Name a "War" that We Have Won Since 1945

[JimBowie1958]

The "War on Poverty; Terror; Communism; pollution; etc" you name the war and we are still fighting it without resolution.

Each "War" is a perennial expenditure of funding and resources that the Beltway Bandit Corporations are certain to grab their "fair share" of each year.

That is why we dont win any more.

Prove me wrong and name a "War" we have won since 1945.

 

[Meathead]

Cold

 

[ABikerSailor]

Actually, I'd have to agree with Meathead. Not only did the Soviet Union dissolve and reform with some countries joining the West, but Russia isn't as strong as they used to be.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Grenada

 

[Moonglow]

The "War on Poverty; Terror; Communism; pollution; etc" you name the war and we are still fighting it without resolution.

Each "War" is a perennial expenditure of funding and resources that the Beltway Bandit Corporations are certain to grab their "fair share" of each year.

That is why we dont win any more.

Prove me wrong and name a "War" we have won since 1945.

War of the sexes.....

 

[Maryland Patriot]

might be good to name the wars and discuss each one on its own merits. Why we tied/walked away or lost.

 

[theHawk]

The Gulf War.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

The Gulf War.

was the Gulf War actually a war or was it an Extended Military Engagement.
When was the last time the U.S declared war on another country.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Under George Bush's leadership, we won War in Iraq.

 

[Trump.Stamped]

The war of the worlds. Smoked those F'n aliens.

 

[aris2chat]

Reagan, cold war

 

[bitterlyclingin]

Cant.
Integration and political correctness have led to an attitude of acceptance of defeat and surrender.
America is now France, especially after 8 years of Sheikh Buraq Hussein Obama's leadership, who has worked assiduously on building in an inevitable and catastrophic military defeat.
F'rinstance Joe Stalin purged his entire military officer corps just before Germany invaded. Germany was able to penetrate nearly a thousand miles deep into the Soviet Union on a 2,000 mile wide front in just 3 months. Fortunately, Stalin was able to trade distance for enough time to grow a new officer corps.
Suppose Marine Sargent John Basilone was busy humping his foxhole buddy on Guadalcanal the night of October 24/25, 1942 instead of remaining intent on watching the line?
The defeat and loss of the entire First Marine Division could have had a catastrophic effect on America's willingness to pursue the war.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Yeah, we won the Cold War, the Gulf War and the Iraq war. You can call them other names the way JFK called a blockade a quarantine but they were all successful wars.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Cold

Oops! Forgot about that one, huh?

 

[Meathead]

Look, all stupidity aside, a war is an actual war. The US tied in Korea, lost Vietnam but ultimately won, and won in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The latter two, we overthrew disgusting governments and installed leadership less "deplorable" (love that word), and gave some semblance of freedom to the majority of their populations. Clean sweeps no longer exist outside of more civilized countries.

 

[martybegan]

Look, all stupidity aside, a war is an actual war. The US tied in Korea, lost Vietnam but ultimately won, and won in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The latter two, we overthrew disgusting governments and installed leadership less "deplorable" (love that word), and gave some semblance of freedom to the majority of their populations. Clean sweeps no longer exist outside of more civilized countries.

Considering the Norks were the aggressor in the Korean War, and the US managed to get it back to Status Quo Antebellum, the US has the "win" side of the draw, and the Norks the "lose side".

 

[Meathead]

Look, all stupidity aside, a war is an actual war. The US tied in Korea, lost Vietnam but ultimately won, and won in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The latter two, we overthrew disgusting governments and installed leadership less "deplorable" (love that word), and gave some semblance of freedom to the majority of their populations. Clean sweeps no longer exist outside of more civilized countries.

Considering the Norks were the aggressor in the Korean War, and the US managed to get it back to Status Quo Antebellum, the US has the "win" side of the draw, and the Norks the "lose side".

MacArthur could have won Korea just as Patton could have won the Cold War. I understand Truman's reticence just as I understand Bush's in the first Gulf war. Politics are what make America lose wars, just as it did in Vietnam.

 

[Zander]

The "War on Poverty; Terror; Communism; pollution; etc" you name the war and we are still fighting it without resolution.

Each "War" is a perennial expenditure of funding and resources that the Beltway Bandit Corporations are certain to grab their "fair share" of each year.

That is why we dont win any more.

Prove me wrong and name a "War" we have won since 1945.

The war on freedom. We've obliterated liberty!

 

[martybegan]

Look, all stupidity aside, a war is an actual war. The US tied in Korea, lost Vietnam but ultimately won, and won in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The latter two, we overthrew disgusting governments and installed leadership less "deplorable" (love that word), and gave some semblance of freedom to the majority of their populations. Clean sweeps no longer exist outside of more civilized countries.

Considering the Norks were the aggressor in the Korean War, and the US managed to get it back to Status Quo Antebellum, the US has the "win" side of the draw, and the Norks the "lose side".

MacArthur could have won Korea just as Patton could have won the Cold War. I understand Truman's reticence just as I understand Bush's in the first Gulf war. Politics are what make America lose wars, just as it did in Vietnam.

or MacAurthur could have triggered WIII.

And I doubt Patton could have reached Moscow, which is what would have been required to prevent the Cold War. The Russians just had too many men and tanks and everything else for the allies to Counter.

Now Truman might have stopped the Cold War if he was willing to Nuke 10 or so Russian Cities.

 

[Meathead]

Look, all stupidity aside, a war is an actual war. The US tied in Korea, lost Vietnam but ultimately won, and won in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The latter two, we overthrew disgusting governments and installed leadership less "deplorable" (love that word), and gave some semblance of freedom to the majority of their populations. Clean sweeps no longer exist outside of more civilized countries.

Considering the Norks were the aggressor in the Korean War, and the US managed to get it back to Status Quo Antebellum, the US has the "win" side of the draw, and the Norks the "lose side".

MacArthur could have won Korea just as Patton could have won the Cold War. I understand Truman's reticence just as I understand Bush's in the first Gulf war. Politics are what make America lose wars, just as it did in Vietnam.

or MacAurthur could have triggered WIII.

And I doubt Patton could have reached Moscow, which is what would have been required to prevent the Cold War. The Russians just had too many men and tanks and everything else for the allies to Counter.

Now Truman might have stopped the Cold War if he was willing to Nuke 10 or so Russian Cities.

You've hit on something there. Patton could have easily taken Czechoslovakia and Poland. They were both there for the taking. Russia at that time had no nuclear weapons and a very exhausted military manned largely by little more than children. Truman's, as well as Bush's (I) decisions were not those of military men, but those of politicians. I am not even going to get to MacArthur v Truman, the result of `which haunts us to this very day.