as a sovereign nation, we can spy on whoever the hell we want. Guess what? I bet some of those other inspectors were intel agents too but can Saddam prove that they were intel agents? And by not complying with UN Weapons Inspectors, he is in violation of UN Resolutions AND the UN Cease-Fire. Interesting isn't it?

No it is not. Any war that isn't approved by the UN is a violation of the charter, wether you like it or not.

*yawns*

Just keep telling yourself that. Your wrong but just keep telling yourself that.

No where does it say on that charter that a nation must give is right to arm itself with whatever weapons it desires.

Nowhere in that charter does it state that nations gave up its sovereign right to wage war on another nation.

OK
No it is not.

Yes it is.

It is still a forgery. Bush's involvement in The Downing Street Memo is undeniable.

Oh really? I haven't seen the proof in that memo and I actually read the memo. No proof in there whatsoever on what your spouting. As for it being a forgery, don't blame the US for that. You'll have to blame the Brits on that one.

According to Bush the Iraq invasion had nothing to do liberating 25 milion people. It was part of the War on Terrorism.

Correct my friend. It is part of the War on Terror.

however the 9-11 comission concluded that Iraq had nothing to do with Terrorism. They lied.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! You mean Al Qaeda. What about Hamas, Al Aqsa Marters Brigade, and Islamic Jihad? HAHAHAHAHA!! Saddam had ties to these terror groups so to say that he didn't have ties to terror is most definitely lying. Thanks for the laugh though!

Shall I go through a list of other nations, some with much larger populations that require liberation from oppressive governments?

One step at a time Canada6! One step at a time. First, start with the Muslim Extremists first. They are a bigger threat.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! You mean Al Qaeda. What about Hamas, Al Aqsa Marters Brigade, and Islamic Jihad? HAHAHAHAHA!! Saddam had ties to these terror groups so to say that he didn't have ties to terror is most definitely lying. Thanks for the laugh though!

One step at a time Canada6! One step at a time. First, start with the Muslim Extremists first. They are a bigger threat.

Hamas is considered by most of the world to be a militant political party, only in the States, Britain and Isreal is it considered a Terrorist organisation. Al Aqsa is the armed wing of a ligitimate political party (similar to Nkoswlesiswe of the ANC, or the Girodinist Resitance of the De Gaullist party), Islamic Jihad is the only possible terrorist organisation listed here.

The US's problem with terrorism stems in part from her unguided support of Pakistan's SIS during the Afgan-Soviet war, and failing during the eighties and nineties to diswade the Saudies from hardline policies. Likewise, a failure to deal with autocratic regemes here and now will lead to rise of unorthodox threats in the future from such places as my home Zimbabwe, Burma, Equitorial Gunie, Namibia, Belarus, Nepal etc etc. I do not foresee acts of military agression, but don't fool yourself if you think you won't have significant problems as a result of foregn policy failures.

A big one? Non-cooperation with UN Weapons Inspectors as outlined in the Cease-fire agreement.
Mr Blix was asking for more time, not for more bombs, IIRC.



Those reasons being he had something to hide? By not complying with UN Weapons inspectors, he showed the world that he had something to hide. If he just fully cooperated and let them do their work, I don't think there would've been 17 UN Resolutions on Iraq and our forces wouldn't be there today, enforcing those UN Resolutions.
Probably Mr Hussein was hiding something different... remember your statements about unknown objectives earlier in this thread? According to your logic, Saddam could very well have had some hidden objectives, not connected with WMD in any way, in refusing to admit inspectors, couldn't he?


Some of them yes and others was for their non-compliance with previous UN Resolutions. Only so many resolutions before someone decides to enforce those already on the books.
Who is to determine whether the UN Resolution is violated or not? Exactly, the UN itself... where is the determination of the Security Council that UNSCR 1441 was violated? Nowhere.

...
Bull. No where in that charter does it state that a nation gave up its right to wage war. No where. ...
From whence do you derive the right of the sovereign country to wage war?

Mr Blix was asking for more time, not for more bombs, IIRC.

Well if Saddam had complied in the first place, there wouldn't have been any need for the bombs.

Probably Mr Hussein was hiding something different... remember your statements about unknown objectives earlier in this thread? According to your logic, Saddam could very well have had some hidden objectives, not connected with WMD in any way, in refusing to admit inspectors, couldn't he?

I wouldn't be surprised if he did have other objectives. The fact remains though that he didn't cooperate with the inspectors and therefore, was in violation of the Cease Fire and UN Resolutions.

Who is to determine whether the UN Resolution is violated or not? Exactly, the UN itself... where is the determination of the Security Council that UNSCR 1441 was violated? Nowhere.

I believe that 1441 declared Saddam in Breach of other resolutions. Interesting isn't it? We've known he was in breach of them and we didn't need the UN to tell us that. Anyone connected in anyway with that part of the world could've told you he was in breach of UN Resolutions and a Cease-Fire. Resolution 1441 confirmed this as has other resolutions as well. As for violation of 1441, anyone can see that even that was violated. The second resolution would've said that and you know what happened? Threatened veto by those that agreed to support the 2nd resolution if they voted for the 1st one. They agreed to 1441 but then reneged on their promise on the 2nd Resolution.

From whence do you derive the right of the sovereign country to wage war?

The US Constitution. As far as I know, we are still under the US Constitution. Therefor, we'll follow the US Constitution and no one else's constitution.

PROVE THE DAMN THING WAS MANIPULATED! You can't prove it so why are you still holding onto this piece of fiction?Either you have no clue as to who Scott Ritter is or you're simply calling Scott Ritter a liar. Either way you are showing the kind of ignorance it takes to be a Bush supporter.

And as a sovereign nation, we can spy on whoever the hell we want.And Iraq as a sovereign nation was expected to maneuver any way they could to defend their sovereignty. Not co-operating with UN inspectors was one way.

*yawns*

Just keep telling yourself that. Your wrong but just keep telling yourself that.You are ignorant. The Iraq invasion violates the UN charter. This is common knowledge. Once again you've missed the bus.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/11/sprj.irq.un/index.html

Kofi Annan - "The invasion of Iraq without the security council's approval will be a violation of the UN charter".

The Iraqi invasion did not gain the approval of the security council hence it is a violation of the UN charter. I can't be more clear and direct than this.

Nowhere in that charter does it state that nations gave up its sovereign right to wage war on another nation. And I repeat... nowhere in that charter does it say that a nation cannot arm itself.

Yes it is.The Invasion of Iraq was not in compliance with UN law.

Oh really? I haven't seen the proof in that memo and I actually read the memo. No proof in there whatsoever on what your spouting. As for it being a forgery, don't blame the US for that. You'll have to blame the Brits on that one."The IAEA had ruled the documents a forgery, and former U.S. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson had criticised the George W. Bush administration as seeking to craft evidence to support a decision to invade Iraq, rather than to accept his judgement that the link was false."

But still you will refuse to believe.

Correct my friend. It is part of the War on Terror.In name... yes. In actuality no it is not. The invasion of Iraq was planned well before the war on terror began. The war on terror was used as an excuse to get public support from bible tossing morons for the Iraq Invasion... rather than for bringing Bin-Laden to justice.

What about Hamas, Al Aqsa Marters Brigade, and Islamic Jihad? Saddam had ties to these terror groups so to say that he didn't have ties to terror is most definitely lying. Thanks for the laugh though!Those terrorist groups have never attacked the United States of America. The 9/11 comission also states... "The independent 9-11 Commission concluded there was no "collaborative operational relationship" between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, and "Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.""

One step at a time Canada6! One step at a time. First, start with the Muslim Extremists first. They are a bigger threat.Then why haven't billions been spent on finding Bin Laden rather than on Iraq. Iraq was not a muslim extremist state. Saddam's right hand man for instance was Tariq Aziz a catholic.

...
I believe that 1441 declared Saddam in Breach of other resolutions. Interesting isn't it? We've known he was in breach of them and we didn't need the UN to tell us that. Anyone connected in anyway with that part of the world could've told you he was in breach of UN Resolutions and a Cease-Fire. Resolution 1441 confirmed this as has other resolutions as well. As for violation of 1441, anyone can see that even that was violated. The second resolution would've said that and you know what happened? Threatened veto by those that agreed to support the 2nd resolution if they voted for the 1st one. They agreed to 1441 but then reneged on their promise on the 2nd Resolution.
It is for the UN Security Council, not for the US, Corneliu, or Olantia, to decide whether the resoluttion was broken or not.

The US neither put the second resolution for a vote nor exercised the right of every country to ask the opinion of the whole General Assembly in an emergency special session case of the deadlock in the Security Council, as enunciated in 1950 Uniting for Peace resolution.

