Login/Sign Up




USA have never won a real war before
Fights

goodevil
Jun 21, 2010
9 votes
13 debaters
7
6
4
4
3
3
1
1
1


+ Add Argument

2
Yes usa have never won a real war


matt1989
Jun 21, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: larryt700 Show

you should quit debating and become a proofreader your very good at it.

 
goodevil
Jun 22, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ericcartman Show

Hey it’s the guy who calls others stupid and retarded…, again stupid is what stupid does. First of all mister the Spanish-American war did not end by the triumph of the Americans sure Spain lost more soldiers, but Spain had a much more bigger army, the war ended by the proposal of a treaty by the USA on august the 12th Spain signed the treaty and on the 13th US troops attacked Manila(Cuba) which was occupied by Spanish forces, not even talking about the fact that it was that it was the Filipinos and the natives (who were seeking independence) were the ones who did it, because most of the USA troops had already left Cuba due to “the yellow fever”, and the funny part is that only American had it, so only 25% of us army was in Cuba while the usa prepared the treaty, then bang the revolution against the Spanish, then the USA as always is there to take credit for a victory they have no part of it.

 
goodevil
Jun 22, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: larryt700 Show

Here is how the revolutionary war ended, on December the 20th (1780) Holland declared the war against UK which made the opposite side much stronger the UK side, it’s enough to name France+ Spain+ Holland+ USA… versus UK and its colonies, on September the 5th (1781) France won the Chesapeake bay battle versus UK, on October the UK army was defeated by US army in Yorktown battle, but that wasn’t the battle that ended the war as USA promotes for, in 25 January, France made a very impressive victory (considering the fact that they are French) over the united kingdom in the battle of saint-kitts which was a humiliation for the British parliament that concluded the war since UK forces withdrew back, and finally on September 3rd (1783) a treaty was signed in Paris between UK in one side and, France and Spain from the other side, no “USA” mate, and I’m very sorry to tell you this, but that was supposed to be the united states independence war and yet it’s other nations who won it for the USA, when we talk about independence other nations shouldn’t even be involved on it, but I’m not going there the most important things is to prove who won these wars.
For the second independence war (The War of 1812 against the British), are you kidding me??? That war ended with no winner or loser both part signed the Gand (February 16th 1815) treaty after realizing that the cost of war went to far up, both sides lost that war.
for the WW2 it’s all know it was the soviet red army who destroyed the Nazi forces, it’s a very know story on the victory day Russian troops after surrounded Berlin before actually getting in it…as for the USA I don’t have to remind you that the only remarkable thing USA army did was experimenting bombs on two cities filled with civilians (not really something to be proud of).
As for the WW1 after bombing Paris with canons, in July 15th (1918) the German forces in “champagne” a region in France lunched an operation to shatter both French and British forces and that is by dividing them, but thanks to a French general called “Pétain”, who predicted that huge German operation, the French army made a manoeuvre with a purpose of luring the german forces, and the german forces arrived actually to the Marne “region in France”, where the last battle (the second battle of the Marne in September 1914), a large French counter-strike demolished the german army nearby a region called the “Villers-Cotterêts”, in july the 18th, and since that last battle the german army didn’t got into fight, all they did is withdrawing until august the 8th when forces containing canadien, Australian, French and british forces under the command of “Ferdinand Foch”(French general), made a huge operation targeting “Picardie” when thousands of german soldiers surrounded without fighting, the rest of the war was just some pointless manoeuvres by some European armies (Italians, Hungarians, Austrians…), no sign of a real American victory, the only battle that was won by the US army was in southern of French(after a late arrival of the us army), the battle was called “Meuse-Argonne” which was a small one since the fighting lines were in the borders of france and germany. For your other rebuttal my answer is “YUP”, but I think I made a point here. PS all of those are facts, I’ve giving you dates and names of battles you can always check ‘em.


