• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Worst foreign wars the USA was in?

joko104

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,408
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I leave off the Civil War to avoid that perpetual debate on cause and do not include the India wars

Note: The worsen were by presidents who ran specifically as the candidate who would not get us into the war they then got us in.

#2 Vietnam. LBJ promised he would never send "our boys" to fight in S.E. Asia - then sent over half a million.

#1 WW1. Wilson was the anti-war candidate, then massively got us into that war that offered nothing to the USA but for a few industrialist. Other than millions of insane tactics battle deaths, the primary outcomes were:
1. Communist Russia
2. World War 2

You choices and comments?
 
Mexican-American war, by far.
 
Every war is the worst for those who suffer maiming and death.
 
I leave off the Civil War to avoid that perpetual debate on cause and do not include the India wars

Note: The worsen were by presidents who ran specifically as the candidate who would not get us into the war they then got us in.

#2 Vietnam. LBJ promised he would never send "our boys" to fight in S.E. Asia - then sent over half a million.

#1 WW1. Wilson was the anti-war candidate, then massively got us into that war that offered nothing to the USA but for a few industrialist. Other than millions of insane tactics battle deaths, the primary outcomes were:
1. Communist Russia
2. World War 2

You choices and comments?

How do you define "worst"? For example obviously in terms of raw numbers of Americans killed (over 400,000) World War Two was the worst. Death toll than all the other foreign wars fought by the U.S. combined.

On the other hand, World War Two pulled the U.S. out of the Great Depression, made it the dominant world power to this day, ushered in fully two decades of prosperity in the U.S. and probably put the final nail in the coffin of officially sanctioned racial discrimination across the U.S.

Not to mention WW2 played a role in supplying the next 8 presidents for the United States. From Eisenhower thru Bush.
 
#1 WW1. Wilson was the anti-war candidate, then massively got us into that war that offered nothing to the USA but for a few industrialist. Other than millions of insane tactics battle deaths, the primary outcomes were:
1. Communist Russia

The revolution occurred before American involvement actually began.


2. World War 2

Short of some radical and drastic decisions that could only be done with the benefit of hindsight there was little the United States could have done to prevent WWII from happening.
 
I leave off the Civil War to avoid that perpetual debate on cause and do not include the India wars

Note: The worsen were by presidents who ran specifically as the candidate who would not get us into the war they then got us in.

#2 Vietnam. LBJ promised he would never send "our boys" to fight in S.E. Asia - then sent over half a million.

#1 WW1. Wilson was the anti-war candidate, then massively got us into that war that offered nothing to the USA but for a few industrialist. Other than millions of insane tactics battle deaths, the primary outcomes were:
1. Communist Russia
2. World War 2

You choices and comments?

Define "worst".

Casualties?
Loss of National Prestige.
Post war effects?
 
I leave off the Civil War to avoid that perpetual debate on cause and do not include the India wars

Note: The worsen were by presidents who ran specifically as the candidate who would not get us into the war they then got us in.

#2 Vietnam. LBJ promised he would never send "our boys" to fight in S.E. Asia - then sent over half a million.

#1 WW1. Wilson was the anti-war candidate, then massively got us into that war that offered nothing to the USA but for a few industrialist. Other than millions of insane tactics battle deaths, the primary outcomes were:
1. Communist Russia
2. World War 2

You choices and comments?

Joko104:

Worst for whom? The USA or the wider human race?

Assuming you mean the worst for the USA, I would say:

3) WWI: Late to the dance, too many casualties, Pres. Wilson was ignored by the European Powers post-war and it all happened again less than 21 years later.

2) The Philippines: America lost its soul and set itself on a trajectory of overseas empire and global hegemony which has drained both blood and treasure from the Republic for more than a century.

1) The War on Terror: including the Afghan War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Cost the US between $5 and $7 trillion to date and has produced almost no positive results. The US lost the peace in both overt military conflicts and has alienated much of the world by its covert attacks around the globe. The WoT has also badly damaged the rights and privacy of US citizens and has created both a public and a private surveillance state/society in America. Patriot Acts, secret courts, Snowden revelations, attacks on the free press, assassinations of Americans abroad by the state, without trial or due process, and much more. The WoT has led to the militarising of many American law enforcement institutions and has spawned the use of mercenary Private Military and Security Companies (PMSC's) on American soil which are now acting like modern-day Pinkerton's doing illegal surveillance, questionable law enforcement and excessive counterinsurgency actions which treat dissenting Americans like enemy combatants and terrorists.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
The war on drugs. Around 70K casualties annually, fuels drug cartels and gangs, holds millions in poverty.
 
