Does the US Fight to Win?

[Dilloduck]

No, we clearly no longer fight to win: that is obvious! Well, except I guess for when we DO win --- Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm and of course Serbia.

But there are too many very important national calamities where we fought but did NOT win: Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan even, Cuba, Korea.

Friedman is saying that even though we didn't bother to win (and I think that's really what is going on), it didn't matter and maybe we won anyway, because we DID move from strength to strength as a world power.

And that is a very provocative thought. So.........maybe showing that we are a pugnacious nation, one who WILL fight so watch out enemies ---- is a good thing, because even if we didn't "win," who wants us to come lose like THAT? Whole cities in rubble, tens and hundreds of thousands of people killed, millions in the case of Vietnamese and so on. This is LOSING? Yes, but it's not the sort of defeat nations invite in.

And by not winning "whatever it takes," as all conservatives invariably call for, aren't we preserving something of our non-Hun, non-Bosche reputation, what little there is of it left after too many atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan? Real viciousness in war was the Germans' best tactic, no question: when they deviated from that, they did poorly. The poison gas, the unrestricted submarine sinkings, the flamethrowers ----

But you know, nobody ever liked the Germans. The world united to defeat them, and they are not (so far) doing that to us. Because we aren't just obliterating Iraq and turning it to glass: the Germans probably would have, with our weapons.

Maybe not. Maybe the Germans would simply have stopped the looting and made sure the weapons dumps weren't open arsenals, which we didn't have the sense to do.

I think these losing wars were all terrible mistakes, yes --- but by not viciously murdering all the foreign people we had invaded in order to "win," whatever that means, we have preserved some reputation, enough to survive against hostile world opinion.

Maybe we can't afford to "win" war and rebuilding countries like Germany and Japan taught us something. What could we possibly gain by nuking anyone ?

[gabosaurus]

We can end the world as we know it. Which is basically what the GOP Hawks stand for.
Anyone who still believes the U.S. could "win" a nuclear exchange has a definitive lack of intelligence. Watch "Threads" for more details.

[Gaffer]

We can end the world as we know it. Which is basically what the GOP Hawks stand for.
Anyone who still believes the U.S. could "win" a nuclear exchange has a definitive lack of intelligence. Watch "Threads" for more details.

we can win a nuclear exchange if we strike with conventional weapons before they finish building their bombs. we are not dealing with russia here. we are dealing with mad men that don't care if their country is destroyed.

[mundame]

Gaffer saying, we can win a nuclear exchange if we strike with conventional weapons before they finish building their bombs.

Conservatives always say this. But consider: if we'd done that to Russia, as you all wanted, it would have been a terrible, wasteful act, because in fact Russia collapsed on its own.

So let's see if Iran and other benighted Muslim states collapse on their own, or more to the point, modernize however reluctantly. They may!!


No, let's save nukes for retaliation. We have a better case for that use, as opposed to "I just think they're evil."

[Hobbit]

Gaffer saying, we can win a nuclear exchange if we strike with conventional weapons before they finish building their bombs.

Conservatives always say this. But consider: if we'd done that to Russia, as you all wanted, it would have been a terrible, wasteful act, because in fact Russia collapsed on its own.

So let's see if Iran and other benighted Muslim states collapse on their own, or more to the point, modernize however reluctantly. They may!!


No, let's save nukes for retaliation. We have a better case for that use, as opposed to "I just think they're evil."

We can't afford to do that with this enemy. The Soviet Union was unwilling to destroy their nation to strike at us. Iran has no such sense of self-preservation. They would see their entire country turned into a smoldering ruin if they thought they could drag us down with them.

[CSM]

We can't afford to do that with this enemy. The Soviet Union was unwilling to destroy their nation to strike at us. Iran has no such sense of self-preservation. They would see their entire country turned into a smoldering ruin if they thought they could drag us down with them.

Suicide bombing on a global scale! Not beyond the realm of conceivable either!

[glockmail]

Gaffer saying, we can win a nuclear exchange if we strike with conventional weapons before they finish building their bombs.

Conservatives always say this. But consider: if we'd done that to Russia, as you all wanted, it would have been a terrible, wasteful act, because in fact Russia collapsed on its own.

...

Not a viable comparison at all for two huge reasons:
1. Iran has religion as a motivator for its people. USSR was atheist.
2. Iran has all the cash they need because of oil, unlike USSR.

[glockmail]

.....

Consider these examples from history:

* Korea: ....


* Cuba: ......


* Vietnam: ......


* Iran:......
* Iraq: ......

