exactly. next the yanks will make a film about americans in stalingrad... the americans won all wars. england was never in ww2 its all american. lolSuperslim wrote:
naaa I'd say we would be speaking RussianThe_Mac wrote:
You need to settle down and realize that if the United States hadn't stepped in the war, you guys would most likely all be speaking German by now.manitobapaintballa wrote:
get your facts straight buddy and once you get into 5th grade history mabie just mabie you won't have americanised history books (not bloody likley)
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 | ||||||
Who said that?ZamoII wrote:
exactly. next the yanks will make a film about americans in stalingrad... the americans won all wars. england was never in ww2 its all american. lol
Vietnam had to be the most futile...
LOL, so much for hearts and minds.The_Mac wrote:
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.
Can you say lost cause?
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Honestly, how could my statement even imply that I don't care about U.S. history? Honestly.oug wrote:
We care about history in general. And honestly, why don't you?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Honestly, why do you foreigners care so much about U.S. history?
Yes, because the Wehrmacht was at it's finest in 1944....The_Mac wrote:
You need to settle down and realize that if the United States hadn't stepped in the war, you guys would most likely all be speaking German by now.manitobapaintballa wrote:
get your facts straight buddy and once you get into 5th grade history mabie just mabie you won't have americanised history books (not bloody likley)
It didn't. But it sort of implied that we shouldn't care about US history same as you people don't care about the history of nations other than yours.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Honestly, how could my statement even imply that I don't care about U.S. history? Honestly.oug wrote:
We care about history in general. And honestly, why don't you?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Honestly, why do you foreigners care so much about U.S. history?
ƒ³
Just for historical accuracy. If Hitler hadn't declared war on the USA for no apparent reason then us guys would most likely all be speaking German or Russian. The US didn't step in, it was pushed in.The_Mac wrote:
You need to settle down and realize that if the United States hadn't stepped in the war, you guys would most likely all be speaking German by now.manitobapaintballa wrote:
get your facts straight buddy and once you get into 5th grade history mabie just mabie you won't have americanised history books (not bloody likley)
Weren't the most countries pushed in? It's a war..PureFodder wrote:
Just for historical accuracy. If Hitler hadn't declared war on the USA for no apparent reason then us guys would most likely all be speaking German or Russian. The US didn't step in, it was pushed in.The_Mac wrote:
You need to settle down and realize that if the United States hadn't stepped in the war, you guys would most likely all be speaking German by now.manitobapaintballa wrote:
get your facts straight buddy and once you get into 5th grade history mabie just mabie you won't have americanised history books (not bloody likley)
Besides, about who won ww2:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=71089
and several others.
And to finish this pointless WWII debate, the US did its part like any other country that fought in the bloody war, and we are all equally thankful to all the nations that participated. However, bending over in 2007 was not part of the agreement for any country's involvement.PureFodder wrote:
Just for historical accuracy. If Hitler hadn't declared war on the USA for no apparent reason then us guys would most likely all be speaking German or Russian. The US didn't step in, it was pushed in.The_Mac wrote:
You need to settle down and realize that if the United States hadn't stepped in the war, you guys would most likely all be speaking German by now.
ƒ³
Fair enough.oug wrote:
And to finish this pointless WWII debate, the US did its part like any other country that fought in the bloody war, and we are all equally thankful to all the nations that participated. However, bending over in 2007 was not part of the agreement for any country's involvement.PureFodder wrote:
Just for historical accuracy. If Hitler hadn't declared war on the USA for no apparent reason then us guys would most likely all be speaking German or Russian. The US didn't step in, it was pushed in.The_Mac wrote:
You need to settle down and realize that if the United States hadn't stepped in the war, you guys would most likely all be speaking German by now.
The "war for hearts and minds", as stated above.
You don't even need to look outside this thread to see how well that's going...
/rummages for passport
You don't even need to look outside this thread to see how well that's going...
/rummages for passport
Um... FDR and Truman were Democrats. I think you might want to take that last line back.The_Mac wrote:
I'm glad you realize LBJ messed it up with his crap ideas, but know also that when the NVA came storming through, every single son of em south vietnamese immediately wished they had their American allies. It was an ironic war, because the US was always telling the SV what would happen if invaded, and then when that actually happened, other countries saw it, and they knew to steer clear of communism or else.Turquoise wrote:
Why? Because it was an even more volatile location than Iraq, where our local support was even weaker than it is in Iraq. We lost thousands more men in Vietnam, and LBJ was even more of a tool than Bush, since his micromanagement of the war basically ruined any chance of victory whatsoever.
The Vietnamese were vicious buggers. One eyewitness reports a tank rolling a Church and blowing the refugees inside up until the church was a bloody mess.
The Communist Vietnamese obliterated their cities pretty much, and deported everyone to the countryside to work in labor camps, similar to Kim Il Jom's today. The country was brain wiped and washed or else purged.