How do you define "worst"? For example obviously in terms of raw numbers of Americans killed (over 400,000) World War Two was the worst. Death toll than all the other foreign wars fought by the U.S. combined.

On the other hand, World War Two pulled the U.S. out of the Great Depression, made it the dominant world power to this day, ushered in fully two decades of prosperity in the U.S. and probably put the final nail in the coffin of officially sanctioned racial discrimination across the U.S.

Not to mention WW2 played a role in supplying the next 8 presidents for the United States. From Eisenhower thru Bush.

Use your own measure of "worst."
 
Mexican-American war, by far.

Interesting. You view is that Mexico was entirely justified to conquer all Native American tribes in California, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Texas - even though did not actually inhabit 99% of the land - because all Native American nations that had ruled those areas for many centuries were all evil? - but that it was wrong for the Americans - who outnumbered Mexicans in those areas were wrong to obtain independence from Mexico - because American are evil and the Mexican government good? Because they were Catholics maybe - and Native Americans and most Americans were not?

Do you claim The USA should give California, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas back to Mexico because Mexicans are good and Americans are evil? I would agree to that for California as long as we put a wall around the entire border - and the Mexican government pays for it.. :)

But don't let me misrepresent your reasoning. Due to evil tactics used in the war like American troops destroying some Catholic churches? American forces counter attacked into Mexico. As a comment, the United States did pay Mexico a sum that was huge at that time for the land in settlement, while Mexico didn't give Native American nations a nickle. It also is worth mentioning that the British were attempting to populate California to replace Mexican control to California becoming a British colony from what I read (or misread).

Then again I'm not very familiar with that war. Apparently you more are. What is you reason why this was the worst war of any the USA was ever in?
 
I leave off the Civil War to avoid that perpetual debate on cause and do not include the India wars

Note: The worsen were by presidents who ran specifically as the candidate who would not get us into the war they then got us in.

#2 Vietnam. LBJ promised he would never send "our boys" to fight in S.E. Asia - then sent over half a million.

#1 WW1. Wilson was the anti-war candidate, then massively got us into that war that offered nothing to the USA but for a few industrialist. Other than millions of insane tactics battle deaths, the primary outcomes were:
1. Communist Russia
2. World War 2

You choices and comments?

Korea - Vietnam - Iraq - Afghanistan

The psychological drain on soldiers and sailors knowing that they would not accomplish a damn thing.
 
I leave off the Civil War to avoid that perpetual debate on cause and do not include the Indian wars

Well, I'm going to include one anyway. " King Philips War, considered the bloodiest war, per capita, in U.S. history."
 
I leave off the Civil War to avoid that perpetual debate on cause and do not include the India wars

Note: The worsen were by presidents who ran specifically as the candidate who would not get us into the war they then got us in.

#2 Vietnam. LBJ promised he would never send "our boys" to fight in S.E. Asia - then sent over half a million.

#1 WW1. Wilson was the anti-war candidate, then massively got us into that war that offered nothing to the USA but for a few industrialist. Other than millions of insane tactics battle deaths, the primary outcomes were:
1. Communist Russia
2. World War 2

You choices and comments?

I’d probably agree with your two choices. The US involvement in WWI didn’t make much difference anyway, possibly hastened the end of the was by a few months but Germany was finished one way or the other.

Vietnam. America lost her soul in the jungle there.

Iraq war wasn’t great either to be honest.
 
Interesting. You view is that Mexico was entirely justified to conquer all Native American tribes in California, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Texas - even though did not actually inhabit 99% of the land - because all Native American nations that had ruled those areas for many centuries were all evil? - but that it was wrong for the Americans - who outnumbered Mexicans in those areas were wrong to obtain independence from Mexico - because American are evil and the Mexican government good? Because they were Catholics maybe - and Native Americans and most Americans were not?

Do you claim The USA should give California, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas back to Mexico because Mexicans are good and Americans are evil? I would agree to that for California as long as we put a wall around the entire border - and the Mexican government pays for it.. :)

But don't let me misrepresent your reasoning. Due to evil tactics used in the war like American troops destroying some Catholic churches? American forces counter attacked into Mexico. As a comment, the United States did pay Mexico a sum that was huge at that time for the land in settlement, while Mexico didn't give Native American nations a nickle. It also is worth mentioning that the British were attempting to populate California to replace Mexican control to California becoming a British colony from what I read (or misread).

Then again I'm not very familiar with that war. Apparently you more are. What is you reason why this was the worst war of any the USA was ever in?

Interesting. You cannot post without making **** up. You cannot debate without making up positions for those you disagree with. Very interesting...
 
The Korean War.

