Has the U.S. lost a war? No. We have either lost or are currently losing a police action. Vietnam was a total bust and Epic FAIL. The U.S. politicians at the time stepped into a conflict that the French couldn't end after 20 years. Both Korea and Vietnam should be considered wars. Afghanistan and Iraq should just be considered a complete and total waste of time, money, and lives.
I Just Noticed Something
- Thread starter darkm2021
- Start date
- Status
ILikeCats said:
Damn right, we totally lost Vietnam. Even though if you ask any vet or historian you'll get a different roundabout answer. We did however learn how to fight wars properly afterwards. Problem was that we lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers whereas the Vietnamese (Mostly the VC) lost around 1.9 million. Even though it was a loss we consider it a win based on what the death toll was. Same thing with Somalia (which was a wold police type action) we lost about 119ish soldiers when the Somalians lost around 100,000. Again an example of winning based on the loss number on both sides. Seems like we never win wars at all from WWII onwards, it's just that we lost less than our enemies, which is a very interesting way of looking at things.
Last edited by a moderator:
ImaGonnaGetYou
Well-Known Member
rvb18 said:
I expected a comment like this. I see campaigning is still going on after the elections, hmm?
--------
Anyways, we haven't lost a "war" in the legal definition, but we have lost quite a few war-like conflicts. Korea, Vietnam, and soon to be Iraq (in my opinion). Also, judging victories by kill/death ratios is horribly absurd(sp?). If you don't complete the war/conflict's real purpose, then it isn't a victory. Sure, you may have slaughtered X amount of soldiers of the enemy side, but what about your own? What about the Y amount of soldiers on your side that were killed?
I don't believe that we should call a loss a victory. It can't be good for the world's view of Americans, no matter how ridiculous their view is. I can easily see how other countries see us as arrogant (no offence meant), if we can't even admit losing a conflict. And treating your own soldiers' deaths and injuries as statistics? Unacceptable.
Last edited by a moderator:
PositiveKarma
Jr Member
ILikeCats said:
Yup, we technically lost Vietnam, but hey, were doing pretty good so far!
Best regards,
Mike
Last edited by a moderator:
ImaGonnaGetYou
Well-Known Member
PositiveKarma said:
But was Vietnam technically a war? That is the question I want to know the answer to. To my knowledge, war wasn't declared, but we still fought in the conflict and lost MANY soldiers.
Also, if "pretty good so far" was referring to Iraq, I have to say that that is false. If we are about to pulling out, then the only thing we've really accomplished is secure our oil and kill/get killed. I never agreed with going to Iraq, but we aren't getting much for the money the government spent having us in the place, besides oil which cost us more money anyways.
I think "waste" is a crude term. I prefer "wishing well". We throw a lot of coins in, and wish quite a bit, but in the end, we walk away and forget what we wished for.
Last edited by a moderator:
My grandfather fought in vietnam, fromw what he says, it was a war.ImaGonnaGetYou said:
The vietnamese would come to their camps at nights in the JUNGLE and play tricks on them, hell, I dont know why they didnt shoot them. I dont want to ask. But it was a terribile war. My grandpa has a few purple hearts, and alot of other medals as well. Im very proud of him and all of the soldiers who fought in the war, Vietnam.
And every other war as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
Xtreme TACTICS 101
Well-Known Member
The U.S lost 2 wars. Vietnam and the War of 1812.
Some historians say that the War of 1812 was a tie, but the Canadians/British held there objective to keep Canada and not let the US take it. According to the Americans, the Canadians would sourrender as soon as war was declaired. The Americian Warhawks refered to this as "Manafest Destiny". The Americans main objective was to take Canada, witch they failed. Any true historian would say that Canada won the War of 1812. I am Canadian, but I truely think that Canada won.
Vietnam for the U.S was easly classifyed as a loss. There were many heroic battles that the Americans won, but in the end, they lost the war. The only factor was that the Vietnam army was fighting on there own land. They knew it like the back of there own hand so they had the advantage. Im sorry to say that America lost Vietnam.
That was what I was tought, and what I enjoy researching about.
