Are Wars Won By Ideology

[SticknMove]

It's such an interesting one this. What does everyone think? Sorry for being a pudenda.

[Jaguar]

They might be caused by ideology. They're won (and lost) by military endeavour.

[Coco]

Won by money, and if the USA want you to win or not

[Jaguar]

Won by money, and if the USA want you to win or not

The USA don't always win wars.

[Lenny Cravats]

Won by money, and if the USA want you to win or not

The USA don't always win wars.

I think they're 3-1, with 4NC's since 1945.

[banjo]

No they're won by soldiers, not ideals, politics or religion but by soldiers on the frontline who often have to endure and commit some horrific deeds in order to achieve victory.

[Jaguar]

Won by money, and if the USA want you to win or not

The USA don't always win wars.

I think they're 3-1, with 4NC's since 1945.

I've got both Vietnam and Afghanistan down as losses. How are you seeing Korea?

[Lenny Cravats]

The USA don't always win wars.

I think they're 3-1, with 4NC's since 1945.

I'm figuring they've lost at least two - Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Well, they toppled the Taliban, installed a new government and disrupted the training camps, sent Bin Laden into hiding before executing him..... primary objectives completed.

A massive shitshow of a war, then pulling out and having the Taliban take over again.

I put it down for a NC.

Vietnam, definite loss.

[Jaguar]

I think they're 3-1, with 4NC's since 1945.

I'm figuring they've lost at least two - Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Well, they toppled the Taliban, installed a new government and disrupted the training camps, sent Bin Laden into hiding before executing him..... primary objectives completed.

A massive shitshow of a war, then pulling out and having the Taliban take over again.

I put it down for a NC.

Vietnam, definite loss.

This is why I see it ultimately as a L. Ultimately, they got their arses run out of there. As did we. But, yes, they did complete their original objectives. So, maybe I'm wrong, I dunno.

[Coco]

Maybe the septics can be hit and miss in winning wars, there is 8 you have mentioned, but think again, think of where the US has give "aid" to further their aims.

Now their win rate looks much better.

Netemyaho would have curbed his genocidal instincts without US support.

The Russians would have beaten the Ukrainians a long time ago without that US support

[gilgamesh]

Might makes right.

That old saying has always been true in War.

[Noxy]

I actually find the Vietnam war - US was defeated - argument a bit strange. When the US was involved, at least as I understand it, they did what they were there to do, i.e. protect the South Vietnam regime. The US line when they left was - we've stabilised the south Vietnam government, now we'll leave you to get on with it. It was only after the Americans left that the Vietcong took over.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the US being there, militarily they were handling the Vietcong. In the Tet offensive, the Vietcong were beaten back and suffered heavy losses. So, surely that was a defeat for them.
I do get it that the US probably didn't expect the resistance they met when they went in to Vietnam, but I find it hard to equate that with a defeat. Maybe not a win either, but somewhere in between.

[Tony1244]

I actually find the Vietnam war - US was defeated - argument a bit strange. When the US was involved, at least as I understand it, they did what they were there to do, i.e. protect the South Vietnam regime. The US line when they left was - we've stabilised the south Vietnam government, now we'll leave you to get on with it. It was only after the Americans left that the Vietcong took over.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the US being there, militarily they were handling the Vietcong. In the Tet offensive, the Vietcong were beaten back and suffered heavy losses. So, surely that was a defeat for them.
I do get it that the US probably didn't expect the resistance they met when they went in to Vietnam, but I find it hard to equate that with a defeat. Maybe not a win either, but somewhere in between.

The US wasn't defeated on the battlefield but the US didn't win either. I can go along with putting the war in the "L-column" because we didn't want N. Vietnam and the Viet Cong to take over S. Vietnam and that's exactly what happened.

[Coco]

I actually find the Vietnam war - US was defeated - argument a bit strange. When the US was involved, at least as I understand it, they did what they were there to do, i.e. protect the South Vietnam regime. The US line when they left was - we've stabilised the south Vietnam government, now we'll leave you to get on with it. It was only after the Americans left that the Vietcong took over.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the US being there, militarily they were handling the Vietcong. In the Tet offensive, the Vietcong were beaten back and suffered heavy losses. So, surely that was a defeat for them.
I do get it that the US probably didn't expect the resistance they met when they went in to Vietnam, but I find it hard to equate that with a defeat. Maybe not a win either, but somewhere in between.

Like in Afghanistan

[Beltane]

A couple of lines from an old movie, which is representative of all wars:

French general; How these Spanish love their moment of truth - to drench the ground with their blood - to die. Why?

French observer: Probably because it is their ground, General.

[Tony1244]

"Democracy don't rule the world
You better get that in your head
This world is ruled by violence
But I guess that's better left unsaid" Mr. Bob Dylan

Some people get their wisdom from the Bible or the Koran, I get mine mostly from great lyrics.

[BoxBuzz]

I watched the movie "civil war" yesterday. For someone who thinks vicious disagreement itself can be as probematic as any topic we disagree about, I found it interesting. For one....it's not explained but in this fiction the two states that "aligned" as the imposing "western front" and likely victors within this story was a great story line. What do Texas and California have in common? Nothing you say? Think again. Neither of them are fans of DC. One of them thinks DC is way to left, the other thinks that DC is way too right. (Or at least that's the perception) So what each of these diverse states want is their own independence. The writers or screenwriters do a good job to try to keep it "even keel" they do allude that Florida has started a stated "alliance" with the Western Front and have attempted to get the Carolina's on board with them. And it is stated within the conversations that most believe that once the "Western Front" is victorious....these players will turn on themselves. So it's a very slightly skewed to the left, for the viewing audience as any good hollywood production that want's proper funding should be.

