Yeah, I think Iraq should be officially labelled a stalemate.
should never have been fought in the first place. My lord... what a waste of lives and money that one is.
Yeah, but you think that the WAR 0f 1812 was a stalemate as well... they burned down the White House and the USA achieved NONE of its goals.
Who rules Vietnam right now?
That's a pretty good clue.
:lol:
What we "could have done" is completely irrelevant. yeah - we could have dropper nukes on them. Just like we could drop nukes on North Korea, or Syria, or....
Tell me, how many lives were lost in the Vietnam War?
How many lives were shattered beyond repair from the Vietnam war?
Now tell me, for what?
What did the USofA gain from all that tragedy and loss?
What was the prize we won? What spoils went the the victor?
Let's have a discussion about which wars we should consider the US to have lost.
We are going to simply exclude the Civil War from the debate since it's not worth getting into the semantics. Also exclude silly "the war on xxx" things like the war on terror.
In my opinion, it is completely obvious that the US lost the Vietnam War. That one goes without question.
Korea ended in more of a stalemate so I don't think that should be considered a loss, rather a draw if anything.
The less obvious ones are Iraq and Afghanistan. We definitely succeeded in the initial goal of defeating Saddam in Iraq, but the attempt to replace the regime with a stable democracy was obviously a failure. So I am undecided on my verdict for Iraq right now. In the case of Afghanistan, we might just have to say that the war is still ongoing. At this point, though, I think it's extremely unlikely the US will win.
So my tally is:
1 loss (Vietnam)
2 draw (Korea, War of 1812)
1 ongoing (Afghanistan)
1 currently undecided (Iraq)
Everything else was a win.
Anyone else have thoughts on this?
The "USA" and the "United States Military" did not lose Vietnam nor will it lose the current ones, if that happens.
The "US Civilian Government" Lost us / Cost us the Vietnam War and is failing at the current one against ISIS....
The internal politics of why we lost the war does not change the outcome, though. We came in with a mission: prevent communist North Vietnam from conquering South Vietnam and creating a unified communist Vietnam. We ended up withdrawing, and North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam and it became a unified communist country. So yes, we lost the war. You can blame the civilian government or the internal politics or whatever, but it still doesn't change the fact that we lost the war. We completely failed our objective.
The internal politics of why we lost the war does not change the outcome, though. We came in with a mission: prevent communist North Vietnam from conquering South Vietnam and creating a unified communist Vietnam. We ended up withdrawing, and North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam and it became a unified communist country. So yes, we lost the war. You can blame the civilian government or the internal politics or whatever, but it still doesn't change the fact that we lost the war. We completely failed our objective.
Do you think there could've been a bigger picture, like stopping communism from spreading in general? Or do believe that if North Vietnam was the only communist country on earth that we still would've gone in?
That was the bigger picture yes, stopping the spread of communism in general. The military objective on the ground though was to stop North Vietnam from conquering South Vietnam.
The Communist got a unified Nam.
Well, first of all, are we a communist country? You see, when we fight pre-emptive wars, there are always people who believe that every casualty and every dollar spent was a total waste, but you have no idea how things would've looked if we would have just appeased the communists (and mainly the Soviets) instead. Communism was a major, major threat back then. The Soviets had killed millions of their own people, and they had nukes back when nukes were still relatively new and were scary as hell. Communism was spreading like wild fire even into our own hemisphere. So there was reason to go in.
Ever hear the saying "we can't lose unless we beat ourselves"? Attitudes like yours help lose wars, and we beat ourselves. And as far as the mental toll from Vietnam, you can thank yourself and the rest of those who believed that those who bravely attempted to put a stop to the spread of communism did so in utter futility. Communism is irrelevant nowadays and you seem to believe that if we would've avoided Vietnam that this outcome would've happened anyway, but you have no idea.
Well, first of all, are we a communist country? You see, when we fight pre-emptive wars, there are always people who believe that every casualty and every dollar spent was a total waste, but you have no idea how things would've looked if we would have just appeased the communists (and mainly the Soviets) instead. Communism was a major, major threat back then. The Soviets had killed millions of their own people, and they had nukes back when nukes were still relatively new and were scary as hell. Communism was spreading like wild fire even into our own hemisphere. So there was reason to go in.
Ever hear the saying "we can't lose unless we beat ourselves"? Attitudes like yours help lose wars, and we beat ourselves. And as far as the mental toll from Vietnam, you can thank yourself and the rest of those who believed that those who bravely attempted to put a stop to the spread of communism did so in utter futility. Communism is irrelevant nowadays and you seem to believe that if we would've avoided Vietnam that this outcome would've happened anyway, but you have no idea.
There are historians who believe that the real War of 1812 was regarding the Indian Tribes of the Northwest Territories (Think Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, etc.) They were aligned with Britain and the US wanted them. And the US got them.Yeah, but you think that the WAR 0f 1812 was a stalemate as well... they burned down the White House and the USA achieved NONE of its goals.
Our goal was never to rule Vietnam. Our goal was to honor the agreements that we had with the government of South Vietnam. When the government of South Vietnam fell, the US left since the agreements were moot.Who rules Vietnam right now?
That's a pretty good clue.
:lol:
The communists, or the Vietnamese people?
There are historians who believe that the real War of 1812 was regarding the Indian Tribes of the Northwest Territories (Think Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, etc.) They were aligned with Britain and the US wanted them. And the US got them.
Yeah. I think that it was historian Howard Zinn who argued that the war of 1812 forever changed how the US treated native Americans. For the worse. Not that they were well treated before but after that Indian lands were simply lands to takeYou could probably argue that the real losers of the war of 1812 were the Indian Tribes
Since the British torched the capital and our biggest victory at New Orleans came after the cease fire, I would move the War of 1812 more into the "lost" category.So my tally is:
1 loss (Vietnam)
2 draw (Korea, War of 1812)
As for micro wars, Custer's war against the Northern Cheyenne and Lakota is a definitive loss. In addition, I think the confederation of tribes led by Tecumesh (Shawnee) also won favorable treaties from the US by force of arms before eventually being ground down in later wars.I don't feel like we've lost any, we just decided to leave (except maybe War of 1812).
Let's have a discussion about which wars we should consider the US to have lost.
We are going to simply exclude the Civil War from the debate since it's not worth getting into the semantics. Also exclude silly "the war on xxx" things like the war on terror.
So my tally is:
1 loss (Vietnam)
2 draw (Korea, War of 1812)
1 ongoing (Afghanistan)
1 currently undecided (Iraq)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?