 
goodevil
Jun 22, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frost Show

Dude the war was over, Hitler, the Nazis “the biggest threat”, was demolished, all the Japanese pride wouldn’t stand against an alliance of most of the world’s country, the soviets were the ones who won the ww2 for the rest of the world, the US dropped atomic bombs over civilians those are historical facts, and dude the weapon doesn’t make the winner through history from the Alexander vs Kesra of Persia (less number of troops less weapons less food… and the Greeks won), the Mongols versus china, William Wallace revolution ,napoleon versus the Russian in waterloo, USA vs Vietnam.… even today USA with huge satellites and super computers can’t vanquish Ben laden, we are not talking about what elements bring victory in a war, weapons don’t. guerrilla wars can easily take down an army. The subject is “did the united state ever won a war??”

 
ericcartman
Jun 22, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: larryt700 Show

Larry, you are missing the point of debating. In a debate, the challenger sets up the rules for the debate. The debate is whether the United States won a war before airplanes were invented. If you want to go ahead and say that the United States won wars with airplanes, go ahead, its true, but you are missing the point. Instead of arguing how I am not properly qualified to make statements, how about you give some actual arguments that suggest the United States won a war before they created airplanes. I am not making the definition of war, I am simply adhering to the rules of the debate. If yo u want to debate whether the United States won a war before and after airplanes were invented, start your own debate, don't adulterate goodevil's debate.

 
goodevil
Jun 23, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ericcartman Show

first of all, everyone knows that Manila is in Philippines, you are the only one that pointed to it, which means that everyone else is smarter than you to realize that during typing i could make a mistake. I’m human after all, so besides pointing a dull mistake that i would correct myself if i noticed it, you gave an argument about the causes of war, yet to not give a huge large argument i just presented how the mentioned USA wars ended and how, for the rest of information do your own research, and if you read with focus or without focus, you'll notice that the Spanish-American war ended after that 75% of the USA troops left the Cuban soil due to the “Yellow fever”, the day after the day when the treaty was signed between USA and Spain Manila was attacked and taken, wining “almost” every battles in the war doesn’t mean winning, I’ll point here to battles in the ancient Qin in china, the many many battles won by Rommel for the Nazis and yet the Nazis lost the war… you might need after all to read something even from “Wikipedia” before you make such an argument.

 
goodevil
Jun 23, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frost Show

Tactics were the most important fact why Alexander won the war versus the Persian, but not weaponry, Persians have the advantages of earth (the are used to fight in the desert, and closer to their land), number (more than the Greeks), you are absolutely right about the weapon although you forgot to mention the Persian chariots, and the and the very impressive Greek cavalry. On the other hand weapons were not the key to the victory, although they were good but they were dull “definition of Sun Tzu in the book (the art of war): a dull weapon is a weapon who grew old in the worrier hand, a weapon would lose its accuracy and it fatal impact”, considering that Alexander was conquering Asia, and the too many battles he fought before going for Persia itself, the main two reasons why the Greeks won are, the amazing tactics and maneuvers they improvised during the battles and that is because of the good cavalry they had, and the discipline the Greek army had , they respected orders of their commander and they stood in the battle even though they were losing at the first time, so 80% tactics and 20% the moral law.

I missed your point in the Chinese-Mongolian war, please explain. The examples I made are for wars that were not won with the weaponry technology, china had the best army, if not the best at the time, but china was divided, they had a better army a better discipline, they were fighting in their own land, they were much more skilled in the art f the war, but they were fighting with Mongols and with themselves.

Scottish revolution leaded by William Wallace started and ended after his dead. Scottish won although England had a much more huge army, defensive castles, regular army, better weapons… and this is a very good example of my point, at a point of the war Scotland was no longer in a defensive state, they were attacking England with its mighty castles and strongholds, but they won, although comparing them with English they were like a bunch of people with sticks and knives army. But they won.

Napoleon lost in waterloo due to the factors of earth, weather and lack of supplies, his army was bigger stronger, had better tactics…you name it, but he lost.

the losses of live was never a scale to measure who won the war example here the ww2, usa vs Vietnam is an other good example, if there were bets on that war everyone would say usa, the usa army was much more advanced skilled …( again you name it) but they didn’t win, both sides lost, although Vietnam proved ( as a small army, it’s a very worth full adversary, if the US army equaled the Vietnams one for sure they viets would win), but in this case both sides are loser because military basics defines long war campaigns are lost campaigns. Example the 100 year war.

I’m sorry your president himself declared war against terrorism, what’s your point???

