Cuba, quiero baillar la Salsa

Thats exactly what I was pointing out sally, thank you!

Uh, oh. If we're going to raise our hackles about historical accuracy, let's all remember the actual history here.

Once the Chinese had entered the war, the policy reverted to one of containment, with the goal of the UN troops to push the North Koreans back to their original border at the 38th parallel (which it did), not to conquer the whole of Korea. MacArthur was fired by Truman because he publicly campaigned to go beyond that, including the use of nuclear weapons. It was ultimately a political decision, not a military one.

And in case you forgot, the UK and the Commonwealth also fought in Korea. So you helped to stalemate that one, too...

As for Vietnam, that was a political defeat, not a military one. It was never the US' business (just as it hadn't been for the French) to try to subjugate an independence movement. The US did a fine job militarily of killing off people and blowing things up, what it lost was the political war that it needed to win to get the locals to embrace its presence. A problem that seems awfully relevant to our current situation...

I thought that's exactly what the French tried to do in Vietnam?

How very ironic that an American should be commenting on a lack of historic accuracy.
The British Army had 1 infantry brigade there under US command...nice try sunshine but it was your balls up from start to finish.

What wars are NOT political? ALL wars are political. Typical yank grasping at straws and trying to find an excuse for the biggest mistake any military could make...underestimating your enemy. Instead of having the balls to admit it you just carry on blindly finding excuses and then fall into the same trap again and again, but then again you are gracious enough to almost admit it in the following statement so maybe you are beginning to learn something about how to fight and who to pick on. About ****ing time.

The Korean War was fought under a UN mandate. Half of the UN troops weren't American.

Going back to it, the point was that the objectives of the war were achieved vis-a-vis getting the North Korean troops out of South Korea. In that sense, it was as successful as Gulf War I, which was intended to push Iraq out of Kuwait rather than topple Iraq, or as was the Falklands War, which was meant to get the Argentines out of British territory, not to conquer Argentina. The schism comes from the fact that the Korean war's goals changed from its beginning until after the Chinese intervened. The real fear at that point became that China had an endless supply of bodies to throw at it, and that it could erupt into a full-scale nuclear war.

I guess nuance isn't one of your strengths.

First of all, have a good wank and calm down. I'm obviously not trying to justify anything, I'm simply explaining history, which it should be evident that I happen to know more than a little something about.

In military terms, the US did what a successful military is supposed to do, in that it inflicted more damage than it took. In terms of body count, the US clearly won the war, with a kill ratio of perhaps 20-40:1, depending upon your sources, so when it came to spilling blood, the US certainly took the prize.

The problem with the Vietnam War is that its ultimate success was not be measured by body counts, an area in which the US clearly excelled, but in pacifying a resistance movement, something that the US was apparently unable to do. The US failed to realize that a war of attrition is difficult for the outside party to win. This is rather similar to Iraq, in which the US clearly and decisively won the conventional war, but is losing horribly at the occupation because it mishandled the political aftermath of the conflict. If the US could win simply by blowing up more stuff more often, this thing would have been happily resolved a long time ago.

Rather than paint a black-and-white picture of it, a smart historian actually reviews the circumstances and attempts to understand why things occurred as they did. That may not fit into your vision of attack-dog revisionism, but that's your issue, not mine.

This exactly the crap I have to put up with at work, hence the original request.
Americans are always right and wont have it any other way!
(at least they think so)

Rather than take generalized potshots, why not point out the factual errors that I made above (if you can find any)?

Do you actually disagree that the US decisively defeated the Iraqi army, yet has also failed dismally as an occupier? Do you disagree that MacArthur was fired by Truman for supporting a nuclear-supported invasion of North Korea, or that the American military killed more Vietnamese than the other way around?

Those are all factual statements, not opinions. Any historian worth his salt would document them. And in case you hadn't figured it out, my comments aren't exactly lauding the US for its actions, simply assessing it for its successes and failures. (Despite what some might wish to believe, it has had its share of both.)

Are you seriously saying there's no difference between the ignorant "you'd all be speaking German...." crap and a well informed, reasoned post like RoadWarrior's above? If so, then you're in danger of coming across as ignorant as the poeple you're complaining about - and you're maybe not the only one on this thread.

bloody hell, the OP's created a monster with this thread....

there is a history (little joke there, ) of it being a touchy subject and always going off the rails.

Well we all get very touchy when talking about War, just as well we've got no German's on this thread But I have to own up to now having a German Surname.

SSSShhhhhh, don't mention the War.

well they did bomb our chippy

Im begining to wish I hadnt now