Was there ever a nation that fought a guerrilla war against a foreign invader and lost?
Yes, and No.Take the case of the Vietnam War.North Vietnam was troubled due to the fact that the US intervened in the war, fearing communist expansion. (In 1962)At the time the US had far better military units, infrastructure and logistics, as well as experienced officers from the Korean War or WW2 or both. It was obvious that North Vietnam would be effectively crushed.They decided to wage a guerrila war, over the span of thirteen years, which took the lives of some 50,000 US troops, but the Viet Cong (lightly armed NV troops) took very heavy casualties in return. They were almost wiped out, but 50,000 deaths for the US Army got the attention of the media.The VC used booby traps everywhere they could, and they did everything logistically possible to make life difficult for the US troops.They spent months just planning an ambush, only to fail miserably, or to succeed completely.January 21, 1968- The Battle of Khe Sanh. The base was under very heavy attack by PAVN forces, but ultimately the US forces won the 3-month battle, but protests grew in mainland US about the intervention, and demanded a full withdraw.The US won a complete military tactical victory, but incurred a strategic popular belief, and it is said that the Vietnam war is the only war up to date that the US lost.
How would you respond to the claim that "America is a cowardly nation as evidenced by its use of nuclear bombs and drone strikes"?
Your “friend” fails to understand conflict.A fair fight exists only in a duel or match, where both parties have agreed to fight, and agreed to the terms of the fight.Other than that, a fair fight does not exist. The phrase “if you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn’t plan your mission properly” is an admonishment to young, idealistic leaders not to be overly concerned with being “gentlemanly”. It advises them to remember to ruthlessly seize every opportunity and advantage.When at war, you should not be concerned with fighting fair, you should be concerned with victory. When defending yourself from an assailant, you should not be concerned with fairness, you should be concerned with survival.In WWII, the Germans used to complain that the US method of time on target artillery barrages was cheating. They only complained because we were better at it than they.A very drunk man in a bar once picked a fight with me. I tried to talk my way out of it, but as soon as he took a swing, I bashed him over the head with a bottle, kicked him in the balls, kneed him in the stomach, and kicked him in the diaphragm once he was on the ground. He wheezed that I hadn’t fought fair. I didn’t care. I didn’t want to fight, and he attacked me anyway, and he was only concerned with fairness because he lost.Outside of matches and duels, in combat, fair doesn’t matter. At all. You WANT to make the fight as unfair as possible, in your favor. Otherwise you are relying on the restraint of your enemy for victory, which is utter madness.Claiming that fighting from standoff is “cowardly” tells me that the claimant carries the outdated belief that disputes are solved with mano y mano duels of fistcuffs, and further that he lacks the same offensive abilities as the person he petulantly whines about.He wouldn’t be whining if he had drones and nukes. He wouldn’t be whining if ONLY he had drones and nukes. He’s whining because we can hurt him, without giving him a “fair” chance to hurt us back. Bullshit.Go ahead. Call us cowards all you like. Just don’t go to war with us, or we’ll drone strike you until you glow.