Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At least in the first Iraqi invasion the Generals were given a freer hand but Bush the Elder pulled the military out before they totally destroyed Iraq's ability to come back militarily. That was the reason for the second Iraqi invasion. The military was again hand stringed by the bad rules of engagement which has prolonged that war continuing now.
No, an invasion of Iraq in the early 90s would have turned out no better than it did in the early 2000s, and the US would still be fighting.
There are places in the world that are made simply "No Win Scenarios" for the US because of the politics of the local cultures. A big clue is whether a true concept of a Westphalian-style "nation" already actually exists in that culture. Trying to sit astride a bunch of warring tribes or clans, any people who don't already consider themselves a "nation" is the recipe for failure.
The point is that we AREN'T evenly stacked. Not even close.
I don't know how you got that idea from what I said.
We'd lose umpteen thousands of soldiers. And for what?
If you think they aren't evenly stacked, then we're on the same page.
I specifically said that we should not go to war with them but that if we did, we would easily win and probably rather quickly. I stand by this. Realistically though, China would probably be involved, which would surely make the fight harder. But strictly us against NK? Yeah, we'd crush 'em.
Easy answer...the war in those countries were not fought with a free hand by the US military..they war fought by politicians making bad decisions.
You guys say this after every war we lose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rantiquity
I don't recall or believe the US military lost a singe military battle during the Vietnam war. What beat us was the inability of both the America people and the politicians in Washington to have the courage to allow the military to run the war and to win.
If the military had a free hand I believe the war would have ended after about two years with three quarters less in the lost of lives. Still not good but we did have an obligation set forth by the SEATO treaties.
Lol... we lost plenty of battles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger
You should stick to checkers and let the smart people play chess. If you cannot see the strategic importance in that area you should just stop.
Tell us the strategic importance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
There was not in any way "beat us BADLY!," not at all. The communist Vietnamese simply outlasted the US the way they had outlasted the French, and the non-communist Vietnamese weren't particularly committed to being non-communist.
We got our asses kicked. Who are you kidding? Spending over a decade trying to beat a third world nation and leaving with your tail between your ass IS losing badly! In every sense of those words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
If you think they aren't evenly stacked, then we're on the same page.
I specifically said that we should not go to war with them but that if we did, we would easily win and probably rather quickly. I stand by this. Realistically though, China would probably be involved, which would surely make the fight harder. But strictly us against NK? Yeah, we'd crush 'em.
Lol...no chance. Why aren't we crushing the so-called enemy in Afghanistan and couldn't do it in Iraq either!!!
Only if it Kimmy is the aggressor and invades South Korea. I voted undecided because the question didn't include the scenario of North Korea invading South Korea. An attack on South Korea is pretty much an attack on the U.S. given the current situation. The South Koreans are allies and we have Military bases there. Those units would likely be involved in the fighting. The D.P.R.K. has no chance of winning a conventional war if its by itself. Its outclassed in the air. Other than mini subs and missile boats its Navy isn't much of a threat and would loose badly. The R.O.K. and the U.S. have better tanks and i.f.v.s. After an initial attack that will cause destruction to Seoul and cities that're within proximity of the border the D.R.P.K. will be in retreat. There will be numerous casualties in the Koreas yet the R.O.K. and the U.S. would prevail and there would be one Korea under the R.O.K.
Only if it Kimmy is the aggressor and invades South Korea. I voted undecided because the question didn't include the scenario of North Korea invading South Korea. An attack on South Korea is pretty much an attack on the U.S. given the current situation. The South Koreans are allies and we have Military bases there. Those units would likely be involved in the fighting. The D.P.R.K. has no chance of winning a conventional war if its by itself. Its outclassed in the air. Other than mini subs and missile boats its Navy isn't much of a threat and would loose badly. The R.O.K. and the U.S. have better tanks and i.f.v.s. After an initial attack that will cause destruction to Seoul and cities that're within proximity of the border the D.R.P.K. will be in retreat. There will be numerous casualties in the Koreas yet the R.O.K. and the U.S. would prevail and there would be one Korea under the R.O.K.
What the strategy must be:
As the ROK and US forces move north, there must be a following corps of old guys with kimchee stands bringing up the rear. That will prevent any attacks to the rear from any entrenched DPRK forces and/or the populace.
Has there been a country we've attacked/intervened (vs retaliated) that's turned out well? Korea? Vietnam? Afghanistan? Iraq? Libya? Our batting average hasn't been that good, and our inability to predict how much money, lives, years they'll take equally poor. Suggests we regularly don't know what we're getting ourselves into...
The U.S. preserved S. Korea. Its now a highly developed nation that makes decent cars.
Do a "Harry Truman" and get the hell out.
Wipe NK off the planet once and for all.
Bob.
Uh, Harry Truman got us in and we never got out. IKE campaigned on at least stopping the way.
Let's get basic history correct here at least.....
We took the entire might of the US Military built up over WWII and threw it at N. Korea. We also learned a little geography lesson - that N. Korea abuts China. It still does and the Chinese are allies with N. Korea.
They will not sit by and allow us to just do what we we like there. It will get real complicated....really quickly.
S. Korea? You mean that fine place where the POTUS just had to step down due to corruption? The place owned and run by giant corporations? Well, I guess that is part of what we do now - protect Samsung the world over...
The U.S. preserved S. Korea. Its now a highly developed nation that makes decent cars.
If the Korean war had never been fought - all of Korea would probably be a close ally of China and making great cars and consumer items.
Maybe it wouldn't have been as corrupt?....like didn't their POTUS just have to step down?
Lots of Americans and Koreans would still be alive...and their children too. Lots of money could have been put to better things.....
I see no upside to the Korean war. IKE didn't see one either which is why he campaigned on stopping it - and he did just that.
Whether they make a car or washing machine is not worth ONE American life to me. How about you? How many lives and limbs is a Samsung phone worth?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.