What wars have the US really lost?

Why is it the Right can never admit Vietnam was a loss, they have to go into a long litany of excuses and equivocations... "the dirty hippies lost us the war!" Sounds so much like Hitler moaning about how the Jews lost WW1 for Germany...

In the end, the majority of the American people no longer thought it was a war worth fighting, and we withdrew. That's a defeat. The US military was never able to destroy the NVA or Viet Cong's ability or will to fight, despite overwhelming odds and firepower on the US side. Eventually the US public realized victory was not possible, not without mass murder on an unpalatable scale. So we conceded. Lost.

It really ought not to come as a surprise, while the US saw itself as waging war against an objectionable political philosophy, the Vietnamese saw it as a war of independence against foreign invaders and their vassal state. It's no wonder they were more determined to win than we were...

If your virility is so threatened by the idea that the US actually lost a war that you can't confront the fact squarely, perhaps you should reexamine your excessive identification with US military power. It's not healthy

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
Which is:

War On Terrorism » What wars have the US really lost?

Let's confine the discussion to that, and not members.

Thanks.

The only problem is the topic really has nothing to do with the War on Terror

Originally posted by xmotex
It really ought not to come as a surprise, while the US saw itself as waging war against an objectionable political philosophy, the Vietnamese saw it as a war of independence against foreign invaders and their vassal state. It's no wonder they were more determined to win than we were...

Sounds almost like the North Koreans. South Koreans are the vassals of America. North Korea will reunified the whole Peninsula under their rule. I wont blame on the hippies, but I do blame on the strategy and tactics. Like for example not invading North Vietnam, it was a mistake to fight defensively and just fight the Vietcong in South Vietnam, like the Tet offensive of 1968. Fighting until we got tired of fighting and defending when we could have ended the war by going to Hanoi.

It's a very different case than Korea though, for one thing the Vienamese had already kicked out one colonial power, the French, only to have them replaced by another, us. Interesting fact, Ho Chi Minh himself approached the US to try to persuade us to help him kick out the French in the late 1950's. When rebuffed, he sought and found new allies: the Russians. And the rest, as they say, is history...

Fighting until we got tired of fighting and defending when we could have ended the war by going to Hanoi.

Unless of course such a strategy had brought about direct intervention by the Russians, much like the offensive into North Korea brought the Chinese into that war. Had that happened (and it was entirely possible), you and I might not be around to have this conversation.

[edit on 12/13/05 by xmotex]

Originally posted by xmotex
When rebuffed, he sought and found new allies: the Russians. And the rest, as they say, is history...

And North Korea never had any support from the outside let say the Russians aka Soviets?

And remember that the Korean peninula was a colony of Japan. Just like Indochina of France.

See my edit above.

North Korea still exists because the Chinese entered the war directly. That's why we finished the war at the 38th parallel and not in Pyongyang.

As for Japan, they'd already been gone a while, if I recall correctly

[edit on 12/13/05 by xmotex]

I'll repeat what I said before, the US was asked by South Korea, South Vietnam....

PLEASE show us all where SV asked for the US to occupy their country, and attack their brothers to the north.

WE Started the Vietnam war after our military leaders lied about the attack in the Gulf of Tonkin.

It never happened, and we killed two million people because of the lies.

Your quite correct..
Want to know why the US has NEVER won a war since ww2?

Because they havent had a GENUINE REASON to fear for there survival.

Hitler was going to get england, and russia.

then it would turn its sites on the rest, and yes that means the USA

North Korea, wasnt going to take over the world.
Neither was North Vietnam
Neither was IRAQ

SOILDERS Are what fight the war, not the governments.
If your soilders realise that the hope of there familes at home, the hope of there country abroad rests on them defeating the enemy.
Then your going to win. Because its your god given right to defend the ones you love from anhiliation.

If your soilders are sent to a foreign land, to fight a foe that is in no way any threat to his family or home... then they arent going to fight a proper war.

Do you think soilders holding germans in ww2 would of taken pictures of them naked, would of abused them?

Originally posted by ArchAngel


PLEASE show us all where SV asked for the US to occupy their country, and attack their brothers to the north.

yahooligans.yahoo.com...

