Vance: America hasn't won a single war in the last 40 years

[Aziqbal]

Western nations are always on the losing side

Israel couldn't even defeat tiny Hamas

 

[SiliconBit (silicon0000)]

Winning war doesn't always mean occuping enemy territory.

 

[LeGenD]

The Greater Israel Project, which ultimately flies directly against the aims of the Project for New American Century.

As the USSR collapsed, the USA began wasting its resources on wars NOT in any strategic or even tactical benefits of the USA. The first USA-Iraq war happened after Saddam was tricked by the American statements basically saying Kuwait was Iraq's internal matter. Any war there would be a complete benefit to the Zionists. This lead to the beginning of erosion of American power.

If Iraq had remained a military power, the Greater Israel Project would be a failure and any zionist poodles would not feel emboldened in the region. Also because a strong Iraq under Saddam could have been convinced to join the USA in its drive for more hegemony as outlined in the PNAC document. Here again, the PNAC failed and the GIP unlocked an achievment.

As mentioned here, the US has crippled Iraqi defenses and dismantled Saddam setup in Iraq whereas Israel has crippled Syrian defenses and dismantled Assad setup in Syria. Israel has also reduced power and options of other opposing forces in the region. Now Iran is vulnerable. The US stand to gain from Israeli exploits in the region as both have disagreements with same forces.

Saddam wasn't a poodle of any side. He made his own calls but bad luck followed him. There was a time when Iraq and Syria contemplated merger to create a larger and stronger country in the region but neither Saddam and nor Assad were willing to concede political power and influence to the other. Both had inflated ego.

The Spanish-American war was almost at the end of the life cycle of the Spanish Empire. The British Empie had ALREADY defeated both the Spanish and Portuguese Empires for the control of North America. The USA was just an inheritor state and put the final nail on the coffin already prepared by the British Empire.

The Anglo-Spanish War was fought in the 18th century whereas the US-Spanish War was fought in the 19th century. The Spanish Empire was not in great shape in the 19th century due to internal conflict but it maintained a sizable force to protect its colonies in the Pacific. Battles of this war are well-documented here. The USN defeated a Spanish Armada guarding the Philippines with good ships and American troops overcame a large Spanish force in Cuba with good tactics. In this war, the US showed that it could project power in distant lands like other colonial powers and joined the elite club.

The Spanish Armada guarding the Philippines in 1898:

In WW1 the USA came in right at the end and waited till all sides were tired. Even still then the British Raj soldiers from the Indian Subcontinent played a bigger role than any amount of USA soldiers.

Can you imagine the logistics requirements of transporting a large number of troops from the American mainland to Europe back in those days and for the first time in history? OR do you think that a war can be fought in a distant land with magic?

The British Raj could not win the war. The Battle of St. Mihiel followed by the The Meuse-Argonne Offensive in 1918 proved decisive and these were US-led operations.



American General John Pershing employed a combined-arms approach to achieve breakthrough in The Battle of St. Mihiel. Famous American military officers George S. Patton, Douglas Mac-Arthur, and George C. Marshall also fought in this battle.

Canada played a much, much bigger and more important role in turning the tides of WW1 than the USA ever did. Somme, Vimi Ridge, and most importantly
Passchendaele were all Canadian victories.

These battles did not help turn the tide of the war. The Battle of the Somme was fought in 1916 and failed to provide breakthrough. Canadian forces provided breakthrough in the Battle of Vimy Ridge in 1917 but the momentum was lost in the Nivelle Offensive. The Battle of Passchendaele was also fought in 1917 but gains were limited and the region was abandoned in the face of the German Spring Offensive in 1918.

Just like WW2, the USA came in at the end of the WW1 when things were reaching conclusions anyways. The last 100 days of the WW1 were Canada's 100 days.

Who taught you history buddy? The Pacific War between the US and the Imperial Japan started in 1941 and the US was able to dispatch a large military force to Europe in 1942.

German forces had overwhelmed Poland, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Belgium by 1940. British forces were routed from France but managed to counter Italian forces in Libya in 1940. However, German forces arrived in Libya in support of Italian forces to establish Afrika Corps and pushed the British back into Egypt in 1941. The US and the British joined hands to defeat Afrika Corps in Libya in 1942 (Operation Torch). The US-led forces invaded Italy in 1943 (Operation Husky followed by Operation Avalanche) - this development made it impossible for Germany to resupply its forces in the Eastern Front to overcome Soviet forces in the Battle of Kursk and the tide turned in the Eastern Front. The US-led forces overthrew Mussolini setup in Italy but were facing heavy German resistance in the region so they opened another front in France in 1944 (Operation Overlord) in an attempt to stretch German defenses and advance towards Germany from both directions. These developments broke the back of German forces as they lost their best mechanized divisions in clashes with Allied Forces in the Western Front and exposed Germany to invasion from all directions.

Your history teacher should have paid more attention in Grade 10.

Funny.

