It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What wars have the US really lost?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
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 sherrif. 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.


Thats what we thought just before WW1 and WW2. Makes you wonder how come there aint no WW3 and WW4 and WW5 since the U.S. came out of its shell after Pearl Harbor. You believe local conflicts would stay local. Whoever knew that a Serb would kill a leader of Austria that would start WW1 in the first place. Nobody ever say the U.S. is taking on the world alone on terrorism or dealing with the conflicts we have brought on many allies who chose to join us to fight. As we have seen in previous conflicts in post WW2. Even on the War on Terror we have France who ironically is helping us even when we both have different views on Iraq. So dont assume we are fighting alone.




posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   
US involvement in WW1 was probably pointless anyway, and to some extent probably contributed to the outbreak of WW2. Had the US kept out of it, Germany might have been able to finish the war with a less humiliating peace settlement, and the NAZI's may never have risen to power.

As for WW2, we damn well did stay out of it until we were attacked.
At which point we had every right to fight like hell until it was won.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by finnman68
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.


I haven't read much else of this thread yet, but thought I'd reply to this.

A buddy of mine is good friends with a Vietnam vet, and they've had conversations about the war. So I've heard some stuff about Vietnam through my friend, who heard it from his veteran friend. Like those razors placed the inside of the vagina by Vietnamese women trying to protect themselves from rape, for example. Like, a friend of the veteran staggered into a shop one night during the war, bleeding profusely from downstairs, and collapsed onto the floor, where he bled to death before he could be helped. Some gruesome stuff, undoubtedly, took place during that conflict. It was no gentleman's war by any means. But one thing I've been told that I've found particular interesting, though I don't doubt it at all, displays a gruesome butchering of history rather than of the human body.

As I remember, a small American force was being sent in against a much larger Viet Cong force just before reforcements were to arrive for the Americans. We didn't exactly "win" (I wasn't told the name or place of this particular conflict - it was just a casual conversation between my friend and I, of the veteran's experiences). We took a lot of losses and didn't accomplish any real objectives. Just lost a lot of men.

Well, the next day, when the reinforcements arrived, news of a decisive American victory in the said conflict was already being reported by those of rank. And my friend told me that to this day, this veteran will not trust history at all. He had friends that died in that battle, completely in vain, just to have the truth of their fates fabricated and sold to the rest of the world to make the war seem not-so-bad for those watching from a distance. And I suppose to this day, that battle is looked upon as a decisive American victory. His view of the world, and how it operates, how everything we think we know has come down to us, was shattered with that single battle. Just some personal commentary of that bit of the original post.

[edit on 13-12-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
US involvement in WW1 was probably pointless anyway, and to some extent probably contributed to the outbreak of WW2. Had the US kept out of it, Germany might have been able to finish the war with a less humiliating peace settlement, and the NAZI's may never have risen to power.


Pointless? You ever heard of the Zimmerman Telegram? Thats enough to go to war already, and we show restraint since the Germans decided to sink a couple of ships which led to the deaths of civilians including Americans. Had the U.S. kept out of WW1, we can never be sure what the results would have been, but that dont mean we help create Nazi Germany, that was the British and France who wanted to punish Germany in the first place and President Woodrow Wilson wanted to do something a little different that was not harsh to Germany but he has little influence over Britain and France. Not to mention that the U.S. Congress refusal to join the League of Nations made it clear that Nazi Germany with Hitler in power could do anything they wanted without any interference. Britain and France could do nothing but watch as German started taking over Czechslovakia, etc. It was until Poland was invaded that Britain and France declared war on Germany.

Later on as Germany lay defeated after WW2, the U.S. was a member of the U.N. and introduce the Marshall Plan to help Germany up its feet and thats significant for it does not have another Hitler again who would vow to bring Germany out of its ashes from humiliation.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
US involvement in WW1 was probably pointless anyway, and to some extent probably contributed to the outbreak of WW2. Had the US kept out of it, Germany might have been able to finish the war with a less humiliating peace settlement, and the NAZI's may never have risen to power.


The US involvement in WWI contributed to WWII?
Wha?
Thats like saying that the Congress of Vienna and the Concert of Europe ultimately contributed to the causes of WWI.


No, the US had no contributing factor to the causes of WWII, despite Wilson's ideological "Fourteen Points." Better look at the Franco-Prussian War and how it was settled and the harsh settlements that Germany imposed on France. Then carry that over into the end of WWI and the Treaty of Versailles [Versailles Peace Treaty], and the harsh terms imposed and demanded on Germany, mainly by France. The US, among others at the Versailles, were in dispute over what terms to place on Germany. France lead the crowd in demanding that Article 231, the 'war guilt' clause and outrageous reparations be paid by Germany. These harsh terms were met in Germany with an significant increase in nationalism and resentment, that carried into the 1930s and the start of WWII in 1939. The causes of WWII were European in nature and having nothing remotely to do with the US.





seekerof



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   


So I've heard some stuff about Vietnam through my friend, who heard it from his veteran friend.


