When did the US stop being good at war?

[Delta4Embassy]

US and our allies won World War 2 in under 5 years on many many fronts, in many many countries. But we can't win a war against North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, Iraq again, and a terrorist group?

The only logical conclusion is either a) we're outclassed, or b) we're not trying to win.

US seems to be very good at inventing technology to kill people, training people to kill people, but absolutely sucks at winning wars. Or, we're just not interested in winning.

But why would we not be interested in actually winning and going home? Well, look at who provides all the material used in wars. The corporations and defense contractors. Could they have something to do with things? Like maybe the longer a war goes on, the more money they make?

In World War 2 this was called war profiteering and I think we took people for a walk in the woods for it. When did that change? Can we change it back? Are corporations more powerful than the actual military? Scene from "Taps" comes to mind when faced with losing their school, students seized weapons from the armory and told the developers what to go do with themselves in no uncertain terms.

Until it becomes the policy of the USA to resume winning wars and kicking ass the military and American public shoudl simply refuse en masse' to support wars we're not even trying to win any more at the expense of peoples' lives so rich people can be a little richer.

 

[gipper]

War is NEVER good.

It is always about the health of the STATE.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

War can be good when it's done for the right reasons, and waged to be won and ended as quickly as possible.

 

[JoeB131]

US and our allies won World War 2 in under 5 years on many many fronts, in many many countries. But we can't win a war against North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, Iraq again, and a terrorist group?

I think your initial premise is somewhat flawed. The United States didn't do most of the heavy lifting. Most of the heavy lifting was done by the Soviets and the Chinese on the ground. Even the British Empire relied heavily on Indian and Pakistani troops to fight the war for them on many fronts. (while only half a million Brits died in WWII, 2 million Indians died fighting for the "British Empire" they didn't want to be a part of.)

Now, the reason why we didn't end up fighting guerilla wars for decades in Germany and Japan was that the prospect of being absorbed by the Soviets was so frightening that they went along with anything we said.

US seems to be very good at inventing technology to kill people, training people to kill people, but absolutely sucks at winning wars. Or, we're just not interested in winning.

Or our leaders are having a hard time defining what "winning" looks like. WWII had a clear end game. What is the end game in Iraq? We killed Saddam over the weapons he never had, but what we couldn't do was keep the fiction of Iraq going.

 

[mudwhistle]

US and our allies won World War 2 in under 5 years on many many fronts, in many many countries. But we can't win a war against North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, Iraq again, and a terrorist group?

The only logical conclusion is either a) we're outclassed, or b) we're not trying to win.

US seems to be very good at inventing technology to kill people, training people to kill people, but absolutely sucks at winning wars. Or, we're just not interested in winning.

But why would we not be interested in actually winning and going home? Well, look at who provides all the material used in wars. The corporations and defense contractors. Could they have something to do with things? Like maybe the longer a war goes on, the more money they make?

In World War 2 this was called war profiteering and I think we took people for a walk in the woods for it. When did that change? Can we change it back? Are corporations more powerful than the actual military? Scene from "Taps" comes to mind when faced with losing their school, students seized weapons from the armory and told the developers what to go do with themselves in no uncertain terms.

Until it becomes the policy of the USA to resume winning wars and kicking ass the military and American public shoudl simply refuse en masse' to support wars we're not even trying to win any more at the expense of peoples' lives so rich people can be a little richer.

It began when Democrats stopped allowing us to declare wars. This comes from some innate belief that this country, deep down, isn't good. From a belief that our enemies, that just want to murder all of us, are justified.

 

[gipper]

War can be good when it's done for the right reasons, and waged to be won and ended as quickly as possible.

Foolish, but sadly many believe as you do. Thus ignoring the history of war.

War is NEVER good and the reasons for going war are almost always based on lies and deceit, by the power elite and the political class.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

War can be good when it's done for the right reasons, and waged to be won and ended as quickly as possible.

Foolish, but sadly many believe as you do. Thus ignoring the history of war.

War is NEVER good and the reasons for going war are almost always based on lies and deceit, by the power elite and the political class.

Would you not defend yourself against violent attack on the street? Sometimes the attack is on a national scale and war is justifiable.

"I'm not a pacifist anymore if I let myself be killed." Me.

 

[Sonny Clark]

US and our allies won World War 2 in under 5 years on many many fronts, in many many countries. But we can't win a war against North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, Iraq again, and a terrorist group?

The only logical conclusion is either a) we're outclassed, or b) we're not trying to win.

US seems to be very good at inventing technology to kill people, training people to kill people, but absolutely sucks at winning wars. Or, we're just not interested in winning.

But why would we not be interested in actually winning and going home? Well, look at who provides all the material used in wars. The corporations and defense contractors. Could they have something to do with things? Like maybe the longer a war goes on, the more money they make?

