4 ms·

How about Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan?

rangibaby 10y ago
They lost in that they didn't achieve what they set out to do, but there was no instrument of surrender signed in SF bay, Nuremberg-style kangaroo court, USA partitioned into friendly states, etc.
hasenj 10y ago
How did they "lose" Iraq? They successfully invaded the country, changed the regime, changed the military, the police, the government .. everything. Then they left. Iraq is in utter chaos, the US is doing just fine. How exactly did the US "lose" in Iraq?
- awinder 10y ago
  Because the stated goal of that war was for the instilled government to survive and for democracy to transform the region. Not for the country to become destabilized with former military operatives to go into Syria and form the next great political catastrophe. That definitely wasn't a "win" long term.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - hasenj 10y ago
    That's completely different from winning or losing a war. The events you describe don't affect the US's dominance at all. The region's current turmoil is all internal. The US can just wait it out and then when it's all over, the winner will be weak and the US can just come in again any time and reset the whole thing. So this doesn't affect the US's ability to "write" history.
    - Udik 10y ago
      > So this doesn't affect the US's ability to "write" history. It does, this thread (and thousands others like it) is the proof. The US are internationally much weaker than they were before the wars in the Middle East, and their international politics are now considered by growing amounts of people as illegitimate and harmful.
      - hasenj 10y ago
        > their international politics are now considered by growing amounts of people as illegitimate and harmful. That has always been the case.
  - dannypgh 10y ago
    It irks me whenever anyone makes a claim about the "stated goal of that war" and completely omits talk of WMD, despite their alleged presence being key to the claimed legal basis for the war, presentation to the UN, etc. GWB: "Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly, yet our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."

They lost in that they didn't achieve what they set out to do, but there was no instrument of surrender signed in SF bay, Nuremberg-style kangaroo court, USA partitioned into friendly states, etc.

hasenj 10y ago

How did they "lose" Iraq? They successfully invaded the country, changed the regime, changed the military, the police, the government .. everything. Then they left. Iraq is in utter chaos, the US is doing just fine. How exactly did the US "lose" in Iraq?

awinder 10y ago
Because the stated goal of that war was for the instilled government to survive and for democracy to transform the region. Not for the country to become destabilized with former military operatives to go into Syria and form the next great political catastrophe. That definitely wasn't a "win" long term.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- hasenj 10y ago
  That's completely different from winning or losing a war. The events you describe don't affect the US's dominance at all. The region's current turmoil is all internal. The US can just wait it out and then when it's all over, the winner will be weak and the US can just come in again any time and reset the whole thing. So this doesn't affect the US's ability to "write" history.
  - Udik 10y ago
    > So this doesn't affect the US's ability to "write" history. It does, this thread (and thousands others like it) is the proof. The US are internationally much weaker than they were before the wars in the Middle East, and their international politics are now considered by growing amounts of people as illegitimate and harmful.
    - hasenj 10y ago
      > their international politics are now considered by growing amounts of people as illegitimate and harmful. That has always been the case.
- dannypgh 10y ago
  It irks me whenever anyone makes a claim about the "stated goal of that war" and completely omits talk of WMD, despite their alleged presence being key to the claimed legal basis for the war, presentation to the UN, etc. GWB: "Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly, yet our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."