My uncle was an AirCav medic in Vietnam and also has some interesting stories to tell. At one point he was traveling around in a jeep and they broke down near a small village. The people in the village took them into their homes, fed them dinner, and put them up for the night. In the morning, trying to radio for someone to come get them, they saw a line of M113's coming down the road, and approached them. The leader of the column told them the village had been declared a "free fire zone" because intel had reported it was full of VC, and that he was preparing to attack.

Seeing that if the village had been full of VC, they wouldn't have made it through the night, let alone recieved a free meal, my uncle persuaded the commander to call off the attack, and sure enough, a brief search of the town found no evidence of the Viet Cong whatsoever.

Had my uncle not been there, purely by chance, the village (as he saw in other places) would have been wiped out and the "battle" reported as a "victory". Just something to think about.

BTW my uncle has no great love for the antiwar protestors, seeing as he recieved a lot of verbal abuse from them in college after the war, despite his own opposition to the war, which was a result of having been there. Or the officer corps of the Vietnam era either: during a firefight, his Lt. wouldn't allow him to go treat wounded men, because he wanted a medic next to him if he got hit himself. He told the Lt. where to stick it and went and treated the guys, the Lt. wisely decided it'd be a bad idea to make an issue of it.


[edit on 12/13/05 by xmotex]



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   
But, Seekerof, WWI was pretty much a stalemate until we joined, right? Despite Russia having dropped out; no offense, but they were just being literally mowed down en masse by machine guns. The numbers of fresh soldiers sort of put the odds against Germany. If we hadn't joined, an agreement might've been reached without Germany being made surrender and take full blame for the war. By forcing Germany to surrender, the stage was set for oppressing the German people, which, obviously, was not extremely intelligent (or at least for anyone with good intentions at heart).


Originally posted by deltaboy
You ever heard of the Zimmerman Telegram?


I may be mistaken, and correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there some controversy to the Zimmerman Telegram, of it possibly being British propaganda?

Lusitania, from what I understand, was a Pearl Harbor, and not conventional history's Pearl Harbor. I would assume that the Germans actually did blow that ship up, but there had been repeated warnings by the Germans to clear the waters the Lusitania was sailing on. The British, Churchill behind them, were flaunting the Lusitania before German subs in an off-limits zone.


The first clear indication of increased peril to LUSITANIA was the extraordinary notice placed in American newspapers by the German Embassy on 1 May 1915, the day the Cunarder sailed: "Travellers intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her allies and Great Britain and her allies; that the zone of war includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles; that, in accordance with formal notice given by the Imperial German Government, vessels flying the flag of Great Britain, or of any of her allies, are liable to destruction in those waters and that travellers sailing in the war zone on ships of Great Britain or her allies do so at their own risk."

In retrospect it seems clear that this warning, and the known presence of U- boats in LUSITANIA's path, should have induced a far greater sense of alarm in the British--in the Admiralty, the Cunard Line, and in Captain Turner on the bridge of LUSITANIA. Several authors, most notably Colin Simpson, go beyond this to claim that the Admiralty, and in particular First Lord Winston Churchill, conspired to put LUSITANIA in danger in hopes of sparking an incident that might lead to American entry into the war. While this allegation directly occupies only a few pages of Simpson's book, it is this charge which won him such great attention. Patrick Beesly, a well known historian of British naval intelligence, supports most of Simpson's charges in his "Room 40."



By 1 May, the day LUSITANIA sailed, the Admiralty was aware that a group of U-boats was en route to British waters. Bauer's deployment order to U-30, sent about 25 April, had been decoded by Room 40. On 30 April, U-20 tested her radio on departure from base, and this too was intercepted. Simpson states that on 1 May Room 40, the Admiralty's intelligence center, informed the Admiralty War Staff and coastal stations that three submarines were en route to the Irish Sea; by 4 May he specifically indicates that Queenstown had been notified of the danger. Beesly claims that only the Grand Fleet was given this information, and that the major coastal stations along LUSITANIA's track--Queenstown, Liverpool, and Milford Haven on the Welsh side of the St. George's Channel--were not told. [Simpson, p. 94n, ch. 7; pages 115, 119, chapter 9; Beesly, pp. 97-99]


www.gwpda.org...



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Originally posted by deltaboy
You ever heard of the Zimmerman Telegram?


I may be mistaken, and correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there some controversy to the Zimmerman Telegram, of it possibly being British propaganda?



