- Joined
- Jul 13, 2009
- Messages
- 17,675
- Reaction score
- 12,280
- Location
- State of Jefferson
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
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 take
Right, they failed that specific military objective but the bigger picture of stopping the spread of communism isn't as clear cut imo, which is why I don't consider it a total failure. Do you feel like our participation in Vietnam took the wind out of communism's sails at all? See, I consider Vietnam worth it and in a way a victory if we stopped the spread of communism.
i consider iraq a loss in that it was so protracted and after the military mostly left, just like in vietnam
dude they were clinging to the choppers as they fled, so were the civilians.
i consider iraq a loss in that it was so protracted and after the military mostly left, just like in vietnam, whole cities were captured by the enemy. Not to mention when the next president vowed to end the war, his opponents urged to 'stay the course,' which is code for 'it will be a defeat.' The US gained nothing but no-bid contracts for select corporations
It was fraud from the get-go, but the military industrial complex did just fine, thank you very much. :mrgreen:
i think there's no way GWB lands on that aircraft carrier and declares victory unless he thought it would be a quick plunder and pilfer job. The corporate handouts, and probably reelection, were always the motive, but securing those interests became much harder than expected
He did not really declare victory. He and the banner both proclaimed "Mission Accomplished". That is not really the same as victory, depending upon details, but it was an accurate statement as the Mission was to bring the war.
It was accomplished in spades, as he and his friends did very well. We are still there 13 years later. Most certainly the fraud was accomplished.
Naw. The invasion was over like ww2 in '45. Funny you should miss that. You don't win international security. You just gain breathing space for the next round.
Naw. The invasion was over like ww2 in '45.
And how long did we remain in Germany after WWII? Something like 40 years if memory serves me correctly. And we are still in Japan over 70 years later, even taking much of their defense duties so they will not rearm again like they had before.
So what exactly is your point? That you would have supported us remaining in Iraq another 40 years to ensure they continue with a stable government?
Exactly. The war might be won and the dictator deposed, but the second leg takes more time. That does not have to be the job of the liberating force, however.
War of 1812 was a draw? the British burned the white house down...
It is also less of a military issue, then it is a political one.
Once the diplomats have failed, a government sends in it's military to break heads and destroy things. Then after they have finished raping and pillaging (in a metaphorical sense), it is time for the diplomats to try and put things right.
Myself, I do not have much faith in the diplomats. History is full of examples where the diplomats screwed up, the military tries to fix things, then the diplomats screw it up all over again. To me, one of the biggest diplomatic fubars was the appeasement of NAZI Germany prior to the invasion of Poland. The Diplomats gave der Paper Hanger almost everything he wanted, but it did no good in stopping the war, only holding it back a bit. And it is now known that Hitler was prepared to pull back if any resistance was met.
After the Americans burnt the then Canadian capital, Toronto. It's very strange, US history books seem to always omit the Toronto arson episode.
The War of 1812 was all about the infant US trying to grab Canada while Britain was engaged fighting the tyrant Napoleon. I'm surprised they did not try again in 1939 when Britain - and Canada - was fighting another tyrant , Hitler. If the Yanks did not actually lose the War of 1812 they bloody well deserved to.
To pacify a population you need to persuade it that it must behave. We do not have the stomach for that.
The population, or the leadership?
The vast majority of people anywhere are sheep. And like sheep, they will follow their leader, wherever they may lead them. It may be into a genocide like Germany or Cambodia, or into following radical religies beliefs like ISIS. But in almost all of these cases, only a minority are actually involved. The vast majority simply wants to live their lives and want little to do with politics.
And we do have the stomach, the problem seems to be more of internal politics then anything else. Our political parties have become so divided in the last half century, that every time one administration gets our nation involved in a conflict, the opposing party will do anything they can to make it bad for political purposes. This is when you start to hear meaningless political phrases like "Exit Strategy" being kicked around.
Every time I hear that being said, I just want to groin punch the person who said it. It is nothing less then trying to play politics with peoples lives.
That is quite true to a point. The question is how far down the line the population is violent and unruly and so must be persuaded.
This is where things like "Groupthink" come into play. And the more radical a belief system the more likely that individuals will fall into radical behaviors.
And we have many examples of this in the last century. Look at what happened in Germany before and after WWII. Or the Killing Fields of Cambodia. Or the many purges of the Soviet Union. Or the multiple "Revolutions" in the PRC.
People will follow along with even the most radical of behaviors, if that is what has become acceptable by the population. And they will engage in them, from either wanting to be part of the group, or fear of looking like you are not participating.
And then you have the danger. And once somebody starts down that "darker path", they may either come to believe in it themselves, or continue because they fear the results if the side they are now following looses. Almost everybody knows the results now of participating in things that are later identified as "Genocide" or "Crimes against humanity". If you were a private that was involved in rounding up a religious minority, then a sergeant in charge of liquidating said minority, then odds are you will fight to keep your faction in power, if you agree with it or not. Because the alternative may result in them failing, and you yourself then facing a firing squad.
1812 wasn't a draw, IMO. We prevented them from their aims. That's a win.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?
1812 wasn't a draw, IMO. We prevented them from their aims. That's a win.
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.
1812 wasn't a draw, IMO. We prevented them from their aims. That's a win.
Canadian bias.Those people are wrong. The War of 1812 happened because the US invaded Canada, three times. They were beaten back all three, by lesser forces.
Canadian bias.
Timeline. June 18, 1812, US declared war on Britain.
July 12, 1812, small "invasion" into Canada from Detroit. Led by a Brigadier General. Easily defeated by Tecumseh and others.
January 22, 1813, another small "invasion" into Canada from Detroit. Led by a Colonel. Easily defeated.
April 27, 1813 a more significant attack into present day York not for invasion but an attempt to cut supply lines. And defeated by superior forces. After Americans burned York.
US ended up with all that territory in present day Ohio, Indiana, Illinois Michigan, and Wisconsin. The real gain in the war. The tribes there supported the British prior to the war. The attempts into Canada were feeble and insignificant. And happened after the war started.
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?