North Korea

[Jason Tandro]

Valerie Valens wrote:

Jason : I also think that the UN is a crock of shit.

No argument. Just saying we weren't the aggressors.

Quote:

Unfortunately though, that was a very very weak argument for a just cause. If they were under any REAL threat, like the terrorists doing a mass buy/sell operation of the US Dollar, then they would be justified in going to war. As it stands, the retaliation, and the legislations passed to fuel this war did far more damage to the US, in terms of economy, international relations and body count, than the 9/11 attacks did. The total body count on the Afghan and Iraqi side of the war is almost ten times as much, and entire Iraqi/Afghan villages, cities and towns have been reduced into warzones consisting of nothing but shelled-out, bullet-ridden buildings and rubble. You just know that this will create new terrorist movements and fuel existing ones further. Mark my words, there will be a repeat of 9/11 in our lifetimes and it will be because of that Iraq war. An eye for an eye will only serve to make the world go blind.

Which is why pre-emptive strikes are all the more important. In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king, lol.

[Manibrandr System]

Jason Tandro wrote:

Which is why pre-emptive strikes are all the more important. In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king, lol.

If you mean espionage operations and sabotaging any possible threat, or bonfire that could spark a war, then yes.

[Jason Tandro]

Valerie Valens wrote:

Jason Tandro wrote: Which is why pre-emptive strikes are all the more important. In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king, lol. If you mean espionage operations and sabotaging any possible threat, or bonfire that could spark a war, then yes.

Well obviously that statement was tongue-in-cheek. But you speak of espionage and sabotage like it's a given solution that will always work. Sometimes it won't and military action is needed.

[Manibrandr System]

Of course, there will always be caveats and exceptions. The question is when those will apply.

[Jason Tandro]

Valerie Valens wrote:

Of course, there will always be caveats and exceptions. The question is when those will apply.

Just as there will always be those who will protest a war on the basis that it is a war rather than on the merits of the actions that led to it. I think it is a fair assumption that the wars that we have fought in that predate Korea were good ideas. When political atmosphere began to shift all wars since have had a negative stigma. Why? The political paradigm shift of the US. We have never lost a war militarily and we never will. Politics is what kills us.

[Manibrandr System]

You know, it's pretty arrogant to say that the US has never lost a war millitarily and never will. The Vietnam war, for instance, is quite questionable. What was the endgame of the Vietnam war, and how much of it had they achieved? What was the endgame of the Iraq/Afghan war? Had they achieved it? Will they achieve it in the future?

[Jason Tandro]

We would have won the war if the politics had not turned against us. And yes, it is absolutely arrogant but is also an absolute fact that there has been no war in which the United States has surrendered or been overrun: hence no war we have lost militarily.

Also I do not foresee the US losing a war in the future. Our military budget, R&D being what it is, not to mention that we have one of the largest and best trained military forces in the world and of course the threat of nuclear weapons (of course I pray that we never need to resort to that again).

[Flamez]

Valerie Valens wrote:

You know, it's pretty arrogant to say that the US has never lost a war millitarily and never will. The Vietnam war, for instance, is quite questionable. What was the endgame of the Vietnam war, and how much of it had they achieved? What was the endgame of the Iraq/Afghan war? Had they achieved it? Will they achieve it in the future?

Id say Iraq was won; the original purpose was the removal of Saddam, which was achieved, is Iraq is better off because of it is questionable.

Vietnam was to stop the 'communists', just a small piece in the cold war, at the end of the day Americas involvement caused more problems then it solved, we saw gorilla warfare do far more damage then anticipated and the rise of the khmer rouge in Cambodia due to American involvment. Vietnam was a failure; although the cold war was eventually won (even though the USSR just collapsed on itself really).

Im still going to say Afghanistan is ongoing, although its been almost 10years now; which means its one of the longest unsuccessful (thus far) military campaigns America has undertaken.

[psychokind]

in the very few wars they fought, the USA always won militarily, but always lost politically. okay, except WW2

[Flamez]

psychokind wrote:

in the very few wars they fought, the USA always won militarily, but always lost politically. okay, except WW2

and WW1

[Jason Tandro]

And the Civil War... wait a minute...

[Flamez]

Jason Tandro wrote:

And the Civil War... wait a minute...

Well, they won and lost... so lets just go half way and say it was a draw!

[psychokind]

Flamez wrote:

psychokind wrote: in the very few wars they fought, the USA always won militarily, but always lost politically. okay, except WW2 and WW1

nope, WW1 was politically lost too. otherwise there wouldn't have been a WW2

[Manibrandr System]

I distinctly remember a war the Americans fought that they needed the help of France to win.

[Jason Tandro]

Valerie Valens wrote:

I distinctly remember a war the Americans fought that they needed the help of France to win.

Actually France helped us out in a couple wars. Though I suppose you could argue that the American Revolution was really between the Colonies and Britain... we weren't really unified into a country until the ratification of the Articles of Confederation.