Look, I've spent close to two years over in the sandbox interacting with British troops -- they're not all you're cracking them up to be. They're sound fighters and I've gotten along with most of them very well, don't get me wrong, but if I had to go to war with only one ally, it would be Israel.
Having spent time with and trained with both the IDF and the British Army -- I know what I'm talking about.
Revolutionary War (1775) against Britain, War of 1812 against Britain, Spanish-American War (1898) against Spain, WW1 against Germany, WW2 against Germany, Japan.
In each of these conflicts, America was facing a larger, more powerful opponent -- and won.
You should allow history to play a part in your argument and you might be able to actually make an argument as opposed to rehashing the exact same things Brits have been saying since mid-20th century.
The U.S. was just coming into isolationist policy after the late 19th-century/early-20th century imperialist ventures, and thus, we had no reason to meddle in European affairs.
We finally did after the sinking of the Lusitania and Zimmerman telegram, and when we did, we kicked some ass.
Do me a favor and look up the "Siege of Kut". Let me know how this one turned out for the Brits.
Hahaha. Ass kicked at Pearl Harbor? It was an ambush. Saying we had our ass kicked implies that we lined up our armies, navies, and air force side by side and they beat us. Hardly the case...
Anyhow, we nevertheless entered the conflict and was a huge player in Allied victory. Don't forget also, the U.S. responded to Pearl Harbor with the fight against Japan -- had nothing to do w/ Europe. This battle in the Pacific was virtually unilateral -- and the U.S. defeated the world's strongest navy comprised of the most dedicated, fanatical troops in the entire war.
And then in Europe, without Patton, most of the country would be speaking German right now.
We didn't lose in Korea or Vietnam. That's just comical. In fact, it's actually impossible for an insurgency or guerilla war tactics to defeat a conventional army -- and defeat isn't even their purpose. The purpose is to prolong the war until the other side realizes that its not worth the time, money, effort, and life to continue the fight. It's what the NVA and VC did and its what the insurgents in Iraq are doing today.
BTW -- where was GB in the Cold War? It was Ronald "Evil Empire" Reagan and his tough rhetoric and increased arms race that expediated the collapse of the Soviet Union. Stalin and Krushchev were hardly cowards.
The revolutionary war was technically a civil war between Britain and some of her colonies. Doesn't count as an American war, actually the war which lead to the creation of USA.
I got involved in a heated debate on Wikipedia about the 1812 War. Some people were concerned an American website was biased in declaring this conflict a "draw". However, "With stalemate on the battlefields, both nations agreed to a peace that left the prewar boundaries intact." So, at best a draw, mate.
in 1898, Spain was no-longer any kind of military force.
WW1+2, as I said, America didn't get involved until it was forced into it. Unlike Britain, America wasn't defending anything except itself. In WW1, Germany was already on her knees by the time American troops arrived in 1918 - being the straw that broke a camels back is hardly evidence of an "American spirit". In ww2, America was prepared to stand by and watch Britain be destroyed by Nazi Germany without getting involved.
Siege of Kut? What are you saying? That Britain, fighting several powerful countries at once (unlike your war against the solitary weak Spanish) lost a battle, while American soldiers were comfortably tucked up at home?
"And then in Europe, without Patton, most of the country would be speaking German right now."
LOL - Russian, actually. In Europe, the Soviets had destroyed the backbone German army before US troops arrived there. Of course, it would not be in the US's interests to have most of Europe as part of the Soviet Union. But you certainly did not save us from either fate.
The Korean War - a straight forward civil war between armies - ended in stalemate.
Vietnam - "The conflict was a
successful effort by the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV or North Vietnam) and the indigenous National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam, (also known as the Việt Cộng, or more informally as the "Charlie", "VC" or "Cong") to unify Vietnam as a communist state, defeating the South Vietnamese Republic of Vietnam (RVN)."
Militarily, America failed to achieve what it set out to when sending troops to Vietnam. It was NOT a stalemate. Failure = loss. To say the US didn't lose the Vietnam war is absurd and shows the delusional state of your thinking.
"It's what the NVA and VC did and its what the insurgents in Iraq are doing today."
You'd think you'd have learned your lesson then. Why are you in Iraq if you see it going the same way as Vietnam? American spirit or utter folly? Surely the latter.
Where was GB in the Cold War - on the side of Reagan, courtesy of Mrs Thatcher. We were involved in many of the same dubious methods as the US, funding groups like the Taliban and dictators like Sadam Hussien to fight our battles for us.
Is this double-dealing the American spirit?