In 1961, South Vietnam signed a military and economic aid treaty with the United States leading to the arrival (1961) of U.S. support troops and the formation (1962) of the U.S. Military Assistance Command. Mounting dissatisfaction with the ineffectiveness and corruption of Diem's government culminated (Nov., 1963) in a military coup engineered by Duong Van Minh; Diem was executed. No one was able to establish control in South Vietnam until June, 1965, when Nguyen Cao Ky became premier, but U.S. military aid to South Vietnam increased, especially after the U.S. Senate passed the Tonkin Gulf resolution (Aug. 7, 1964) at the request of President Lyndon B. Johnson.

Guess we were occupying Great Britain before attacking their "brothers" across the Channel during WW2. Same thing for South Korea. Its occupation in your view.

WE Started the Vietnam war after our military leaders lied about the attack in the Gulf of Tonkin.

Now you sound just like Jakomo. North Vietnam started the war. Not us.

Originally posted by finnman68
I hear people talk about the Vietnam war and how the US lost it. but everything that I've read about the subject says that the US and its allies won every battle, the polotician(Democrates mostly) made us pull out.

Nixon pulled the US out of Vietnam, under popular pressure. The democrats, indeed, were the ones who escalated the war (kennedy, LBJ). Ike got the US involved in vietnam in the first place. Nixon also unrestrained the US and permitted the troops to cross into cambodia to fight the insurgents.

The US defeated the enemy in vietnam on the field, but could not win the guerilla war, or certainly wasn't winning it. This sets the pattern, probably, for all future wars. Guerilla wars are notoriously hard to fight. Look at what the British had to do to end the guerilla war against the boer commandos. They couldn't stop them in the field. They had to put the public into concentration camps and starve the commandos out. And it took years.

and it sounds like they are trying to do it again with iraq.

The democratic party's frontrunner for the presidential election is a Hawk. Most democrats are Hawks.

I'm not sure with Korea if anyone has any info on why we pulled out of there, please fill free to let me know.

The US didn't pull out of korea, the US is infact still in korea. The fighting was difficult and the two sides more or less fought each other to a standstill. Presumably concern over a wider east asian communist war invovling china also put pressure on the UN to stop fighting.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Your quite correct..
Want to know why the US has NEVER won a war since ww2?

Are you sure we never won a war or conflict since WW2? How about Panama, or Gulf War 1 or Kosovo, etc. What about Korea? Still at war maybe?

WE Started the Vietnam war after our military leaders lied about the attack in the Gulf of Tonkin.

Well, that's not entirely accurate, the first Tonkin Gulf attack almost certainly happened, the second almost certainly didn't. And there was a preexisting conflict between North and South that the US was increasingly sticking it's nose into, like so many Cold War proxy conflicts. Tonkin led to increased US involvement, but the US was already there, albeit not officially in a combat capacity.

Agit8dChop's post gets to the heart of the matter IMHO.

Most US conflicts since WW2 have been in wars where nobody was directly attacking the US (the only real exception is Afghanistan) and where the US has had no truly pressing need to be involved other than preserving our "strategic interests" IE: imperial power. That's why no war since WW2 has enjoyed the same kind of public support, again except Afghanistan, which was hardly on the same kind of scale anyway.

The truth is outside of a small but vocal minority of militarists, no-one in the US particularly cares about our "strategic interests" overseas (Empire).

Americans want to be secure in their homes and are perfectly willing to rain hell on anyone who attacks us, or even attacks a friend, but when there is no compelling issue of national survival, there is very limited enthusiasm for overseas military interventions. We have plenty of "living room" already, and we're quite rich. Most Amercans, if they knew about neocon theories about "global dominance", would be repulsed. Unfortunately in addititon to being rich and mostly happy, we're also sadly uninformed about the agendas of our own leaders...

[edit on 12/13/05 by xmotex]

Its funny because the US has never lost a war. Since the formation of this Country we have never lost an ounce of soil because of war. Sure we have become the police man in global affairs and have had to pull our forces out of direct engagments but we have never lost. No other goverment has ever told the US Goverment to disband because of a loss in "war".

The South only "lost" to the North because some smart people realized that this is our Country, north, south, east and west and all the people in it. Our own soil and for the betterment of all the people in this great Country.