CHEERS!
Origanly posted by lizander-"And the canadians. We are always covering your backsides. We always get involved and we die because of your skirmishes. Lol I'm not hating on you americans, I'm just pointing out the obvious. : P"
A-men to that one!
Some historians say that the War of 1812 was a tie, but the Canadians/British held there objective to keep Canada and not let the US take it. According to the Americans, the Canadians would sourrender as soon as war was declaired. The Americian Warhawks refered to this as "Manafest Destiny". The Americans main objective was to take Canada, witch they failed. Any true historian would say that Canada won the War of 1812. I am Canadian, but I truely think that Canada won.
Vietnam for the U.S was easly classifyed as a loss. There were many heroic battles that the Americans won, but in the end, they lost the war. The only factor was that the Vietnam army was fighting on there own land. They knew it like the back of there own hand so they had the advantage. Im sorry to say that America lost Vietnam.
That was what I was tought, and what I enjoy researching about.
CHEERS!
Origanly posted by lizander-"And the canadians. We are always covering your backsides. We always get involved and we die because of your skirmishes. Lol I'm not hating on you americans, I'm just pointing out the obvious. : P"
A-men to that one!
I think it's funny that the Canadians say we lost the war of 1812 though UNSC Leatherneck has already explained the reasoning behind it and why we consider it a draw.
If we had really truly lost, we would have become British colonial territory again. Sure we failed to take any new territory but considering that British troops marched all the way into the capital and torched the White House and we pushed them back and stayed independent, status quo maintained.
Besides, you make it sound like the US started the war of 1812 just to take Canada.
I also agree with what he has said about the type of war that has the goal of accomplishing a condition and not just acquiring territory. It's not determined in a single decisive victory. It really is more of a policing action than a full conventional war. Think, in vietnam and iraq. Where are the front lines? Where are the large military bases and strategic industrial locations? Most of those things get wiped out pretty early in the game and then you're dealing with small disseminated cells of highly motivated people who are going to fight tooth and nail any way they can.
If we had really truly lost, we would have become British colonial territory again. Sure we failed to take any new territory but considering that British troops marched all the way into the capital and torched the White House and we pushed them back and stayed independent, status quo maintained.
Besides, you make it sound like the US started the war of 1812 just to take Canada.
I also agree with what he has said about the type of war that has the goal of accomplishing a condition and not just acquiring territory. It's not determined in a single decisive victory. It really is more of a policing action than a full conventional war. Think, in vietnam and iraq. Where are the front lines? Where are the large military bases and strategic industrial locations? Most of those things get wiped out pretty early in the game and then you're dealing with small disseminated cells of highly motivated people who are going to fight tooth and nail any way they can.
PillowFire
Member
I just have to throw in my two cents. Do not read if you are not prepared for a slightly large amount of text. No offense intended to anyone, and I use caps lock in some places just to emphasize points because I am too lazy to use italics lol.
Vietnam is not a loss in my book.
The casualty figures are, I believe, 58,159 U.S. soldiers vs over 1.1 million enemies killed and another 600k wounded (this from wikipedia and confirmed at several other sources).
The fact is, the U.S. was whooping major ass all over the place. A bunch of commies with AK-47's running around the jungle did indeed pose a serious problem, as reflected in the casualty counts, but in the end, the U.S. military would have won. I don't remember us ever losing a single major battle (correct me if I am wrong though). There is only so much ill-trained people in a jungle can do against a well-coordinated, professional military force with much more equipment and man-power available. The reason we "lost", is that the mass-media in the U.S. played a propaganda game and led everyone to believe that all was lost.
