Can the US win a war ? ...

Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by spy66

 

Well then what does the war in Iraq have to do with then?

Well it has to do with Oil and the value of your dollar. The US control everything when it comes to corporations getting contracts in Iraq.

You went in there to find WMD and to kill Saddam. You did both. You killed Saddam and found out that he was telling the truth all a long. He had no WMD.

You see!!! You whent to war because you had proof that he was producing WMD. Powell showed that to the UN. He presented all the evidence for the whole world to see lol. Your own Government lied to the whole world just to get into Iraq. And you all support it. I dont get it! But i guess its called patriotism. And it has nothing to do with anybody else's freedom but only your own/USA.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by Skelkie3
If you're really suggesting that the US forces were not defeated in Holland Sept. - Nov . 1944 ( thus meeting your requirement in # 3 ) then I will dig up the material, I suppose.

Well I'll wait if you can find that information about Holland. The 101st and 82nd accomplished their objectives the British on the other hand took a severe beating, They were the ones who tried to take a "bridge too far"
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a375bcfc8ec8.jpg[/atsimg]

Best point of all this for our conversation might be... Market Garden- was it the poor intel ? The weather ? The long supply line ?

Could it happen to us ( again ) ? Hell yes - because IMHO arrogance had as much to do with it as anything. Right now- the smartest of our leaders sound like Monty...

OK...

If you're making a political statement then I have nothing to say. My problem is and was people mixing BS with facts when they try to make a point. Anybody can make claims but without sources and links to back up their statements then it's just an opinion and hearsay.

I can' actually define anything we have fought since ww2 as a "war"

We have had "operations" even Iraq despite the raw fire power used wasn't anything I could call a war...

The goal was NOT the destruction of the enemy... if it was of course we could have done that in a week...

In technicality only are Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam even Korea an actual war

Occupation? Perhaps the better term?

Police action?

How ever you wish to define it, we haven't been fighting wars all this time...

A real WAR... in which OUR lives were threatened, we went completely all out in industry, technology and capacity and attempted to defeat an enemy

We are unbeatable... the best perhaps, mutual destruction... but as I said in another thread yesterday...

Almost Half our military budget is Black, I think it is highly unlikely that even Russia or China combined could take us if our desire was inhalation of an enemy, if we were united in survival and the govt opened up Pandoras box...

there is always the chance the Russians and Chinese have some toys we don't know about too...

But... we spend as much money as the combined WORLD in our Secret projects alone... and then more than the whole world on our traditional military

It is very scary, very scary what we likely posses...

I think our govt likes the world to think we can be defeated, but... the leaders or other nations aren't fools

There will be no scenario like this anytime soon... a REAL WAR, against America

and if there is G-d help the fools who start it... g-d help us too... the best in here can obnly speculate where Trillions and Trillions have actually gone and what we might actually have at our disposal...

so in short...

Sure the US can win any war it wants...

Just might be the last war ever for 10,000 years or so...

Originally posted by argentus
Has the U.S. ever won a war?

Has anybody?

I don't think anybody ever wins a war. Those that manage to stay alive, they are the winners, if anyone.

Answer: YES.

The very fact that you are able to speak your mind without fear of jail time and torture confirms the fact that wars are "won".

YOU are the winner of a war, fought at one time or another, which you had the good fortune to avoid participating in.

And YEA! You're alive!

reply to post by mopusvindictus


Then your definition of a war is awfully inconclusive. Because by your definition, only the defending side of the fight would be in a state of war. How can lets say Iraq be a police mission for the USA ´n friends and a proper war for the Iraqis at the same time?

War is not simply the defense of the "homeland", war is an armed clash of national interests.

Originally posted by nenothtu
...
The very fact that you are able to speak your mind without fear of jail time and torture confirms the fact that wars are "won". ...

Nope. It confirms that society develops. War only happened when a powerful/large enough part of the society was resisting that development. The majority of the "free" states has never had to fight a war for their freedoms, which makes something like the Independence War a rather sad footnote of history in the big picture.

