Amerikkka will never win another war.

[Marxist-Anarchist]

Sure, the thugs in Washington will launch other invasions after they are defeated in Iraq. Invasions like the ones in Grenada, Panama, and the first Gulf War--- where they bomb the country like hell, send in ground troops briefly and then pull out and all the back-slapping that attends such adventurism. But they are fools. They will never win another war again. The world has learned too much since Vietnam, Cuba, and now in Iraq.

[CCCPneubauten]

Aw, darn, I thought this was going to be an MIM post...

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Marxist-[email protected] 9 2006, 11:47 AM
Sure, the thugs in Washington will launch other invasions after they are defeated in Iraq. Invasions like the ones in Grenada, Panama, and the first Gulf War--- where they bomb the country like hell, send in ground troops briefly and then pull out and all the back-slapping that attends such adventurism. But they are fools. They will never win another war again. The world has learned too much since Vietnam, Cuba, and now in Iraq.
I feel I need to clarify this so we can stop looking like ignorant propaganda drones: in order to "win" a war once it is declared the country must achieve its primary objective.

In this case that objective was to replace the government of Iraq with one that is more "friendly" to American interests.

As this was accomplished, the USA has already "won" the war.

This adherence to such irrational rhetoric only serves to make us look like dolts.

[Lenin's Law]

Agreed.

Remember, "winning" wars doesn't always mean conquering the country completely or annexing it to your own territory. As Vinny Rafarino says, the US won the war simply for the fact that it has overthrown one government and replace it with another that was more to their (and the capitalists that run the show) liking.

Thus, an argument can be made (actually by the man in your avatar, Noam Chomsky makes it) that the US actually won the Vietnam War since its goal was to destroy the country, devastate it, so to make sure that no superior, alternative, another "good example" could possibly influence its neighbors and the whole world for that matter. So by doing so it did in fact, in a twisted way at least, "win" the war in some important respects.

[Lenin's Law]

Furthermore, sad to say but no matter how much "the world learns" from fighting the US; knowledge cannot trump a gangster state armed to the teeth with the most sophisticated and deadly weaponry known to mankind. As long as the US ruling class is vicious enough to use such weapons, knowledge will not be enough to defeat them.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

And no population would ever rest in defeat to a occupying power when 500 of its own people die every day (According to the John Hopkins Institute Study), but if the force is overwhelming enough, people will be scared into submission. Think Nazi-Occupation, but we're not there yet.

[loveme4whoiam]

I've just started studying War Studies at uni, and I'm certain this topic will come up at some point (at the moment its "why is military history useful" - as if you have to ask :blink: :)).

I would have to agree with Lenin's Law, the winning of a war only means attaining a set of conditions that are set out before the conflict. If, for instance, the US had set their victory conditions as:

1. Remove the (then) current regime from power and
2. Ensure that the country is in some semblance of order before forces are withdrawn;

then I think we could pretty safely say they havent won by a long shot. But obviously this was not their thinking, so to all intents and purposes (for the US government) the war is won. The fact that, as RM quotes, 500 of its own people a day are dying, is separate from the war itself, and most likely viewed as collateral damage <_<

Hope this debate continues though, its useful practice for my course :P

[IronColumn]

The idea that America could easily trample through the Middle East has been thoroughly defeated. I&#39;m sure the neocons also wanted to hit Iran and Syria (which I don&#39;t think is possible for them now) and destroy Hezbollah.

And I also don&#39;t think it&#39;s reasonable to assume that they can "win" (by installing a U.S. friendly puppet that will last after their pullout) in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Fundamentalists that distrust America are very likely to take over both countries, after America spends billions more dollars and its army disintegrates even further.

So in the case of Vietnam, it could be argued (by chomsky and others) that the U.S. goal was preventative-to prevent the emergence of a successful model of independent economic development, and in this they succeeded.

Yet the Afghan and Iraq wars are both acquisitive in nature, and it doesn&#39;t seem plausible that the U.S. will be able to control these countries in any cost effective manner. Hence, a stunning defeat for the U.S. empire.

[Emperor Ronald Reagan]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino

This adherence to such irrational rhetoric only serves to make us look like dolts.

You don&#39;t need to adhere to anything to make yourself look like a dolt, you do a pretty good job of that by yourself every time you post.

[Tekun]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+Oct 9 2006, 09:32 PM--> (Vinny Rafarino @ Oct 9 2006, 09:32 PM)
Marxist&#045;[email protected] 9 2006, 11:47 AM
Sure, the thugs in Washington will launch other invasions after they are defeated in Iraq. Invasions like the ones in Grenada, Panama, and the first Gulf War--- where they bomb the country like hell, send in ground troops briefly and then pull out and all the back-slapping that attends such adventurism. But they are fools. They will never win another war again. The world has learned too much since Vietnam, Cuba, and now in Iraq.
I feel I need to clarify this so we can stop looking like ignorant propaganda drones: in order to "win" a war once it is declared the country must achieve its primary objective.

In this case that objective was to replace the government of Iraq with one that is more "friendly" to American interests.

As this was accomplished, the USA has already "won" the war.

This adherence to such irrational rhetoric only serves to make us look like dolts. [/b]
Nicely put....

The US can win wars without even putting troops on the ground via propaganda and logistical support for their "puppets"
Nothing is ever certain, so predictions are for the most part shady and ridiculous to make

[Marxist-Anarchist]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+Oct 9 2006, 09:32 PM--> (Vinny Rafarino @ Oct 9 2006, 09:32 PM)
Marxist&#045;[email protected] 9 2006, 11:47 AM
Sure, the thugs in Washington will launch other invasions after they are defeated in Iraq. Invasions like the ones in Grenada, Panama, and the first Gulf War--- where they bomb the country like hell, send in ground troops briefly and then pull out and all the back-slapping that attends such adventurism. But they are fools. They will never win another war again. The world has learned too much since Vietnam, Cuba, and now in Iraq.
I feel I need to clarify this so we can stop looking like ignorant propaganda drones: in order to "win" a war once it is declared the country must achieve its primary objective.

In this case that objective was to replace the government of Iraq with one that is more "friendly" to American interests.

As this was accomplished, the USA has already "won" the war.

This adherence to such irrational rhetoric only serves to make us look like dolts. [/b]
That is so outlandish&#33;&#33;&#33; The U.S. had its puppets in South Vietnam but it still could not control the situation. It now has its puppets in Iraq with the same outcome---- disorder. The U.S. will not be able to protect its Iraqi puppets forever. Sooner or later the whole facade will fall apart.

[Tekun]

^Maybe, but until it materializes we&#39;re only fooling ourselves by making baseless predictions, that we wish would come true