They showed images of our troops killing "civilians", and committing horrible acts, demoralizing everyone, while at the same time making it seem as if the enemy was wiping the floor with us. At one point, they even outright lied about the Tut Offensive, where several U.S. marines actually held their ground against the attacking vietcon aiming for the embassy building. The media, on the other hand, claimed that the embassy was lost and that the enemy was inside, when in fact they never even managed to penetrate the defenses. So we had massive protests and a very unpopular war, all due to a brainwashed population. So we pulled out BEFORE FINISHING THE JOB. Of course we lost after that point. One of the most important lessons to be gained from Vietnam is that if you go into a war, BE READY TO SEE IT THROUGH TO THE END! It doesn't matter if you agree or not, if you go into a war, stick with it until you win or all of your efforts will be undone. Vietnam may very well not be a communist nation now had we stayed and finished the job, but all of the "hippies" just couldn't live with war. Oh my god, they yelled, people are dying in a war, this is horrible! Of course people die in a war. It's horrible, unjust, and cruel but that's the way it is.
Now as for Iraq, my opinion is that we are doing a very great job there. Again, it doesn't matter if you agree with Bush or not on the war. It's been going for well over 5 years now, stop complaining that we ever went in, and actually help us. Iraq currently controls over half of the provinces (possibly more now). Violence has gone down significantly, and since the Surge, suicide bombing in Baghdad went down from an average of 100 per month, to less than 2. So many new technologies have been developed and our troops have had remarkably low death rates for a war of this scale. As well, the Iraq war was a success no matter what. When we originally invaded, we totally decimated Saddam's army, crumpled it. They were running $#!T-scared. The invasion of Iraq should go down in history books as a perfect example of an arguably flawless victory. Then, once we finished, we turned into an OCCUPATIONAL force. At that point, major military fighting ended and we were there to preserve the peace. That is when we started taking casualties because our troops were being ambushed by enemies using guerrilla tactics, which we responded to by developing new technology, such as IED proof humvies and better electronics to detect enemy fire and increase situational advantage. So despite the ambushes, we still managed to maintain a low level of deaths. Our troops are not psychic after all, they cannot see a terrorist in a crowd of people who all look the same, behind a building some 200 yards off, hiding a bomb vest under his robes. Add to that all of the stink the media makes (which would work well in the terrorists favor, this is why they always aim for civilian targets, to attempt to demoralize their enemy and create political stink and motive to pull out. Obviously if anything, the enemy may live in smelly caves with backwards tech. and training, but they sure have the art of Public Relations down perfectly) whenever a civilian is killed (accidentally) and we get troops who cannot just operate on a hunch, and so are burdened down even more and this leads to more casualties. This is the part of the conflict that is still going on to this day, and all of our efforts will be undone if we pull out before we manage to stabilize Iraq completely and put them up on their feet. Progress is being made, our troops are doing a damn-fine job. The Iraqi military is being trained by some of the best in the world, and Al-Quada is on it's last leg. We need to continue to press the thumb until we squash the cockroach, and then pull out. Otherwise, if we ease up at this point, the cockroach will escape, multiply, and regroup to then come back in full force at a later date. Is this what you want? Yes, U.S. troops die, some civilians die, BUT THIS IS A WAR FOR FREAKS SAKE! I guarantee if we had the same attitude today as we did during World War II, and if the mainstream media of today was around then, we would have lost World War II. Unlike now, where a few troops may die every now and then , unfortunately, in World War II, you could easily have thousands of casualties in a single day, maybe more. We lost thousands of troops at every step of the war, but we did not yell about pulling out until it was done, did we?
Sure, we are fighting an ideology, but I guarantee not every Muslim in the world wants to follow their religion hard-line like the terrorists do. Freedom, peace, happiness. All are things that people across the world strive for, and just because there are some stubborn fanatics ready to fight tooth and nail for their god, does not mean that they cannot be overcome. The Iraqi people have gotten a major taste of western freedom and democracy with the help of the U.S. and other nations who may still have troops deployed there. They like this, and they want more. They do not want to be oppressed by strict primitive, outdated fanatical laws. They do not want to be ruled by a dictator-like regime and they do not want conflict and war any longer. These people want freedom, and they are embracing it. Pulling our troops out from Iraq will be to betray the Iraqi people who are counting on us. It would mean to pull the crutch out from under their arm and let them fall back into chaos. Millions would die and the whole world would be worse off as a result.
