Five wars, one question

[bendog]

I'm curious on Korea. First of all, the division of Korea was ... arbitrary. We didn't even know where the 42nd parallel crossed the dam peninsula when we drew the line. But, Stalin had just detonated his own nuke, and we'd pulled out our ground forces. He was convinced the time was right to expand in Asia towards Japan. I don't see how Truman could have sat that out. We shouldn't have been in a position of weakness in the first place, but once NK rolled over the "border....."

I agree. Had it simply been a civil war I would have voted no, stay out of it. It clearly wasn't and allowing country after country to fall to Communism was clearly a direct threat to us.

My wife is also Korean, she certainly is strongly for the war, just wishes we had won it.

I would have voted for Vietnam for the same reason, but how we fought that was so bad that it ended up being worse than if we had stayed out of it. LBJ should hope there is no hell for all the people he pointlessly got killed.

Yeah, but I just don't see how we could "win" it. I assume you mean by eliminating N. Korea. Had McArthur stopped at the Yalu River ... maybe. But once the Chinese "horde" came in, I don't think you can win a land war in Asia. I grew up expecting I'd die on some shiatty hill in Asia holding an M-14, and then they made the plastic rifle. And I'm not for nuking anyone.

 

[kaz]

I'm curious on Korea. First of all, the division of Korea was ... arbitrary. We didn't even know where the 42nd parallel crossed the dam peninsula when we drew the line. But, Stalin had just detonated his own nuke, and we'd pulled out our ground forces. He was convinced the time was right to expand in Asia towards Japan. I don't see how Truman could have sat that out. We shouldn't have been in a position of weakness in the first place, but once NK rolled over the "border....."

I agree. Had it simply been a civil war I would have voted no, stay out of it. It clearly wasn't and allowing country after country to fall to Communism was clearly a direct threat to us.

My wife is also Korean, she certainly is strongly for the war, just wishes we had won it.

I would have voted for Vietnam for the same reason, but how we fought that was so bad that it ended up being worse than if we had stayed out of it. LBJ should hope there is no hell for all the people he pointlessly got killed.

Yeah, but I just don't see how we could "win" it. I assume you mean by eliminating N. Korea. Had McArthur stopped at the Yalu River ... maybe. But once the Chinese "horde" came in, I don't think you can win a land war in Asia. I grew up expecting I'd die on some shiatty hill in Asia holding an M-14, and then they made the plastic rifle. And I'm not for nuking anyone.

Before we approached the Yalu River, we certainly should have assured the Chinese this was a Korean war and not a war on them. They clearly had reason to believe we were not going to stop there. I agree once they entered, it had to play to a draw, but I don't think it was necessary they enter, the saber rattling really got them in it when we approached their boarder. And this was not long after WWII, it's not like today decades later.

 

[bendog]

I agree. Had it simply been a civil war I would have voted no, stay out of it. It clearly wasn't and allowing country after country to fall to Communism was clearly a direct threat to us.

My wife is also Korean, she certainly is strongly for the war, just wishes we had won it.

I would have voted for Vietnam for the same reason, but how we fought that was so bad that it ended up being worse than if we had stayed out of it. LBJ should hope there is no hell for all the people he pointlessly got killed.

Yeah, but I just don't see how we could "win" it. I assume you mean by eliminating N. Korea. Had McArthur stopped at the Yalu River ... maybe. But once the Chinese "horde" came in, I don't think you can win a land war in Asia. I grew up expecting I'd die on some shiatty hill in Asia holding an M-14, and then they made the plastic rifle. And I'm not for nuking anyone.

Before we approached the Yalu River, we certainly should have assured the Chinese this was a Korean war and not a war on them. They clearly had reason to believe we were not going to stop there. I agree once they entered, it had to play to a draw, but I don't think it was necessary they enter, the saber rattling really got them in it when we approached their boarder. And this was not long after WWII, it's not like today decades later.