No there is no controversy because Arthur Zimmerman admitted himself of the existence and the authenticity of the telegram. Not propaganda.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Re: WW1. My point was that the US's contribution to the war left the Allies in a stronger position to demand onerous terms, not that the US demanded those terms itself.

And yes, I don't think the US should have bothered to participate in a pointless war between warring European empires. It was never our fight, and the Allies almost certainly would have won without our participation.

The Zimmerman telegram (it was real) was a proposal by a Germany looking for allies that feared (correctlly) that the US would join the war against it, and was rejected by the Mexicans anyway. It didn't propse any action by Mexico unless the US entered the war first.

As far as US ships being attacked, considering the US was supplying the Allies with munitions on a large scale, it shouldn't have been much of a shock. Ships carrying arms to a warring country are likely to be subject to attack, we knew it and sent them anyway.

Unlike WW2, the US proper was never attacked by the Central Powers, and almost certainly would not have been under any circumstances.

[edit on 12/13/05 by xmotex]



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Classified Info
What ever happeneed to the nucleur option? It's not like we have never used them before. If we are going to go to war every weapon that is in our arsenel should be considered.


So the US should drop nukes on any country that doesnt agree with its policies. Your crazy. If u think the US should do it, would u complain when some1 starts dropping nukes in your home town. Just because they exist doesnt mean they should be used. are u trying to drag us back into a cold war?



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Let's get back to the question.

What wars have the US really lost?

ALL OF THEM!

Because...everytime you have to resort to war you have missed something early on that might have avoided the need to war. Governmental laziness, ineptitude, carelessness costs lives.

Yeah, maybe in this timeframe there may have been no option, but earlier on 10...20...50 years ago someone with foresight could have made a difference that would have avoided conflict. This is an example of the best of the best not choosing public service and the willing being led by the corrupt, nearsighted, and incapable.







[edit on 12/14/2005 by bodebliss]



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist

So the US should drop nukes on any country that doesnt agree with its policies. Your crazy.


No that is not what I was saying at all C.T., just that since we do indeed possess them, they should always be considered as an option.

Actualy I am more of an isolationist, for lack of a better term. I don't care if another country agrees with us or not, that's their business. I think it is time for the United States to get completely out of the Old World and just concentrate on the Western hemisphere. This includes foriegn aid as well as the military.

But if another country wants to start F'n with us, no matter how big or small, then yes the nucleur option should always be considered.



[edit on 12/14/2005 by Classified Info]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Crazy Horse had some success fighting American troops. But he lost the war.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Originally posted by Jakomo
Same thing with Korea. Was it better when you left? Didn't North Korea just become a dictatorship after the war?


You just can't let the facts get in the way of your attacks, can you?

North Korea was a dictatorship led by Kim Il-Sung before the Korean War and he unprovokedly attacked South Korea in an attempt to take it over. We defended South Korea and drove the North back -- we would have defeated them but they ended up getting some help and it ended up a draw with the old border restored. :shk:


Actually, no. North Korea gained territory. But your other facts are correct. North Korea (The Democratic People's Republic of Korea! I love that, like East Germany calling themselves the German Democratic Republic) were the agressors, the UN force pushed them back, China entered in support of their communist buddies and after a retreat stalemate ensued.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by WHOFLUNGGUM
Every war since WWII basically was no more than a defensive action. What I mean is America went in to help defend another nation and drive back the invading army. North Korea wouldn't be the pain it is today if Ike would have let General Macarthur invade like he wanted to.


Oh man! Brother, open an encyclopedia.

Who was President during the Korean War?

Who fired Macarthur? Why?

Macarthur did invade NK, (personal edit to remove insult), China told the UN, pretty much the US, that if the UN forces apporached the Yalu, the border between NK and China, then China would be forced to intervene. Macartheur dismissed said threat. The Chinese did intervene. Macarthur's solution was to nuke Beijing.

Truman fired him.

Truman. President Harry S.

You know, the President of the United States that General Douglas Macarthur did not salute. Aparrantly it was beneath a five-star to salute a mere Captian of the National Guard Artillery. Despite the fact that that mere Captian was CinC of ALL US forces, worldwide.



North Vietnam would have been pummeled to ashes if not for Political interference.


Remember who intervened in Korea? Say, who is that to the north of Vietnam?

And which President, Rep or Dem, switched recognition from Taipei to Beijing and made a historic visit there?


And there never would have been a second Gulf War if we had finished with Saddam the first time but our troops again were hogtied and not allowed to finish the job.


Because President George Bush (HW, the one with a functioning brain) was given advice that Iraq would look exactly as it does today if he "went all the way" and he accepted that advice.


Now some Americans and American politicians are clamoring for the US to pull out of Iraq before the mission is complete. History should have taught us a valuable lesson but unfortuntely it hasn't.