The U.S. is by far the largest and best military force in the world, with more military spending annually than the entire GDP of Australia (over 600 billion dollars). Compared to the second-best military, the UK, who spend less than 60 billion on their military. Also, western militaries such as ours are all-volunteer military force, professionals who want to serve. With this funding, and such a professional military, it's no wonder our casualties are so low.
The money the U.S. spends, while largely criticized by the rest of the world, is exactly what gives us our major technological edge. I don't care if the rest of the world sees us as aggressors, at least we are out there liberating nations, helping to stop fanatics and terrorism, and promoting and spreading freedom, democracy, and western ideals to other fellow human beings. These ideals are what makes us so successful, and the entire world deserves to live the way we do in westernized nations. So while you all can sit around on your bums and criticize the U.S., just remember that we send the most in foreign aid (including charity from private citizens), do the most to help other nations in need, send brave men and women into combat to help and ask for nothing in return but land to bury them in. For this, we do not need the approval of the U.N. (whom we provide most of the funding for anyways, and who have shown themselves to be against us time and again, and who let dictators and rogue nations like Russia and China participate in active voting. The U.N. is honestly just a corrupt entity that has done nothing for the world of any value, and who have let massive genocides occur on their watch, peace keeping my butt) we do not need the approval of the rest of the world, and we do not need the media telling our troops that they support them while undermining their job. Ask the troops if they want to pull out and I guarantee they will tell you they want to stay and finish the job. Why should a bunch of civilians, who have no inkling of a clue what is going on overseas and who have been brainwashed by the mass-media yet again just like with Vietnam, be allowed to dictate to the troops how to do their job. We gave them a task: bring peace and stability to Iraq, liberate Iraq, and promote western ideals for the benefit of Iraq. They are doing this job, SO LET THEM FINISH THE FIGHT!!
Vietnam is not a loss in my book.
The casualty figures are, I believe, 58,159 U.S. soldiers vs over 1.1 million enemies killed and another 600k wounded (this from wikipedia and confirmed at several other sources).
The fact is, the U.S. was whooping major ass all over the place. A bunch of commies with AK-47's running around the jungle did indeed pose a serious problem, as reflected in the casualty counts, but in the end, the U.S. military would have won. I don't remember us ever losing a single major battle (correct me if I am wrong though). There is only so much ill-trained people in a jungle can do against a well-coordinated, professional military force with much more equipment and man-power available. The reason we "lost", is that the mass-media in the U.S. played a propaganda game and led everyone to believe that all was lost.
They showed images of our troops killing "civilians", and committing horrible acts, demoralizing everyone, while at the same time making it seem as if the enemy was wiping the floor with us. At one point, they even outright lied about the Tut Offensive, where several U.S. marines actually held their ground against the attacking vietcon aiming for the embassy building. The media, on the other hand, claimed that the embassy was lost and that the enemy was inside, when in fact they never even managed to penetrate the defenses. So we had massive protests and a very unpopular war, all due to a brainwashed population. So we pulled out BEFORE FINISHING THE JOB. Of course we lost after that point. One of the most important lessons to be gained from Vietnam is that if you go into a war, BE READY TO SEE IT THROUGH TO THE END! It doesn't matter if you agree or not, if you go into a war, stick with it until you win or all of your efforts will be undone. Vietnam may very well not be a communist nation now had we stayed and finished the job, but all of the "hippies" just couldn't live with war. Oh my god, they yelled, people are dying in a war, this is horrible! Of course people die in a war. It's horrible, unjust, and cruel but that's the way it is.