Agreed. Mao had little interest in bailing them out, and the Soviets were NK's main sponsor, but Mao had even less interest in helping the West. And it continues.

I had a cousin who'd been a marine at Chosin. He had a scar from a wound ... on his ass.

 

[Defiant1]

Should America have fought in:

WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Iraq
Afghanistan

That's it, yes or no, no wrong answers either way, and feel free to pontificate if you wish to...

How did that work out for him?

 

[tinydancer]

Should America have fought in:

WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Iraq
Afghanistan

That's it, yes or no, no wrong answers either way, and feel free to pontificate if you wish to...

WWII Yes
Korea No
Vietnam Hell No!
Iraq No

And then I come to Afghanistan. Yes to retaliation and to punish the Taliban for their active support of al Qaeda.

Since the mid 90's I've been a constant advocate and activist for women's rights in the ME and specifically in Afghanistan. Long before 9/11 I knew about the horrors and the atrocities that the Taliban inflicted on the citizens.

I truly had hoped that our nation building would result in a better life for the women and children of Afghanistan. The verdict is still out. The ending of our involvement is not written.

But if I take my deeply involved emotions out of the equation I would only have cheered on our troops kicking the shit out of the Taliban and AQ and left the UN to pick up the pieces.

Afghanistan is a hard one for me.

 

[deltex1]

Yes to all. The lesson not yet learned is to fight the next one such that the world is horrified...scared shitless. Then maybe we won't have to fight anymore.

 

[deltex1]

Maybe the next one will be Texas against Mexico...we'll show you how it's done.

 

[jwoodie]

WWII Yes
Korea No
Vietnam No
Iraq No
Afghanistan No

TY as well...

Do you thank certain posters merely because they agree with you (or vice versa)?

This thread begs the questions of why and how we fought those "wars." WW2 was our last declared War, with the objective of unconditional defeat and subjugation of the enemy.

The Korean "war" was a "police action" approved by the U.N. to prevent an invasion of South Korea. Although justified by international law, it was the first step down the slippery slope of wars by Presidential decree instead of Congressional declaration. The biggest problem with how this conflict was fought is that our troops were limited to defensive actions. As a result, many of the 50,000 killed died unnecessarily.

The Viet Nam "war" resulted from a failure to distinguish civil war from outside aggression. Absent exceptional circumstances (e.g., genocide), we have no business militarily intervening in another country's internal affairs. However, we do have a right to prevent other countries from intervening if it affects our national interest. Hence we should have sealed off South Viet Nam's borders and let them fight it out. Instead, we wasted 50,000 lives by turning our military into their national police force.

The first Iraq "war" was a justified military action to repel the invasion of Kuwait.

The second Iraq "war" was a questionable gambit to remove a murderous dictator and change the trajectory of the ongoing Middle East conflicts by installing a Western-style democracy in that country. A secondary, but more justifiable, objective was to install a permanent U.S. military presence there in order to contain Iran. The former turned out to be a pipe dream, and the latter was scuttled for political reasons.

The Afghanistan "war" was to deprive Islamic Terrorists (e.g., Taliban) of political and military resources that could be used against the U.S. and other Western countries. As in Iraq, there was no realistic long term strategy for this conflict (other than hoping a functioning democracy would emerge). Again, our troops have been used as national policemen rather than for legitimate military objectives.

In retrospect, all of these "wars" were justifiable, but most were fought with political, rather than military, objectives in mind. The temptation for politicians to "play soldier" with our troops seems almost irresistible. Maybe new technology (e.g., drones) will reduce casualties, but that is probably as much as we can hope for.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Yes x 5

 

[Defiant1]

Yes to all. The lesson not yet learned is to fight the next one such that the world is horrified...scared shitless. Then maybe we won't have to fight anymore.

Right on!

I would have used nuclear weapons to turn Iraq into glass. That whole country isn't worth one drop of American blood.

 

[bendog]

WWII Yes
Korea No
Vietnam No
Iraq No
Afghanistan No

TY as well...