 

[mythbuster]

As mentioned here, the US has crippled Iraqi defenses and dismantled Saddam setup in Iraq whereas Israel has crippled Syrian defenses and dismantled Assad setup in Syria. Israel has also reduced power and options of other opposing forces in the region. Now Iran is vulnerable. The US stand to gain from Israeli exploits in the region as both have disagreements with same forces.

Saddam wasn't a poodle of any side. He made his own calls but bad luck followed him. There was a time when Iraq and Syria contemplated merger to create a larger and stronger country in the region but neither Saddam and nor Assad were willing to concede political power and influence to the other. Both had inflated ego.


The Anglo-Spanish War was fought in the 18th century whereas the US-Spanish War was fought in the 19th century. The Spanish Empire was not in great shape in the 19th century due to internal conflict but it maintained a sizable force to protect its colonies in the Pacific. Battles of this war are well-documented here. The USN defeated a Spanish Armada guarding the Philippines with good ships and American troops overcame a large Spanish force in Cuba with good tactics. In this war, the US showed that it could project power in distant lands like other colonial powers and joined the elite club.

The Spanish Armada guarding the Philippines in 1898:

View attachment 98970


Can you imagine the logistics requirements of transporting a large number of troops from the American mainland to Europe back in those days and for the first time in history? OR do you think that a war can be fought in a distant land with magic?

The British Raj could not win the war. The Battle of St. Mihiel followed by the The Meuse-Argonne Offensive in 1918 proved decisive and these were US-led operations.

View attachment 98985

American General John Pershing employed a combined-arms approach to achieve breakthrough in The Battle of St. Mihiel. Famous American military officers George S. Patton, Douglas Mac-Arthur, and George C. Marshall also fought in this battle.


These battles did not help turn the tide of the war. The Battle of the Somme was fought in 1916 and failed to provide breakthrough. Canadian forces provided breakthrough in the Battle of Vimy Ridge in 1917 but the momentum was lost in the Nivelle Offensive. The Battle of Passchendaele was also fought in 1917 but gains were limited and the region was abandoned in the face of the German Spring Offensive in 1918.


Who taught you history buddy? The Pacific War between the US and the Imperial Japan started in 1941 and the US was able to dispatch a large military force to Europe in 1942.

German forces had overwhelmed Poland, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Belgium by 1940. British forces were routed from France but managed to counter Italian forces in Libya in 1940. However, German forces arrived in Libya in support of Italian forces to establish Afrika Corps and pushed the British back into Egypt in 1941. The US and the British joined hands to defeat Afrika Corps in Libya in 1942 (Operation Torch). The US-led forces invaded Italy in 1943 (Operation Husky followed by Operation Avalanche) - this development made it impossible for Germany to resupply its forces in the Eastern Front to overcome Soviet forces in the Battle of Kursk and the tide turned in the Eastern Front. The US-led forces overthrew Mussolini setup in Italy but were facing heavy German resistance in the region so they opened another front in France in 1944 (Operation Overlord) in an attempt to stretch German defenses and advance towards Germany from both directions. These developments broke the back of German forces as they lost their best mechanized divisions in clashes with Allied Forces in the Western Front and exposed Germany to invasion from all directions.


Funny.

Got to agree with Delta here .... America almost always entered the war with a massive firepower when the opponents were exhausted ....reason for Spanish defeats is " curse of silver" ...... Google it , you will find it interesting .

 

[j_hungary]

I will agree with this to the extent that yes, the MIC won big time. Wars are good for business.

Vice President Vance was a Marine who went to Iraq. I assure you he knew at the time he was hamstrung on what he could and could not do. The same with SecDef Hegseth. And newly elected Senator from my state Ruben Gallego.

War in its most purest form, can be won and lost. Modern war is not a war in its purest form, modern war, as Von Clausewitz said, is an extension of policy, and part of politics.

If you are going to war to simply beat the other country into submission and then take their land, then yes, those war are winnable, but if your "war" is to go in there and change/maintain a government because of political concern, that's always unwinnable, because there was never a military solution to a political problem.

War like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan can never be win or lose by the US, since US were never in a position to control or govern those countries, we weren't going there with the express purpose of annexing it. So eventually US boots are going to leave those places, and out interest unaligned, so by that definition, we are always going to "lose" those war eventually.

 

[LeGenD]

Got to agree with Delta here .... America almost always entered the war with a massive firepower when the opponents were exhausted ....reason for Spanish defeats is " curse of silver" ...... Google it , you will find it interesting .

This is a myth that warrants busting.

- The British Empire was at its peak during the US - British War.
- The Mexican Empire was at its peak during the US - Mexican War.
- German forces had sufficient strength to launch the German Spring Offensive in 1918.
- German forces had sufficient strength to overrun multiple countries by 1941 and offer heavy resistance to US-led forces till 1945.
- Japanese forces had sufficient strength to overrun multiple countries by 1941 and spare forces for the Pacific War with the US till 1945.
- China, North Korea, and Soviet Union combined their forces to confront US-led forces in South Korea in 1951.
- Iraq was at its peak in 1991.
- Yugoslavia was at its peak in 1999.
- The Al-Qaeda Network was at its peak in 2001.
- The ISIL movement was at its peak in 2014.

