thing is, there were a few brits and aussies out there to lend a hand...borneo and all that being good jungle training...

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.

WWII was a clear win. No arguments there.

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.

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.

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.

I agree with that comment wholeheartedly.......
I thin the USA has the ability to kick anyone's ass on a one on one war.......

However diplomatically, I don't trust them not to come out of a summit with Honduras with egg on their face.

My top tips are;

1. Point at the fattest ones belly ( and you know there has to be a fat one as this is the US of A) and exclaim loudly that the war is won but he is losing the 'Battle of the Bulge';
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bulge

2. Shave your head and bring a childs toy silver pistol to work ( with faux) ivory grip. Smack him around the face and claim you are General Patton, and it will do him damn good;
http://www.pattonhq.com/unknown/chap08.html

3. Point to another fat colleagues belly then his crotch, then point at a nerdy looking colleague loudly exclaiming " If that is fat man that must be little boy and you are Enola Gay"

4. Bataan Death March. Largest surrender of US troops in history. I think?

Then clear your desk put all your stuff in a box and leave in dignified silence while smoking a large cigar and giving a V sign, with the excuse that it means Victory.

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.

I just say "thanks for the gun fodder, we were running low" and ask them who invented radar. I also casually mention that the P51 would have been nothing without a Rolls Royce engine and that they own a BMW... Then I remember why I'd like to find an English or Aussie girl cos these Californian women are "lame".

They do pick on the war of independence more though, I just tell them they weren't worth keeping. Is that why they don't like me very much?

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.

My ex was there for 4 months (it was a UN not just US deployment, btw). The warlords were hiding weapons in mosques.

last night a mate of mine was talking about the current iraq war and that its been going on for longer than the second world war now

I was like, that was 6 years long wtf are you talking about? he said, oh, it started in 1941

I was like...... err.... I think you're a bit confused...

I feel like Cindy now - stick a fork in me, i'm done!

Please don't shoot me for bringing this goatrope of a thread back to the top but...

I had a few minutes to kill today and stopped to have a look around at the library. Remembering this thread, I headed for the WW2 section and ended up leaving with a book dealing with this very subject.

Titled "Summer, 1940" subtitled "The Battle of Britain" copywrited in 1977 and written by Roger Parkinson a "Noted British Military Historian" according to the jacket's author Bio. The notes on the inside front flap promise to answer the questions "Could Hitler have conquered Britain in 1940?" And "How close was that country to sharing the fate of Occupied Europe?"

We'll see I guess.

And no, I don't want a cookie. This thread made me realize that my own WW2 areas of interest had been mostly post US involvement. The only other book I had dealing with the Battle of Britain I've had since I was a kid. It's part of a series of books written on historical subjects geared towards Junior High aged kids. And yes, I'm going to reread it too.

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

Whats the difference between a "loss" and a "military defeat" then?

and then you'll both be on my shit list!