Not a single war has ever set anyone free, it merely eliminated the opposition.

[edit on 2/7/2009 by Lonestar24]

Originally posted by Skelkie3

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by dariousg

 

3. Been defeated on the battlefield. Then Yes it's a loss.
Hasn't happened yet.
NEXT?

3.Holland 1944-45

I was under the impression that WWII was an Allied victory. You disagree? Which Nazi country are you living in, then?

4.The present government isn't capable of wiping their own asses

I'll give you that, but take heart, 2010 is coming.

Can the US win a war? We've won many wars the others we didn't win was not a matter of being able. Vietnam was "lost" because we did not have the will and the Vietcong had much more conviction and were willing to accept any loss. It was a matter of will, and we as a country did not have the will. When you account for our losses and compare it to there's it's so amazingly en balanced, it's staggering.

With our recent conflicts going all the way back to Korea we've pulled out mainly because we as a country did not support the wars we fought.

We also have the issue of perpetual war making people a lot of money. So our leaders want war, it's good business and a good way to rally the nation especially when things are not looking good politically.


[edit on 2-7-2009 by oconnection]

Originally posted by Reading

Such a smart guy huh? im currently in the process of joining the RAF regiment is that good enough for you?

i have never served but i have spoken to many that have and i have heard all about team america

i also happen to know that most of your training programmes are borrowed from us in some way or another

Thank you for your assessment of US military ability from the perspective of a non-military, non-serving Brit.

I have a 16 year old nephew who is also "in the process of joining" the military. I've taught him what I can, but he'll find out the REAL deal once he's in, and dropped in the grease. Until then, his understanding of the process just revolves around what I've told him of MY wars, not his. He doesn't have a visceral understanding yet, but he'll get there, as will you, assuming neither of you wash out in the "process".

It's good to hear abut how British forces are the superiors of US forces. Funny how the Brits I've fought beside didn't have that attitude, but then they were no longer "in service to the queen", and had gone freelance. But you're correct, they WERE good. And none carried a chip on his shoulder.

How's holding on to all those colonies Britain had with her superior forces working out for y'all these days?

Originally posted by Skelkie3
reply to post by Reading

 

All due respect to the good ol RAF and others- if I get caught in a hole somewhere ( and wars against tough opponents are not about super-smart operatives blending with the locals )- then I hope it's a hole full of US Marines.

You see, special forces become ( I think ) less effective in this meat grinder that seems possible in central Asia. Blending with the locals will mean being part of a stack of bodies...

So, some ( indirect ) advice from the soon-to-be RAF... discipline is lacking, and people act like cowboys to the detriment ( ? ) of the mission. Thanks.

I starred that post. Can't believe I did it, as i generally disagree with what you say, but I did.

The only point I would contend is your proposal for (apparently - I could be wrong) Afghanistan ("Central Asia" meatgrinder). I believe that's a war where Special forces should be brought to the fore, rather than conventional forces.

Allow me to explain.

Special Forces are generally trained for that very sort of unconventional warfare. That's what they do. Conventional forces, on the other hand, are geared more toward massed assaults and such. Big numbers for overwhelming force against the opposition, but also big fat targets.

When Kabul fell in the initial onslaught in Afghanistan, I think there were around 50 US soldiers in theater. 100 boots on the ground. Using the concept of force multiplication with the locals, combined with supply and air support, 50 US soldiers caused the fall of Kabul. All 50 were US Special Forces.

Afghanistan didn't really go sideways until the conventional generals muscled in and took over, fearful that they wouldn't get their share of the "glory", as if such a thing can be found in a war. Conventional forces are a grand thing in their element. Unconventional warfare is not it.

To make an attempt at analogy, I once had a horse that was killed when it stepped on a yellow jacket nest, before I could get it out of that mess. The horse died within minutes. That was because the horse wasn't geared to fight that sort of battle, but the yellow jackets were.