That you don't unilaterally invade a sovereign country without a damn good game-plan? That would be the lesson of Russia in Afghanistan?


American has the most powerful Military in the world but it is constantly being kept on a tight leash. I do not condone war but if you are going to send America's young men and women into war then please do not tie their hands behind their backs and let them die for nothing. If we go in full force there is not an army in the world that can stop us. So to answer your question, No the US Military has never lost a war. US Politicans? Thats a different story


Who in Iraq are you going to go in full force against?

Where are they?

Who are they?

If you can answer these questions then you're a hell of a lot smarter than the Joint Cheifs and the entire staff at the Pentagon.

You did go in full force against the Iraqi Army, so did the Brits, Spaniards, Poles, Aussies, Italians...

You're playing a different game now. Learn the rules.

[edit on 21-12-2005 by HowlrunnerIV]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
As I remember, a small American force was being sent in against a much larger Viet Cong force just before reforcements were to arrive for the Americans. We didn't exactly "win" (I wasn't told the name or place of this particular conflict - it was just a casual conversation between my friend and I, of the veteran's experiences). We took a lot of losses and didn't accomplish any real objectives. Just lost a lot of men.


Sounds a little bit like "Hamburger Hill", where there was no strategic value in the hill, (it lay a little way off a supply line), but it had to be denied to the enemy and the 101st Airborne were given the job. After it was taken from the enemy, and thus denied to them, it was abandoned. Because it held no strategic value in and of itself.

There was also an ARVN unit with an AATT (Australian Army Training Team) Advisor attached in the same area, who pretty much took part in a parallel battle and observed "Hamburger Hill".



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by WHOFLUNGGUM
Vietnam was never technically a war. America never declared war against North Vietnam.



True.


The Political climate of the time is what forced the troops to
withdraw, not defeat at the hands of an enemy.


Also true.


Also the US wasn't the only country fighting North Vietnam.


Hey, somebody knows that fact.



The UK,


I'm sorry, the who?

The Brits only involvement was in 1945 when they were there to disarm the Japanese.


Aussies, Canadians, New Zealanders and please don't forget the French were there fighting long before that.


Errmm...long before that? I hope you are only referring to the French as being there long before that. And the Canadians were never fighting in Vietnam. Although somne Canadian soldiers did enlist in the Australian Army to gain some experience.


On the other side there were the Russians, Chinese, Cambodians,


Hold it right there. Sihanouk kept Cambodia neutral. He was being squeezed by the Vietnamese, who massively outnumbered his country, into being a transhipment route, something he objected vehemently to but had no way of preventing.

After the coup of 1970 Lon Nol brought Cambodia fully into the war on the side of his new best buddies Nixon and Kissinger. And the upshot was the KR and genocide.


Laotians


Who were fighting only in their own country, do you know how small Laos is? Vientiane, the capital is 150,000 people. No, that's not a typo, one hundred and fifty thousand people. In the capital city. The Pathet Lao never left Laos. Although there were large numbers of NVA troops in Laos assisting them and only advisors assisting the mostly Hmong US-allied Royal Government forces.


and North Vietnamese. So it was quite a smorgsborg
of countries. As long as we were bombing North Vietnam and its supply routes then they were loosing ground.


Not true, in any way.


It wasn't until the US and other troops were regulated to defensive poster by our Politicians did the mess get out of hand.


Also not true in any way. From the beginning, from the moment combat troops were introduced, President Jonson refused to declare a war.


It is a blemish on Americas past but it was a Politcal defeat not a military defeat.


True, one the Iraqi insurgents are hoping to repeat.

No opposing army has ever forced the US into a surrender. The only American Army to loose a war was the Confederate States Of America during the American Civil War. But hey the US won that one too!


Also true.

The fact is that during the second Vietnam War the western allies never lost a battle. Not one. But they could not translate those victories, such as Long Tan and Khe Sanh, into a war-winning combination.

In small part I blame Westmoreland, who when asked how he would defeat the VC replied "Firepower". He would have been a great general in North Africa, or Western Europe, and probably especially against the USSR in WW3, but he was no good in SVN.

John Paul Vann was a pretty good commander, but of course technically (technically? How about actaually?) he was a civillian. His helicopter crash deprived the Republic of Vietnam and the US of a man they really could have used.

The only way to win Vietnam is to have a politicall/social program of actual worth running alongside your counter-insurgency program. Look at Oman for the best example of this and Malaya for the best jungle example.

If you want to defeat the VC, you need to take away their reason for being. Feed the poor and hungry, get rid of the corrupt leaders and officers. End the black market. End persecution of minorities. Basically build a new country. And show the people that you are doing it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join