Oh, and as a bit of fun.... back home relatives of some of the main characters of the story line, living in both Colorado and Missouri are at home trying to pretend the conflict is not happening.

But yeah the role of the media is the focus....and to it's credit....the photographers, and objective writers are given heroic status. I agree with that. But it's clear that what's winning the war is the group with superior fire power, and less "sensitivity". DC has the rhetoric, but the WF has the hardware. lol

I also came away with a greater appreciation for TRUE journalists who simply report the facts of the events. And not so much the "truth" that lies within the facts. Because facts are measurable. Truth? or the "spirit" of the story? Well that's up to you and me.

[SticknMove]

Ideology and Wars are going to co-exist for a very long time into our future unfortunately.

[Baby Face Finster]

A couple of lines from an old movie, which is representative of all wars:

French general; How these Spanish love their moment of truth - to drench the ground with their blood - to die. Why?

French observer: Probably because it is their ground, General.

The best war quote I have ever heard was in the movie '71 where one character says about the army "posh cunts telling thick cunts to kill poor cunts.

Check it out if you haven't already:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2614684/?ref_=ttqu_ov_i

[BoxBuzz]

A couple of lines from an old movie, which is representative of all wars:

French general; How these Spanish love their moment of truth - to drench the ground with their blood - to die. Why?

French observer: Probably because it is their ground, General.

The best war quote I have ever heard was in the movie '71 where one character says about the army "posh cunts telling thick cunts to kill poor cunts.

Check it out if you haven't already:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2614684/?ref_=ttqu_ov_i

posh...thick...poor...........how do we find ourselves in agreement about this sensible statement?

[ironbeard]

Throughout history it has generally been required to establish an ideology in order to prosecute a war, as well as to defend against and ultimately defeat the offending ideology. The ideology might not be more intricate than a simple cult of personality, or simply the antithesis of the offending ideology.

For example; the Ukraine “war” is essentially being utilized by Putin to galvanize Putinlanders into total dedication to an ideology conducive to his purposes. That galvanization is actively being accomplished through immersive propaganda that includes a rewriting of history, and (in fact) education; through an infliction of hybrid religious orthodoxy; through restrictions on human and civil rights; through traditional and hybrid nationalism.

Ukraine’s only hope in the conflict is to nurture an antithetical ideology. But, that antithetical ideology cannot be victorious without the military means necessary to counter and defeat the invader. That military means must come from entities that not only support Ukraine’s ideology but share it to a significant degree.

What has been changing for decades, and is now accelerating at an alarming pace, is the obsolescence of ideology due to the impending obsolescence of the human element with regard to the prosecution of war. Technology has been a valuable tool in the rallying of human capital under an ideology for various purposes. Technology is accelerating towards replacing ideology as well as human capital for the various purposes.

It is entirely within the realm of possibility that technology has already reached the replacement era. After all, our consciousness of the development is not required.

[JamesPhilips]

Ideology backed with propaganda, then most importantly followed my extreme violence that’s ‘justified’ by the former.

[BoxBuzz]

Ideology backed with propaganda, then most importantly followed my extreme violence that’s ‘justified’ by the former.

But wait....you've forgotten one of the most important ingredients. A good helping of uninformed, or uninterested populace.

[SticknMove]

Throughout history it has generally been required to establish an ideology in order to prosecute a war, as well as to defend against and ultimately defeat the offending ideology. The ideology might not be more intricate than a simple cult of personality, or simply the antithesis of the offending ideology.

For example; the Ukraine “war” is essentially being utilized by Putin to galvanize Putinlanders into total dedication to an ideology conducive to his purposes. That galvanization is actively being accomplished through immersive propaganda that includes a rewriting of history, and (in fact) education; through an infliction of hybrid religious orthodoxy; through restrictions on human and civil rights; through traditional and hybrid nationalism.

Ukraine’s only hope in the conflict is to nurture an antithetical ideology. But, that antithetical ideology cannot be victorious without the military means necessary to counter and defeat the invader. That military means must come from entities that not only support Ukraine’s ideology but share it to a significant degree.

What has been changing for decades, and is now accelerating at an alarming pace, is the obsolescence of ideology due to the impending obsolescence of the human element with regard to the prosecution of war. Technology has been a valuable tool in the rallying of human capital under an ideology for various purposes. Technology is accelerating towards replacing ideology as well as human capital for the various purposes.

It is entirely within the realm of possibility that technology has already reached the replacement era. After all, our consciousness of the development is not required.

Are you suggesting that AI is going to replace it all? I am not seeing an obsolescence of ideology....in actual fact I see the opposite.

[JamesPhilips]

Ideology backed with propaganda, then most importantly followed my extreme violence that’s ‘justified’ by the former.

But wait....you've forgotten one of the most important ingredients. A good helping of uninformed, or uninterested populace.

I’d say a deliberately misinformed populace