the only wars that were not futile are WWI and WWII. otherwise, US have always fought wars that didnt concern them (Iraqi, Afghanistan, Korean, Vietnam) It seems they like (and they're good) to make shit once in a while everywhere on the globe
Poll
Which was the most futile US-fought war?
| World War I | 1% | 1% - 3 | ||||
| World War II | 3% | 3% - 5 | ||||
| Gulf War I | 1% | 1% - 2 | ||||
| Iraqi Invasion | 18% | 18% - 30 | ||||
| Afghan Invasion | 0% | 0% - 1 | ||||
| Vietnam War | 47% | 47% - 78 | ||||
| Korean War | 3% | 3% - 5 | ||||
| Bay of Pigs Invasion | 15% | 15% - 25 | ||||
| Grenada Invasion | 1% | 1% - 3 | ||||
| Other | 6% | 6% - 11 | ||||
| Total: 163 | ||||||
Vietnam? Oh, do you mean French Indochina?elstonieo wrote:
Which was the most futile US-fought war? blaming the Vietnam war on France
When the Confederacy seceded, they weren't "our own" any more. Fuck 'em.Vernedead wrote:
the civil war! nothing more futile than killing your own.
I vote Vietnam.
then why go to war?RedTwizzler wrote:
When the Confederacy seceded, they weren't "our own" any more. Fuck 'em.Vernedead wrote:
the civil war! nothing more futile than killing your own.
I vote Vietnam.
I agree, the idea was to prevent anarchy, and if some states could break away and form their own union based on their own morals, why couldn't others? The civil war was not fought over so much as slavery, but preventing peeps from getting away with breaking up countries into almost feudal orders.Vernedead wrote:
then why go to war?RedTwizzler wrote:
When the Confederacy seceded, they weren't "our own" any more. Fuck 'em.Vernedead wrote:
the civil war! nothing more futile than killing your own.
I vote Vietnam.
Slavery could have/should have been voted out. The Brazilians did it. They voted it out.
I think the war that should not have been fought at all was World War I. People went nuts, they forgot they were Christians, and slaughtered each other in trenches. In 1914, Christian charity remained; Germans and British came out of the trenches and celebrated Christmas together. That was the last time an enemy would ever do that with another.
World War II comes second. Idealistic Europe sticks it's head in the sand, and believes that placating Hitler will erase the threat of war instead of merely prolonging it a few months. Parallels can immediately be drawn today, placating terrorists will stave off the inevitable.
I've noticed that democracies have a bad habit of talking their own sort of reality different than the real deal.
World War 2 need never have happened if only France and Britain squashed Germany. As late as 1938, Germany was producing only 40% of what the German war leaders wanted. Panzer crews still didn't have their panzer tanks.
Hitler was talking out of his ass--and the world bought it. Because they were afraid of war, they developed a distaste to it. And sadly, that distaste is what led to more people being slaughtered than it should have been.
Last edited by The_Mac (2007-06-21 07:36:04)
Not like the USA helped at Versailles... You had delegates there that were all for the rape of Germany.rdx-fx wrote:
Would've been even more brilliant if Europe (especially France) hadn't completely destroyed Germany with the reparations costs inflicted on them in retaliation/revenge for WW-1. That's where you Continentals screwed up.. If you hadn't turned Germany into your whipping boy after WW-1, Hitler's nationalistic ranting would've had ZERO breeding ground.Flecco wrote:
Would have been brilliant had US citizens not fucking invested in Nazi Germany and given them the money to build a war machine in the first place.
Vietnam was the beginning of the end for the USSR. Wasn't futile at all. Economic disaster on the Soviet front as I understand it.
Iraq... No comment. In my opinion, NATO (yes, make it a NATO mission...) should round up all the Kurds and found a new nation with 1/3 of Iraq. Kurdistan. Then let the Sunnis and Shia's sort their shit out the Islamic extremist way.
Nope, instead, in their lust for revenge against Germany, France and Company decided to see just how badly they could make the Germans suffer. Think the Germans came out ahead in the end, though.
Other than that, I mostly agree with your other two points, Flecco.
Why the fuck do people think I'm European half the time? Somebody please tell me why I keep getting referred to as/lumped in with people from Europe?
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Cos your using rational thought and consequently get lumped as a tree huger.Flecco wrote:
Not like the USA helped at Versailles... You had delegates there that were all for the rape of Germany.rdx-fx wrote:
Would've been even more brilliant if Europe (especially France) hadn't completely destroyed Germany with the reparations costs inflicted on them in retaliation/revenge for WW-1. That's where you Continentals screwed up.. If you hadn't turned Germany into your whipping boy after WW-1, Hitler's nationalistic ranting would've had ZERO breeding ground.Flecco wrote:
Would have been brilliant had US citizens not fucking invested in Nazi Germany and given them the money to build a war machine in the first place.