Based on? It was a righteous war to join, protecting an ally. While strategically, MacArthur was pretty bad, and Almod was even worse, showing a willingness to protect Asian allies was the proper thing to do.
 
Based on? It was a righteous war to join, protecting an ally. While strategically, MacArthur was pretty bad, and Almod was even worse, showing a willingness to protect Asian allies was the proper thing to do.

MacArthur grossly underestimated the Chinese reaction, but is usually credited with the Inchon landing which had to time out perfectly.

Never had heard of “Ned” Almond until your post, seems he didn’t work out too well in Italy during WWII.


I think the 38th Parallel had much to do with the decisions regarding South Viet Nam.
 
Joko104:

Worst for whom? The USA or the wider human race?

Assuming you mean the worst for the USA, I would say:

3) WWI: Late to the dance, too many casualties, Pres. Wilson was ignored by the European Powers post-war and it all happened again less than 21 years later.

2) The Philippines: America lost its soul and set itself on a trajectory of overseas empire and global hegemony which has drained both blood and treasure from the Republic for more than a century.

1) The War on Terror: including the Afghan War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Cost the US between $5 and $7 trillion to date and has produced almost no positive results. The US lost the peace in both overt military conflicts and has alienated much of the world by its covert attacks around the globe. The WoT has also badly damaged the rights and privacy of US citizens and has created both a public and a private surveillance state/society in America. Patriot Acts, secret courts, Snowden revelations, attacks on the free press, assassinations of Americans abroad by the state, without trial or due process, and much more. The WoT has led to the militarising of many American law enforcement institutions and has spawned the use of mercenary Private Military and Security Companies (PMSC's) on American soil which are now acting like modern-day Pinkerton's doing illegal surveillance, questionable law enforcement and excessive counterinsurgency actions which treat dissenting Americans like enemy combatants and terrorists.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Was, exactly, was the alternative to invading Afghanistan? They weren’t going to give Bin Laden up. The US couldn’t let the man responsible for murdering thousands of innocent people amble off scot free. The rest of the world is only “alienated” until they need our protection or want our aid, then they come racing back to tell us how much they admire us.

And don’t say something silly like “bomb Saudi Arabia” because that was simply not going to happen.
 
MacArthur grossly underestimated the Chinese reaction, but is usually credited with the Inchon landing which had to time out perfectly.

Never had heard of “Ned” Almond until your post, seems he didn’t work out too well in Italy during WWII.


I think the 38th Parallel had much to do with the decisions regarding South Viet Nam.

I said the Korean War because it established and cemented into American foreign and military policies that the U.S. WOULD NOT attempt to actually "win" its wars in the future. General Mark Clark himself complained about this.

Instead the Korean War established the ideas for the U.S. that

1) Only military action sanctioned by the United Nations was truly legitimate.
2) That the U.S. would no longer fight to win a war because "containment" and "de-escalation" of a conflict was the most important priorities.
3) It cemented the idea that the American Democratic Party was responsible for "losing China" then "losing the war in Korea". This idea massively influenced President Lyndon Johnson to make a massive U.S. commitment to the Vietnam conflict. A war that he had no interest in fighting whatsoever.
 
MacArthur grossly underestimated the Chinese reaction, but is usually credited with the Inchon landing which had to time out perfectly.

Never had heard of “Ned” Almond until your post, seems he didn’t work out too well in Italy during WWII.


I think the 38th Parallel had much to do with the decisions regarding South Viet Nam.

Inchon was a great plan in theory, that worked by by pure luck(parts for the new mines for the harbor was mis-shipped...those mines would later defeat plans for another amphibious assault into North Korea), and then was totally squandered. The point of doing a landing behind the lines on a peninsula is to split off, isolate and prevent from retreating the forces further below on the peninsula. This means crossing the peninsula to cut supply lines and lines to retreat. We did not do that, and in fact, North Korea was able to get most of its forces out of SK. Instead, Almond wanted to enter Seoul, and be seen at the head of the column entering the city, which was strategically worthless. The US Marines would end up running into all those escaped NK tanks while they where retreating from North Korea.

So anyway, MacArthur and Almond screwed up horribly in Korea, but from a grand strategic and political view, fighting there was the right thing to do to my mind.
 
Was, exactly, was the alternative to invading Afghanistan? They weren’t going to give Bin Laden up. The US couldn’t let the man responsible for murdering thousands of innocent people amble off scot free. The rest of the world is only “alienated” until they need our protection or want our aid, then they come racing back to tell us how much they admire us.

And don’t say something silly like “bomb Saudi Arabia” because that was simply not going to happen.

