I Just Noticed Something

[darkm2021]

why in the hell haven't i heard of the US losing any wars?
in school, we are currently learning about the war in 1866, i can't remember its name buts its got to do with Germany, and they lose some and they win some. Thats not the case when we learn about US history, have we lost any wars?

i doubt we couldnt be going undefeated, its almost impossible

 

[UNSC Leatherneck]

why in the hell haven't i heard of the US losing any wars?
in school, we are currently learning about the war in 1866, i can't remember its name buts its got to do with Germany, and they lose some and they win some. Thats not the case when we learn about US history, have we lost any wars?

i doubt we couldnt be going undefeated, its almost impossible

Well, the US has managed to do pretty well in its wars. We really have never lost a war. You must remember that the last "declared" war the US fought was WWII. Korea, Vietnam and all the actions since then have been "police actions" and such. The success of the US in these conflicts is varied, largely due to changing paradigm's of modern warfare and the way conflicts are fought. The previous wars were wars between states, inter-state industrial war, if you will. The new paradigm is "war amongst the people." This new type of conflict is vastly more complicated at both the tactical, theater, and strategic levels. If you'd like to read up on this, I highly recommend a book by Gen. Rupert Smith, "The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World." Gen. Smith is a retired British Army general and has written an excellent book on modern warfare.

 

[mothergoose]

the war of 1812, they lost to the british colony that is now canada. the battle of the black sea(although they claim that it was a success even though they didnt kill thier target) which wasnt really a full blown war, just a conflict. and no matter what americans say, nam was a loss. same as thier current war simply because you cant fight ideals. communism and religious extremist actions are ideals and therefore you cant kill them. although they will give some objective that was successful and base thier success off of that. i dont mean any of this in disrespect either, the us is one of the largest military powers in the world, but if you look at the actual history of things like ww1 and ww2 it seems like most of the major battles were won by americans which isnt entirely true(but i dont want to start any arguements so you can look that stuff up yourself)

bad grammar i know, but im not writing an english essay so punctuation isnt my top priority

 

[bilsy28]

We don't lose because were Awesome, also the Brits usually back us up.

 

[ilikecats]

You guys lost Vietnam, well the Australian History says so anyways.

 

[UNSC Leatherneck]

the war of 1812, they lost to the british colony that is now canada. the battle of the black sea(although they claim that it was a success even though they didnt kill thier target) which wasnt really a full blown war, just a conflict. and no matter what americans say, nam was a loss. same as thier current war simply because you cant fight ideals. communism and religious extremist actions are ideals and therefore you cant kill them. although they will give some objective that was successful and base thier success off of that. i dont mean any of this in disrespect either, the us is one of the largest military powers in the world, but if you look at the actual history of things like ww1 and ww2 it seems like most of the major battles were won by americans which isnt entirely true(but i dont want to start any arguements so you can look that stuff up yourself)

bad grammar i know, but im not writing an english essay so punctuation isnt my top priority

Don't mistake battles for wars. The United States has lost many battles in it's history. The war of 1812 is an interesting case. In the strategic sense, the war was a draw, with neither side gaining territory and the result largely being a return to pre-war conditions. I can understand the Canadian position that they won, because they successfully repelled the Americans. I agree that Vietnam was a loss, the US having expended large quantities of manpower and materiel without having achieved their objective. The loss in vietnam, and indeed, the current state of the conflicts in Iraq and Afganistan stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of how forces designed to fight an inter-state industrial war are employed to fight a war amongst the people. One of the hallmarks of this new war type is that the objective is not to take territory but to acheive a condition. Therefore forces must be employed with long-term involvement in mind. These are not wars that are won quickly.

 

[ilikecats]

Don't mistake battles for wars. The United States has lost many battles in it's history. The war of 1812 is an interesting case. In the strategic sense, the war was a draw, with neither side gaining territory and the result largely being a return to pre-war conditions. I can understand the Canadian position that they won, because they successfully repelled the Americans. I agree that Vietnam was a loss, the US having expended large quantities of manpower and materiel without having achieved their objective. The loss in vietnam, and indeed, the current state of the conflicts in Iraq and Afganistan stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of how forces designed to fight an inter-state industrial war are employed to fight a war amongst the people. One of the hallmarks of this new war type is that the objective is not to take territory but to acheive a condition. Therefore forces must be employed with long-term involvement in mind. These are not wars that are won quickly.