By your logic, nothing prevents, for example, Russia, China, and Belorussia from attacking Israel in order to remove Israeli settlements from West Bank and returning the land to the Palestinians.

The US Constitution. As far as I know, we are still under the US Constitution. Therefor, we'll follow the US Constitution and no one else's constitution.
I am not talking about the US, I am talking about the right of any sovereign country to wage war. From whence do you derive that right?

BTW, this right is not in the US Constitution... ;)

Either you have no clue as to who Scott Ritter is or you're simply calling Scott Ritter a liar. Either way you are showing the kind of ignorance it takes to be a Bush supporter.

You haven't proved anything to me so I'm done with this.

And Iraq as a sovereign nation was expected to maneuver any possible to defend their sovereignty. Not co-operating with UN inspectors was one way.

And it cost him didn't it? He AGREED to cooperate with inspectors. By doing that, he gave up his right to not co-operate with them. Since he didn't cooperate, he suffered the consequences.

You are ignorant. The Iraq invasion violates the UN charter. This is common knowledge. Once again you've missed the bus.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/11/sprj.irq.un/index.html

Once again, your showing yourself to be spoon fed by those that don't like the fact that the UN was being bought off by Saddam Hussein. Oil for Food Scandal anyone?

Kofi Annan - "The invasion of Iraq without the security council's approval will be a violation of the UN charter".

And he wouldn't be the Secretary-General if he didn't say that. Next?

The Iraqi invasion did not gain the approval of the security council hence it is a violation of the UN charter. I can't be more clear and direct than this.

Do I have to list every war that didn't have UN Approval?

And I repeat... nowhere in that charter does it say that a nation cannot arm itself.

Your right there but I repeat that no nation gave up its right to go to war with another nation.

The Invasion of Iraq was not in compliance with UN law.

*yawns* It is in compliance with US Law and since we didn't violate international law by doing what we did, then the war was completely legal. You don't need UN Approval to make something legal dude. About time you realize that.

"The IAEA had ruled the documents a forgery, and former U.S. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson had criticised the George W. Bush administration as seeking to craft evidence to support a decision to invade Iraq, rather than to accept his judgement that the link was false."

And his wife got him that nigerian assignment but the information came from the British so would you please stop trying to implicate the US in that affair?

But still you will refuse to believe.

And your still showing yourself to be ignorant.

In name... yes. In actuality no it is not. The invasion of Iraq was planned well before the war on terror began. The war on terror was used as an excuse to get public support from bible tossing morons for the Iraq Invasion... rather than for bringing Bin-Laden to justice.

Just continue to believe the crap your spouting.

Those terrorist groups have never attacked the United States of America. The 9/11 comission also states... "The independent 9-11 Commission concluded there was no "collaborative operational relationship" between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, and "Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.""

You mentioned Al Qaeda only in this quote but totally ignored the fact that Saddam had ties to terror. Thanks for playing.

I am not talking about the US, I am talking about the right of any sovereign country to wage war. From whence do you derive that right?

BTW, this right is not in the US Constitution... ;)

Derive? It's no different from raising a military, taxing it's population or building roads. The collective does what is in it's best interest (one hopes!), thus it declares war when necessary.

At least, that's how it's worked for the past 8000 years or so. ;)

I am not talking about the US, I am talking about the right of any sovereign country to wage war. From whence do you derive that right?

BTW, this right is not in the US Constitution... ;)

Congress has the power to declare war yada yada yada. It is in the US constitution unless you can prove otherwise. Also, the president has to request Congress to declare it as well.

Yes it is in the Constitution.

Derive? It's no different from raising a military, taxing it's population or building roads. The collective does what is in it's best interest (one hopes!), thus it declares war when necessary.

At least, that's how it's worked for the past 8000 years or so. ;)
Just like having slaves, eh? ;)

Seriusly--there is no 'right to wage war' under the US Constitution or internatiional law. The US laws give to the President the power to wage war, and that's a different thing.

Congress has the power to declare war yada yada yada. It is in the US constitution unless you can prove otherwise. Also, the president has to request Congress to declare it as well.

Yes it is in the Constitution.
The right to declare war is vested in the US Congress. The Constitution doesn't give the right to wage war to anyone. The 'strict constructionist' like you should've known that. BTW, no declaration of war was made...

It is for the UN Security Council, not for the US, Corneliu, or Olantia, to decide whether the resoluttion was broken or not.

Anyone with a brainstem can see that it was violated. Wether the UNSC says so or not is irrelevent.

The US neither put the second resolution for a vote nor exercised the right of every country to ask the opinion of the whole General Assembly in an emergency special session case of the deadlock in the Security Council, as enunciated in 1950 Uniting for Peace resolution.

Hmmm... incase you didn't follow it as closely as I did, the reason it wasn't put to a vote was because Russia and France would've vetoed it. So what's the point? They said they would veto it AFTER STATING TO POWELL THAT THEY WOULDN"T! No wonder there was a French backlash from those that were both for and against this war. As for a Russian backlash, no one likes the russians anyway.

By your logic, nothing prevents, for example, Russia, China, and Belorussia from attacking Israel in order to remove Israeli settlements from West Bank and returning the land to the Palestinians.

Israel is in the process of withdrawing those settlements now. As for your assertions, correct. They could've enforced those resolutions but no they didn't.

The right to declare war is vested in the US Congress. The Constitution doesn't give the right to wage war to anyone. The 'strict constructionist' like you should've known that. BTW, no declaration of war was made...

The right is implied dude. If you have the power to declare war, it gives the US the right to wage war on another country provided that there is an authorization of force OR a declaration of war.

Anyone with a brainstem can see that it was violated. Wether the UNSC says so or not is irrelevent.
Really? Wow... how about that statement--'Anyone with a brainstem can see that the US is an aggressor!' Seriously, your statement is senseless...



Hmmm... incase you didn't follow it as closely as I did, the reason it wasn't put to a vote was because Russia and France would've vetoed it. So what's the point? They said they would veto it AFTER STATING TO POWELL THAT THEY WOULDN"T! No wonder there was a French backlash from those that were both for and against this war. As for a Russian backlash, no one likes the russians anyway.
Those French and those Russians were acting within their rights according to the Charter, weren't they?

So why not address to the whole General Assembly?

Israel is in the process of withdrawing those settlements now. As for your assertions, correct. They could've enforced those resolutions but no they didn't.
'If you only knew, my poor Jerusalem...' And the US would've stood by and watched how the Israel is being destroyed?

The right is implied dude. If you have the power to declare war, it gives the US the right to wage war on another country provided that there is an authorization of force OR a declaration of war.
Not the right--the power. Nothing about 'authorization of force' in the Constitution. Some strict constructionist... I predict you'll uphold the right to privacy soon! :)

Not the right--the power. Nothing about 'authorization of force' in the Constitution. Some strict constructionist... I predict you'll uphold the right to privacy soon! :)

Funny thing is, I already do support the right to privacy. :rolleyes: Always have supported the right to privacy.

War On Terroism-To be Countinued...

You haven't proved anything to me so I'm done with this.You're just not reading or understanding or refusing to aknowledge, what I'm writing, which is completely diferent.
And it cost him didn't it? He AGREED to cooperate with inspectors. By doing that, he gave up his right to not co-operate with them. Since he didn't cooperate, he suffered the consequences.From his point of view he didn't agree to co-operate with US spies posing as UN inspectors.

Once again, your showing yourself to be spoon fed by those that don't like the fact that the UN was being bought off by Saddam Hussein. Oil for Food Scandal anyone?On the other hand the US has paid for favourable votes in cash to several 3rd world nations. It's become sort of an American M.O. by now.

And he wouldn't be the Secretary-General if he didn't say that. Next? But it's undeniably true, and it's undeniably what happened, rendering your previous comments on the issue of the UN charter violation a perfect demonstration of your errant and retarded opinions.

Do I have to list every war that didn't have UN Approval?It's up to you. I'm not discussing other wars at this present time.

*yawns* It is in compliance with US Law and since we didn't violate international law by doing what we did, then the war was completely legal. You don't need UN Approval to make something legal dude. About time you realize that.Slavery was once legal in the US. That didn't make it moral or correct.

And his wife got him that nigerian assignment but the information came from the British so would you please stop trying to implicate the US in that affair?The news came from the british but the Bush administration was eager to make it pass as real proof when it was clearly told to them that it was a forgery.

And your still showing yourself to be ignorant.Sorry you're the one who said that the Iraq war did not violate a UN charter, that makes you ignorant.

You mentioned Al Qaeda only in this quote but totally ignored the fact that Saddam had ties to terror. Thanks for playing.
He has ties to terror but non that has ever attacked a NATO member, including the US.

Oh and Corneliu... just for the fun of it... take this test for me.
http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?testid=17675020579094199926

Post your results and be honest.

