1918: World War I, decisive US victory.
1945: World War II, decisive US victory.
1948: Harry S. Truman orders desegregation of the US military (executive order 9981).
1953: Korean War, status quo ante bellum.
1975: Vietnam War, US withdrawal and decisive loss, South Vietnam is conquered.
1991: Gulf War, status quo ante bellum.

Didn't we win the '91 gulf war in like 3 days? You can't even compare WWII to Vietnam anyway. They're not even the same style of war.

Nothing about either World War was decisive, you're an idiot if you think that, read a book faggot.

'91 Iraq war was a Coalition victory, status quo? LAWL is all I have to say.

If I'm not mistaken, South Korea still exists as a democracy, so Korea could be considered a US victory as well.

Vietnam wasn't even a full blown war, it was a fucking proxy war between the US and Russia, again, book.

If you're going to be racist, at least do it properly retard.

In World War II blacks and whites mixed often which is the reason many historians claim caused the Civil Rights movement. Once blacks saw that they could be equal and fight along side whites in WWII they applied it to everyday life and got pissed off and forced change.


The reason we haven't had decisive victories is b.c. of shitty aggressive foreign policy based off of greed, not having black people in the military.

By starting this thread you have established yourself as an ignorant moron and certainly less intelligent than the majority of the population.

I picked up a rock the day after 9/11, and we haven't had a terrorist attack since then.

That rock is the only thing keeping Osama at bay!

You may argue you lost the battles of Korea and Vietnam, but you won the overall war.

In World War II blacks and whites mixed often which is the reason many historians claim caused the Civil Rights movement. Once blacks saw that they could be equal and fight along side whites in WWII they applied it to everyday life and got pissed off and forced change.


The reason we haven't had decisive victories is b.c. of shitty aggressive foreign policy based off of greed, not having black people in the military.

By starting this thread you have established yourself as an ignorant moron and certainly less intelligent than the majority of the population.

^This.

Well...yeah. The United States has not been in a war since world war II.

Nothing about either World War was decisive, you're an idiot if you think that, read a book faggot.

Oh, really? Germany surrendered unconditionally after World War II and Japan got a new constitution written by the US government. Both countries are still filled with US military bases! As for World War I, the Weimar Republic was established by the US in the place of the destroyed Prussian empire.

'91 Iraq war was a Coalition victory, status quo? LAWL is all I have to say.

Again, not true. Iraq's borders and regime remained the same, hence status quo ante bellum; not that you can read Latin.

If I'm not mistaken, South Korea still exists as a democracy, so Korea could be considered a US victory as well.

Again merely repelling an attack is not a victory, taking over North Korea and establishing a single Korean state would have been a victory. Withdrawing and agreeing to a cease fire is a tie at best.

Vietnam wasn't even a full blown war, it was a fucking proxy war between the US and Russia, again, book.

This point isn't even worth arguing, you're clearly a liar or an idiot.

You may argue you lost the battles of Korea and Vietnam, but you won the overall war.

So, why was South Vietnam taken over by the North? Why was the United States forced to withdraw? What about North Korea? How is agreeing to a cease fire winning the war?

So, why was South Vietnam taken over by the North? Why was the United States forced to withdraw? What about North Korea? How is agreeing to a cease fire winning the war?

We weren't forced to withdraw, we willfully withdrawn from Vietnam, we decided to. South Vietnam was taken over when they lost our military support.

Uhhh, yea, they surrendered. I never once denied the allies won World War Two, but what aspect of a 6 year period of fighting involving most of the world is decisive to you? www.dictionary.com if you're not sure what decisive means, which i doubt you do.

Iraq attempted to invade and annex Kuwait. Thus for a short period of time Iraq's border included the disputed territory, until of course the coalition forces invaded and pushed them back to Iraq, in a matter of a few days actually.

Armed by the Soviet Union, the Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The South Koreans ran to the US for support. The fact that the aggressor nation(NK if you're too slow to follow) didn't meet objectives in invading South Korea means they lost. The Korean War may have never ended, but that doesn't mean there was no victor. America went into the war with several goals. They wanted to avoid a "hot war" in the Cold War, so they fought the Soviets through Korea. The American's also wanted to stop the spread of communism. They were dually successful. America achieved all of their goals, so they are the the "textbook defined" victors of the Korean war. You're wrong, I'm right.

I don't even see how you can deny the Vietnam conflict was a proxy war between the two super powers, are you a fucking moron?

Fall for less obvious trolls guys.

I picked up a rock the day after 9/11, and we haven't had a terrorist attack since then.

That rock is the only thing keeping Osama at bay!

Let me be the first to thank you on behalf of the people of the United States of America. Your ingenuity and continued sacrifice are an inspiration to us all. When I'm elected President, I'll see to it that you receive the Congressional Medal of Honor for your bravery and dedication.