You said Muslim terrorists, it’s very offensive to Muslim because Muslims aren’t terrorist, terrorists are terrorists, I didn’t say dropping a bomb is not a part of war, I said it’s low, the ww2 was unjustified because the threat was eliminated and usa had no excuse to drop bombs over civilians, as for terrorist they have no right to do the same, wars are fought between two armies not between armed people and civilians

Not anything you mentioned is an opposite side of my opinion, so why the rebuttal, I’m sure that we both agree that not the weaponry alone decides the faith of war. That was the whole point of my argument.




 
goodevil
Jun 24, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: tds Show

Since this topic started, i argued with people that, to me, they looked (through the way they wrote their argument with) very certain of their information, so I did more reading to know why exactly there are so many version of what should be history, and history are just events that happened in one particular way so why the differences???, also a guy here talked about Wikipedia, I’m not used to read from websites, I rather books instead in which I find more credibility, but I said what the hell let’s see where that guy got his info from, and then bang the surprise, I did a research in 3 different languages and guess what?? Three different versions not totally different but it’s noticeable; I also found that except for the English version the others were a bit more coherent with each others. So I invite you guys to do the same and you’ll see that for yourself, I also advice you to check on French versions of history, French are sissy people but they have a lot of credibility, they don’t even disguise their historical mistakes. For you tds, by saying “real wars”, I simply meant wars, not tiny events that some people would come up with, like some battles concerning a village in Africa or silly manoeuvres in North Korea’s border. As for the Spanish American war, this is the question USA didn’t win with 100% of its troops, but after the yellow fever they conquered spain with its mighty army with only 25% of troops do you find this logical, the ending of the war was a treaty between Spain and the US on august the 12th, those who fought on the side of the USA were seeking freedom and not remaining under the mercy of the Spanish, so the usa took credit for a war that somebody else won… all I’m asking is a prove that the united state did actually won a war on her own, if it was with allies well did the united state won “the” important battle that brought war to an ending.

 
goodevil
Jun 24, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ericcartman Show

taking control of a city or a country doesn't mean winning, maybe winning a battle or two but not the war, examples the huge expansion of the nazi's in Europe before they lost the war, the city of troy that was eventually taken, but both sides has already lost the war be cause of the two much damages, for the Spanish-american war, I didn’t said spain won, nor did the usa, if you check the reasons why usa got involved, you won’t find to free colonies, usa had economical and commercial reasons, it was the natives who were seeking freedom, you are talking about the results of war, the results are sometimes irrelevant with the actual ending of a war take the Trojan war for example, or the war in Vietnam and tell me that their consequences are resulting from how these war ended. And to leave no doubt here do you think it’s logical what you are saying??? With 100% of troops USA couldn’t win, but after the yellow fever and after 75% of US troops left Cuba, US actually won against spain who had a much more bigger army??? The ending of that war was a revolution from those who were seeking freedom. And by the way that “Wikipedia” is inaccurate try to do the same research about this topic in many languages you’ll be shocked.

 
goodevil
Jun 21, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I’ll wait first for a prove that usa had actually won a real war.

 
goodevil
Jun 21, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
real war when you fight an army for example, the rest which i don't consider as real war is like dropping a bobm over citizens in hiroshima and nagazaki

 
ericcartman
Jun 21, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: larryt700 Show

Although I am on the other side of the debate, I am rebutting you. You are not complying with the debate rules, which is that the war must have been fought before airplanes were invented.

The War of 1912 was a definitive loss by the Americans; the only success in that war was with General Andrew Jackson annihilating the British in the South, but that was after the war was over (Jackson was not aware that the war had already ended with the Treaty of Ghent. The War of 1812 was a loss because the capital of the United States was put at the mercy of the British: furthermore, the Treaty of Ghent returned the United States to the status quo. The Americans did not accomplish any of their goals during negotiations and therefore the war is a failure. I know this because I took Advanced Placement United States History in high school.