Just to be an absolute pain...American war of independence was never won by the Americans....technically you didn't exist as a sovreign nation, so the British lost to themselves :)
They became a sovereign nation once the Declaration was approved. Up until that moment they referred to themselves as the United Colonies, and from that moment on referred to themselves as the United States. They were a fully-developed sovereign nation at that time with geographical boundaries, self-government, and an army. And British edicts no longer carried any weight, except in territories they occupied militarily. They qualified as sovereign in every respect.

Sovereignty was established in 1776. The final victory over Britain was secured in 1781, and recognized by treaty in 1783. That victory was accomplished by the United States, not the United Colonies. The United Colonies achieved victory in the French and Indian War, and you'll notice that nobody included it in the list of American wars.

Originally Posted by Markreich
Derive? It's no different from raising a military, taxing it's population or building roads. The collective does what is in it's best interest (one hopes!), thus it declares war when necessary.

At least, that's how it's worked for the past 8000 years or so.

Just like having slaves, eh? ;)

Yep. Or serfs and boyars. :D

Seriusly--there is no 'right to wage war' under the US Constitution or international law. The US laws give to the President the power to wage war, and that's a different thing.

Er... maybe I wasn't clear: It's an inherent right, just like the right to breathe air. You seem to think that this right needs to be "granted" somewhere.

If you really want to be nit-picky: US Constitution, Article I, Section 8:

"To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; "

As far as the US President is concearned: The President cannot wage war. He must appeal to the Congress for all but short missions. (At least in theory).

The thread was "American Wars"

Now I too, may miss a few, and it is lengthy so pick out what conflicts you like and go from there.

The first war (and by war, I mean armed conflict between nations and powers, declared, undeclared, whatever) was the so called French and Indian War. I believe the other nations may call it something else. The British and American Colonists defeated the French and the British took Canada.

The Revolutionary War 1776
btw to not call this a war, because it can be classified as something else invalidates half the thread, especially after WWI.

The American Colonists defeated the British. The Friench came in towards the end after the Continental Army won several engagements. Also the British were worried about war with France in the Sugar Islands (also known as the West Indies or Caribbean) The War was fought for American sovergnty and the Americans won. The French helped, quite a bit, but the Americans won the war with their European style army, not the minute men as people believe. The war was won by the Americans ability to go muzzle to muzzle with the British and survive if not win. The militias and minute men typically ran away at the first volley.

Miami Campaign 1790-5
US troops and militia in the Ohio Valley
Indians defeated two expedions into Ohio near Ft Wayne and the Wabash River. Gen Wayne then led a third that destroyed the Indians, some within miles of the British Fort Miami. The British and Americans signed Jays Treaty which led to the British withdrawl of the area and the Greenville Treaty ceeded the lands of the tribes to the United States and led to the settlement of the Northwest Territory.

Quasi war with the French Navy (1797-1801) The US Navy fought French Privateers in the West Indies. They captured 22 ships and the French agreed to and Honorable Peace. The Americans won the engagements and also the war as the French backed their privateers off American shipping.

Barbary Wars 1801-5
The US Navy and Marines defeat Barbary Coirsairs after the US refused to pay blackmail for free passage in the Southern Med. "Millions for Defense, but not one cent for tribute"

Tippeconoe 1811
A rather indecisive campaign against Indians in the Indiana area. The Indians lost the battle and several villages, but were not soundly defeated.

The War of 1812 1812-4
The United States entered war illprepared and were defeated in Canada and the British occupued Detroit. After this Commadore Perry defeated/destroyed the British fleet on Lake Erie and Gen. Harrison (later president) recaptured Detroit and pushed into Canada winning a battle on the Thames River allowing American contol of the area.
In 1814 Commadore MacDonough defeated the British on Lake Champlaign forcing the British to withdraw their 10,000 man army back to Canada The British then seized Washington with a naval action and burned the White House. The Duke of Wellington, when he heard of the Lake Champlaign battle and faced with the costs of fighting Napoleon urged a settlement and the Treaty of Ghent (Dec. 24 1814) restored all taken territory, end of fighting and a commission to settle border disputes.
After the treaty was signed, the British attacked New Orleans and were out and out routed by Gen. Andrew Jackson. The Battle of New Orleans and the Battle of Chalmette are considered two of the US Army's greatest victories of all time.

Semenole Conflict 1835-42
The US Army defeated the Semenoles in Florida after several early defeats.
Blackhawk War 1832
Gen Atkinson and force of Regulars and militia defeat Blackhawk and the Sauk and Fox indians in Illinois.

Mexican War 1846-7
The War started after America annexed Texas.
The Americans conquered New Mexico and California, then ended the War by capturing Vera Cruz and Mexico City from a well trained and equipped Mexican army.

The Civil War, War of Northern Agression or War Between the States (1861-5)
America v. America. Americans and commanders on both sides proved that they had the will and ability to fight. The British supported the Confederacy, but refused to join the fight. It has been argued that either army was the equal of any at the time. That is debatable, since the US and CSA armies were concentrated and the other world powers were Empire Building and more spread out.

Indian Wars (1860s - 1880's depending on whom you ask
The US Army (both infantry and cavalry) defeated the Plains Indians through a war of attrition, despite the Battle of the Little Big Horn.

Spanish American War 1898
Cuba was made independant, the US gained Guam, Puerto Rico and the Phillipeans and recognition as an international force due to their victories.



Boxer Rebellion 1900
The American contingent, some 2,500 men under Maj. Gen. Adna R. Chaffee, consisted of the 9th Infantry and 14th Infantry, elements of the 6th Cavalry, the 5th Artillery, and a Marine battalion. High points of the fighting en route were at Pei-tsang, which fell on 5 August 1900, and a severe engagement for American and British contingents at Yang-tsun on 6 August. In the seizure of the Outer City of Peking on 14 August, elements of the 14th Infantry scaled the Tartar Wall, planted the first foreign flag ever to fly there, and opened the way for British units to relieve the legation compound. On the following day "Reilly's Battery" (Capt. Henry J. Reilly's Light Battery F, 5th Artillery) blasted open the gates on the American front in the assault on the Inner City. -From the Army's web page as I didn't know much about it

WWI (1917-8)
The US sends 2 million soldiers to the battlefields of France. The Germans try a desperate offensive to win the War before the Americans can arrive. German Forces remain undefeated in the field, but Kaiser Wilhelm II is forced to abdicate and the Germans sue for peace.

WWII (1941-5)
This has been discused in depth. The British and Americans in the West and Soviets in the East destroy Germany. Russian Man Power and American Airpower overcome the Wermacht.
America defeated Japan

The Cold War doesn't count by my definition (it's my rule, I'll interpret it as I see fit) :D

Korean Conflict (1950-53)
The US was restrined by the UN (for good or ill) and the stated goal was to prevent communist take over of the south. They did that. They also suffered several catastrophic defeats especially early. The beginning of Civilians dictating strategy.

Vietnam 62-73
Call it what ever you want. The fact is the United States of America lost the war. Through no fault of the military. I will not argue that the NVA won in the end, but when allowed to fight, the Army and Marines never lost a major engagement. The NVA while unconventional, used some regular tactics. They had artillery and other modern weapons. The French found this out the hard way at Dien Bien Phu.

I'll discus the others in a moment

Now as for major wars
The Revolution - Won
War of 1812 - Won (America was not as inept as people like to think, the British left the NW territory and left the maritime sailors alone)
Mexican War - Won
Spanish Armerican War - Won
WWI - a draw won due to politic afterwards
WWII - Won
Korea - we'll say a draw
Vietnam - a draw lost by politics later
Gulf War I and II - Won. The Army defeated every enemy formation it faced. To say that America didn't win because some terrorists are still blowing things up is like saying Germany didn't defeat France in 1940 because the Resistance was still running around causing havok.
I didn't even get to Grenada, Panama etc in the latter staes of the 20th century.

You're just not reading or understanding or refusing to aknowledge, what I'm writing, which is completely diferent.

I understand it just fine. However, that doesn't prove that what he says is accurate. Its his opinion. Big difference.

From his point of view he didn't agree to co-operate with US spies posing as UN inspectors.

And you have proof that they are actually spies? Saddam was paranoid you know.

On the other hand the US has paid for favourable votes in cash to several 3rd world nations.

Proof please?

It's become sort of an American M.O. by now.

Again, proof please?

But it's undeniably true, and it's undeniably what happened, rendering your previous comments on the issue of the UN charter violation a perfect demonstration of your errant and retarded opinions.

Wrong for the 3rd time.

It's up to you. I'm not discussing other wars at this present time.

About the 3 Arab/Israeli wars? No UN Authorization (first one took place shortly after the UN was fully established and that Arab states ignored UN resolution there too), how about the Indian/Pakistani wars! No authorization there. The Ugandian/Tanzanian War? No Un authorization there. Kosovo. No UN Resolution on that one either.

