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?
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?
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?
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.
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
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.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.
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!If you want to ask Yank-centric questions, perhaps you should go to a Yank-centric forum.
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.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.
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!
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:
You're posts always seem to have plenty of "yanking" going on in them.
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