Thank you.

Now that we know we are safe, we can get rid of that damn Patriot Act and restore the Constitution.

Together We Serve.

So, why was South Vietnam taken over by the North? Why was the United States forced to withdraw? What about North Korea? How is agreeing to a cease fire winning the war?

The Soviet Union fell; communism didn't engulf the world.

Hence why I said, you may have lost the aforementioned battles/mini-wars, but you won the overall war - the one which mattered.

1.) This forum is not for discussions about politics, war, or government policy/strategy unassociated with troop lifestyle. A thread perceived as pursuing such discussion will either be closed, deleted, or moved to the appropriate forum at the full discretion of the moderators.


Oh The Humanities.

Oh The Humanities.

Mod ball!!!

Communism didn't engulf the world.

That's where you're wrong, communism is taking over the world and even the United States. Just look at what people are voting for these days; hate speech laws, subsidized health care, government funded daycare, more welfare, public ownership of industry, inheritance taxes. As I mentioned earlier in another thread, all ten planks of the Communist Manifesto have been implemented to some extent in the United States.

I don't even see how you can deny the Vietnam conflict was a proxy war between the two super powers, are you a fucking moron?

You're the moron, I never denied that Vietnam was a proxy war, I simply stated the obvious which was that the United States lost the war.

Well...yeah. The United States has not been in a war since world war II.

How exactly do you define a war? :confused:

I guess the Cold War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the first Gulf War, and the current two wars don't meet your ridiculous specifications. :rolleyes:

Uhhh, yea, they surrendered. I never once denied the allies won World War Two, but what aspect of a 6 year period of fighting involving most of the world is decisive to you? www.dictionary.com if you're not sure what decisive means, which i doubt you do.

Iraq attempted to invade and annex Kuwait. Thus for a short period of time Iraq's border included the disputed territory, until of course the coalition forces invaded and pushed them back to Iraq, in a matter of a few days actually.

Armed by the Soviet Union, the Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. The South Koreans ran to the US for support. The fact that the aggressor nation(NK if you're too slow to follow) didn't meet objectives in invading South Korea means they lost. The Korean War may have never ended, but that doesn't mean there was no victor. America went into the war with several goals. They wanted to avoid a "hot war" in the Cold War, so they fought the Soviets through Korea. The American's also wanted to stop the spread of communism. They were dually successful. America achieved all of their goals, so they are the the "textbook defined" victors of the Korean war. You're wrong, I'm right.

I don't even see how you can deny the Vietnam conflict was a proxy war between the two super powers, are you a fucking moron?

Not to lend credence to whatever mouthbreather created this thread, but I'll have to say your wrong about WW2. America's decisive victory came when they swept the beaches of Normandy and swept through Europe, converging on Berlin with the Soviets. The later decisive victory against Japan involved the deployment of 2 Nuclear Bombs and the complete and unconditional surrender of Japan...anything about any of that seem like a stalemate to you?

Again to be fair the OP is ridiculous. Even if his wild claim is true it doesn't prove anything - its a non-sequitor. The guy w/ the rock idea had it right.

That's where you're wrong, communism is taking over the world and even the United States. Just look at what people are voting for these days; hate speech laws, subsidized health care, government funded daycare, more welfare, public ownership of industry, inheritance taxes. As I mentioned earlier in another thread, all ten planks of the Communist Manifesto have been implemented to some extent in the United States.

A little bidda socialism is hardly comparable to fully blown communist states like how the USSR was, and Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea and Laos are.

Besides, China, Cuba and Russia, some of the most important communist-associated nations, are now embracing capitalist ideas.

If the USA fucked up the cold war, Russia wouldn't be enjoying a free market economy; China probably wouldn't have freed up parts of its economy; nations in Eastern Europe, Central America and South East Asia would have probably fallen to communist governments, and maybe some other random little places too.

That's where you're wrong, communism is taking over the world and even the United States. Just look at what people are voting for these days; hate speech laws, subsidized health care, government funded daycare, more welfare, public ownership of industry, inheritance taxes. As I mentioned earlier in another thread, all ten planks of the Communist Manifesto have been implemented to some extent in the United States.

Idiot. In a Communist society the means of production are publicly owned; hence, Communism is not "taking over the world", in fact, the opposite is true. Capitalism is creating an image after its own.

The later decisive victory against Japan involved the deployment of 2 Nuclear Bombs and the complete and unconditional surrender of Japan...anything about any of that seem like a stalemate to you?



though i disagree with the OP, i would also disagree with this point. Nukes didnt really do squat when it came to defeating japan. But lets save that for another day

getting back on topic, i would agree with parallax on this one. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation in this case.

in addition, the logic of "not winning a war" if you just repel an attacker is rediculous. by that logic, you dont "win" unless you completely and utterly take over the entire country, even if it is not in your interests to do so

oh yeh, and this
http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?p=10186958#post10186958

Despite losing these wars, the United States is a safe place. I suppose Germans die easily.