Slavery was once legal in the US. That didn't make it moral or correct.

Your point?

The news came from the british but the Bush administration was eager to make it pass as real proof when it was clearly told to them that it was a forgery.

The Brits still gave us the info. If they said it was forged then why give it to us? Oh wait, they didn't have to but they did anyway. Go figure. Go spread your lies somewhere else please?

Sorry you're the one who said that the Iraq war did not violate a UN charter, that makes you ignorant.

Sorry but the UN Charter didn't take away our right to wage war on another country. That makes you ignorant instead.

He has ties to terror but non that has ever attacked a NATO member, including the US.

Don't matter. This is a WAR ON TERROR! You understand that that means we go after nations for supporting terror right?

Don't matter. This is a WAR ON TERROR! You understand that that means we go after nations for supporting terror right?
And Saddam was supporting terrorists how? Oh yeah, that's right, he wasn't. Meanwhile, Bush is literally holding hands with the royalty from one nation giving the most financial support and manpower to terrorist organizations.

I understand it just fine. However, that doesn't prove that what he says is accurate. Its his opinion. Big difference.His opinion no... That's his sworn testimony as to what his orders where. We're talking about a US marine here.

And you have proof that they are actually spies? Saddam was paranoid you know.Some of them were, it's common knowledge that Operation Desert Fox was based on military intellgence gathered from imposters posing as UN inspectors.
Proof please?Again it's common knowledge. Just like they paid/bought polluting quotas in order to not violate the Kyoto accord in the past.

Wrong for the 3rd time.The Iraqi war was a violation of the UN charter for it did not gain the aproval of the UN security council. This is historical fact. For the 3rd time.

Your point?You're dumb as a fucking door knob. I said slavery was once legal in the US and that doesn't make it moral or correct. The Iraqi invasion is legal in the US and that doesn't make it moral or correct. It's clear to me that Morality and the law are two different things that sometimes coincide and other times they do not.

The Brits still gave us the info. If they said it was forged then why give it to us? Oh wait, they didn't have to but they did anyway. Go figure.NATO members share counter-terrorism information. It's common practise. The USA was eager to gather information on Iraq including bogus information. They were advised not to pay attention to that bit of information but they did anyway.

Sorry but the UN Charter didn't take away our right to wage war on another country.The UN charter says that no nation can wage war without approval of the security council. To do so is to violate the UN charter.



Don't matter. This is a WAR ON TERROR! You understand that that means we go after nations for supporting terror right?Then why haven't they gone after Bin-Laden first with everything they have until he is caught?

Funny thing is, I already do support the right to privacy. :rolleyes: Always have supported the right to privacy.
Then you aren't 'very' strict contructionist. ;)

The existence of the right to privacy was definitely established by the most illustious Justices of the Supreme Court in several landmark legal cases, AFAIK... Establishing the right of anyone to wage war is something that the most excellent black-robed chaps have not done yet. You have to concede that point.

Then you aren't 'very' strict contructionist. ;)

The existence of the right to privacy was definitely established by the most illustious Justices of the Supreme Court in several landmark legal cases, AFAIK... Establishing the right of anyone to wage war is something that the most excellent black-robed chaps have not done yet. You have to concede that point.

Nope. Don't have to concede the point. Why? Because of what the Constitution says regarding war.

Yep. Or serfs and boyars. :D
Don't forget kholops! :)



Er... maybe I wasn't clear: It's an inherent right, just like the right to breathe air. You seem to think that this right needs to be "granted" somewhere.
The inherent rights, as well as obligations, of countries definitely exist, and they are called 'customary international law' and 'general principles of law'. I cannot find the right of waging war anywhere... there is an abundance of rights, even the right of the conquest, BTW... enjoyable reading! :)

If you really want to be nit-picky: US Constitution, Article I, Section 8:

"To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; "

As far as the US President is concearned: The President cannot wage war. He must appeal to the Congress for all but short missions. (At least in theory).
That is a bit more complicated. The War Powers Clause of the Constitution prohibits anyone except the Congress to declare war, that's for sure. But it is silent upon the question of waging war per se. Beginiing with Truman, the US presidents have maintained that they can use military because of their powers as Commander-in-Chief. The constitutionality of this point of view is debatable--this is a real grey area. The fact that the US President has to be empowered to make a decision of using or not using the US nuclear arsenal depending on circumstances without a prior notification of the Congress doesn't help either.

Nope. Don't have to concede the point. Why? Because of what the Constitution says regarding war.
Show me the Supreme Court decision affirming the right of anyone to wage war.

Show me the Supreme Court decision affirming the right of anyone to wage war.

I don't have too because of what the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES says regarding war.

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! :(
That's ridiculous. We had a goal, to keep South Vietnam capitalist. We didn't. Just because we got out before it happened doesn't change anything. We accomplished nothing. That's one for the L column. Only a revisionist could possibly look at that and say it's a win.

I don't have too because of what the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES says regarding war.
To whom the US Constitution reserves the right of waging war?

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

People are using some real weasel arguments to get out of admitting that the US lost in Vietnam. It's not technically a war, but it was a conflict. A conflict that we lost.

To whom the US Constitution reserves the right of waging war?

To whom? To the United States. Our constitution gives the Power to the President to ask Congress for a Declaration of War on any nation.

america also lost the conflict in russia in the 20's, when they tried to destroythe bolshevik goverment, (thebritish also helped) annd lost. I forget the anme of the war though.

To whom? To the United States. Our constitution gives the Power to the President to ask Congress for a Declaration of War on any nation.
You're creating consitutional rights out of nowhere here. The right to declare war is not tantampont to the right to wage war. Different wording, y'know... what will happen if we are to begin changing words in the Constitution, eh? ;)

The right to wage war is not among the rights enumerated in the US Constitution. True?

You're creating consitutional rights out of nowhere here.

How when the Constitution is explicit on this issue?

You mentioned Al Qaeda only in this quote but totally ignored the fact that Saddam had ties to terror. Thanks for playing.

If you don't remember, the U.S. has ties to terror as well. Al Qaeda, the Talliban, those Cuban terrorists in Florida(who bombed a civilian airliner in the 90's, but were saved from retrobution by the CIA, who armed and trained them). Have you watched Fahrenheit 9/11?

How when the Constitution is explicit on this issue?
Nice. I repeat.

The right to wage war is not among the rights enumerated in the US Constitution. True?

You're creating consitutional rights out of nowhere here. The right to declare war is not tantampont to the right to wage war. Different wording, y'know... what will happen if we are to begin changing words in the Constitution, eh? ;)

The right to wage war is not among the rights enumerated in the US Constitution. True?
I may be missing something here, but are you saying that the government has the right to declare war but not wage war? Isn't one kind of implied by the other? Otherwise it's a pretty empty declaration.

here is my 2 cents

Revolutionary- W
1812- D
Mexican American-W
Civil-W (Preserved the Union)
Spanish American- W
WW1-W
WW2-W
Korea-W
Vietnam-D (Withdrew i don't consider it a loss because we would have defeated them if we stayed in vietnam, (The U.S had 57,000 Casulties compared to VCs 1.5 million.)
Desert Storm/Shield-W
Enduring Freedom-W
Iraqi Freedom-W

I think that is a damn good record myself.

america also lost the conflict in russia in the 20's, when they tried to destroythe bolshevik goverment, (thebritish also helped) annd lost. I forget the anme of the war though.

That wasn't an actual war; US and British troops were sent to support the White government against the Red government, the Whites being the form of government in Russia until 1917 and the Reds being the Bolshevik Communists attempting to overthrow this government. The Reds won, but the US never really dedicated much more than some manpower.

As for Constitutional rights, Congress is the ONLY entity with the power to declare war on a sovereign nation, and the ONLY entity that can appropriate funds towards such an effort. The President, of course, can push for a declaration of war. However, the President can issue Executive Orders to aid in the war effort (such as the rationing of products during WWII by FDR).

The President does have the power to dedicate troops abroad in what would be a police action without a formal declaration of war. However, seeing this as a possible enemy against the system of Checks and Balances, Congress passed the War Powers Act which allows the President to dedicate troops to an unofficial conflict without Congressional approval for only 60 days, with an additional 30 days for evacuation. This has never been successfully used against the President since it was created. This is because the President simply needs to change his wording from "sending US forces into a conflict/police action" to "sending US forces on a peacekeeping mission."

EDIT: Surperier, as I stated in an earlier post, the conclusion of the War of 1812 brought both Britain and the US to status quo, with the US gaining international respect for holding off the invasion and impressment being stopped. So, I'd consider it more as a stalemate.