The war did prove something else : democrats are shit at defending the United States/waging any sort of war.
For accuracy, please replace the WW1 option with "I'm a moron", and the WW2 option with "No, really, I'm a moron!!!".
I voted bay of pigs.
I voted bay of pigs.
Bye then.k30dxedle wrote:
/rummages for passport
Your asking the wrong people. You should ask the vets if they think the war that they were/are involved in is futile or not.
Unless you are currently serving in your military or have served in your military through a conflict, you really have no idea if the war is futile to those who were/are there or not. It is not for us to sit in the comfort of our own homes and judge such things.
Anyone in the military who is sent by their government to an area of conflict will ultimately fight for the guys next to him, not the cause or issue that started the conflict in the first place.
I am all for open discussion, but I feel that there is a time and place for it and that if it is to be discussed, then let it be done by those who have the understanding and the necesary experience to actually know what they are talking about.
Peace out
Unless you are currently serving in your military or have served in your military through a conflict, you really have no idea if the war is futile to those who were/are there or not. It is not for us to sit in the comfort of our own homes and judge such things.
Anyone in the military who is sent by their government to an area of conflict will ultimately fight for the guys next to him, not the cause or issue that started the conflict in the first place.
I am all for open discussion, but I feel that there is a time and place for it and that if it is to be discussed, then let it be done by those who have the understanding and the necesary experience to actually know what they are talking about.
Peace out
War, as an extension of policy should be judged on its political, social, human, and economic results. While soldiers will definitely have an opinion of a war, they are not the ones responsible for deciding its justification or worth. IMO
that is true, but they are the only ones who can really attest to whether it was futile or not.
I'm sure you'd rather be speaking that, then English, eh, you mincer of words.Superslim wrote:
naaa I'd say we would be speaking RussianThe_Mac wrote:
You need to settle down and realize that if the United States hadn't stepped in the war, you guys would most likely all be speaking German by now.manitobapaintballa wrote:
get your facts straight buddy and once you get into 5th grade history mabie just mabie you won't have americanised history books (not bloody likley)
Well who is? Some politician eager to get votes? I'm not saying one thing or another, but soldiers are a good part of it.RAIMIUS wrote:
War, as an extension of policy should be judged on its political, social, human, and economic results. While soldiers will definitely have an opinion of a war, they are not the ones responsible for deciding its justification or worth. IMO
Not taking it back for two reasons:Turquoise wrote:
Um... FDR and Truman were Democrats. I think you might want to take that last line back.
One: FDR was incredibly slow in getting his head out of his ass and helping Britain fight the Nazi scum earlier than 1941. The only good thing he did was actually not micromanage it.
Two: Truman was a power grabbing dope. He was afraid of MacArthur's prestige. And that's why we have a north and south Korea.
So no, you can take your last line back instead.
Last edited by The_Mac (2007-06-23 18:06:21)
We entered the war at the perfect time for us. It gave us time to build up our own military.The_Mac wrote:
Not taking it back for two reasons:Turquoise wrote:
Um... FDR and Truman were Democrats. I think you might want to take that last line back.
One: FDR was incredibly slow in getting his head out of his ass and helping Britain fight the Nazi scum earlier than 1941. The only good thing he did was actually not micromanage it.
Two: Truman was a power grabbing dope. He was afraid of MacArthur's prestige. And that's why we have a north and south Korea.
So no, you can take your last line back instead.
Truman was far better of a president than many of our more recent ones. MacArthur probably had the right idea during the Korean War, but he was also an insufferable prick. Truman had no choice but to put him in his place.
futile = practically useless
using this approach, I would say Bay of Pigs, because the whole project failed like a fat sow stuck in dry mud.
using this approach, I would say Bay of Pigs, because the whole project failed like a fat sow stuck in dry mud.
Ditto.Tromboner999 wrote:
I wanted to vote for Bosnia/Former Yugoslavia but it's not on this list... I wonder why?
The United States military would have been in better condition, if someone besides FDR had enough foresight to see a war coming, and know that we'd support Britain. You just proved my point, by saying we waited, you pretty much admitted FDR hadn't prepared us enough for the war, due to his own incompetence. I'd also like to point out that while the Navy was trying to make ends meet with its carrier projects, the Army was ready to go.Turquoise wrote:
We entered the war at the perfect time for us. It gave us time to build up our own military.
Truman was far better of a president than many of our more recent ones. MacArthur probably had the right idea during the Korean War, but he was also an insufferable prick. Truman had no choice but to put him in his place.
America's Army in 1938 was far superior to Germany's.
I don't see why Truman had to put MacArthur in his place because "he was an insufferable prick". It's because MacArthur was a challenge to Truman's political authority. People didn't like MacArthur as a person, but they saw him as a genius. His greatest enemies called him a genius, so it's not like he made that one up.