You could add in USSR there as well, and again Germany in WW1. Or Brits in 1776 (war of 1812). Or Mexican war (they are invading us today because of it).

The fact is, what wars has the US fought to win?

Aside from Japan in WW2?

[5stringJeff]

You could add in USSR there as well, and again Germany in WW1. Or Brits in 1776 (war of 1812). Or Mexican war (they are invading us today because of it).

The fact is, what wars has the US fought to win?

Aside from Japan in WW2?

I disagree. In all wars leading up to the Mexican-American War, we fought for national survival, so we had to win. In the Mexican-American War, we were fighting for Texas and the (now) American Southwest, and we won in a big way, taking about half of Mexico's land. One could possibly make the argument that we didn't fight for total victory in the Spanish-American War, or possibly WWI.

[glockmail]

I disagree. In all wars leading up to the Mexican-American War, we fought for national survival, so we had to win. In the Mexican-American War, we were fighting for Texas and the (now) American Southwest, and we won in a big way, taking about half of Mexico's land. One could possibly make the argument that we didn't fight for total victory in the Spanish-American War, or possibly WWI.

Sure we won the Revolutionary war, but not decisively, as England kept harassing our maritime trade.

If we had won the Mex war so decisively, then why are we being invaded now? I'm not trying to be cute because you know that is true.

I could add in the Crusades as well, as the Muslims are still trying to take over Europe, and in fact have expanded their sights to include the US.

I think the point here is that of course we fight to win, but we haven't done a very good job at converting the enemy to our ally, which other than complete anihilation is the only way to complete victory.

Of course the Demcrats nixed Viet Nam, and are trying to nix Iraq, but that is a recent phenomenon, IMO.

[5stringJeff]

If we had won the Mex war so decisively, then why are we being invaded now? I'm not trying to be cute because you know that is true.

Because the objective of the M-A War was not the annialation of the Mexicans; it was the recognition of Texas (with the Rio Grande as its southern border) and the annexation of all the land between Texas and the Pacific. We got what we wanted out of that war.

The current invasion of illegals has little to do with Mexican politics and much more to do with individuals choosing to break the law to make money in America.

[glockmail]

....

The current invasion of illegals has little to do with Mexican politics and much more to do with individuals choosing to break the law to make money in America.

I remember seein a map recently with the concentration of mexicans, legal plus illegal, by state, and the high concentrations coincided exactly with the pre M-A war territory. They are working to get that land back.

[Gaffer]

Gaffer saying, we can win a nuclear exchange if we strike with conventional weapons before they finish building their bombs.

Conservatives always say this. But consider: if we'd done that to Russia, as you all wanted, it would have been a terrible, wasteful act, because in fact Russia collapsed on its own.

So let's see if Iran and other benighted Muslim states collapse on their own, or more to the point, modernize however reluctantly. They may!!


No, let's save nukes for retaliation. We have a better case for that use, as opposed to "I just think they're evil."

I never said we should have attacked russia. The only way we could have done that was back before they had the nuke themselves. I am referring to attacking iran before they develope nukes, because once they have them we will be responding. They fully intend to start a catyclismic war. As they believe this will bring about the return of the 12th imam, and this must be done in order for him to return. This isn't the cold war. They are not going to build the weapons and have a face off. They will use them at the first opportunity. That's why pre-emtive attacks are so critical these days. An apocolyptic war is irans goal. If I have to fight somebody I would rather hit them first then let them hit me and have to be on the defensive.

Your right, they are evil and they are also crazy.

[glockmail]

I never said we should have attacked russia. The only way we could have done that was back before they had the nuke themselves. I am referring to attacking iran before they develope nukes, because once they have them we will be responding. They fully intend to start a catyclismic war. As they believe this will bring about the return of the 12th imam, and this must be done in order for him to return. This isn't the cold war. They are not going to build the weapons and have a face off. They will use them at the first opportunity. That's why pre-emtive attacks are so critical these days. An apocolyptic war is irans goal. If I have to fight somebody I would rather hit them first then let them hit me and have to be on the defensive.

Your right, they are evil and they are also crazy.

Absolutely true. The libs cannot understand that this is a fanatical enemy that wants to die. There is no chance of peace or a stalemate. Its either kill or be killed.

[gabosaurus]

Absolutely true. The libs cannot understand that this is a fanatical enemy that wants to die. There is no chance of peace or a stalemate. Its either kill or be killed.

Absolute total ignorance. You have no proof of this, nor do you desire one. You only know what the parrot heads tell you.