I may be missing something here, but are you saying that the government has the right to declare war but not wage war? Isn't one kind of implied by the other? Otherwise it's a pretty empty declaration.
Of course no. My point of view is: the government has the right to declare war (broadly--I don't want to delve into international law now) and the power to wage war.

Corneliu...

Take this test... you might learn something.
http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?testid=17675020579094199926

here is my 2 cents

Revolutionary- W
1812- D
Mexican American-W
Civil-W (Preserved the Union)
Spanish American- W
WW1-W
WW2-W
Korea-W
Vietnam-D (Withdrew i don't consider it a loss because we would have defeated them if we stayed in vietnam, (The U.S had 57,000 Casulties compared to VCs 1.5 million.)
Desert Storm/Shield-W
Enduring Freedom-W
Iraqi Freedom-W

I think that is a damn good record myself.

Ya, you might have been able to win if you stayed. But you didn't, and because of that, the NV and the Viet Cong won, because they forced you out.

P.S.- What's "enduring freedom"? Never heard that before...

here is my 2 cents

Vietnam-D (Withdrew i don't consider it a loss because we would have defeated them if we stayed in vietnam, (The U.S had 57,000 Casulties compared to VCs 1.5 million.)
.
Just because we COULD have won doesn't mean we didn't lose. And war isn't a numbers game. If South Vietnam was still capitalist that would have been a win. Make all the excuses you want, but we accomplished nothing in 10 years of fighting and ended up retreating without success. That's a loss, plain and simple.

I wonder if I could save some time here...

Some of us have discussed this very thing tens of times. Every time the result has been the same: "My head is too thick to..." -vs- "It's astonishing you can see it like that, cos my myopia tells it is like this!"

Most times, those views don't meet. This is yet a nother time. A time to ask who made a better impression... C or O

O here, I have to say

Of course no. My point of view is: the government has the right to declare war (broadly--I don't want to delve into international law now) and the power to wage war.
I dunno man, isn't that kinda splitting hairs?

P.S.- What's "enduring freedom"? Never heard that before... the war on terror ( invasion of Afghanistan)

also that is why i put draw under Vietnam and not win. because we would have if we didn't withdraw. you can not put politics as a loss if your military kicks ass.

the war on terror ( invasion of Afghanistan)

also that is why i put draw under Vietnam and not win. because we would have if we didn't withdraw. you can not put politics as a loss if your military kicks ass.
If you lose you can't call it a win just because you could have won. I could have made straight A's if I had studied harder but I didn't.

And the US military killed a lot of people but they didn't defeat the other side which is really all that matters. There is nothing that says they could have won if they had been there 100 years. The US eventually lost their will to fight, and thus surrendered and went home. There is no two ways about it, that's a loss.

One could also put it this way. We kept the North out of the South in Korea, We tried to keep the North out of the South in Vietnam, and for both reasons helping them and preventing the spread of Communism. Well, speaking in general terms, We won those wars in in the late 80's and early 90's when the Soviet Union, the epitome of Communism collapsed. Earlier on, we cut one arm off the dragon, and we missed on arm, but later on we struct right to the heart of beast, and brought it to its knees. So in the end, who won? I think America.....Just my opinon though, just my opinion.....

I dunno man, isn't that kinda splitting hairs?
A bit. :) But we are talking about the Constitution, and the basic law of the country simply must not be interpreted sloppily.

Corneliu said that there is such right in the Constitution, I pointed out that there is none. He showed me the right to declare war (reserved to the Congress--this fact alone shows that it is not the same as waging war, we can hardly expect the esteemed lawmakers to go over the top with guns blazing). I admitted this and added that it is a different right.

The Constitution says nothing upon the subject of waging war. That's a fact.

P.S.- What's "enduring freedom"? Never heard that before...

Afghanistan operation.

One could also put it this way. We kept the North out of the South in Korea, We tried to keep the North out of the South in Vietnam, and for both reasons helping them and preventing the spread of Communism. Well, speaking in general terms, We won those wars in in the late 80's and early 90's when the Soviet Union, the epitome of Communism collapsed. Earlier on, we cut one arm off the dragon, and we missed another arm, but later on we struct right to the heart of beast, and brought it to its knees. So in the end, who won? I think America.....Just my opinon though, just my opinion.....

I Love Bush because he tickles me.

Take this test allready...
http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?testid=17675020579094199926

And war isn't a numbers game.

Now this is a load of crock. War is a numbers game Jah Bootie.

Take this test allready...
http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?testid=17675020579094199926

I never said I love Bush and he tickles me. I never said that Canada6. As for your test, I don't have to take it if I don't want too and I choose not too.

Now this is a load of crock. War is a numbers game Jah Bootie.
What I mean is, I don't win a war if I killed more of your soldiers than you did of mine but I don't accomplish any of my strategic goals. If that were true, we would say Germany defeated Russia in WWII.

What I mean is, I don't win a war if I killed more of your soldiers than you did of mine but I don't accomplish any of my strategic goals. If that were true, we would say Germany defeated Russia in WWII.

No but you win wars by winning battles. Germany lost the war because they didn't take Moscow and were driven back across the continent from both sides.

Vietnam, we kept the South free from the North until we signed a peace treaty with the North and pulled out. After and only after, we left did the North launch an all out offensive against South Vietnam and took her over.

As for your test, I don't have to take it if I don't want too and I choose not too.I know why. :D

I never said I love Bush and he tickles me. I never said that Canada6. As for your test, I don't have to take it if I don't want too and I choose not too.
I bet you take it anyway and just pretend not to. :)

I bet you take it anyway and just pretend not to. :)I have no doubt about that whatsoever.

I know why. :D

Doubtful.

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

Thankfully I can't see the US Government getting any stupider.

I bet you take it anyway and just pretend not to. :)

Nope never took the test.

No but you win wars by winning battles. Germany lost the war because they didn't take Moscow and were driven back across the continent from both sides.

Vietnam, we kept the South free from the North until we signed a peace treaty with the North and pulled out. After and only after, we left did the North launch an all out offensive against South Vietnam and took her over.
Well, winning battles is a good way to win a war. But if you win 1000 battles and still don't accomplish what you set out to accomplish, then you lose. Our goal in Vietnam wasn't to fight for 10 years and lose 50,000 soldiers and then sign a peace treaty that basically allowed North Vietnam to do what it wanted in South Vietnam. We could have done that on day one. The mission was to stamp out the Viet Cong and keep South Vietnam independent from North Vietnam. We lost when we left without our mission accomplished.

The Expatriate
Achtung! You are 30% brainwashworthy, 18% antitolerant, and 23% blindly patriotic
Congratulations! You are not susceptible to brainwashing, your values and cares extend beyond the borders of your own country, and your Blind Patriotism ("patriotism" for short) does not reach unhealthy levels. In Germany in the 30s, you would've left the country.

One bad scenario -- as I hypothetically project you back in time -- is that you just wouldn't have cared one way or the other about Nazism. Maybe politics don't interest you enough. But the fact that you took this test means they probably do. I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt.

Did you know that many of the smartest Germans departed prior to the beginning of World War II, because they knew some evil shit was brewing? Brain Drain. Many of them were scientists. It is very possible you could be one of them, depending on your age.

Conclusion: Born and raised in Germany in the early 1930's, you would not have been a Nazi.

Nope never took the test. :D It's okay... I know by now you've taken the test and that the results weren't to your liking.

:D It's okay... I know by now you've taken the test and that the results weren't to your liking.

Nope. I never took it! So why are you saying I took and when in fact, I didn't?

*yawn* Now it's my turn to get sleepy Corneliu. :D

*yawn* Now it's my turn to get sleepy Corneliu. :D

Fine. At least I'm telling the truth. And if your getting sleepy, go take a nap.

[QUOTE=Cabinia]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


- 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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roosevelt urged Stalin on many occassions to open a front against the Japanese. Stalin promised that after the war in Europe would be over, he would help the Americans in Japan and the Pacific Theatre.

Roosevelt urged Stalin on many occassions to open a front against the Japanese. Stalin promised that after the war in Europe would be over, he would help the Americans in Japan and the Pacific Theatre.
And yet, when the European Theater had come to a close, things were already moving so well in the Pacific that Truman rushed to bring the Pacific conflict to a close before the Soviets could move their armies across the continent. If the Soviets shared in the conquest, they would have insisted on some share of the spoils, and the US already harbored a growing distrust of Stalin and the Soviet regime.

And yet, when the European Theater had come to a close, things were already moving so well in the Pacific that Truman rushed to bring the Pacific conflict to a close before the Soviets could move their armies across the continent. If the Soviets shared in the conquest, they would have insisted on some share of the spoils, and the US already harbored a growing distrust of Stalin and the Soviet regime.


The russians invaded manchuria in 1945, and even today keep a small string of islands from japan that they captured then.

