It's hard to say of course how things would be different. I just think their economy would be better with greater trade with and investment from the US coming in, and probably they would suffer from less corruption, if they were still a US territory. There are already millions of Filipinos living in the States and they've done nothing but enrich the country with their presence: friendly, hard-working, family-oriented people eager to assimilate. So I don't know what he was implying with his comment earlier.
The Mexican-American War was the conflict that made the careers of Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott. Young men like Lee and Grant, Stonewall Jackson and George McClellan learned their trade at places like Chapultepec and the US Marine Corps added the phrase "The Halls of Montezuma" to their lexicon. Then we "bought" the American Southwest from Mexico including California, Nevada, Utah, etc.
I always love how people claim they didn't teach such and such when they were in school. Seeing as people don't score 100% on tests for material taught in school the previous week, we're supposed to believe they remember everything they were taught years and decades after the fact? You were definitely exposed to it in American schools. You just can't remember it.
I guess what I mean is quite a few people would consider Vietnam to be a "loss" albeit the US. definitely wasn't beat militarily. More it was dragged into an attritional war and its will to fight was sapped. Given Vietnam ended up a communist country, is it then considered a defeat?
If so, are Afghanistan and Iraq 'victories'? Granted the US certainly won militarily, but I think most people would look at those wars and say the end result was, being diplomatic, a bit of a mess.
Again, not trolling or looking to start an argument, just genuinely intrigued on what war you consider the 'loss' and, I guess, on how you view the three wars I mentioned.
The goal in Afghanistan was to topple the Taleban government in Kabul. A peripheral goal was to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Both of those goals were achieved. The war ended. The allied occupation of the country hasn't gone as well as the war. I consider the war over and the goals were achieved long ago.
The goal in Iraq was to topple Saddam Hussein and set up a democratic government instead. The country has gone to shit since then... but that has nothing to do with the war. All of the war-time objectives were met.
When else in history has a war been declared a failure if, afterwards, there were some other problems caused by it? That seems odd.
I guess the key criteria is what exactly you define as the objectives of the war, and where you draw the line. I take your point on Iraq and Afghanistan.
That's gold. Come on, tell us the truth: do work for the State Department or only aspire to?
Here's a nice visualization of the impact the United States, and the Pax Americana, ushered in since the end of WW2, has had on the world. On behalf of the State Department, you're welcome.
Also, while US/England/France were effective at freeing the occupied territories, Soviet was the one putting in all the final blows to Nazi Germany; for example being the ones to take over Berlin.
2 Unrelated Points: The Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 are NOT really linked. There was over 20-years in between, and part of that time - during Washington's 2nd Term and during the Adams Administration - the US nearly went to war with France. The War of 1812 was based on a dumb decision by James Madison.
And World War I and World War II are not the same war, as while there WAS fighting in many places around the world during WWI, the fighting was mostly limited to Europe. WWII had an entire Pacific Theater that WWI did not have. Hitler and the Nazis came to power playing off the anger over losing WWI, but Japan did not invade China or attack us in Pearl Harbor and the Philippines because of WWI. Germany's actions can be looked at through a WWI lens, but Japan's can't.
Americans in 1812 felt residual anger towards the British that was intensified by Britain's contempt for Americans, but the British were still battling Napoleon and didn't care about events in North America, and there was no real reason to fight them. In fact, Madison's war was so unpopular in New England that the states there considered secession.
The fight was between Americans and Canadians in the North, and against Native American tribes allied with Britain and Spain in the south and west. Americans naively expected the Canadians to join the American union, and were shocked when they faced resistance...the American troops captured and burned the Canadian capital of York (today Toronto), and the Red Coats later burned DC; the war wound up a stalemate and its main importance historically is that it launched the career of Andrew Jackson.
Although I guess it could be argued that it was many conflicts over a few centuries.
I'd still count it though
I know this isn't the popular conception. But the popular conception frankly makes no sense and is unprecedented in history.
The Iraq War lasted from March 2003 to April 2003. That's how long it took for the Americans to conquer Baghdad and the government of Saddam Hussein to fall. The Iraqi military was disbanded shortly thereafter. After this point, the war was finished and the occupation of Iraq began. Total casualties during the war were about 200.
The war in Afghanistan lasted from October through December 2001, when the Taleban lost control of Kandahar their final stronghold. During this period, there were 7 US casualties. After December the war was over and the occupation of Afghanistan began.
Characterizing Iraqi insurgents attacking American troops as part of the Iraq War would be like saying the Civil War didn't end in 1865, because a federal troop got killed in Jackson during Reconstruction.
doesn't eventually get its man! - Perseverance, perseverance, perseverance!!!
This is not good enough.