For Americans to have "won" the revolutionary war all on their own is a bit of an overstatement: many historians doubt that the Americans would have won without the help of the French since they provided a lot of the equipment to match the British force.

 
goodevil
Jun 23, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: tds Show

Nope I’m not entitled to set rules for wars, wars can end up however history or man choices choose to, I just gave simple events and battles that are referring to how these wars ended, so you are free to come up with every example you wish, as for the Nagasaki and Hiroshima events you are probably referring to, it’s not that it’s just low to drop bombs over civilians, but there was no point there, Berlin was already taken, the Russian were moving to Manchuria, and the whole alliance was vs. Japan. Just facts about the ww2 nothing more.

 
goodevil
Jul 09, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: DarkZero Show

Sorry guys couldn’t reply earlier, for Dark zero, well in (the history) of the world there is no nation that existed or exists that haven’t at least won a battle, but that doesn’t mean winning a war, in ww2 Germany won countless battles but not the war so please don’t answer the question of (did the USA ever won a battle??) I didn’t ask that I asked (did the USA ever won a WAR). For the second rebuttal, in history some wars were won, some lost, some neither…I’m not a romantic person, I wish I were, but the fact is that The War of 1812 against the British, wasn’t neither won or lost by any of the armies, no compromises were made, both sides withdrew due to the high costs of the war (in military teachings, long war are lost war because they cost too much), and that war is a pretty good example, about the grammar part : sorry I shouldn’t make any excuses but, I talk English better than how I write it, and english is so far from being my native language. Sorry again I hope I pay more attention in the future. Back to our subject, for the Wikipedia part that was a remark, for the sissy part that was my personal opinion (I do have the right to have opinions don’t I???), all I said is that I noticed that at Wikipedia, when you do researches about the same subject with different languages you get different results, check it out yourself, and I’m sure that Wikipedia being edited by diverse people is it’s strength and weakness point, but when it comes to (history) I’d rather to have one version not lots of versions by many people, and the version I want is what exactly happened, that is just what history is, which bring us back to French as I do have an opinion of sissy about them, I also believe they are people with lots of credibility… check their own history(only one version they didn’t hide stuff or twist things).
Back to war shall we, Alexander’s campaigns, Atila the Hun vs the Romans, the Mongols, Vietnam war, the Trojan war, napolion’s expansion… and just lately the Russian-Georgian somehow war(considering the huge military gap between them), I can give you more example of other wars that were won solo with no allies.
for your last rebuttal about the ww2, the soviets didn’t care about japan, please do some historical reading, except for a lousy descent in the Normandy (a real messed up plan), the other allies didn’t do much in Europe as the soviets did, and that is noticeable when you look at the map of Europe after the war, and I’m not even going their, I’ll just ask you this, what is the army that vanquished the Nazis?? What’s the army that invaded berlin??, unless of course you consider japan was a bigger threat and a bigger power than the germans. Ps I’m not talking about how good the us army is, I know some us marines guys, and they are some of the finest men I’ve never met, I’m going here after US generals.


 
+ Add Argument

7
No usa did win at least a war before


porternc
Jun 21, 2010
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: goodevil Show

Define real war.
Define fake war.

 
ericcartman
Jun 21, 2010
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: goodevil Show

Spanish-American War of 1898. It's on Wikipedia. Please explain to me how the United States "lost". You can't argue that it was "fake" because bombs and planes were not invented yet. If you can't answer I'll take it for granted that you are retarded.

 
larryt700
Jun 21, 2010
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ericcartman Show

First off, you are an absolute moron! You say that real war is a war not fought with bombs but that would exclude grenades, RPG's (That's Rocket Propelled Grenades for those not so "Advanced Placement.") and missiles. So your finite definition of war for a country less than 300 years old is ABSOLUTELY STUPID! I could easily say that hurricanes don't exist if I establish the definition of a hurricane as a storm with winds over 300 miles per hour. Your idiotic post is simply an idiotic attempt to put down the United States, when the fact remains that we, of all the other nations have done more to promote peace than any other country in the world.

However, remain jealous! It is thoroughly amusing!

 
larryt700
Jun 21, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: goodevil Show

I will wait for a prove?

 
larryt700
Jun 21, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: goodevil Show

Lemme see...

The Revolutionary War

The War of 1812 against the British... AGAIN...

World War I

World War II

Desert Storm against Iraq....

No one else has been stupid enough to go against us except for those cowards that strap bombs to themselves and hi-jack planes to fly into the World Trade Center.

 
larryt700
Jun 21, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: goodevil Show

Who the hell are you to define what war is with your ALL ENCOMPASSING AND VAST AMOUNT OF KNOWLEDGE???



 
larryt700
Jun 21, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ericcartman Show

I AM ROLLING ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW....