The US found a way to defeat all of these adversaries.

 

[mythbuster]

This is a myth that warrants busting.

- The British Empire was at its peak during the US - British War.
- The Mexican Empire was at its peak during the US - Mexican War.
- German forces had sufficient strength to launch the German Spring Offensive in 1918.
- German forces had sufficient strength to overrun multiple countries by 1941 and offer heavy resistance to US-led forces till 1945.
- Japanese forces had sufficient strength to overrun multiple countries by 1941 and spare forces for the Pacific War with the US till 1945.
- China, North Korea, and Soviet Union combined their forces to confront US-led forces in South Korea in 1951.
- Iraq was at its peak in 1991.
- Yugoslavia was at its peak in 1999.
- The Al-Qaeda Network was at its peak in 2001.
- The ISIL movement was at its peak in 2014.

The US found a way to defeat all of these adversaries.

Bro , you are awestruck by America's exploits ....you will need Ai help in deduction.

 

[AZ_HighCountry]

Do you disagree with what he said?

 

[Beijingwalker]

- China, North Korea, and Soviet Union combined their forces to confront US-led forces in South Korea in 1951.

Where were Soviet Union forces in Korean war?

China vs US+dozens of others

US forces in Korean War

 

[Beijingwalker]

Because of China

 

[j_hungary]

Where were Soviet Union forces in Korean war?

China vs US+dozens of others

US forces in Korean War

You do know North Korean were staffed with T-34 and T-52 as well as Mig-19 and Soviet Anti-Air wepon in some case directly from Soviet Union stock, and Soviet Union have advisor and Fighter Pilot operating with North Korean Air Force.

They basically have the same support, maybe more than the Chinese involvement in Vietnam, I mean, I don't remember China transferred anything other than some rifle and AA Gun to North Vietnam or Vietcong or fly combat sorties for the Vietnamese, yet you boasted the Chinese support in Vietnam (In different thread) and ask where the Soviet Union was in Korea??

 

[Beijingwalker]

You do know North Korean were staffed with T-34 and T-52 as well as Mig-19 and Soviet Anti-Air wepon in some case directly from Soviet Union stock, and Soviet Union have advisor and Fighter Pilot operating with North Korean Air Force.

They basically have the same support, maybe more than the Chinese involvement in Vietnam, yet you boasted the Chinese support in Vietnam (In different thread) and ask where the Soviet Union was in Korea??

The whole world used Soviet and US weapons and it doesn't mean US and Soviet Union joined every war and conflict around the world in the past 70 years. it's about sending ground troops and foot soldiers

 

[AZ_HighCountry]

You do know North Korean were staffed with T-34 and T-52 as well as Mig-19 and Soviet Anti-Air wepon in some case directly from Soviet Union stock, and Soviet Union have advisor and Fighter Pilot operating with North Korean Air Force.

They basically have the same support, maybe more than the Chinese involvement in Vietnam, yet you boasted the Chinese support in Vietnam (In different thread) and ask where the Soviet Union was in Korea??

To be clear, North Korea did not receive MiG-19s until sometime in 1961. There is no T-52 tank that I am aware of.

 

[j_hungary]

The whole world used Soviet and US weapons and it doesn't mean US and Soviet Union joined every war and conflict around the world in the past 70 years. it's about sending ground troops and foot soldiers

Again,

did you have Chinese fighter pilot flying in North or South Vietnam?
did you transfer any Chinese Armor and Weapon to North Vietnam?

You don't and Soviet did all of them to the North, and yet you boasted about how Chinese support Vietnam in thread like this

Thread 'Chinese Support for North Vietnam during the Vietnam War: The Decisive Edge'

Jun 14, 2024

Chinese Support for North Vietnam during the Vietnam War: The Decisive Edge

by Bob Seals

Best turn it into a bigger warIm afraid you really ought to send more troops to the SouthDont be afraid of U.S. intervention, at most its no worse than having another Korean War. The Chinese army is prepared, and if America takes the risk of attacking North Vietnam, the Chinese army will march in at once. Our troops want a war now.
-- Mao speaking to the North Vietnamese in 1964

So why did the powerful modern nations of France and the United States lose two wars in Vietnam to a...

• Beijingwalker
• Replies: 60
• Forum: Military History & Tactics

• 

Yet you ask "where is the Soviet Union in Korea"??

 

[j_hungary]

To be clear, North Korea did not receive MiG-19s until sometime in 1961. There is no T-52 tank that I am aware of.

It's the Mig 17, not Mig 19

And this is Russian T52 tank

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

A variant of T-34-85 tank made around 1949-1952