Do you thank certain posters merely because they agree with you (or vice versa)?

This thread begs the questions of why and how we fought those "wars." WW2 was our last declared War, with the objective of unconditional defeat and subjugation of the enemy.

The Korean "war" was a "police action" approved by the U.N. to prevent an invasion of South Korea. Although justified by international law, it was the first step down the slippery slope of wars by Presidential decree instead of Congressional declaration. The biggest problem with how this conflict was fought is that our troops were limited to defensive actions. As a result, many of the 50,000 killed died unnecessarily.

The Viet Nam "war" resulted from a failure to distinguish civil war from outside aggression. Absent exceptional circumstances (e.g., genocide), we have no business militarily intervening in another country's internal affairs. However, we do have a right to prevent other countries from intervening if it affects our national interest. Hence we should have sealed off South Viet Nam's borders and let them fight it out. Instead, we wasted 50,000 lives by turning our military into their national police force.

The first Iraq "war" was a justified military action to repel the invasion of Kuwait.

The second Iraq "war" was a questionable gambit to remove a murderous dictator and change the trajectory of the ongoing Middle East conflicts by installing a Western-style democracy in that country. A secondary, but more justifiable, objective was to install a permanent U.S. military presence there in order to contain Iran. The former turned out to be a pipe dream, and the latter was scuttled for political reasons.

The Afghanistan "war" was to deprive Islamic Terrorists (e.g., Taliban) of political and military resources that could be used against the U.S. and other Western countries. As in Iraq, there was no realistic long term strategy for this conflict (other than hoping a functioning democracy would emerge). Again, our troops have been used as national policemen rather than for legitimate military objectives.

In retrospect, all of these "wars" were justifiable, but most were fought with political, rather than military, objectives in mind. The temptation for politicians to "play soldier" with our troops seems almost irresistible. Maybe new technology (e.g., drones) will reduce casualties, but that is probably as much as we can hope for.

That was well stated, and I pretty much agree on the Iraq wars, though the second Iraq war was a war by the neocons, so imo it's political purposes were no so much "scuttled for political reasons" than the political purposes were fantasies, or not based on a rational view of America's ideals or capabilities.

The Afghan war is a bit odd too, in that it's really been two separate wars by two administrations, neither of which seem to have any clear political or military objective. If Obama thought he could "make the Taliban go away," he was at odds with reality as was BushII in Iraq, though he is not a neocon. Frankly, I have no idea what either he or Bushii thought they had our military there to do, and I don't think they did either.

As for Vietnam .... was is a political calculation by LBJ to be seen has hard on communism, because he perecieved he would not be seen so as much as JFK would have been? Or was the domino theory something he really believed in?

 

[rightwinger]

WWII: Yes
Korea: No
Vietnam: No
Iraq: No
Afghanistan: Yes

So I am curious....

we should help those children that storm our borders who are seeking a safer life...

But the children in Korea and Vietnam? Let them suffer under communistic control?

Is it the children you care about or is it "the easiest and safest way to feel good about yourself" that is important?

Yup

If it takes 50,000 American lives to protect those children, we need to learn to just say no

 

[Carlsen]

WWII: Yes
Korea: No
Vietnam: No
Iraq: No
Afghanistan: Yes

Why d o you say yes to war i n Afghanistan

.

 

[rightwinger]

WWII: Yes
Korea: No
Vietnam: No
Iraq: No
Afghanistan: Yes

Why d o you say yes to war i n Afghanistan

.

I agreed with going in and kicking some alqaeda ass. Not to building a nation in our own image.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

WWII: Yes, obviously. We were attacked.
Korea: Yes, we were attacked.
Vietnam: No, not in the way the war was prosecuted. You can't fight a 'limited' war.
Iraq: No. Although initially I was convinced as was Bill Clinton that Saddam was reconstituting his WMD's.
Afghanistan: Yes, definitely. Although again, you go in, kill the bad guys and then leave.

The problem that the US always gets into is that for some reason we believe we have to build these rat holes up better than we found them. Not so. Iraq and Afghanistan are always going to be shit holes. They've been shit holes for thousands of years and building $500,000 out houses, that no one knows why or how to use, doesn't help anyone.

 

[kaz]

Yeah, but I just don't see how we could "win" it. I assume you mean by eliminating N. Korea. Had McArthur stopped at the Yalu River ... maybe. But once the Chinese "horde" came in, I don't think you can win a land war in Asia. I grew up expecting I'd die on some shiatty hill in Asia holding an M-14, and then they made the plastic rifle. And I'm not for nuking anyone.

Before we approached the Yalu River, we certainly should have assured the Chinese this was a Korean war and not a war on them. They clearly had reason to believe we were not going to stop there. I agree once they entered, it had to play to a draw, but I don't think it was necessary they enter, the saber rattling really got them in it when we approached their boarder. And this was not long after WWII, it's not like today decades later.

Agreed. Mao had little interest in bailing them out, and the Soviets were NK's main sponsor, but Mao had even less interest in helping the West. And it continues.

I had a cousin who'd been a marine at Chosin. He had a scar from a wound ... on his ass.

 

[Carlsen]

WWII: Yes, obviously. We were attacked.
Korea: Yes, we were attacked.
Vietnam: No, not in the way the war was prosecuted. You can't fight a 'limited' war.
Iraq: No. Although initially I was convinced as was Bill Clinton that Saddam was reconstituting his WMD's.
Afghanistan: Yes, definitely. Although again, you go in, kill the bad guys and then leave.

The problem that the US always gets into is that for some reason we believe we have to build these rat holes up better than we found them. Not so. Iraq and Afghanistan are always going to be shit holes. They've been shit holes for thousands of years and building $500,000 out houses, that no one knows why or how to use, doesn't help anyone.

There is no WMD. The people of USA and UK were told a lie. Many soliders die in the war

.

 

[deltex1]

WWII: Yes, obviously. We were attacked.
Korea: Yes, we were attacked.
Vietnam: No, not in the way the war was prosecuted. You can't fight a 'limited' war.
Iraq: No. Although initially I was convinced as was Bill Clinton that Saddam was reconstituting his WMD's.
Afghanistan: Yes, definitely. Although again, you go in, kill the bad guys and then leave.

The problem that the US always gets into is that for some reason we believe we have to build these rat holes up better than we found them. Not so. Iraq and Afghanistan are always going to be shit holes. They've been shit holes for thousands of years and building $500,000 out houses, that no one knows why or how to use, doesn't help anyone.

There is no WMD. The people of USA and UK were told a lie. Many soliders die in the war

.

Another low info moron.

 

[kaz]

WWII: Yes, obviously. We were attacked.
Korea: Yes, we were attacked.
Vietnam: No, not in the way the war was prosecuted. You can't fight a 'limited' war.
Iraq: No. Although initially I was convinced as was Bill Clinton that Saddam was reconstituting his WMD's.
Afghanistan: Yes, definitely. Although again, you go in, kill the bad guys and then leave.

The problem that the US always gets into is that for some reason we believe we have to build these rat holes up better than we found them. Not so. Iraq and Afghanistan are always going to be shit holes. They've been shit holes for thousands of years and building $500,000 out houses, that no one knows why or how to use, doesn't help anyone.

There is no WMD. The people of USA and UK were told a lie. Many soliders die in the war

.

Riiiiggghhhttttt. Hussein used WMDs against the Iranians and on his own people, but he didn't have any. The big lie in Iraq was the Democrats saying they were lied to...

I opposed the Iraq war because it was bad policy and not in our interest. It's great not being a party shill....

 

[regent]

Only Korea seems questioned.
I say Korea was a victory in that it achieved our objective to take back S. Korea, and an added bonus: Mac got fired and he led no more troops to boost his ego.