FIGHTS MEANS FLIGHTS????

I AM ROLLING!!!

"I took advanced American Placement United States History in high school." ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?????

Holy smack down! That makes you a freakin genius on the subject!!! ROTFLMAO!!!

 
frost
Jun 22, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: goodevil Show

The tragedy of war is that it uses man's best to do man's worst. ~Henry Fosdick

USA (United States of America) as it became a country is already in the age of weaponry to win a war. it's not about whoever has the biggest army is most likely to win. even then, back in the middle ages, weapons give advantage to an army. during the revolutionary war, weapon technology took a great leap. from smooth-bore gun to spiral grooves on the barrel hole to improve accuracy. a small group of american snipers greatly demoralize a battalion of british army during that war.

as time goes by, weapons keeps on evolving. bigger guns, powerful bombs, biological weapons, spy satellites, computer technology, etc. ... lets say, "whoever has the bigger weapon, wins ;)

still, even USA didnt drop the bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, i think USA would have still won. japan already lost their bases outside their country. the dropping of the bomb made the war close to its end.

"All's fair in love and war"

 
tds
Jun 22, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: goodevil Show

So... you don't consider it real war if civilians are hurt and, judging by other comments you've made in this debate you don't consider a war ended by treaty to be a real victory (even in cases where the treaty is in one nation's favor)....

You do realize that adding those together means there has never been a real victory in a real war for the entirety of civilization don't you?

 
porternc
Jun 22, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ericcartman Show

Where does it say in this debate that it has to be wars before airplanes were invented?

 
tds
Jun 23, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: goodevil Show

I've read a decent amount about the Spanish-American War, but you are the first person I've ever seen that claims that America didn't win it. A claim that the people of Puerto Rico, Cuba, Guam, and the Philippines could all dispute, Puerto Rico and Guam in particular since they are still US territory.

The Mexican-American War also fits your definition of a real war, and it was also decided in America's favor.

 
ericcartman
Jun 23, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: goodevil Show

O.K, fine, you are not stupid, you just rushed when you typed and messed up, my bad. You should type a bit slower.
The fact that troops had to withdraw due to disease does not mean that the US did not win. I agree with you, winning all battles does not mean that the war was won. But you are ignoring the fact that the United States took control of Cuba, which was their goal. Answer these two questions for me: How have the United States lost the war if they accomplished their goal of ending Spanish occupation? How could have the Spanish considered this a victory if before the war they considered Spain absolutely necessary?
By the way, I am not reading off of Wikipedia, I know this by memory. It's alright if you are not 100% familiar with this topic, most American's aren't. I meant no insult by telling you that you read off of Wikipedia.

 
tds
Jun 24, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: goodevil Show

At the very beginning of the argument you were asked to define what a real war for the purposes of this debate.
You have changed your definition more than once when the conditions were met, you are moving the goalposts.
Stop it.

 
DarkZero
Jul 02, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: goodevil Show

That was one part of the War in the Pacific
What about the Battle of Midway
The Battle of Iwo Jima
Or the Battle of Guadalcanal
That was just part of WWII as well
What about the landing on the beaches of Normandy?
Or the Battle of Berlin
The US participated in all these battles in WWII
Do you know anything about history?

 
DarkZero
Jul 03, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: goodevil Show

You just said that no one wins any wars
You are looking at everything too romantically
A country wins a war if the other country surrenders or is completely destroyed
Most of the former Spanish colonies were released.
Also, if you will, check your grammar.

 
DarkZero
Jul 03, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: goodevil Show

Wikipedia is a collection of community edited articles
A book is written by one person with one viewpoint
Bias is actively edited out of articles in Wikipedia
How does your credibility look by calling the French people "sissy'?
How many countries do you know of that won a war with 100% of their troops intact?
How many countries do you know of that won a war without allies?


 
DarkZero
Jul 03, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: goodevil Show

What are you talking about?
The Soviets won WWII?
Since when?
I don't doubt they played a good part in winning against Hitler,
but they did nothing in Japan.


 
vancam
Jul 03, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
They've (The US) certainly been part of coalitions that have won wars before. It's when they've 'gone it alone' that they've run into trouble.

 
larryt700
Jun 21, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: matt1989 Show

That's you're as in you are not your....