Well I'll tell ya what, since you all think our military stinks and that we don't have a good track record in wars -

how about the next time you idiots get yourselves involved in a World War and are getting your butts kicked by some dictator, we'll just sit home and watch while Europe turns into a trash heap.

No but you win wars by winning battles. Germany lost the war because they didn't take Moscow and were driven back across the continent from both sides.

Vietnam, we kept the South free from the North until we signed a peace treaty with the North and pulled out. After and only after, we left did the North launch an all out offensive against South Vietnam and took her over.


I dont agree, hannibal won decisive battle after decisive battle against the romans, but they still beat him in the end. They (romans) were just too powerful.

Apparently, people reply without reading prior posts.

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 tolerated. 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.


In respect to the reference to the Second Punic War, Hannibal won many major battles in Italy, but never took a major city and passed the chance to lay seige to Rome. In the meantime, his allies in Iberia fell, and Roman armies mounted an assault on Carthage itself. Hannibal had to be recalled, but was unable to successfully defend Carthage. They pleaded for peace. So, he may have won important battles, but never initiated the one that could have turned the tides of the war and failed to win the battle that would dictate its end.

Apparently, people reply without reading prior posts.

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 tolerated. 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.


In respect to the reference to the Second Punic War, Hannibal won many major battles in Italy, but never took a major city and passed the chance to lay seige to Rome. In the meantime, his allies in Iberia fell, and Roman armies mounted an assault on Carthage itself. Hannibal had to be recalled, but was unable to successfully defend Carthage. They pleaded for peace. So, he may have won important battles, but never initiated the one that could have turned the tides of the war and failed to win the battle that would dictate its end.


i agree but, winning battles dosnt win wars , well it does but its not a golden law of warfare, the truman doctrine said a communist vietnam wasnt acceptable, and it became communist, if america wanted to be true to the doctrine, they would of left a garrison, like they still do in south korea

The US knew what it was doing when it left. They knew that they were giving up and that Vietnam would be taken over by communists. Our enemies accomplished all of their goals and we failed all of ours. That's a loss, no matter how much you want to change the definition of loss.

i agree but, winning battles dosnt win wars , well it does but its not a golden law of warfare, the truman doctrine said a communist vietnam wasnt acceptable, and it became communist, if america wanted to be true to the doctrine, they would of left a garrison, like they still do in south korea
Oh, for crying out loud! It won't do in this thread! You must seperate the military and political will of your nation. One might win every battle, the other might lose every other one, combined... it's a win!

The one thing important is, they left one democratic Vietnamese country with a market capitalism there. That's all you need to know! That's what they went to set up. Dominoes and all that. You fucking communists!

South Vietnam was capitalist when they got there. They did end up pressuring them to become more democratic, but that was because the US was getting heat at home for protecting a dictatorial regime. The goal was to protect it from becoming communist. And they were doing that, until they left. They didn't beat the Viet Cong, they didn't beat North Vietnam. Their enemies got what they wanted. The domino fell. Game over, a tough loss for the US. It's ok, though, we've won a lot of wars so you don't have to feel that bad about how badass we are.

South Vietnam was capitalist when they got there. They did end up pressuring them to become more democratic, but that was because the US was getting heat at home for protecting a dictatorial regime. The goal was to protect it from becoming communist. And they were doing that, until they left. They didn't beat the Viet Cong, they didn't beat North Vietnam. Their enemies got what they wanted. The domino fell. Game over, a tough loss for the US. It's ok, though, we've won a lot of wars so you don't have to feel that bad about how badass we are.

Problem is though, South Vietnam was still a country when we left. We may not have had a united Vietnam at the end of the Vietnam War, but the fact remains that they remained free. They only fell after we left. By keeping the South free till after we left (and that was due to the peace agreement) it was a victory. Not our fault that the South was reinvaded by the North after American Troops already left.

Problem is though, South Vietnam was still a country when we left. We may not have had a united Vietnam at the end of the Vietnam War, but the fact remains that they remained free. They only fell after we left. By keeping the South free till after we left (and that was due to the peace agreement) it was a victory. Not our fault that the South was reinvaded by the North after American Troops already left.
Right. The way the world sees it, when YOUR last chopper left SV, it fell. That was a good stint keeping it up though... some other countries would have lost some fights, but not you.

South Vietnam was capitalist when they got there. They did end up pressuring them to become more democratic, but that was because the US was getting heat at home for protecting a dictatorial regime. The goal was to protect it from becoming communist. And they were doing that, until they left. They didn't beat the Viet Cong, they didn't beat North Vietnam. Their enemies got what they wanted. The domino fell. Game over, a tough loss for the US. It's ok, though, we've won a lot of wars so you don't have to feel that bad about how badass we are.

Well, in trying to look at the war in as black-and-white, factoral fashion as possible, the goal was "...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."

You are absolutely right in saying that in the long run, this goal was not achieved. That is a political loss, and should our forces have been there and been defeated, a military loss as well. The way I see it, and I suppose this just comes down to opinion, is that to be absolutely black-and-white, this goal was held during military operations in Vietnam. Then, because of growing public outcry, US forces were pulled out. They were pulled out by the government to conclude operations, not as a result of military defeat. At the time of their leaving, the overall goal had been achieved. It was later when South Vietnam fell, resulting in an overall political loss that overshadowed the dominance of the US forces.

Problem is though, South Vietnam was still a country when we left. We may not have had a united Vietnam at the end of the Vietnam War, but the fact remains that they remained free. They only fell after we left. By keeping the South free till after we left (and that was due to the peace agreement) it was a victory. Not our fault that the South was reinvaded by the North after American Troops already left.
Well, it is our fault in the sense that we were there to protect them from invasion by the north and knew that the north would invade as soon as we left. You could argue that it was never our responsibiliy to begin with (and I would agree) but there is no real argument that we went there just to hold off an invasion for a few years. That would be a pretty huge waste of resources and lives.

We may have never lost a battle, but we never succeeded at destroying the Viet Cong, which is what we set out to do. For that reason a lone we lost.

Well, it is our fault in the sense that we were there to protect them from invasion by the north and knew that the north would invade as soon as we left.

You sure we knew that the North would re-invade the South?

You could argue that it was never our responsibiliy to begin with (and I would agree) but there is no real argument that we went there just to hold off an invasion for a few years. That would be a pretty huge waste of resources and lives.

I agreed we shouldn't have been there but we were and in the process saved the South from invasion while we were there.

Well, whatever we are doing seems to work, we are much better than all other nations. Plus, at least we aren't communists, communism will never work just because Mr. Sunshine Marx said it would. Human nature is capitalist.

You sure we knew that the North would re-invade the South?

You're right. There wasn't any intel showing they would do that.



Really, let it go already...

Just so some of more over important Americans are aware, the War of 1812 was nothing more than a sideshow at best for the British, considering our forces were busy trouncing Napoleon in Spain. At the time, the effect of the war on Britain was neglible at best. Of course now, we wish we had crushed you then and there but that's life.

I sometimes wonder what the Duke of Wellington would have made of the situation there.

A track record as bad as Frances? Let's see...
Gallic Wars: Lost. In a war whose ending foreshaows the next 2000 years of French histroy, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.
Hundred Years War: Mostly lost, saved at last by a female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates the First Rule of French Warfare; "French armies are only victorious when not led by a Frenchman."
Italian Wars: Lost. Franch becmoes the first and only country to lose two wars when fighting Italians.
Wars of Religion: France goes 0-5-4 Huguenots.
Thirty Years War: Franch is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants start ignoring her.
War of Devolution: Tie, Frenchmen take to wearing red flower pots as chapeaux.
The Dutch War: Tie.
War of Augsburg League/King William's War/ French & Indian War: Lost but claimed as a tie. THree ties in a row induces deluded frogophiles the world over to label this period as the height French military power.
War of the Spanish Succession: lost.
American Revolution: In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English Colonists saw far more action. THis is later known as "De Gaulle Syndrome." and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."
French Revolution: Won. Primarily due to the fact that the opponent was also French.
The Napolionic Wars: Lost. Temorary victories (Remember the First Rule) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.
The Franco-Prussian War: Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.
WWI: Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the US.
WWII: Lost. Conquered France liberated by the US and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.
War in Indochina: Lost. French forces plead sickiness, take to bed w/ the Dien Bien Flu.
Algerian Rebellion: Lost. Loss marks first defeat of a Western army by a non-Turkish Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, and Vietnamese.

