-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
US military history
Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
how the hell was korea a loss? the primary goal was defending south korea from being overrun by the north, which we did, and we continue to this day. now, macarthur would have liked to include unmaking red china in those goals, but that wasn't one of them.
and people including the civil war as a US loss are just fing retarded and should be banned immediately. we don't need such sheer idiocy here.
afghanistan and iraq are still being fought. it's a little premature to declare victory or defeat.
and people including the civil war as a US loss are just fing retarded and should be banned immediately. we don't need such sheer idiocy here.
afghanistan and iraq are still being fought. it's a little premature to declare victory or defeat.
PrinceofWands
Lifer
News Flash: The goal was not just to remove Saddam, but also to establish a stable democracy, and ensure the safety of the nation. Last time I checked the nation was destabilized, struggling for basic infrastructure needs, and people were getting picked off like flies. Your utilization of past tense is premature.
PingSpike
Lifer
So I suppose you would argue that Germany didn't lose WWII...because it was Hilter's micromanaging that ultimately lost the war, not the german military. Right?
Politics and warfare are intrinsicly linked. Countries go to war because the political powers in charge choose too. And those political powers have ultimate control over the armed forces. What are you trying to say? We won the basketball game, but lost the soccer game that the other team was actually playing? 😛
...and we still have soldiers dying over there do we not?
....reports have said it is even more dangerous over there now than it was when the invasion started.
Iraq hasn't been beaten. They just morphed the conflict into something they have a chance to win called guerrilla warfare.
That was a double defeat for Germany. Hitler was micromanaging the military (Panzer divisions couldn't be released on D-Day because Hitler was sleeping). The German military was also getting it's ass kicked. The Luftwaffe pretty much ceased to exist and the Allies had full control of the skies. You had Allied commanders moving so fast that supplies couln't keep up with the front. Even Germany's desperate attempt to reverse the situation (Battle of the Bulge) was a horrific defeat for them. Compare the Bulge with the Tet offensive...both were military disasters for the armies initiating them (Germany and N.Vietnam).
Germany was soundly defeated politically and militarily.
PingSpike
Lifer
Thats the western front. Imagine what would have happened if the eastern front, where Germany really lost the war...was never opened. Limited supplies would have continued to flow from the soviet union, massive amounts of manpower and equipment would have been available for use against the western allies. Tons of fuel wouldn't have been wasted. Would the United States still have won? It certainly would have taken longer. Germanies pressure would have been them on the whole time rather then focused on the soviet union. It may have been enough time for germany's nuclear weapons and intercontinental missile programs to come to fuitation.
You might even say wars are won and lost more on political decisions then military ones.
crownjules
Diamond Member
Not to mention, Hitler's biggest blunder was a two-parter that followed right in the footsteps of his idol, Napoleon. Attacking the Soviets not only turned an ally into an enemy, but it opened up a second front in the war.
Queasy
Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Actually it is getting better. Link to an analysis of Brookings Data from Iraq
Summary of March - Attacks are down. US Soldier deaths are down. The number of Iraqi troops and security forces are increasing. Woundings are up but that was not surprising as coalition forces pressed their attacks on the insurgents more in the month of March.
Not saying things in Iraq are rosey but they are not as bad as some make it out to be.
PrinceofWands
Lifer
If you want a semantic argument I can do that too. It wasn't a war at all because congress signed no declaration.
Our troops are there, fighting an enemy force. I realize that unlike Vietnam there are no 'regulars' left to have mass battles against, but that's quickly becoming a thing of the past anyway. Again, all wars are political, therefore it's the political agenda that dictates the terms of the conflict. Until the political objectives are obtained, the 'war' is not won. I'm not saying we've lost, just that it isn't won and over with. The battles a soldier fights are not the war...neither are casualty reports, or territorial holdings. It's all about the political objectives.
BTW, the Iraqis will NEVER sustain a democracy because they didn't fight for one in the first place; it was crammed down their throats by someone else (us). You can NOT successfully instill a democracy over a people, they have to build a democracy themselves.
PrinceofWands
Lifer
Your ignorant coward statement is like a broken record. Grow up.
Did the military launch an attack? Is the military maintaining actions in the area? Then it's a military action. The military is nothing more or less than the enforcement arm of a political body. Wars are political actions utilizing the military.
Only when no military personnel are involved is an action not (or no longer) a war. When you send a diplomat, when you send advisors, when you send relief staff, when you send teachers, when you send workers...these things are not military actions. When you send in men with guns in armored vehicles, it's a war. Euphamisms are a childs toy.
PrinceofWands
Lifer
hahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha, great retort. No way I can compete with that. 😎
Then we're at war with Germany, France, and 100 area's where we station troops for 'enforcement'. Your arguments (which you've copied from a college professor) hold no water. Our military is almost unbeatable in an actual war. Peacekeeping is another story as we have to rely on a non-US force to accomplish our goals.
I don't blame the failure of the Iraqi people on our military. You might, but you anyone who doubts the fighting ability of our troops is an idiot.
mugs
Lifer
How can anyone say we lost the war in Iraq? 😕 We soundly defeated their military, and we're not doing terribly with the "insurgents." People just expect absurdly low casualties these days. The only question is whether the new government will last after we leave - and you can't really count that as a loss for our military.
I was against the war too, but you're all letting your bias cloud your thinking.
I was against the war too, but you're all letting your bias cloud your thinking.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