Spoken like a true master. I agree btw.

 

[Spartan857]

We lost in the battle of the Alamo. Not hardly a war but a bloody battle. Mexico pwned Texas.

 

[Unique Name]

We lost in the battle of the Alamo. Not hardly a war but a bloody battle. Mexico pwned Texas.

Yes, but in the end the US pwned Mexico. Remember, wars not battles.

 

[UNSC Leatherneck]

Also, remember that the Battle of the Alamo, which turned into a unifying event for the Texans, was part of the Texas Revolution. This was a war between the Republic of Texas and Mexico, not involving the United States.

 

[Razgriz]

Also, remember that the Battle of the Alamo, which turned into a unifying event for the Texans, was part of the Texas Revolution. This was a war between the Republic of Texas and Mexico, not involving the United States.

The only state to ever be its own country... I say we start another revolution to get it back that way! We'll be the only country with Spartan IIs in its national army! Granted, we'd all die in a heartbeat in battle...

 

[Vampyredh]

Ok I know I make alot of comments that seem of color even sometimes silly but this is from the heart, every single person in my family has been military all the way back to wwI even my mother was a tank mechanic, My little sister was one of the first few women to make it through buds in the navy and my father was a 27 year special forces hand to hand combat instructor. Now with that being said america doesnt tell you about the loss because it feels that vietnam wasnt a war, well any soldier or soldiers kid can tell you vietnam was a war and we lost not only did we lose but some men are still losing to this day in p.o.w. camps in vietnam. so as far as losing it also says that christopher columbus discovered america and that is a bold face lie. their were native americans living on this continent before chris the mighty land stealer arrived and even before he arrived vikings made the trip to the continent before he did so don't take everything you read to heart in those mighty history books because to this day we still celebrate a holiday that says hey we stole your land you let us lets have a party. w.t.f.

 

[UNSC Leatherneck]

The only state to ever be its own country... I say we start another revolution to get it back that way! We'll be the only country with Spartan IIs in its national army! Granted, we'd all die in a heartbeat in battle...

Not quite. California, Hawai'i, and Vermont were all independent prior to statehood.

 

[Razgriz]

Not quite. California, Hawai'i, and Vermont were all independent prior to statehood.

Please excuse me as I drown my head in HCl for such a humiliating mistake...

 

[UNSC Leatherneck]

Please excuse me as I drown my head in HCl for such a humiliating mistake...

No need for such drastic measures. I didn't even know that Vermont was a republic until I double checked my info. It's just a minor piece of trivia.

 

[toddler911]

You guys lost Vietnam, well the Australian History says so anyways.

Nam was lost cause peace people, But technically we didn't lose because it wasn't really a war, Hence the term "COLD WAR." My poor grandpa got spat on cause he went, now how does that sound. + other countries history books show us americans as fools, well that's true for some, but not all of us.

 

[UNSC Leatherneck]

Nam was lost cause peace people, But technically we didn't lose because it wasn't really a war, Hence the term "COLD WAR." My poor grandpa got spat on cause he went, now how does that sound. + other countries history books show us americans as fools, well that's true for some, but not all of us.

The war was a lost cause, true. The reasons are quite complicated, though. However, I contend that we did lose. It may have not been a war in the legal sense, but American forces abandoned the field of battle, and North Vietnamese forces overran Saigon, ending the conflict. That's a loss in my book, regardless of the semantics. And, please, let's keep this a civil discussion and not go trolling.

 

[rvb18]

The war was a lost cause, true. The reasons are quite complicated, though. However, I contend that we did lose. It may have not been a war in the legal sense, but American forces abandoned the field of battle, and North Vietnamese forces overran Saigon, ending the conflict. That's a loss in my book, regardless of the semantics. And, please, let's keep this a civil discussion and not go trolling.

dumb republicans lol

ps this is geting out of hand

 

[Sigma LS]

EDIT: Nevermind, UNSC Leatherneck has already explained most of what I said more concisely and I was only thinking of major engagements during the 20th century.

It's refreshing to see a thread like this where folks can discuss such matters in a mature manner.

 

[UNSC Leatherneck]

dumb republicans lol

ps this is geting out of hand

Okay, I'm not sure what you mean by dumb republicans. Yes, I am a registered Republican, but that does not really have any bearing on this discussion. This is a discussion on military history that is being conducted quite intelligently.