A track record as bad as Frances? Let's see...
Gallic Wars: Lost. In a war whose ending foreshaows the next 2000 years of French histroy, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.
Hundred Years War: Mostly lost, saved at last by a female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates the First Rule of French Warfare; "French armies are only victorious when not led by a Frenchman."
Italian Wars: Lost. Franch becmoes the first and only country to lose two wars when fighting Italians.
Wars of Religion: France goes 0-5-4 Huguenots.
Thirty Years War: Franch is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants start ignoring her.
War of Devolution: Tie, Frenchmen take to wearing red flower pots as chapeaux.
The Dutch War: Tie.
War of Augsburg League/King William's War/ French & Indian War: Lost but claimed as a tie. THree ties in a row induces deluded frogophiles the world over to label this period as the height French military power.
War of the Spanish Succession: lost.
American Revolution: In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English Colonists saw far more action. THis is later known as "De Gaulle Syndrome." and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."
French Revolution: Won. Primarily due to the fact that the opponent was also French.
The Napolionic Wars: Lost. Temorary victories (Remember the First Rule) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.
The Franco-Prussian War: Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.
WWI: Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the US.
WWII: Lost. Conquered France liberated by the US and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.
War in Indochina: Lost. French forces plead sickiness, take to bed w/ the Dien Bien Flu.
Algerian Rebellion: Lost. Loss marks first defeat of a Western army by a non-Turkish Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, and Vietnamese.

Ah. This post AGAIN. I don't know where you Americans are getting it from but please think before you use it.

It is no more historically balanced (or accurate for that matter) than the orginal post.

Just so some of more over important Americans are aware, the War of 1812 was nothing more than a sideshow at best for the British, considering our forces were busy trouncing Napoleon in Spain. At the time, the effect of the war on Britain was neglible at best. Of course now, we wish we had crushed you then and there but that's life.

I sometimes wonder what the Duke of Wellington would have made of the situation there.

Probably would have died of sniper fire. Really.

Oh, for crying out loud! It won't do in this thread! You must seperate the military and political will of your nation. One might win every battle, the other might lose every other one, combined... it's a win!

The one thing important is, they left one democratic Vietnamese country with a market capitalism there. That's all you need to know! That's what they went to set up. Dominoes and all that. You fucking communists!

...what the **** is wrong with your education man? The conflict was loss. Study some American history once in a while. Your embarrassing the well-informed and intelligent American members.

Just so some of more over important Americans are aware, the War of 1812 was nothing more than a sideshow at best for the British, considering our forces were busy trouncing Napoleon in Spain. At the time, the effect of the war on Britain was neglible at best. Of course now, we wish we had crushed you then and there but that's life.

I sometimes wonder what the Duke of Wellington would have made of the situation there.

The Duke of Wellington was offered command, turned it down with the comment that there was no way the British Army could conquer the US, and told the government to make peace.

He was smart enough to stay out of an unwinable war.

Incidently, for those of you who are still convinced for some reason that we won the Vietnam War.... I simply don't know how you figure it. The bottom line is that in spite of winning every major battle that the US military was involved in, we still lost because the North Vietnamese were willing to continue to throw men into the fight in spite of losing men at 10:1 vs ours until the American people said 'enouigh' and we essentially abandoned the South Vietnamese to their fate.

Read about the 1975 Fall of South Vietnam. The ARVNs were depending on our fire support to hold of the armored divisions thrown at them, and Congress not only said no, but also continued to cut military and financial aid to the point where the ARVNs were having to resuse 'one use' field dressings.

We lost. Period. Not on the battlefield, but you don't have to win battles to win the war. It simply helps a lot.

Pretending we won because we killed NVA and VC in car load lots, smashed them repeatedly on the battlefield etc doesn't change the fact that we lost the war in the end because we failed to save South Vietnam.

The fact that Vietnam is now becoming a more socialist, less communist and more market oriented is a by product of our victory in the Cold War, not our involvement in the 30 Year Indochina War.

Wow this is still going on?

New Shiron: Kudos on the Wellington comment. Not to many people know that.

Viet Nam? Sorry folks it was a defeat. We failed our objective which was to prevent the communist take over.

My buddy did two tours with the Rangers. He said it was a defeat. "We fought well but the country failed us" He was angry for a loooooongggg time.

Just so some of more over important Americans are aware, the War of 1812 was nothing more than a sideshow at best for the British, considering our forces were busy trouncing Napoleon in Spain. At the time, the effect of the war on Britain was negligible at best. Of course now, we wish we had crushed you then and there but that's life.

I sometimes wonder what the Duke of Wellington would have made of the situation there.

That, I agree with. Had Britain totally dedicated itself to the war, the UShad a good chance of being seriously maimed at best. Although some major battles, (like the assault on New Orleans, the Battle of Champlain, the Battle of Lake Erie, and the defense of Fort McHenry), were painful failures for Britain, they did a good deal of damage with negligible amounts of forces. Had they been consistently reinforced and had more troops dedicated to the area, the outcome might have been very different. Though, it must also be considered that at the time, there were about 250,000-300,000 militia troops that never saw battle. They would have put up quite a fight at the bare minimum.

But, in the end, forces victorious in Spain were sent to North Africa and a return to status quo was accepted by both sides in the Treaty of Ghent. It's an interesting "what if" situation, though.

Vientam was a draw. South Vietnam was conquered AFTER US forces withdrew in accordance with the treaty. After. Not before. After. Since the US technicly wasn't in the war at the time(we withdrew), the US did not lose it. Everything else was a win. Even Korea.

Just so some of more over important Americans are aware, the War of 1812 was nothing more than a sideshow at best for the British, considering our forces were busy trouncing Napoleon in Spain. At the time, the effect of the war on Britain was neglible at best. Of course now, we wish we had crushed you then and there but that's life.

I sometimes wonder what the Duke of Wellington would have made of the situation there.
Well, I'm sure your friends from the UE really thank you for all the help you gave them when my ancestors pushed them into Canada where they died of of frostbite and starvation. You left your Loyalist comrades over here to die by our hands. All they got were land grants as thanks for what you did to them. And also, you never trounced Napoleon. You're lucky you had allies in Europe, otherwise you'd be slaves to Frenchmen right now.

...what the **** is wrong with your education man? The conflict was loss. Study some American history once in a while. Your embarrassing the well-informed and intelligent American members.Are you taking the piss, or are you that thick for real..?

Vientam was a draw. South Vietnam was conquered AFTER US forces withdrew in accordance with the treaty. After. Not before. After. Since the US technicly wasn't in the war at the time(we withdrew), the US did not lose it. Everything else was a win. Even Korea.

Forget it Avika. No matter what we say regarding Nam, people will say we lost because the South was taken over. To their minds it doesn't matter that it occured after we left the nation. The fact that they were taken over makes it a loss to them.

Luckily, those of us who actually studied history and military history know better.

My buddy did two tours with the Rangers. He said it was a defeat. "We fought well but the country failed us" He was angry for a loooooongggg time.

He means the Politicians dude. People always equate the politicians to the nation for some reason.

Corneliu...

Take this test... you might learn something.
http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?testid=17675020579094199926

Darn it! I was a Foot Soldier!

Forget it Avika. No matter what we say regarding Nam, people will say we lost because the South was taken over. To their minds it doesn't matter that it occured after we left the nation. The fact that they were taken over makes it a loss to them.

Luckily, those of us who actually studied history and military history know better.
Or maybe it's just possible that reasonable men can disagree.

I was going to continue this argument until I realized that we have been repeating the same points back and forth for several pages so it's best for this one to die.

Or maybe it's just possible that reasonable men can disagree.

I'll grant you that :D

I was going to continue this argument until I realized that we have been repeating the same points back and forth for several pages so it's best for this one to die.

Again I agree with you Jah Bootie.

Here have a cookie

*hands you a cookie* :)

But to start a new one...

I wouldn't be so ready to declare victory in Iraq yet. It may well happen eventually, but what we have now is a situation like that of the Soviets in Afghanistan circa 1980. They took over the country and installed a new government in the first 30 days. Then they spent the next 10 years fighting insurgents. Of course, I think our situation is much better there than the Soviets had it and it will probably end up getting out with things looking pretty good. But it's not over until it's over.

That, I agree with. Had Britain totally dedicated itself to the war, the UShad a good chance of being seriously maimed at best. Although some major battles, (like the assault on New Orleans, the Battle of Champlain, the Battle of Lake Erie, and the defense of Fort McHenry), were painful failures for Britain, they did a good deal of damage with negligible amounts of forces. Had they been consistently reinforced and had more troops dedicated to the area, the outcome might have been very different. Though, it must also be considered that at the time, there were about 250,000-300,000 militia troops that never saw battle. They would have put up quite a fight at the bare minimum.

But, in the end, forces victorious in Spain were sent to North Africa and a return to status quo was accepted by both sides in the Treaty of Ghent. It's an interesting "what if" situation, though.