You started it! lol

 
larryt700
Jun 22, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ericcartman Show

This isn't a debate, this is a means for someone to establish a false point based on their own perverted views. It is a joke, just like you are a joke!

 
larryt700
Jun 22, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ericcartman Show

Case in point! "For Americans to have "won" the revolutionary war all on their own is a bit of an overstatement: many historians doubt that the Americans would have won without the help of the French since they provided a lot of the equipment to match the British force."

Conjecture!!! This idiot doesn't even give credit because of stipulated 'conditions.' If not for the French BS, BS BS... So, this is not a debate when you change the rules AS YOU FREAKIN DEBATE!!!

Under these idiotic stipulations, the US has NEVER won a war because birds have been flying forever! Even though it is spelled FIGHTS!


 
yupimright
Jun 22, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
The Mexican War and the Civil War.

 
gatorsf80
Jun 22, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
If you mean wars before WW1 - since this is the time that Dog-fighting combat planes were first used. the answer is Yes. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations many conflicts.

How do you suppose USA has the best military yet (according to you guys) it has never won a war?
What about Deterrence factor? weaker nations will not attack USA - because they know they will lose.
Not many full-scale wars were fought on USA soil.

Your definitions of winning war is too strict. most countries have allies that fight with them, supply them weapons...
Applying your definition of "winning war" in global context would mean "most wars" in the world did not have clear victor. But this is the case with all wars, especially the ones that drag-on. Because no side has clear advantage. So your perspective is, if the war is too long -- there is no clear victor. if the war is too short that it is a military conflict only.... Pretty bad definition of "what it takes to win a way". You single out USA

 
ericcartman
Jun 22, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: goodevil Show

Stupid is what stupid does. Manila is in the Philippines, not Cuba. The goal of the United States upon entering the Cuban war was to free the Cubans from "Spanish Opression". The Philippines were simply a side objective, the president of the United States wanted a base from which to perform Pacific naval operations, and the United States was not extremely successful there.
How can you possibly believe that the United States lost the war against the Spanish when they established a century of control over Cuba? How can you say the United States lost this war when they clearly won almost every battle against the Spanish?

To me, I think that you have no knowledge of this war, but rather skimmed at the Wikipedia article and badly summarized it.

 
frost
Jun 22, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: goodevil Show

alexander's army has less army, less food, but they have advantage over weaponry and tactics. alexanders army have adapted to have archers on a horse for hit and run attack. they have a well develop arrow that pierce through mail armor. brass armored soldiers with long spears and bronze shield in a phalanx form. almost impenetrable in a rush attack of the enemy. compared to the mail armored warriors of kesra of persia. and the ground infantry of the persian army have shields made of reeds and wood. they dont have mail armor. it's easy slicing for the greek army.
persian army is numerous but not well armed.

mongols vs china. china has 7 warring kingdoms. the whole mongol nation didnt fight the whole china, they fight one kingdom at a time. a kingdom that fights 6 other kingdoms in china and also the mongols. Kublai Khan completed that conquest and conquered china and established the Yuan Dynasty that is often credited with re-uniting China. is that real war for you?

william wallace revolution -i died when he died. another leader fought for it and not on his name. In 1320, the Declaration of Arbroath was sent by a group of scottish nobles to the pope affirming scottish independence from england. real war for you?

napolen's loss at waterloo - napoleons army vs combined armies of the Seventh Coalition, an Anglo-Allied army under the command of the Duke of Wellington combined with a Prussian army under the command of Gebhard von Blücher. real war for you?

USA vs vietnam - the war was never finished. the army was pulled out. yes, more than 10,000 american soldiers died in that war, but there are more vietnamese communist died.