In World War 2 this was called war profiteering and I think we took people for a walk in the woods for it. When did that change? Can we change it back? Are corporations more powerful than the actual military? Scene from "Taps" comes to mind when faced with losing their school, students seized weapons from the armory and told the developers what to go do with themselves in no uncertain terms.

Until it becomes the policy of the USA to resume winning wars and kicking ass the military and American public shoudl simply refuse en masse' to support wars we're not even trying to win any more at the expense of peoples' lives so rich people can be a little richer.

"When did the US stop being good at war"?

The short answer: When our leaders turned chicken shit and refused to allow our soldiers to do what they're trained to do.

We have sophisticated weaponry, very Hi-Tech systems, highly trained soldiers, war planes, war ships, satellite guidance systems, human tracking capabilities, sound and motion detection, and military bases around the world. Yet, most of what we have remains idle and collects dust while we sacrifice our men and women in uniform. We basically fight now as we did during the first two world wars. Look at our defeat in Viet Nam, Iraq, and in Afghanistan. We've lost tens of thousands of soldiers, spent hundreds of $Billions, if not more, and then we crawled home in shameful defeat.

Wars are fought now through diplomacy, sanctions, foolish politics, and deadly pretend combat that is closer to police action than war. Military contractors get super rich, we destroy nations, we turn old friends and allies into enemies, we cause economic hardships for innocent citizens of foreign countries, and we bring home disabled VETS that require special care the rest of their lives. Considering the enormous military budget, all of us should be ashamed to crawl away in defeat when we send our soldiers into combat.

In modern day war, the word and meaning has been redefined as police actions, diplomacy, politics, and a money generating machine. Money and politics determine the rules of war, and soldiers are sacrificial lambs sent to slaughter. After WWII, we stopped fighting war as war, and have instead turned to senseless deadly costly politics when attempting to solve issues and crisis.

War is war, but try to explain it to the folks in charge, that sit in Washington, watching our dead taken off planes as they return home. But, voters never think about things like this on election day. Voters have as much blame as do the chicken shit leaders that allow the shame to fall on all of us as a nation. Think about it the next time you see a disabled VET, read about what we spend on our military, and consider the technology available today. Do we ever have a legitimate excuse when we're defeated? In my opinion, the answer to that question is NO, HELL NO !!!!!!!!

 

[gipper]

War can be good when it's done for the right reasons, and waged to be won and ended as quickly as possible.

Foolish, but sadly many believe as you do. Thus ignoring the history of war.

War is NEVER good and the reasons for going war are almost always based on lies and deceit, by the power elite and the political class.

Would you not defend yourself against violent attack on the street? Sometimes the attack is on a national scale and war is justifiable.

"I'm not a pacifist anymore if I let myself be killed." Me.

Can you name one war where the US was defending itself? If you claim WWII was that war, you are not informed. FDR clearly set up the Japanese for their attack on Pearl Harbor and he knew it was coming before it occurred. Deceitful yes?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

War can be good when it's done for the right reasons, and waged to be won and ended as quickly as possible.

Foolish, but sadly many believe as you do. Thus ignoring the history of war.

War is NEVER good and the reasons for going war are almost always based on lies and deceit, by the power elite and the political class.

Would you not defend yourself against violent attack on the street? Sometimes the attack is on a national scale and war is justifiable.

"I'm not a pacifist anymore if I let myself be killed." Me.

Can you name one war where the US was defending itself? If you claim WWII was that war, you are not informed. FDR clearly set up the Japanese for their attack on Pearl Harbor and he knew it was coming before it occurred. Deceitful yes?

War of Independence springs readily to mind.

 

[Correll]

US and our allies won World War 2 in under 5 years on many many fronts, in many many countries. But we can't win a war against North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, Iraq again, and a terrorist group?

The only logical conclusion is either a) we're outclassed, or b) we're not trying to win.

US seems to be very good at inventing technology to kill people, training people to kill people, but absolutely sucks at winning wars. Or, we're just not interested in winning.

But why would we not be interested in actually winning and going home? Well, look at who provides all the material used in wars. The corporations and defense contractors. Could they have something to do with things? Like maybe the longer a war goes on, the more money they make?

In World War 2 this was called war profiteering and I think we took people for a walk in the woods for it. When did that change? Can we change it back? Are corporations more powerful than the actual military? Scene from "Taps" comes to mind when faced with losing their school, students seized weapons from the armory and told the developers what to go do with themselves in no uncertain terms.

Until it becomes the policy of the USA to resume winning wars and kicking ass the military and American public shoudl simply refuse en masse' to support wars we're not even trying to win any more at the expense of peoples' lives so rich people can be a little richer.

You obviously had your conclusion and worked backwards to defend it.