Vietnam was the beginning of the end for the USSR. Wasn't futile at all. Economic disaster on the Soviet front as I understand it.
Iraq... No comment. In my opinion, NATO (yes, make it a NATO mission...) should round up all the Kurds and found a new nation with 1/3 of Iraq. Kurdistan. Then let the Sunnis and Shia's sort their shit out the Islamic extremist way.
Nope, instead, in their lust for revenge against Germany, France and Company decided to see just how badly they could make the Germans suffer. Think the Germans came out ahead in the end, though.
Other than that, I mostly agree with your other two points, Flecco.
Why the fuck do people think I'm European half the time? Somebody please tell me why I keep getting referred to as/lumped in with people from Europe?
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
This is like listening to a sports radio show on a Monday morning. Just as entertaining also.m3thod wrote:
Cos your using rational thought and consequently get lumped as a tree huger.Flecco wrote:
Not like the USA helped at Versailles... You had delegates there that were all for the rape of Germany.rdx-fx wrote:
Would've been even more brilliant if Europe (especially France) hadn't completely destroyed Germany with the reparations costs inflicted on them in retaliation/revenge for WW-1. That's where you Continentals screwed up.. If you hadn't turned Germany into your whipping boy after WW-1, Hitler's nationalistic ranting would've had ZERO breeding ground.
Nope, instead, in their lust for revenge against Germany, France and Company decided to see just how badly they could make the Germans suffer. Think the Germans came out ahead in the end, though.
Other than that, I mostly agree with your other two points, Flecco.
Why the fuck do people think I'm European half the time? Somebody please tell me why I keep getting referred to as/lumped in with people from Europe?
You're right about that USMarine...
Tree-hugger my arse.
Tree-hugger my arse.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Ask the first two cavemen then advise the last two cavemen of the same thing.Vernedead wrote:
then why go to war?
Vietnam was never considered a war it was a Police Action...
if the first two cavemen fought then wouldn't the whole cave man race, and by extention us, be extinct?usmarine2005 wrote:
Ask the first two cavemen then advise the last two cavemen of the same thing.Vernedead wrote:
then why go to war?
Korea was a police action, Vietnam was a war.Sir Aidyn Sage wrote:
Vietnam was never considered a war it was a Police Action...
Uhh...Korea was a full fledged war. Russians, Chinese, and a few NKs were going against the UN in the Air, and on the ground in tanks, and arty, and huge waves of personnel. Tell a Korea Vet he was on police duty and he'll laugh in your face. What was an invasion of NK to SK culminated in 84,000 UN personnel dead and more than 2 million Chinese and Korean troops dead. A few Russian casualties as well, because a good majority of them were flying the Mig 15s. Just because it was only 3 years, it was a war.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Korea was a police action, Vietnam was a war.Sir Aidyn Sage wrote:
Vietnam was never considered a war it was a Police Action...
Vietnam started out as a police action, but it grew into a war. Eisenhower was trying to contain it, and Kennedy was too. But then the Viet Cong got armed by the NVA, who were armed by the Russkies, it escalated. Of course, LBJ kept trying to contain the media and hie information. Then, when Nixon got elected, he tried to fix the problems, but LBJ had created a real mess, with his micromanagement, as has been previously stated.
A fun fact: Lyndon B. Johnson would sit on his ass in his chair in the white house and decide personally what targets to bomb--his generals could only comply. Politicians playing generals = PHAIL.
No. The first to cavemen started the fighting in theory. Keyword men. The victor went and spread his seed.Vernedead wrote:
if the first two cavemen fought then wouldn't the whole cave man race, and by extention us, be extinct?usmarine2005 wrote:
Ask the first two cavemen then advise the last two cavemen of the same thing.Vernedead wrote:
then why go to war?
I don't really know...sounded good for a second at least.
Last edited by usmarine2005 (2007-06-21 09:54:51)
The loser didn't have to be completely annihilated. Some of the world's biggest losers became conquerers in their own right. The Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Burgundians, Alemnai, all of these barbarian tribes were whipped by the Huns and each other, and yet they conquered the civilized world.
Defeat does not mean total destruction. Only today, has that really become the real meaning. In the Americas, native American tribes did not understand Total War at all, until too late. Usually, it was enough to drive the enemy tribe away from the hunting grounds, forcing him to either starve or gtfo. Such tactics worked against each other, but were ineffective against whitey and his agriculture, as well as his way of just falling back and regrouping.
