3 ms·

The US also arguably lost the Iran war. So far it can't claim any minor fraction of a victory, at least; seems to be the general consensus. I like to read Bret

• gchamonlive 2mo ago
  It doesn't win wars, but it provides the necessary equipment for carnage and stalemates all over the globe. Remember war is just a pretext, the objective is always profit, so as long as a lost war is very profitable it's a success in their books.
  • flossly 2mo ago
    As long as the profits of weapons contractors go up, it's considered a win. Most senate members are well invested, so they agree...
  • MisterTea 2mo ago
    IMO the last real war the US participated in and helped to win was WW2 giving it a massive ego. And even then it was drawn in via Pearl Harbor. After that it was a bunch of "wars" it fabricated to satisfy its ego with various (often poor) outcomes.
    • Sabinus 2mo ago
      I don't think it's fair to characterise the Cold War was an ego thing. Global authoritarian communism wouldn't have been a good time for the vast majority.
• dylan604 2mo ago
  If everyone has the same conclusion, how is it an argument? Nobody thinks the US won in Iran except the morons that started it. Maybe bigOil feels like its a win as their profits are soaring???
  • gota 2mo ago
    No, I mean - the US has arguably already lost. It (almost unanimously) has no sign of winning. But it could, maybe, still win in the future. In short the argument is: can the US still win in any sense?
    • tmnvix 2mo ago
      If it leads to the US staying away from future wars then it in one sense it could be a win - for regular Americans. But I doubt that very much. The US state is a machine geared to war and exploitation in too many ways. More of the good people in the US need to be aware of this - it's painfully obvious to the recipients of US foreign policy.
• KellyCriterion 2mo ago
  Id say there was not a single chance "to win" from the beginning on? (whatever "winning" in a war may mean)