Korea and Vietnam were proxy wars in the Cold War. In both cases we were limited by our desire to avoid escalation. But regardless of that, we won the Cold War.

As you state we have no trouble "killing people" but winning the war seems harder. Why is that?

Your answer that we are not trying to win, and are instead just funneling money to the "War profiteers" is easy and surprise, surprise just happens to put all the onus on people you already don't like.

Wow. How convenient.

IMO?

1. We keep trying to play by the rules even when our enemies don't.

2. We keep trying to turn crappy Third World nations into duplicate First World nations. This worked with Germany and Japan, but has not worked since.

3. We are ignoring the Media front of war. INcreasingly propaganda and image drive results. And we won't play that game because of our rules or when we do it leads to scandal and loss of political capital.

 

[gipper]

War can be good when it's done for the right reasons, and waged to be won and ended as quickly as possible.

Foolish, but sadly many believe as you do. Thus ignoring the history of war.

War is NEVER good and the reasons for going war are almost always based on lies and deceit, by the power elite and the political class.

Would you not defend yourself against violent attack on the street? Sometimes the attack is on a national scale and war is justifiable.

"I'm not a pacifist anymore if I let myself be killed." Me.

Can you name one war where the US was defending itself? If you claim WWII was that war, you are not informed. FDR clearly set up the Japanese for their attack on Pearl Harbor and he knew it was coming before it occurred. Deceitful yes?

War of Independence springs readily to mind.

Agreed. That would be the only one in all of the USA's wars and that was when there was no US government.

 

[Disir]

War can be good when it's done for the right reasons, and waged to be won and ended as quickly as possible.

What is a right reason?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

US and our allies won World War 2 in under 5 years on many many fronts, in many many countries. But we can't win a war against North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, Iraq again, and a terrorist group?

The only logical conclusion is either a) we're outclassed, or b) we're not trying to win.

US seems to be very good at inventing technology to kill people, training people to kill people, but absolutely sucks at winning wars. Or, we're just not interested in winning.

But why would we not be interested in actually winning and going home? Well, look at who provides all the material used in wars. The corporations and defense contractors. Could they have something to do with things? Like maybe the longer a war goes on, the more money they make?

In World War 2 this was called war profiteering and I think we took people for a walk in the woods for it. When did that change? Can we change it back? Are corporations more powerful than the actual military? Scene from "Taps" comes to mind when faced with losing their school, students seized weapons from the armory and told the developers what to go do with themselves in no uncertain terms.

Until it becomes the policy of the USA to resume winning wars and kicking ass the military and American public shoudl simply refuse en masse' to support wars we're not even trying to win any more at the expense of peoples' lives so rich people can be a little richer.

It began when Democrats stopped allowing us to declare wars. This comes from some innate belief that this country, deep down, isn't good. From a belief that our enemies, that just want to murder all of us, are justified.

It's worse than that, since WWII democrats have been working with our enemies. PC has many threads in FDR prosecuting the war for and surrendering the peace to Stalin; Democrats were assisting the ChiComs and Nokos in killing soldiers and Marines in Korea, and after inflicting one of the worst asskickings on the nva, Cronkite and the other Enemies in our media called Tet a victory for communism

 

[Delta4Embassy]

War can be good when it's done for the right reasons, and waged to be won and ended as quickly as possible.

What is a right reason?

Invasion, defense of a third party. I'm against pre-emptive attack.

 

[Disir]

War can be good when it's done for the right reasons, and waged to be won and ended as quickly as possible.

What is a right reason?

Invasion, defense of a third party. I'm against pre-emptive attack.

Defense of a third party is pretty broad. Can you narrow that down? That just legitimized any action.

 

[Correll]

War can be good when it's done for the right reasons, and waged to be won and ended as quickly as possible.

What is a right reason?

Invasion, defense of a third party. I'm against pre-emptive attack.

What about protection of interests?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

War can be good when it's done for the right reasons, and waged to be won and ended as quickly as possible.

What is a right reason?

Invasion, defense of a third party. I'm against pre-emptive attack.

Defense of a third party is pretty broad. Can you narrow that down? That just legitimized any action.

If an ally of our's is invaded.

 

[gipper]

War can be good when it's done for the right reasons, and waged to be won and ended as quickly as possible.

What is a right reason?

Invasion, defense of a third party. I'm against pre-emptive attack.

What about protection of interests?

What interests would warrant going to war?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

War can be good when it's done for the right reasons, and waged to be won and ended as quickly as possible.

What is a right reason?

Invasion, defense of a third party. I'm against pre-emptive attack.

What about protection of interests?

Too easily abused. If US has "interests" in foreign countries which come under attack well, that's life. Too easy to abuse a military response to that by just putting US interests everywhere as a lure just to justify going to war over their getting hit.