USA vs Bin Laden - you could not even call it a war, it's more like a battle skirmishes. and attacks from bin laden is terrorism style and not war style. and it's not even over so how could you say that one side already won?

you dont consider dropping bombs as part of war. well, the muslim terrorist used bombs on american embassies around the world, used a plane to crash on the twin towers and pentagon. why did you put bin laden as part of your example when bin laden or his al qaeda does is just hit and run attacks.

someone asked you from this debate what is real war, you said a war fought by an army and not by dropping a bomb. war is war, there is no fake war. there is a battle and battle is not war. war is always fought by an army and not civilians.

 
porternc
Jun 22, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ericcartman Show

What debate rules?

 
jakevz94
Jun 22, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
to goodevil a war is a war there are no rules there are no requirments. and the atomic bomds was a low blow but it saves hundreds of americans lives the USA did wat was needed to be done in order to WIN world war 2.but use of atomic weapons is extremely cruel citizens had there skin melted off from sheer heat, wood burst into flames in seconds but Japan lost the war fair and square world war 2 was real a race to see who would build an atomic weapon first the USA was the first to create one so we used it and won

 
porternc
Jun 23, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ericcartman Show

Where does it say in this debate that it has to be wars before airplanes were invented?

 
harrrywellington
Apr 16, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: goodevil Show

A- Almost all big wars are fought with allies, B- It was the US navy that was the major force in defeating Japan idiot, As for the European and African theaters both British and Russians would have never won with out US aid. Even Stalin said that the USSR would of lost with out US sending them supplies. Ever heard of the lend lease act? Well probably not you seem very limited in history. USA won Midway, Guadalcanal, Leyte Gulf etc. These battles destroyed Japans chance for empire, Its just that after a while of Japanese not giving up even tho its clear that they lost, estimates say that if the US would of invaded Japan 1 million Americans would of died probably another million Japanese and even more Japanese Civilians, Instead only 126,000 people died by dropping the bombs instead of possibly 4 million. I also find it funny how in the American Revolution you discredit the US for being helped yet in the Spanish American war you act like the Cubans would of won with out help or in WW2. C- the US WON that war, because Spain lost land, The US achieved their goals, Spain did not. In that war the US had 300,000, the Cubans about 30,000. Look at the biggest wars in History, War of the Austrian Succession, 7 years war, napoleonic wars, ww1 and 2.all fought with allies... You realize how dumb you are? If I were you I would not debate given the fact that your a dumb ass, You should also learn about the Pacific war idiot, So yes we could of invaded but way more people would of died.

 
harrrywellington
Apr 17, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: goodevil Show

Also the Soviets mainly fought in the eastern front they started fighting Japan in 1945, by that time Japan was finished, The other allies started winning by 1944, The US started to win as early as 1942 when the US Navy destroyed 4 of Japans best carriers, If the US would of lost at Midway, Americans would of opposed Roosevelt's Germany first policy and and focused on Japan and would have not aided the UK and USSR. The USA on the other hand fought in Europe since 1944, Africa since 1942, and Japan since 1941. We entered the war the same year as the USSR did, only that it was mainly vs Japan because they attacked us same as the USSR mainly fought Germany because they attacked them. Even after Midway the Japanese were still kicking the Europeans and Chinese's ass. I am not discrediting the other allies because when it came to fighting we all played an equal part. But to discredit the US because we were supplied by France, Spain,etc shows you lack history. Alexanders campaigns were also fought with Greek allies, the Trojan war was also fought with Greek allies. As for wars US won Well lets see, We won the American revolution, Indian Wars, Texas Revolution, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, Philippine-American War, Banana Wars, World War II, Gulf War, and the Iraq war now when I mean the Iraq war, I mean against Saddam's army. As for wars lost Vietnam but only politically, The US won the Tet offensive and could of won but left and the war on terror. So yes the US has won more than lost. Also the US did not have any advantages, the only wars we ever lost were wars that were impossible to win, History has showed us that by using guerrilla warfare, rag tag militia have beaten great armies. a good example is the American revolution, Anglo-Afghan war, Soviets losing in Afghanistan etc

 
harrrywellington
Apr 17, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: goodevil Show

"I’ll point here to battles in the ancient Qin in china, the many many battles won by Rommel for the Nazis and yet the Nazis lost the war" Thats also very stupid Its not like the US started off winning and then lost we won most of the battles and then achieved our goal. The Vietnamese were not in it alone, they were helped out by the USSR and China. The Japanese when it came to their army was not as powerful, but still pretty powerful, as for their navy they were much more powerful.

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

battle chuck norris click on this death fight fight, amazing, cool, funny Fights Frankie samurai superman Vancam vs War