Now as for Iraq, my opinion is that we are doing a very great job there. Again, it doesn't matter if you agree with Bush or not on the war. It's been going for well over 5 years now, stop complaining that we ever went in, and actually help us. Iraq currently controls over half of the provinces (possibly more now). Violence has gone down significantly, and since the Surge, suicide bombing in Baghdad went down from an average of 100 per month, to less than 2. So many new technologies have been developed and our troops have had remarkably low death rates for a war of this scale. As well, the Iraq war was a success no matter what. When we originally invaded, we totally decimated Saddam's army, crumpled it. They were running $#!T-scared. The invasion of Iraq should go down in history books as a perfect example of an arguably flawless victory. Then, once we finished, we turned into an OCCUPATIONAL force. At that point, major military fighting ended and we were there to preserve the peace. That is when we started taking casualties because our troops were being ambushed by enemies using guerrilla tactics, which we responded to by developing new technology, such as IED proof humvies and better electronics to detect enemy fire and increase situational advantage. So despite the ambushes, we still managed to maintain a low level of deaths. Our troops are not psychic after all, they cannot see a terrorist in a crowd of people who all look the same, behind a building some 200 yards off, hiding a bomb vest under his robes. Add to that all of the stink the media makes (which would work well in the terrorists favor, this is why they always aim for civilian targets, to attempt to demoralize their enemy and create political stink and motive to pull out. Obviously if anything, the enemy may live in smelly caves with backwards tech. and training, but they sure have the art of Public Relations down perfectly) whenever a civilian is killed (accidentally) and we get troops who cannot just operate on a hunch, and so are burdened down even more and this leads to more casualties. This is the part of the conflict that is still going on to this day, and all of our efforts will be undone if we pull out before we manage to stabilize Iraq completely and put them up on their feet. Progress is being made, our troops are doing a damn-fine job. The Iraqi military is being trained by some of the best in the world, and Al-Quada is on it's last leg. We need to continue to press the thumb until we squash the cockroach, and then pull out. Otherwise, if we ease up at this point, the cockroach will escape, multiply, and regroup to then come back in full force at a later date. Is this what you want? Yes, U.S. troops die, some civilians die, BUT THIS IS A WAR FOR FREAKS SAKE! I guarantee if we had the same attitude today as we did during World War II, and if the mainstream media of today was around then, we would have lost World War II. Unlike now, where a few troops may die every now and then , unfortunately, in World War II, you could easily have thousands of casualties in a single day, maybe more. We lost thousands of troops at every step of the war, but we did not yell about pulling out until it was done, did we?
Sure, we are fighting an ideology, but I guarantee not every Muslim in the world wants to follow their religion hard-line like the terrorists do. Freedom, peace, happiness. All are things that people across the world strive for, and just because there are some stubborn fanatics ready to fight tooth and nail for their god, does not mean that they cannot be overcome. The Iraqi people have gotten a major taste of western freedom and democracy with the help of the U.S. and other nations who may still have troops deployed there. They like this, and they want more. They do not want to be oppressed by strict primitive, outdated fanatical laws. They do not want to be ruled by a dictator-like regime and they do not want conflict and war any longer. These people want freedom, and they are embracing it. Pulling our troops out from Iraq will be to betray the Iraqi people who are counting on us. It would mean to pull the crutch out from under their arm and let them fall back into chaos. Millions would die and the whole world would be worse off as a result.
The U.S. is by far the largest and best military force in the world, with more military spending annually than the entire GDP of Australia (over 600 billion dollars). Compared to the second-best military, the UK, who spend less than 60 billion on their military. Also, western militaries such as ours are all-volunteer military force, professionals who want to serve. With this funding, and such a professional military, it's no wonder our casualties are so low.
The money the U.S. spends, while largely criticized by the rest of the world, is exactly what gives us our major technological edge. I don't care if the rest of the world sees us as aggressors, at least we are out there liberating nations, helping to stop fanatics and terrorism, and promoting and spreading freedom, democracy, and western ideals to other fellow human beings. These ideals are what makes us so successful, and the entire world deserves to live the way we do in westernized nations. So while you all can sit around on your bums and criticize the U.S., just remember that we send the most in foreign aid (including charity from private citizens), do the most to help other nations in need, send brave men and women into combat to help and ask for nothing in return but land to bury them in. For this, we do not need the approval of the U.N. (whom we provide most of the funding for anyways, and who have shown themselves to be against us time and again, and who let dictators and rogue nations like Russia and China participate in active voting. The U.N. is honestly just a corrupt entity that has done nothing for the world of any value, and who have let massive genocides occur on their watch, peace keeping my butt) we do not need the approval of the rest of the world, and we do not need the media telling our troops that they support them while undermining their job. Ask the troops if they want to pull out and I guarantee they will tell you they want to stay and finish the job. Why should a bunch of civilians, who have no inkling of a clue what is going on overseas and who have been brainwashed by the mass-media yet again just like with Vietnam, be allowed to dictate to the troops how to do their job. We gave them a task: bring peace and stability to Iraq, liberate Iraq, and promote western ideals for the benefit of Iraq. They are doing this job, SO LET THEM FINISH THE FIGHT!!