Another analogy would be that using conventional forces to fight an unconventional war is much like using a framing hammer to kill flies. It MIGHT work eventually with a lucky shot, but look at the ensuing unnecessary destruction.

I guess my point is that both types of forces have their place, but both are being misused by the folks calling the shots.

Originally posted by Reading

Ok buddy whatever makes you feel better, i keep forgetting that it was the north vietnamese that started the conflict silly me

you really got forced into that one your country was in iminent danger !

Like i said whatever make's you feel better if you are sitting there honestly trying to tell me that The viet Cong and the Taliban match the might of the american military

then i think it is you that dont know WTF your talking about

Was America not an ally of South Vietnam, much as it is now with Britain?

So what you propose is that if, God forbid, Britain were to be attacked by a foreign power they couldn't handle alone (like happened in WWII) the US should just say "sorry, that's your problem. We ain't gonna be forced into a war, no imminent danger to us, deal with it on your own", right? Leave you to your own devices?

Works for me, but it sort of negates the idea of having "allies".

[edit on 2009/7/2 by nenothtu]

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Skelkie3
reply to post by Reading

 

All due respect to the good ol RAF and others- if I get caught in a hole somewhere ( and wars against tough opponents are not about super-smart operatives blending with the locals )- then I hope it's a hole full of US Marines.

You see, special forces become ( I think ) less effective in this meat grinder that seems possible in central Asia. Blending with the locals will mean being part of a stack of bodies...

So, some ( indirect ) advice from the soon-to-be RAF... discipline is lacking, and people act like cowboys to the detriment ( ? ) of the mission. Thanks.

I starred that post. Can't believe I did it, as i generally disagree with what you say, but I did.

The only point I would contend is your proposal for (apparently - I could be wrong) Afghanistan ("Central Asia" meatgrinder). I believe that's a war where Special forces should be brought to the fore, rather than conventional forces.

Allow me to explain.

Special Forces are generally trained for that very sort of unconventional warfare. That's what they do. Conventional forces, on the other hand, are geared more toward massed assaults and such. Big numbers for overwhelming force against the opposition, but also big fat targets.

When Kabul fell in the initial onslaught in Afghanistan, I think there were around 50 US soldiers in theater. 100 boots on the ground. Using the concept of force multiplication with the locals, combined with supply and air support, 50 US soldiers caused the fall of Kabul. All 50 were US Special Forces.

Afghanistan didn't really go sideways until the conventional generals muscled in and took over, fearful that they wouldn't get their share of the "glory", as if such a thing can be found in a war. Conventional forces are a grand thing in their element. Unconventional warfare is not it.

To make an attempt at analogy, I once had a horse that was killed when it stepped on a yellow jacket nest, before I could get it out of that mess. The horse died within minutes. That was because the horse wasn't geared to fight that sort of battle, but the yellow jackets were.

Another analogy would be that using conventional forces to fight an unconventional war is much like using a framing hammer to kill flies. It MIGHT work eventually with a lucky shot, but look at the ensuing unnecessary destruction.

I guess my point is that both types of forces have their place, but both are being misused by the folks calling the shots.

All due respect to the people involved ( currently ) in Afghanistan... I don 't think of this as a meatgrinder. And I don't mean to diminish what may be the most important part ( or the last ) of certain people 's lives.
However these things are nothing new in this particular locale.
One or another empire has always backed one or another tribe.
I will say on the subject that as an American- I 'm disgusted by the fact that our guys are trying to combat Reagan's freedom fighters.
What disgraces our ' leaders ' are !
I think there is a possibility of a much wider and more destructive war in that region. One where you trade that baret and smg in for a brain bucket and a shovel.

Originally posted by Skelkie3
Operation Market Garden Casualties www.olive-drab.com...[/url]rep[

101st airborne was out as a unit 'till Vietnam, I think. I'm going to check on that...

Nope. My dad was in the 101st Airborne based out of Camp Breckenridge, KY (now Fort Campbell) in the early 1950's.

edit to remove too many italics.



[edit on 2009/7/2 by nenothtu]