Its not just defeating someone, but following up, economically, politically, and militarily.
Defeat does not mean total destruction. Only today, has that really become the real meaning. In the Americas, native American tribes did not understand Total War at all, until too late. Usually, it was enough to drive the enemy tribe away from the hunting grounds, forcing him to either starve or gtfo. Such tactics worked against each other, but were ineffective against whitey and his agriculture, as well as his way of just falling back and regrouping.
Its not just defeating someone, but following up, economically, politically, and militarily.
Okay, settled. No issues with it now.Smithereener wrote:
Didn't completely destroy states rights, but you do have a point there. Then again, I am more of a National Unity before States Rights kind of guy.imortal wrote:
Yeah, cemeted the bonds between the states by destroying states rights and begining the buildup to the overwhelmin national goverment we have today. And it may have finished the slavery issue, but that is not what started it.Smithereener wrote:
To be honest, I wouldn't call this one futile. Sure it was bad; we were killing each other. BUT it solved the issue of slavery in territories once and for all. (I guess technically you could say it was the 13,14,15th Amendments, but without the victory, those probably would never have been passed.) It almost cemented the bonds between the states IMO.
I voted Vietnam btw. Our support there was next to nil, the people kept getting lied to (Cambodia), etc.
I didn't say that the war was started due to slavery, I said implied that the war began due to the issue over slavery in territories.
I voted Vietnam for the heavy losses suffered. However I don't deny the war shouldn't have been won. The Truman doctrine stated that Communsim should be contained and as with the Korean War, the USA had to act against the Communists making moves on the democratic people.
Uhh, as far as the US Government (read: Congress) is/was concerned, Korea was a "Police Action".The_Mac wrote:
Uhh...Korea was a full fledged war. Russians, Chinese, and a few NKs were going against the UN in the Air, and on the ground in tanks, and arty, and huge waves of personnel. Tell a Korea Vet he was on police duty and he'll laugh in your face. What was an invasion of NK to SK culminated in 84,000 UN personnel dead and more than 2 million Chinese and Korean troops dead. A few Russian casualties as well, because a good majority of them were flying the Mig 15s. Just because it was only 3 years, it was a war.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Korea was a police action, Vietnam was a war.Sir Aidyn Sage wrote:
Vietnam was never considered a war it was a Police Action...
Vietnam started out as a police action, but it grew into a war. Eisenhower was trying to contain it, and Kennedy was too. But then the Viet Cong got armed by the NVA, who were armed by the Russkies, it escalated. Of course, LBJ kept trying to contain the media and hie information. Then, when Nixon got elected, he tried to fix the problems, but LBJ had created a real mess, with his micromanagement, as has been previously stated.
A fun fact: Lyndon B. Johnson would sit on his ass in his chair in the white house and decide personally what targets to bomb--his generals could only comply. Politicians playing generals = PHAIL.
Vietnam started out as a civil war (much like the Korean "Police Action"). After the Tonkin Gulf Resolution gave LBJ virtually indiscriminate use of force without approval of Congress, it escalated into war.
I'd go for Vietnam.
...although they continued officially to call it "The Vietnam Conflict." It was not called a war until the '80s.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Vietnam started out as a civil war (much like the Korean "Police Action"). After the Tonkin Gulf Resolution gave LBJ virtually indiscriminate use of force without approval of Congress, it escalated into war.
We fought Tripoli (Libya) in 1805. They marched for ever through the Sahara and never accomplished anything. The only thing that we gained from this war was the lyrics in the song, Marines Hymm "From the Halls of Montezuma
To the shores of Tripoli."
To the shores of Tripoli."
How about showing Pirate scum in the Middle East we wouldn't take any of their shit--they were looting our merchant vessels and bribing em off didn't work (it never does) it merely encouraged em.mudder wrote:
We fought Tripoli (Libya) in 1805. They marched for ever through the Sahara and never accomplished anything. The only thing that we gained from this war was the lyrics in the song, Marines Hymm "From the Halls of Montezuma
To the shores of Tripoli."
So that war shoved a cannon up the Arabs' ass for the first time, but not for the last.
what was the movie with the helicopter.... uh, alot of black people... and uh... Obi-wan Kenobi was in it too?
That was not a war either.dark110 wrote:
what was the movie with the helicopter.... uh, alot of black people... and uh... Obi-wan Kenobi was in it too?
"alot of black people" WTF is the matter with you.
Last edited by usmarine2005 (2007-06-21 13:11:36)