Xtreme TACTICS 101
Well-Known Member
Sigma-LS said:
The war of 1812 was not a full out win for the Canadians. We simply had our main objective compleated, to keep Canada. The Americans declaired war on us, we didn't want land, we wanted to keep Canada. By definision, war isn't always based on who has the most territory, its based on who compleats there objectives. Canada's objectives were to keep canada, and not let the US take it and keep it. Americas objective was to take Canada, whitch they failed. They made it to York (now Toronto), and burnt it down thats it. We went to the White house, and tourched it. It was'nt burnt to the ground, but we still did something.
America said they won the War of 1812 because there the home of the free and the land of the brave and they don't wan't that repretation to be uprooted. Canada says they won because its the common sence of things. America didn't compleat there objectives, Canada did. I've herd of plenty of heroic things done by Americans and Canadians alike, but Canada won in THEORY. Im not saying we won 100%, but we won about 70%.
CHEERS!
Last edited by a moderator:
Xtreme TACTICS 101
Well-Known Member
Sigma-LS said:God I love Wikipedia. No more talk of 1812.
EDIT
Right then, I guess the U.S and Canada won. Still, I believe (thats me only) that Canada had the higher side on the "who won" thing. I only believe this because we kept Canada, and the U.S didn't get it. But, I do see how it could be a victory for the U.S also. They had heros, just like us BUT you people got a president out of it, we didn't.
Also about the spelling thing, Im not the best at spelling and my spell check thing on this sight won't download, so I may not look like the most inteligent person the the forums, but I sure do enjoy reading and posting on them!
Last edited by a moderator:
No worries man. What we're taught in school always has some sort of patriotic bend to it anyway right?
BTW- I have two friends from McMasters University so I always give them a hard time about being Canadians and they always give me a hard time about being a Texan. Same sort of situation I bet.
BTW- I have two friends from McMasters University so I always give them a hard time about being Canadians and they always give me a hard time about being a Texan. Same sort of situation I bet.
Ok just to clarify something that many so called historians don't mention, just because the u.s. didnt declare vietnam a war doesn't mean it wasn't, the vietnamese openly declared war against each other north vs. south, and the u.s. openly and defiantely went to the country to voice the presidents opinions on foriegn soil. that my friends does in happenstance make the people who say it wasn't a war wrong, because the clear description of war is a series of hostile actions between two countries or foriegn entities. so what say ye now was vietnam a war my clear and definitave answer is yes it was a war.
ninjaspartan
Active Member
as for the USA losing a war, well we haven't, officaly, Go look it up we eather declare it a Police action*VIETNAM & KOREA* or we declare it a war that will never End, WAR ON TERROR or we just agree on a truce, note that is not a lose
My final words on Vietnam and Korea. Simply put, both were wars. They were an "invasion" by U.S. forces into a foreign country. Personally, when you invade a country, you are at war. Except Grenada and Panama. Those were field exercises.
As for calling them a police action, we'll that is a way for politicians and the military leaders to keep the win column looking good. The people that decide when and where the U.S. troops are sent, are looking at ways to make themselves look good in the public eye. It's all about them getting the votes next time around. It's not about the troops who serve and die.
Our win/loss record is damned good. It's definitely better than a lot of other world powers.
As for calling them a police action, we'll that is a way for politicians and the military leaders to keep the win column looking good. The people that decide when and where the U.S. troops are sent, are looking at ways to make themselves look good in the public eye. It's all about them getting the votes next time around. It's not about the troops who serve and die.
Our win/loss record is damned good. It's definitely better than a lot of other world powers.
- Status
Similar threads
Similar threads