So the US has had a lousy time of making war work since WW2. What changed things? What is different about war now that we didnt have in the last great war?
Modern War
- Thread starter triedit
- Start date
I believe the US has not had a legitimate reason to go to war in the past 40-50 years hence the reason they loose every conflicts they create. As well they lack the courage to fight in a war depending on mostly hi-tech war-fare ie dropping so-called `smart bombs` from a distance then running for cover unaware nor giving a hell who gets killed be it innocents or the perceived enemy.
Read Von Clausewitz or Sun-Tzu - see how badly the US has gotten war for the last half-century.
Pangloss
Postscript: who says war is all that different? Wars are being fought all over the globe - or do only the wars fought with american involvement count?
Yankee-centric politics abound.
Pangloss
Yankee-centric politics abound.
Pangloss
Is the attack on Pearl Harbor different from the attack on the World Trade Center?
And Ive limited my question here to the US because Ive no good working knowledge of warring other countries.
From the outside, it looks like the creation of the UN and the idea of "playing fair" is a hindrance to winning a war. Im certain it was intended to help prevent war, but instead seems to me to just be prolonging them. Im looking to you guys to tell me what the difference is.
What was the reason for the Korean war? I know the others since have been the US trying to police other countries. I have mixed feelings about that. I think the US should be asked to help before they get involved but even then thier hands are pretty much tied by the UN and the Geneva Convention (specifically the third and fourth conventions).
Im not looking for arguements about what is justified and what is not. Im looking for informed opinion on what the difference is between modern war and WW2.
And Ive limited my question here to the US because Ive no good working knowledge of warring other countries.
From the outside, it looks like the creation of the UN and the idea of "playing fair" is a hindrance to winning a war. Im certain it was intended to help prevent war, but instead seems to me to just be prolonging them. Im looking to you guys to tell me what the difference is.
What was the reason for the Korean war? I know the others since have been the US trying to police other countries. I have mixed feelings about that. I think the US should be asked to help before they get involved but even then thier hands are pretty much tied by the UN and the Geneva Convention (specifically the third and fourth conventions).
Im not looking for arguements about what is justified and what is not. Im looking for informed opinion on what the difference is between modern war and WW2.
WWII was fought by several countries with absolute full committment to win, or die trying. It was absolutely necessary. Send as many troops and equipment into the battleground sparing nothing. It wasn't won by America.... it was won by the Allies. Canada, UK, etc committed as much as America to the war effort (i.e. everything possible).
Vietnam was a guerilla war.... much different. I'm sure theat they could have won it if they committed absolutely everything to winning. But things were getting too heavy and public opinion turned due to massacring innocents and the thousands upon thousands of dead American troops. Plus the fact that war wasn't really required didn't help. i.e. A communist Vietnam was not a Hitler-run Germany taking over surrounding countries by the handful. Vietnam didn't attack the USA.
And with Iraq there is even less committment. If the USA wanted to win and conquer the country, they could do so. However, it may take a million troops (i.e. a draft) and thousands upon thousands of American lives as well as even more Iraqi lives. But once again, it wasn't a necessary war. As apathetic as the American populace is, the gov't couldn't get away with it.
Vietnam was a guerilla war.... much different. I'm sure theat they could have won it if they committed absolutely everything to winning. But things were getting too heavy and public opinion turned due to massacring innocents and the thousands upon thousands of dead American troops. Plus the fact that war wasn't really required didn't help. i.e. A communist Vietnam was not a Hitler-run Germany taking over surrounding countries by the handful. Vietnam didn't attack the USA.
And with Iraq there is even less committment. If the USA wanted to win and conquer the country, they could do so. However, it may take a million troops (i.e. a draft) and thousands upon thousands of American lives as well as even more Iraqi lives. But once again, it wasn't a necessary war. As apathetic as the American populace is, the gov't couldn't get away with it.
