www.ditl.org

Strange... I was pretty sure the first gulf war was was a bit less then forty years ago...

It's relatively easy to rack up that sort of record if you refuse to take lead in any but hand-picked situations, and let the world rot except when you like your odds.

Mikey, what are you talking about???

Captain Seafort wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:I'm trying to remember the last one we lost...

Probably Suez, if you're looking at long term outcomes. If you're looking more short-term, then Ireland.

Ireland? When was that?

Deepcrush wrote:Mikey, what are you talking about???

Seafort's assertion of the limeys' excellent track record... i.e., I was talking about this:

It's well within living memory. Given that the US went almost forty years without winning a war in any way shape or form (longer, depending on your definition of "won"), and lost a big one in the interim, thirty years without winning a war in which we were the lead nation, and not loosing any, is nothing shabby.

All this interventionism, yet what is there to show about it: a Korea still split in half, a communist Vietnam, a Kosovo that still isn't widely recognized as independent (even among NATO countries). At least Kuwait is free.

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, well... I don't have all the facts, not even most of the facts, but if Brown University's recently released study is even half true, you can't help but start wondering what the hell is it their doing in those countries (http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2011/06/warcosts).

Giuseppe wrote:All this interventionism, yet what is there to show about it: a Korea still split in half, a communist Vietnam, a Kosovo that still isn't widely recognized as independent (even among NATO countries). At least Kuwait is free.

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, well... I don't have all the facts, not even most of the facts, but if Brown University's recently released study is even half true, you can't help but start wondering what the hell is it their doing in those countries (http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2011/06/warcosts).

I don't disagree with you; my entire thought process on the matter is this: the U.S. gets pilloried for its "interventionism," as you diplomatically put it, and perhaps rightfully so to an extent. However, when the U.S. does decide to back off from that stance, it gets pilloried for not being more aggressively interventionist. It is the perfect illustration of the phrase "Damned if you do, damned if you don't," at least in the court of public opinion. To go ahead and use that fact to claim that another nation's track record is far superior, when in fact that record is due at least in part to an unwillingness to get involved or take point except when the odds are in that nation's favor, is pure jingoism.

Yet again I started writing and soon realized I was touching on too many subjects at once and that my discourse would appear disjointed

So... more to basics. You've got the American stance: we get involved because we're a superpower. Indeed, you don't get to be a superpower without getting involved in conflicts, be it politically, economically or militarily. The problem is why you decide on one country over another. And how well you 'pacify' those countries after you've swept aside those pathetic third world armies (i hate the term third world, but for lack of a better one...) and taken out their leadership.

And then you got what goes on in Europe; you've got revolutions going on what's practically our doorstep, but it seems most everyone seems content on getting involved in a limited way and only in one country, just to show they still have a bit of a bite, to show off their wares or simply to get a national ego boost. Others simply decide to sit it out like they always do, pretending to be interested in the whole affair. All the while it seems there are countries where people actually seem to be fighting for freedom and might actually welcome foreign help, yet no one's really doing anything about it.

So, let's face it... there's enough hypocrisy to go around.

GrahamKennedy wrote:Ireland? When was that?

1922

Giuseppe wrote:Korea still split in half

Which is a vast improvement on what the situation would have been without UN involvement.

communist Vietnam

The Yanks tried and failed. Marks for effort at least.

Kosovo that still isn't widely recognized as independent

At least they aren't getting massacred any more.

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, well... I don't have all the facts, not even most of the facts, but if Brown University's recently released study is even half true, you can't help but start wondering what the hell is it their doing in those countries (http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2011/06/warcosts).

All wars are expensive, in every sense. As for the specific circumstances, Afghanistan as it was was a near-invulnerable base for AQ, and Saddam was an obnoxious little git who the world in general and Iraq in particular is better off without. Although some evidence of at least one working brain cell in the immediate post-invasion period wouldn't have gone amiss.

Deepcrush wrote:Strange... I was pretty sure the first gulf war was was a bit less then forty years ago...

And how long do you have to go back before the first Gulf War?

You do have an answer for everything, don't you? Well good for you

Giuseppe wrote:You do have an answer for everything, don't you?

Of course. It's the question that's the tricky bit.

Giuseppe wrote:You do have an answer for everything, don't you? Well good for you

Just clean your shoes afterwards...

Captain Seafort wrote:And how long do you have to go back before the first Gulf War?

Well the 80's in general has the USCG's anti piracy operations in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean... or anti narcotics operations in South America... There was also this slightly larger issue known as the "Cold War" which played a slight part in... USMC/USN deployments in Lebanon, Israel, Kawait, Saudi Arabia and Jordan to protect trade lanes.

Answer, not very far at all.

Deepcrush wrote:Well the 80's in general has the USCG's anti piracy operations in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean or anti narcotics operations in South America...

Law enforcement, not war.

There was also this slightly larger issue known as the "Cold War" which played a slight part in...

Which, had it gone hot, you would have lost badly. As would the Russians, the Chinese and the rest of the planet.

USMC/USN deployments in Lebanon, Israel, Kawait, Saudi Arabia and Jordan to protect trade lanes.

Trade protection, not war

Answer, not very far at all.

Correct answer: either Korea or WW2. If you want to count law enforcement operations then it brings the most recent UK-as-lead-nation victory forward to 1998.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Giuseppe wrote:You do have an answer for everything, don't you?

Of course. It's the question that's the tricky bit.

Personally I like to question things like the status quo or widely accepted truths. That doesn't mean I'm not gonna listen to arguments. It's just that I don't very much enjoy the kind of debating where "my opinion is that I'm gonna prove you wrong by taking apart every sentence you wrote".