We went to europe to free the opressed people from Hitler, we fought a cold war with Stalin to promot Democracy and the freedom of all people, We went to Vietnam to help stop the roll of Communisim into south Asia. We went to Korea again to protect the free people of the south from Communist oppression. We went to the middle east to free a sovergin nation over-run by a tyrantical dictator bent on becoming the prince of the middle east. We came back to finish the job that the former politcal establishment thought was un-necessary but in the light of global terrorism we felt it was the starting part to rid the region of a potential future threat.

And if we have to we will go to Syria and into to Iran to rid the world of the potential for nuclear destruction by again a fanatical regime bent on dominating the region.

If Iran would say okay, we are peaceful, Israel and the free people of Israel have the right to their existence just as us Iranians have a right to our own existence. We recognise you and you recognise us. The US would stay out of the way. If the peoples of Iran asked the US please look at the oppression look at the suffering please help us. Then the US would put pressure on the goverment of Iran to change.

Just as we have tried to do with North Korea. Sure Kim is a little crazy, but he is not saying, hey those Camodians I dont like them, they should move so I can have their land, Or oh I dont like that little Island of the China Sea, I will destroy you Japan and make it my pleasure palace.

He is a scared little dictator trying to make a name for himself by declaring his land his. And trying not to be bullied. Sure we dont like the fact that he may have 1 nuclear bomb. But really Kim knows if he ever tried to use it, is dictatorship would be over, his Country essentially vaporised into a useless barren no mans land. Will he risk it ? I doubt it. He will probably die off and be replaced by some other moderate at first party member who will let power get the best of him and turn into another tyranical dictator.

And eventually we may have to take action.

But the US has never lost a war, never had to submit to foreign occupation never had to change its govermental process because of not having the power to protect herself.

Even as a sad little coloney of English refugees, we could not be defeated by a long term Global Empire. That must say a thing or two about the heart of the "American" people to defeat the odds.

USA vs obesity.....lost
USA vs drugs....lost

Originally posted by xmotex
Why is it the Right can never admit Vietnam was a loss, they have to go into a long litany of excuses and equivocations... "the dirty hippies lost us the war!" Sounds so much like Hitler moaning about how the Jews lost WW1 for Germany....

Because war was never declared! Besides the US military was not defeated! They withdrew under political pressure not because of an enemy.
It is not an excuse it is a fact and why is it the Left has to always drop the Hitler bomb? That is so freaking typical.

Originally posted by xmotex
In the end, the majority of the American people no longer thought it was a war worth fighting, and we withdrew. That's a defeat. The US military was never able to destroy the NVA or Viet Cong's ability or will to fight, despite overwhelming odds and firepower on the US side. Eventually the US public realized victory was not possible, not without mass murder on an unpalatable scale. So we conceded. Lost

The American people were not behind the action because it was all political!
That is exactly what I have been saying! Our Military was not allowed to fight the war the way it should have been fought for fear of escallating into a World War. Laos and Cambodia were exploding at the same time. Russian and China were helping the North. It was a police action not an all out war.

Originally posted by xmotex
It really ought not to come as a surprise, while the US saw itself as waging war against an objectionable political philosophy, the Vietnamese saw it as a war of independence against foreign invaders and their vassal state. It's no wonder they were more determined to win than we were...

This is true and it is why the US Military and her Alllies were never completely turned loose. No one wanted this war. LBJ was taking a beating back home. America was watching her GI's dying on the 6 o'clock news and everyone was asking, what the hell are we doing there. The Political tide changed putting Nixon in office and he brought the troops home letting
Vietnam collapse. It was a politcal defeat not a military defeat.

Originally posted by xmotex
If your virility is so threatened by the idea that the US actually lost a war that you can't confront the fact squarely, perhaps you should reexamine your excessive identification with US military power. It's not healthy

My identification with the US Military is that I lost a brother and a lot of good friends in Nam. I have two Nephews currently in Iraq. The US has never lost a War and that is a fact that you need to confront squarely.
War was not delcared in Vietnam, it was a police action. We went in to help
defend the South and ended up in a no win polictical qagmire. I still stand by what I said, the US has never lost a War!