I do think that the British could have conquered the United States, but i doubt the occupation would have gone well. :)

I do think that the British could have conquered the United States, but i doubt the occupation would have gone well. :)


Keep in mind, the British Empire had a large, powerful army in most of the 19th Century. This was because she had so many global, colonial obligations. She had to worry about the Sugar Islands, Canada, India, Africa etc. She had troops everywhere, including a huge army raised to help fight Napoleon. Sure, if Britian ignored everything and invaded the US, things would have gone poorly for the Americans. However that arguement makes as much sense as saying "If Roosevelt had ignored the Germans, we could have destroyed Japan in a year."
Also look at the fact that 50 years later the amount of forces the American put into the field in the Civil War. With England's long supply lines from Europe, if the British declared total war and the US responded in kind, while it is unlikely the US could have had a force equal to Grant, Meade or Lee commanded, they most likely could have produced enough troops to engages the British and they proved they had commanders that could go up against the British commanders and win. Wellington may have helped, but that is a big historical "what if".

Vietnam is a conflict because we lost it, if we lost WW1 we would call it a conflict also

Vietnam is a conflict because we lost it, if we lost WW1 we would call it a conflict also

Inaccurate. World War I was a full scale war. We literally declared War so by definition, it was a war. Even if we lost it, it still would've been considered a war.

Vietnam was technically a conflict because there was no declaration of war. And besides that, when we left, South Vietnam still existed. It wasn't till AFTER all US forces left the nation did North Vietnam invaded the south. A military victory puncuated by a political defeat.

A track record as bad as Frances? Let's see...
Gallic Wars: Lost. In a war whose ending foreshaows the next 2000 years of French histroy, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.
Hundred Years War: Mostly lost, saved at last by a female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates the First Rule of French Warfare; "French armies are only victorious when not led by a Frenchman."
Italian Wars: Lost. Franch becmoes the first and only country to lose two wars when fighting Italians.
Wars of Religion: France goes 0-5-4 Huguenots.
Thirty Years War: Franch is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants start ignoring her.
War of Devolution: Tie, Frenchmen take to wearing red flower pots as chapeaux.
The Dutch War: Tie.
War of Augsburg League/King William's War/ French & Indian War: Lost but claimed as a tie. THree ties in a row induces deluded frogophiles the world over to label this period as the height French military power.
War of the Spanish Succession: lost.
American Revolution: In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English Colonists saw far more action. THis is later known as "De Gaulle Syndrome." and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."
French Revolution: Won. Primarily due to the fact that the opponent was also French.
The Napolionic Wars: Lost. Temorary victories (Remember the First Rule) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.
The Franco-Prussian War: Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.
WWI: Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the US.
WWII: Lost. Conquered France liberated by the US and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.
War in Indochina: Lost. French forces plead sickiness, take to bed w/ the Dien Bien Flu.
Algerian Rebellion: Lost. Loss marks first defeat of a Western army by a non-Turkish Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, and Vietnamese.

I don't understand where this insistance on defacing history comes from, also I'm begining to think that all this French bashing by some of our American counterparts should be classed as racism. While I can only really comment on with any authority are the African wars and the Revolution/First Empire, I'm pretty damn sure that few (read no) contries in the world would have as their first rule that they can beat the French. Also as a point of historical clarification, Napoleon was beaten, not by the British, but by the collective military, political and economic preasures of Britain, Spain, Russia, Portugal, Austria, Sweden, Prussia, Naples, Rome, Westphalia, Saxony, Peidmont, French exiles and any one of a dozen minor German and Italian states. Further, the Revolutionary and Imperial wars resulted in France beating most of the afore mentioned contries (except notably Britain, Sweden and Portugal - which was invaded) at least once. As for the second world war, that was as much a civil war between pro-fascists and republicans as anything else. Vietnam; it should be remebered beat off both Imperial Japan (with allied assistance) and the US as well. Finally, Algeria was one of those costly de-colonising wars that all colonial powers had to go through, and it was no more bloody than Angola, Mozambique, or the Belgian Congo - and if America had bothered to learn anything from it, would not have been so gunho about invading Iraq. Chirac served in Algeria, and saw some of the worst shit, and he warned you not to go into Iraq, but you didn't listen and now look at the place. I wonder if wizzened American leaders in twenty years time will think inthe same fashion as Chirac now?

Inaccurate. World War I was a full scale war. We literally declared War so by definition, it was a war. Even if we lost it, it still would've been considered a war.

Vietnam was technically a conflict because there was no declaration of war. And besides that, when we left, South Vietnam still existed. It wasn't till AFTER all US forces left the nation did North Vietnam invaded the south. A military victory puncuated by a political defeat.

The Viet Comm declared war on you, it therefore counts as a war. Also since when does there have to be a formal declaration of war for there to be war?

Also since when does there have to be a formal declaration of war for there to be war?

I ask myself that same question from time to time Rhoderick.

Well, I'm sure your friends from the UE really thank you for all the help you gave them when my ancestors pushed them into Canada where they died of of frostbite and starvation. You left your Loyalist comrades over here to die by our hands. All they got were land grants as thanks for what you did to them. And also, you never trounced Napoleon. You're lucky you had allies in Europe, otherwise you'd be slaves to Frenchmen right now.

Actually we did trounce Napoleon - once Wellington was put in command of the Pennisular army, the British did not lose a single battle against the French and pushed them from Spain.

Your post has absolutely no connection with history as Napoleon's chances of invading Britain were ended in 1805 at Trafalgar when his fleet was reduced to nothing by the Royal Navy. Read a history book before answering in a history thread.

Actually we did trounce Napoleon - once Wellington was put in command of the Pennisular army, the British did not lose a single battle against the French and pushed them from Spain.

Your post has absolutely no connection with history as Napoleon's chances of invading Britain were ended in 1805 at Trafalgar when his fleet was reduced to nothing by the Royal Navy. Read a history book before answering in a history thread.

NGB! so glad to read one of your posts again.
havnt had the delight in such a long while...i see you are just correcting a cretin on our little galic upstart neighbors... :p

NGB! so glad to read one of your posts again.
havnt had the delight in such a long while...i see you are just correcting a cretin on our little galic upstart neighbors... :p

I am like a rare jewel - burrow deep enough and you will find one of my posts
:p

I am like a rare jewel - burrow deep enough and you will find one of my posts
:p

i however seem to becoming like gravel..lots of my posts with little substance...but i am trying to correct that :p

Not to get an even more pointless argument going, but the "winner/loser" issue is even tougher to nail down in Korea. The Americans were able to reestablish the 1948 border between the two countries, but at some point (maybe from the beginning?) the US goal shifted from protecting this border to the reunification of Korea, as evidenced by the US decision to advance beyond the 38th parallel in 1950. Of course this brought China into the war and ended up with us losing Seoul and getting uncomfortably close to nuclear war. By the end, everyone was back to where they started. I can see this called a victory for the US, but you could also say this was another stalemate.

Not to get an even more pointless argument going, but the "winner/loser" issue is even tougher to nail down in Korea. The Americans were able to reestablish the 1948 border between the two countries, but at some point (maybe from the beginning?) the US goal shifted from protecting this border to the reunification of Korea, as evidenced by the US decision to advance beyond the 38th parallel in 1950. Of course this brought China into the war and ended up with us losing Seoul and getting uncomfortably close to nuclear war. By the end, everyone was back to where they started. I can see this called a victory for the US, but you could also say this was another stalemate.
Keep in mind that US forces saw the Chinese push coming, and MacArthur argued strenuously for the need to press the attack up into China, destroying nearby bridges and such to block their way into Korea. For that argument, he was fired.

So it wasn't as if they were caught with their pants down, they just weren't able to do anything about it. Had the politicians made a different decision, the war would have had a different outcome. This is why politicians shouldn't make military decisions.

But the bottom line is that the US wanted to reunify all of Korea under a democratic regime, and the communist forces wanted to reunify all of Korea under a communist regime. The country was split, so the outcome is a clear draw.

The goal of Korea was to keep the commies out of the south. The US and not-yet corrupt UN forces won. McAuthur wanted a war against China, but President Truman said no. Our goal was accomplished. Basicly, the only disagreeing nation was North Korea.

But the bottom line is that the US wanted to reunify all of Korea under a democratic regime, and the communist forces wanted to reunify all of Korea under a communist regime. The country was split, so the outcome is a clear draw.

The single strategic goal for US and UN forces was to hold the 38th parallel. That was all. Politics brought the idea of uniting all of Korea under a Democratic government, but that was not the primary goal of the war.

The 38th parallel was held, and our single goal was met. Victory (albeit a dubious one).

Also, MacArthur not only argued for the need to attack China, but wanted to essentially carpet-nuke China with as many as 50 nuclear warheads. Truman gave him an emphatic NO, but when he persisted and began to draw up political turmoil, Truman dismissed him from service.