Tigerace117:

There were several options. Assuming that the US was determined to go after the Afghans, the US Government could have begun a razia (raids on major infrastructure and personnel) in the Mullah Omar's government until bin Laden was handed over. They could have developed and then used a network of human intelligence in Afghanistan and then pin-pointed and either capture or kill bin Laden when the intelligence was available. In my opinion, the US should have left Afghanistan alone, except to kill/capture bin Laden and instead should have dealt very harshly with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia whose metaphorical fingerprints were all over the margins of this attack and from where 15 of the 19 hijackers originated from.

There was also diplomatic and economic options to coerce the Mullah Omar Government into compliance. Invasion and a nineteen-year old war of occupation were not good options. Everyone knew in 2001 that Afghanistan is the sinkhole of empires.

The Iraq invasion of 2003 was even stupider as it destabilised the whole region and created a power vacuum into which Iran was both sucked and entered voluntarily. The US must learn the War does not often work because even if you win the battles and the war, the US has amply demonstrated since the end of the Cold War, and even before, that it cannot win the peace. Ergo, 19 very, very expensive years of effective stalemate.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Tigerace117:

There were several options. Assuming that the US was determined to go after the Afghans, the US Government could have begun a razia (raids on major infrastructure and personnel) in the Mullah Omar's government until bin Laden was handed over. They could have developed and then used a network of human intelligence in Afghanistan and then pin-pointed and either capture or kill bin Laden when the intelligence was available. In my opinion, the US should have left Afghanistan alone, except to kill/capture bin Laden and instead should have dealt very harshly with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia whose metaphorical fingerprints were all over the margins of this attack and from where 15 of the 19 hijackers originated from.

There was also diplomatic and economic options to coerce the Mullah Omar Government into compliance. Invasion and a nineteen-year old war of occupation were not good options. Everyone knew in 2001 that Afghanistan is the sinkhole of empires.

The Iraq invasion of 2003 was even stupider as it destabilised the whole region and created a power vacuum into which Iran was both sucked and entered voluntarily. The US must learn the War does not often work because even if you win the battles and the war, the US has amply demonstrated since the end of the Cold War, and even before, that it cannot win the peace. Ergo, 19 very, very expensive years of effective stalemate.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

So in other words conduct air strikes until they handed him over.....which would technically consist of an act of war, even if many odious regimes have basically allowed it in the past. What happens if they don’t give him up and basically dare us to “invade if you dare”? Developing networks of HUMINT takes years to do, would be immensely dangerous for any locals involved in a still Taliban run Afghanistan, and then creates the same issue of actually needing to get a team in and out of a hostile country which still, at this time, possesses heavy weaponry up to and including tanks.

Afghanistan was already what amounted to a rogue state. Even Iran hated them. It’s hard to diplomatically coerce a country which doesn’t care about diplomacy.

Again, nobody was going to go to war with Saudi Arabia. It would greatly strengthened Al Qaeda(the Crusaders are going after Mecca and Medina!) and given that international terrorism had been a think for years it would have set a very bad example. Once that precedent is set, well, how long do you think it is before a bomb goes off and the FSB conveniently discovers that the bombers were from the Baltic States?

Iraq is more debatable, but deposing Saddam was undoubtedly a good thing.
 
So in other words conduct air strikes until they handed him over.....which would technically consist of an act of war, even if many odious regimes have basically allowed it in the past. What happens if they don’t give him up and basically dare us to “invade if you dare”? Developing networks of HUMINT takes years to do, would be immensely dangerous for any locals involved in a still Taliban run Afghanistan, and then creates the same issue of actually needing to get a team in and out of a hostile country which still, at this time, possesses heavy weaponry up to and including tanks.

Afghanistan was already what amounted to a rogue state. Even Iran hated them. It’s hard to diplomatically coerce a country which doesn’t care about diplomacy.

Again, nobody was going to go to war with Saudi Arabia. It would greatly strengthened Al Qaeda(the Crusaders are going after Mecca and Medina!) and given that international terrorism had been a think for years it would have set a very bad example. Once that precedent is set, well, how long do you think it is before a bomb goes off and the FSB conveniently discovers that the bombers were from the Baltic States?

Iraq is more debatable, but deposing Saddam was undoubtedly a good thing.

Tigerace117:

I never said go to war with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I said treat them harshly. Freeze assets, sanction, boycott Saudi Oil, put them on sponsors of terrorism lists, interdict the movements of their elites, arrest and prosecute any members of the Royal Family with "crimes of the family" as coconspirators. That sort of thing.


Well, as usual, we disagree. No suprise there. Now, how are you going to pay back the US exchequer that 5-7 trillion dollars you wasted in Afghanistan, Iraq and the rest of the GWoT? That's a lot of overtime!

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom