[tivodan1116]

Quote by: sdbest The United States won the War of Independence thanks to France.

Really? Oh, see because I thought you were talking about "troops on the ground". Wait, let me find the quote, I could be wrong.

Quote by: sdbest The facts seem to be that the U.S. military cannot prevail in a war unless it's confined to the use of air power. Once the troops are on the ground, failure is imminent and assured. That's history, that's reality.

Huh. Okay, so Rochambeau's 6,000 men were directly responsible for every military victory of the Patriots?

In the War of 1812, the U.S. lost to Canada.

ROFLMAO!!!! Don't they teach Canadian history there? What was "Canada" before the Constitution Act of 1982? Did Pierre Trudeau sign the Treaty of Ghent? Did anyone from Canada even go to Belgium and sign?

And what, exactly, was "lost"? Maybe you should look up the phrase status quo ante bellum before you answer that question.

WWII. Had Stalin not held off 2/3rds of German forces on the Eastern front, Europe would have fallen, and with it the U.S. efforts in the Pacific.

Care to provide any support for this theory? Maybe one military historian that has theorized this? I'll even take a Canadian one.

Europe may have fallen (and certainly would have fallen if it weren't for U.S. involvement with Britain - how much aid did the Soviets send to the UK, again? Remind me...), but it's a loooooooong way across the Atlantic and by 1942-43 American destroyers were doing quite well against the U-Boats, Germany's only real incursion against the U.S. in the Atlantic. Add the difficulty of launching an amphibious assault from that distance, and your theory is quite silly.

Vietnam? War is an extension of politics, deal with it.

But you didn't say "war". You said "the military". Two different things. If you would like to start a new thread suggesting that the United States is incapable of winning a "war" inclusive of political and military concerns, that thread would be perhaps slightly less ridiculous. However, in terms of achieving a stated military objective, U.S. armed forces are nothing less than superior.

Iraq I; great success, as I've said earlier.

Doesn't work very well with your theory of "imminent" failure, though, does it?

Iraq II: return to form.

How so? Militarily the objectives have been achieved. It has only been now that the objectives are murky and the political tide disfavors the efforts that the problems have arisen.

And then there's Pearl Harbor, a day that will go down in infamy, because the bone-headed U.S. Navy couldn't defend its own base. The attack on Pearl Harbor was one of the most brilliant military enterprises in history.

Hysterical that when it comes to American (battle) losses, you have no trouble separating "military" from "war". Militarily, yes, the Japanese attack was pretty successful. However, most historians - even the ones from Canada - agree that it was extremely poor timing representing the beginning of the end for the Axis.

Three bullies were in the woods - they had one small, beret-wearing kid knocked out, a couple of other kids reeling, and the biggest, heaviest kid back on his heels throwing everything but the kitchen sink at them in a desperate attempt to stay standing. Then one of the bullies decided to walk over to a sleeping bear and poke it in the eye with a stick. That poke sure hurt the bear, but was it a smart move?

By the way, you say that when "troops are on the ground, failure is imminent and assured." By what do you establish "failure"? Part of effective military strategy is working with allies, so even if I concede that Soviets did a lot of the work in defeating Germany, the goal we gave to the military at the onset of our involvement - defeat the Axis - was accomplished. You have a nonsensical definition of the word "failure".

The Korean War? Fought at best to a stalemate. The U.S. did not achieve its stated goals, or was a stalemate the goal?

The stated goal at the outset was to defend South Korea... ::checks map:: Yup, still there.

Only when the goals became murky - defeat communists? Unify Korea? Dig in and strengthen defense? - and the political will contested did the military slow down.

How do you figure it was "at best" a stalemate? What else could it be?

So, I guess you think you're getting your tax money's worth with the military you bought.

I didn't say that. That is a different argument. What I am saying is that, when called upon, our "troops on the ground" have, contrary to your unfounded and clearly biased points, performed extremely well with respect to their military objectives.

Great! Cut another check--only your hospitals and schools and security will pay for it.

LOL... Speaking as someone who lives a few miles from the border I can't stop laughing at your statement.

The best one is "security"... Exactly where did just about every Muslim terrorist of the last 20 years enter this country from? Our best option for security would seem to be taking over your pathetic efforts.