Originally Posted by tehori (Post 5336682)

Some yanks asked a group of Brit squaddies why they
were not in Vietnam.

What for , said one of the squaddies, the NVA are doing
well without our help.

Originally Posted by frrussre (Post 5338072)

Some might say, that reaching the objective is the ultimate definition of winning the war. Some might say, that if you leave with you tail between your legs, you did not attain the original goal. Some might say, that means you lost the war/battle.

WW11, we reached the objective, we won.

Korean, we did not reach the original objective, partial win?

Vietnam, we did not reach the original objective, partial win?

Somalia, we did not reach the original objective, total loss.

Partial win, sounds like we only lost by one goal.

Iraq war, we did not reach the original objective, so far a bloody mess & likely will leave with our tail between our legs.

Reg. Frank R.
Ps. Based on the info we were given, I voted to attack Iraq, destroy "The weapons of mass destruction" & get Saddam Hussein & his regime.

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP (Post 5336972)

The mistake that American conservatives tend to make is in their belief that the ability to "kick ass" will fix everything. They don't realize that while the United States is extremely effective in its ability to marshal large forces, build expensive exotic weaponry, and blow up a lot of stuff (achieve military victory) that all of this does not equate to winning the political end game.

Originally Posted by Triumphrob (Post 5312249)

Hey Guys
I am getting so fed up with the "If it wasnt for the US you would all be speaking German" brigade at work. I need some comebacks that will make them look like the propergander believing twats they are!
Rob

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP (Post 5338364)

WWII was a clear win. No arguments there.
No argument, as long as we accept The British were major players.

Korea was a stalemate that was arguably a partial win for the west. North Korea's goal of conquering the south was thwarted, so to the extent that it was intended to be a proxy war for the Chinese and Soviets to conquer more territory, they were defeated. The border was maintained, and the north was pushed back to where it started. That's akin to what was accomplished in the first Gulf War, one that we tend to consider a clear win.

I thought it was a loss, because the US intention was to beat the commies, rid the world of The Reds under the bed.

The waters get muddy because that was not the original goal of the west, with the goals of the war changing once the Chinese entered the fray. The Chinese achieved a partial win, too, in the sense that the war established that their involvement in a major conflict could turn the tables and that the threat of nuclear war tipped the balance of power toward the middle, yet they lost in that they, too, were ultimately unable to conquer the south. So it set the tone for the rest of Cold War and made it clear that hot wars had limited value for any of the major powers wishing to advance their imperialistic goals.

Vietnam was a loss. American conservatives like to claim that they lost because the civilians in Washington tied their hands, but I don't see that. The issue wasn't troop strength or military prowess, but due to the inability to hold territory and keep the peace simultaneously. Very much like Iraq today.
Funny, I heard the US troops had a big problem with drug taking.
Somalia was a peacekeeping mission that didn't keep the peace. It didn't. But I don't see how it can be classified as a "war" per se -- there was never an objective to topple a government or to seize territory, all the classic ingredients of what offensive wars typically do -- but it didn't accomplish what it set out to do, either. A bit like sending in the cops to control a riot but failing to end the rioting.

Originally Posted by frrussre (Post 5347016)

No argument, as long as we accept The British were major players.

Originally Posted by frrussre (Post 5347016)

I thought it was a loss, because the US intention was to beat the commies, rid the world of The Reds under the bed.

Originally Posted by frrussre (Post 5347016)

Funny, I heard the US troops had a big problem with drug taking.

Originally Posted by frrussre (Post 5347016)

That’s why I included the word battle in my list, US went into Somalia, to kill the War Lord(s), take control, they got their butts kicked, by a bunch of yobs, with pick up trucks. Pretty embarrassing I’d say.

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP (Post 5347284)

I don't recall anybody debating that the UK played an important part in the war. I would still speculate that without US involvement, the UK would have avoided invasion but would have had a difficult if not impossible time of clearing the Germans out of western Europe, and that it would have been the Soviets who would have eventually defeated the Germans.



If having a "loser" requires having a "winner," then you are coming up short.

If the UN had "lost", then South Korea would have been conquered. Obviously, that didn't happen.

Korea generally considered to be a stalemate because neither side ultimately gained much from it. The effort by the North to take South Korea and to drive out western troops was a failure, so it's not possible to claim that the North Koreans won the war -- their objectives were also not met. But the fact that the war could be stalemated probably created a deterrent for even larger hot wars that could have otherwise occurred later.



Are you claiming that they didn't know how to take drugs properly? I thought it was only Bill Clinton who had difficulty with inhaling.



If you're trying to argue that US troops tend not to be good at occupation, then you might note that I've been making that point on this thread for awhile now. They did a fine job of initially securing the airports, etc., but didn't do so well in the hearts and minds department.

If the warlord problem could have been favorably resolved with gunships and napalm, then I doubt that there would have been a problem. But with those yobs with pickup trucks hiding behind women and children, the solution wasn't quite so obvious.

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP (Post 5347284)

I don't recall anybody debating that the UK played an important part in the war. I would still speculate that without US involvement, the UK would have avoided invasion but would have had a difficult if not impossible time of clearing the Germans out of western Europe, and that it would have been the Soviets who would have eventually defeated the Germans.



If having a "loser" requires having a "winner," then you are coming up short.

If the UN had "lost", then South Korea would have been conquered. Obviously, that didn't happen.

Korea generally considered to be a stalemate because neither side ultimately gained much from it. The effort by the North to take South Korea and to drive out western troops was a failure, so it's not possible to claim that the North Koreans won the war -- their objectives were also not met. But the fact that the war could be stalemated probably created a deterrent for even larger hot wars that could have otherwise occurred later.



Are you claiming that they didn't know how to take drugs properly? I thought it was only Bill Clinton who had difficulty with inhaling.



If you're trying to argue that US troops tend not to be good at occupation, then you might note that I've been making that point on this thread for awhile now. They did a fine job of initially securing the airports, etc., but didn't do so well in the hearts and minds department.

If the warlord problem could have been favorably resolved with gunships and napalm, then I doubt that there would have been a problem. But with those yobs with pickup trucks hiding behind women and children, the solution wasn't quite so obvious.

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP (Post 5336608)

Clearly, Vietnam was not a military defeat...

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP (Post 5338364)

Vietnam was a loss.

Originally Posted by another bloody yank (Post 5350881)

BTW, if this guy Parkinson ends up concluding that the "Yanks saved our asses..." I'll be sure to update this thread...:)