Has America ever won a war where the odds were against them?

Apparently you do not understand plain English:

No, I do not agree with this statement. I especially disagree with it when the main supposed enemy of Israel is actually closer to being an alley!

I also disagree because it confuses LIMITED WAR with ABSOLUTE WAR. None of the Arab countries were willing to make more than a token effort, so their total resources were irrelevant. If you do not apply this sort of logic then you end up with idiocies such as the idea that Pancho Villa defeated the total strength of the USA, as did Hezbollah when they truck bombed the USMC out of Lebanon! So yes, I understand your posts - I just don't think they have a shred of sense in them. And, no, I'm not concentrating on tactics, it's rather that I'm horrified by your lack of appreciation for the basics of strategy (e.g. someone X can Y he is your enemy, but can really be your ally - this advanced manoeuvre is called "lying "!)

I don't think it's a problem with the language you use. It's the box you've locked yourself in. Seems to be a small box with a rather biased admission policy ands lots of mirrors. You're not going to let me in so I'll stop knocking and leave you alone in there.
Strategy is the art/science of using the ressources of your nation to achieve its goals. If it comes to war, you win by defeating your enemy our by destroying his will to fight. If you have achieved a position where your enemy lacks the will to fight you've won. It still counts as beating the odds if your opponent takes a dive. You just played outside of the box....
 

amphibulous

Banned

Originally Posted by amphibulous
No, I do not agree with this statement. I especially disagree with it when the main supposed enemy of Israel is actually closer to being an alley!

I also disagree because it confuses LIMITED WAR with ABSOLUTE WAR. None of the Arab countries were willing to make more than a token effort, so their total resources were irrelevant. If you do not apply this sort of logic then you end up with idiocies such as the idea that Pancho Villa defeated the total strength of the USA, as did Hezbollah when they truck bombed the USMC out of Lebanon! So yes, I understand your posts - I just don't think they have a shred of sense in them. And, no, I'm not concentrating on tactics, it's rather that I'm horrified by your lack of appreciation for the basics of strategy (e.g. someone X can Y he is your enemy, but can really be your ally - this advanced manoeuvre is called "lying "!)


I don't think it's a problem with the language you use.... you win by defeating your enemy our by destroying his will to fight.

I don't know how to dumb this down for you any more: WHEN YOU ALLOW FOR JORDAN BEING ISRAEL'S ALLY, THE ISRAELIS OUT-GUNNED THEIR OPPONENTS. This wasn't because of anything the Israelis did - it was a decision of the Jordanians. If you out-gun your opponents 2-4 times, you are NOT the underdog!

Really - is this terribly complex?

I won't even try to explain to your subtler mistakes (eg defeating an opponent in a limited war means you have raised the cost past his level of interest, not defeated his entire force - just that portion of it he is *willing* to use) but can you possibly cope with the above?
 

amphibulous

Banned
Iran and NK do pretty much what they want because of decisions made by politicians in Washington. We could have taken NK out in 1994, should have done so, and were moving in that direction when Kim Il Song rolled Jimmy Carter like a drunk into having Bill Clinton agree to the "agreed framework", which NK duly proceeded to blow off.

Where would you have taken it out to? Occupying NK would have tied up the US Army for decades, and the US Army would have been doing what it (understandably) avoids - fighting people who fight back - when it took the place. It's not like Iraq, where almost everyone hated Saddam - NK is like invading Stalinist Russia; it's rugged.

Re Iraq, it was the politicians who had us invade in the first place, then leave insufficient troops for a proper occupation, coupled with really stupid mistakes by a political appointee.

Have you ever tried to work out how many troops it would take to "properly" occupy Iraq? And once you have, what do get? It's still a Shia country, so when you withdraw it's always likely to gravitate towards Iran. Spending even more than you did to stabilize it benefits Iran, not the US.

Personally believe we should have taken a different tack with Iran once we realized the Shah's days were numbered.

I think if you bother to check the facts you'll find that said realization occurred when the Shah was on a plane out of Tehran, which was rather too late to do anything.
 
Where would you have taken it out to? Occupying NK would have tied up the US Army for decades, and the US Army would have been doing what it (understandably) avoids - fighting people who fight back - when it took the place. It's not like Iraq, where almost everyone hated Saddam - NK is like invading Stalinist Russia; it's rugged.



Have you ever tried to work out how many troops it would take to "properly" occupy Iraq? And once you have, what do get? It's still a Shia country, so when you withdraw it's always likely to gravitate towards Iran. Spending even more than you did to stabilize it benefits Iran, not the US.



I think if you bother to check the facts you'll find that said realization occurred when the Shah was on a plane out of Tehran, which was rather too late to do anything.

Don't know your military background, if any. Over twenty years here. Spent several years in Korea. Was stationed at the National Security Agency when things got real hot in Korea in 1994.

First, we wouldn't be alone in the reunited Korea. South Korean troops would have been in the former NK, in great force. The starving NK people wouldn't have opposed the reunification, especially after all the relief we and the South Koreans would have provided. Any remnants of the North Korean military that didn't surrender would have been hunted down.

Re an Iraqi occupation force in 2003, GEN Shinseki, US Army Chief of Staff, urged at least 300,000 troops, far as I recollect. SECDEF Rumsfeld overruled GEN Shinseki and went in with about half that number. Then Rumsfeld pretty much put GEN Shinseki out the door.
 
I don't know how to dumb this down for you any more: WHEN YOU ALLOW FOR JORDAN BEING ISRAEL'S ALLY, THE ISRAELIS OUT-GUNNED THEIR OPPONENTS. This wasn't because of anything the Israelis did - it was a decision of the Jordanians. If you out-gun your opponents 2-4 times, you are NOT the underdog!

Really - is this terribly complex?

I won't even try to explain to your subtler mistakes (eg defeating an opponent in a limited war means you have raised the cost past his level of interest, not defeated his entire force - just that portion of it he is *willing* to use) but can you possibly cope with the above?

I hadn't realised you're from an ATL. I'll write an email to wiki suggesting they change the 600 Israeli fighters killed fighting the Jordanians in Jerusalem into friendly fire casualties.... :D
I suppose in your home timeline the USSR was actually on Poland's side in 1939 and they were just protecting them from the Nazis. Wait, that meant that the Nazi won the Polish campaign against the odds:eek:
 
There was a measurable gap in skill between the ANV and the AotP - not between "the Confederates" and "the Federals".

Forrest's role in the war did very little on its own to slow down the Federals.

I agree, most of the skill gap was in Virginia (where most of the CSA "A team" generals were assigned). I also agree that Forrest did little to slow down the Federals strategically. Tactically, however, Forrest delivered alot of "bang for the buck" and almost always out performed equivelant federal units.
 
Last edited:
Top