Not to lend credence to whatever mouthbreather created this thread, but I'll have to say your wrong about WW2. America's decisive victory came when they swept the beaches of Normandy and swept through Europe, converging on Berlin with the Soviets. The later decisive victory against Japan involved the deployment of 2 Nuclear Bombs and the complete and unconditional surrender of Japan...anything about any of that seem like a stalemate to you?

Again to be fair the OP is ridiculous. Even if his wild claim is true it doesn't prove anything - its a non-sequitor. The guy w/ the rock idea had it right.

You're aware the US declared war on the Axis in 1941 right? The war ended sometime near the end of 1945 for Japan. That's not decisive at all. The American's were also involved in the battles in Africa/Italy. Don't think that the Americans just swept in with their fresh troops at Normandy and pushed to Berlin, because they were involved in quite a few battles, nor was D Day a 100% American assault. I never said it was a stalemate, but nothing about the war at all was decisive.

and the complete and unconditional surrender of Japan...anything about any of that seem like a stalemate to you?

Well, since that's not what happened, why is that question relevant? The U.S. demanded a complete and unconditional surrender, sure, but that didn't end up being a reality.

Well, since that's not what happened, why is that question relevant? The U.S. demanded a complete and unconditional surrender, sure, but that didn't end up being a reality.

Do you have any evidence to backup your ridiculous assertion? :rolleyes:

Whatever I don't care that much we can debate the finer points of WW2 all day, the end result is WE WON. Are you all kidding me? In what ways were the results of WW2 indecisive? I didn't see the Allies getting bogged down in France for 25 years inching their way towards Berlin until eventually stalemating and coming to an agreement. I seem to recall being taught that Hitler suicided in his bunker while the Soviets were marching through the streets of Berlin above. Sorry, I got confused - Nazi Germany offered unconditional surrender - Japan only agreed to the Potsdam recommendations and to get rid of their cultural raison d'etre, the Emperor.

Regardless of what anyone thinks of who won what war on what bases...the more important thing for this thread is:

correlation does not equal causation


/thread

Correlation does not equal Causation.

[/]phale

Do you have any evidence to backup your ridiculous assertion? :rolleyes:

Sure:


"MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.


"But in spite of the U.S. emphasis that the surrender must be unconditional, the Potsdam Proclamation included in its unconditional surrender terms the condition that the Japanese would be allowed to establish their own government"

http://www.doug-long.com/hirosh2.htm


Like I said, the U.S. definitely called it an unconditional surrender - and Japan also since it was in their interest to follow along - but in the end the Potsdam Declaration called for an unconditional surrender of the military - no mention of the Emperor - and left the Japanese with the power to choose their government (which would have been an Emperor anyway and the U.S. knew this).

The preservation of the Emperor position is the condition that Japan valued most, and that's exactly what it got in the end.


Anything else?

Sure:


"MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.


"But in spite of the U.S. emphasis that the surrender must be unconditional, the Potsdam Proclamation included in its unconditional surrender terms the condition that the Japanese would be allowed to establish their own government"

http://www.doug-long.com/hirosh2.htm


Like I said, the U.S. definitely called it an unconditional surrender - and Japan also since it was in their interest to follow along - but in the end the Potsdam Declaration called for an unconditional surrender of the military - no mention of the Emperor - and left the Japanese with the power to choose their government (which would have been an Emperor anyway and the U.S. knew this).

The preservation of the Emperor position is the condition that Japan valued most, and that's exactly what it got in the end.


Anything else?

This is still irrelevant, Japan lost the war decisively.

Just look at what people are voting for these days; hate speech laws,

has nothing to do with 'communism' however. PC might be a descendnt of Cultural Marxism but hate speech laws =/= communism

subsidized health care, government funded daycare, more welfare, public ownership of industry, inheritance taxes. As I mentioned earlier in another thread, all ten planks of the Communist Manifesto have been implemented to some extent in the United States.

Where is this seen? I haven't seen any Autogestion taking place or Workers Self-Management in Wal-Marts and the like.

This is still irrelevant, Japan lost the war decisively.


Who said otherwise? Not me. I said the surrender turned out to be conditional and I was correct.

Anything else?

Again, not true. Iraq's borders and regime remained the same, hence status quo ante bellum; not that you can read Latin.





Not, so fast you pretentious faggot. The Iraqi Army was balls deep in Kuwait with complete control. Perhaps the international community didn't acknowledge the fact that Kuwait was part of Iraq, but, for all intents and purposes, it was. After the US intervened, Kuwait was free of Iraqi oppression. You can't say things were the same before and after Desert Storm. Well, you can, but that would make you a fucking idiot.