Just to let you know... The Republicans were the main force keeping FDR from getting the U.S. into WW2. So, if you wanna blame anyone for our late start, blame the Republicans.The_Mac wrote:
The United States military would have been in better condition, if someone besides FDR had enough foresight to see a war coming, and know that we'd support Britain. You just proved my point, by saying we waited, you pretty much admitted FDR hadn't prepared us enough for the war, due to his own incompetence. I'd also like to point out that while the Navy was trying to make ends meet with its carrier projects, the Army was ready to go.Turquoise wrote:
We entered the war at the perfect time for us. It gave us time to build up our own military.
Truman was far better of a president than many of our more recent ones. MacArthur probably had the right idea during the Korean War, but he was also an insufferable prick. Truman had no choice but to put him in his place.
America's Army in 1938 was far superior to Germany's.
I don't see why Truman had to put MacArthur in his place because "he was an insufferable prick". It's because MacArthur was a challenge to Truman's political authority. People didn't like MacArthur as a person, but they saw him as a genius. His greatest enemies called him a genius, so it's not like he made that one up.
Speaking of incompetence, Hoover was the reason why we were so weak by the time FDR entered office. He didn't do jack shit about the Great Depression.
MacArthur was a loose cannon who had proven that he was not totally compliant to his commander's wishes. That makes a general far less useful than one who does comply. Insubordination is the most important reason to fire a general, because the military is supposed to follow whatever the government tells it to do. This isn't about prestige, it's about following orders.
Another thing... the general public did like MacArthur a lot. The people who had to deal with him on a personal basis tended not to, though, because of his arrogance. He was good at what he did, and honestly, I think he may have had the right idea with Korea. What isn't debatable, however, is that when an active general uses the media to undermine a president's plan for action, he will rightfully be forced out of office.
I can assure you that if any active generals spoke out strongly against the Iraq occupation or the Afghanistan War, Bush would force them to resign. It's only the retired generals who say things against our presence in Iraq, because they are no longer on active duty.
That being said, Truman did what any president would do.
Bush has (forced generals to retire), which is really sad.
Anyway I think WWI because it brought the United States out of isolationism and into a more global front, but also at the same time the United States was fighting in the Banana Wars in South America for the ability to have cheap export/import trade there. WWII would have been futile if we hadn't been attacked, we would have simply traded with the winner of the conflicts. After that the internationally community has condemmed the US for any action taken, with the exception of the Korean War (which is still under a treaty of cease fire but still at war) and Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm.
Vietnam was an important proxy war that started for the wrong reason, we shouldn't have gone in to rescue the French but more to stop the Commies, and should have used weapons free instead of hill taking and release. By the numbers the war of attrition was leaning heavily in the favor of the United States and had the United States not withdrawn the war would have been settled within a few years with the US winning (simply because N. Vietnam would not have enough people to carry on the war).
Bay of Pigs was a failure but once again a task to eliminate the Red Commies from encroaching on the Unites States. Having a communist state just 90 miles off the coast has always been a thorn in the side of the United States.
I'm in an anti-European mood right now compliments of my girlfriend who is extremely pro-French because she likes the city of Paris. Oh and the United States military could always do with better training and leadership, but as long as its a civilian who is in charge, well you can expect to have problems, and when you have a military leader you can expect to have civil problems. There is no perfect choice and there are usually good reasons for a war or military action being taken if you look at the stance of the country and the events that have taken place within the last few decades to influence their decision making.
Anyway I think WWI because it brought the United States out of isolationism and into a more global front, but also at the same time the United States was fighting in the Banana Wars in South America for the ability to have cheap export/import trade there. WWII would have been futile if we hadn't been attacked, we would have simply traded with the winner of the conflicts. After that the internationally community has condemmed the US for any action taken, with the exception of the Korean War (which is still under a treaty of cease fire but still at war) and Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm.
Vietnam was an important proxy war that started for the wrong reason, we shouldn't have gone in to rescue the French but more to stop the Commies, and should have used weapons free instead of hill taking and release. By the numbers the war of attrition was leaning heavily in the favor of the United States and had the United States not withdrawn the war would have been settled within a few years with the US winning (simply because N. Vietnam would not have enough people to carry on the war).
Bay of Pigs was a failure but once again a task to eliminate the Red Commies from encroaching on the Unites States. Having a communist state just 90 miles off the coast has always been a thorn in the side of the United States.
I'm in an anti-European mood right now compliments of my girlfriend who is extremely pro-French because she likes the city of Paris. Oh and the United States military could always do with better training and leadership, but as long as its a civilian who is in charge, well you can expect to have problems, and when you have a military leader you can expect to have civil problems. There is no perfect choice and there are usually good reasons for a war or military action being taken if you look at the stance of the country and the events that have taken place within the last few decades to influence their decision making.