Originally posted by xmotex
Americans want to be secure in their homes and are perfectly willing to rain hell on anyone who attacks us, or even attacks a friend, but when there is no compelling issue of national survival, there is very limited enthusiasm for overseas military interventions. We have plenty of "living room" already, and we're quite rich. Most Amercans, if they knew about neocon theories about "global dominance", would be repulsed. Unfortunately in addititon to being rich and mostly happy, we're also sadly uninformed about the agendas of our own leaders...

I guess your right. Maybe we shouldnt be fighting overseas. We should just wait until the attacks come home to our front yards. Ooo yeah it happened on 9/11 coming from a country called Afghanistan that we had not fought in yet. It believe its America's policy especially the govt and the military to fight overseas head on instead of having the fight brought back on the American people themselves.

I guess your right. Maybe we shouldnt be fighting overseas. We should just wait until the attacks come home to our front yards. Ooo yeah it happened on 9/11 coming from a country called Afghanistan that we had not fought in yet. It believe its America's policy especially the govt and the military to fight overseas head on instead of having the fight brought back on the American people themselves.

Really, you've got to be kidding.

To the (very limited) extent that the US is under threat of attack, it's largely because we've been going around sticking our noses into everyone else's conflicts. Even 9/11 and the resulting war in Afghanistan are pretty much a direct outgrowth of our overseas interventionism, don't forget that OBL and AQ are monsters we in large part created as part of our Cold War fight with the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Who is going to attack us? Mexico? Canada? Venezuela?
Iraq was about to invade us? Get real.

We're not defending ourselves in any sense with all these overseas interventions. We're simply making ourselves targets of much of the planet's fear and hatred. The Cold War is over, we won, and it's time to put our own house in order and stop trying to run the rest of the world.

With the money and effort we're wasting to make ourselves more hated in Iraq, we could have gone back to the Moon, gone to Mars, even started mining the asteroids. Our future lies up not out. The sooner off we realize that the better off we are. Military empires were obsolete at the turn of the last century, we just dont seem to have figured that out yet.

[edit on 12/13/05 by xmotex]

Originally posted by xmotex
We're not defending ourselves in any sense with all these overseas interventions. We're simply making ourselves targets of much of the planet's fear and hatred. The Cold War is over, we won, and it's time to put our own house in order and stop trying to run the rest of the world.

So we just let the world go flow naturally. Let say the Kosovo war or Bosnian war both in 95 and 99. Genocide and stuff, but then in your view its not our problem. Let the Serbs or the Croatians or the Albanians,etc deal with it. Even if its hopeless.

Seeker:

Was the Korean War a war of aggression?
Was the Vietnam War a war of aggression?
Was the First Gulf War a war of aggression?
Read a history book or two instead of that garbage you been reading, k?

Your snarkiness is made all the funnier by your obvious failure to grasp simple concepts.

How many Koreans did the US military kill in the Korean War? How many US soldiers died?

How many Vietnamese died at the hands of US soldiers in the Vietnam War vs the amount of American casualties?

How many Iraqis died as a result of Gulf War I vs the US casualties?

You were using napalm on jungles in Vietnam as a sort of "feng shui" thing, not to massacre people, right? LOL

EVERY WAR that you've been in since WWII is a frickin war of aggression. I’d love to hear how you can actually spin that otherwise.

Was it absolutely necessary for world peace for the US to go into Korea? LOL, not quite. There were strategic interests.

Same for Vietnam. Would the loss of Vietnam to Communism actually cause the laughable “domino effect” that the administration at the time was touting? Haha, again, hardly.

Gulf War I was fought not because the US was looking out for Kuwait, but because if Saddam had more oil, it might POSSIBLY become more expensive for the US. Can't have that, can we? Lock and load.

Of course, if you want to go around pretending that your army is walking around with flowers and cookies and helping out the poor downtrodden all over the globe, then you can believe it.

Just don’t expect me to listen to it without bursting into laughter.

Genocide and stuff, but then in your view its not our problem.

Damn right it's not our problem.

The idea that one nation, by itself, can take on all the evil of the world, is absurd and totally unrealistic. Nobody elected us the planet's sheriff. Three hundred million people can't control a planet of six billion, and if we try, sooner or later we're going to pay the price.


[edit on 12/13/05 by xmotex]