First question - not really. Both times the US knew the attack was coming, and did nothing to stop it - ok, so the apathy was for different reasons, but still, to let this happen for petty politics. . .
Limit your question all you want - you've limited yourself just like so many americans do: "All we know about is what we do, so nothing else matters."
Sorry to tell you, but not true.
If you want to ask Yank-centric questions, perhaps you should go to a Yank-centric forum.
Pangloss
You're posts always seem to have plenty of "yanking" going on in them.
It doesn't take that much to win a war - the British won one once in 38 minutes without a draft or thousands upon thousands of lives lost.
Mind you they were damn sneaky at the same time - I think the official word for that is diplomacy though..
Hey Pangloss.... this forum is entitled US-American politics.... From the sounds of the title, it seems like the ideal place to talk about "yank-centric" topics!
You can't compare ww2 to anything since, because people and their attitudes have changed. What stopped Korea, was the death of Stalin, when he died, the Chinese knew that the supplies for war would run out, so they left a dying horse(war). Viet Nam is where the weaknesses of modern war became evident. Before, men fighting in the same regions won their war, because they were there until they won, or were killed, 365 and a wakeup soldiers tend to be more concerned about making it to the end of their hitch. With those men go the lean cold wolves who are capable of winnig the war. War is a killing business, and it has to be fought in the field by men who know how to win it, with whatever methods they choose. Can you imagine nuclear solutions today, back in 1945 they never thought twice. They let Japan have it, and saved millions of lives in the process. You can't win any war, if you are not prepared to hold your nose.
Thats the long and the short of it.
Whats changed is people are cowards these days. If they want war its usually involves them not coming to grip with what a war is and pretending its the same as toy soldiers or a movie, closing their eyes and holding their breath whenever anyone tries to inject reality.
If they don't want war its because they think the world is a fairy tale from some movie and don't want to be the one to do whats right (like the parent who waits for the other one to discipline the child, no one does and the kid runs wild and becomes a failure due to parental cowardice).
When about 500 soldiers a year die, the greatest superpower on earth calls it a "defeat" or "unwinnible".
WW2 people thought nothing of losing 500 soldiers A MINUTE (the death rate at D day), can you image how people in America would react if in the Iraq war (same time period) America had lost a million men or more?
Whats changed is the people not fighting the war.
Whats changed is people are cowards these days. If they want war its usually involves them not coming to grip with what a war is and pretending its the same as toy soldiers or a movie, closing their eyes and holding their breath whenever anyone tries to inject reality.
If they don't want war its because they think the world is a fairy tale from some movie and don't want to be the one to do whats right (like the parent who waits for the other one to discipline the child, no one does and the kid runs wild and becomes a failure due to parental cowardice).
When about 500 soldiers a year die, the greatest superpower on earth calls it a "defeat" or "unwinnible".
WW2 people thought nothing of losing 500 soldiers A MINUTE (the death rate at D day), can you image how people in America would react if in the Iraq war (same time period) America had lost a million men or more?
Whats changed is the people not fighting the war.
They saved millions, also killed millions and there are people still dying today form the horrible effects of the bomb. Also as the only country that has used a nuclear devise they are trying to tell everyone else who can and cannot have them.
This is beautiful. A combination knockout punch. Does Pangloss have a comeback? Perhaps some more righteous indignation at being shown to be rather short sighted?:lol:
America has an aversion to high body counts and collateral damage ever since Vietnam. The conscript army of the 50's and 60's was never a good idea. Volunteers fight much better than conscripts usually.
Oh man! This is gonna be sweet. The Magnificent Seven, as one, rides again.
Who would have thought? Another American who cannot spell.
"Your" not "You're" - to write out what you, the American (I presume) posted: "You are posts always seem. . ." - I doubt that's what you meant.
But hey - thanks a bunch for making my point.
Pangloss
Making your point? What point is that? So far, your posts in this thread have been pointless. You ignore the subject and attack the people. What is the point of that, unless to demonstrate an inferiority complex?