|
| ▲ | wookmaster 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| If you start a war in someone else's country and they push you out...they won the war which means the US lost it. Your definition that the country has to be taken over to lose is a very different situation. If you can't accept we started a war, lost thousands of US lives and left without achieving any objective we set out as a loss you might need to reflect on the propaganda you've been fed and how it's affected you. |
| |
| ▲ | matheusmoreira 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | For some definition of "push you out". The US inflicted an order of magnitude more casualties than the ~60k deaths they suffered in Vietnam. The US has proven its willingness to withstand much greater losses: ~300k deaths in WWII, ~200k deaths in its civil war. They did a staggering amount of damage but were unable to secure a decisive military victory. So the war started to drag on, the casualties started to mount, costs started to pile up and the unpopularity of the war applied political pressure. Writing this off as a simple "loss" doesn't seem to accurately describe what happened. I think they could have won, but the cost was too high so they pulled out. Engagement must not have been important enough to warrant another 200k-300k deaths. Doesn't feel like the same loss you suffer when you fully commit to the task only to end up getting routed. | | |
| ▲ | padjo 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | So your argument is that they could have won in an alternative reality where it was worth paying a much higher cost for victory, therefore they didn't lose? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | swat535 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think you found a great way to never "lose" anything with this definition. |
|
| ▲ | GJim 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| America simply "failed their strategic objectives" in Vietnam? It's laughable to use such a silly euphemism to imply America was not defeated! The North Vietnamese won. Get over it. |
|
| ▲ | mustardo 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > failed their strategic objective copium > It's their relentless deindustrialization that will eventually do them in Agree, China has already won, at this point a lot of the world sees them as a more sane option than USA as well which is a nuts timeline |
| |
| ▲ | GJim 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > China has already won, at this point a lot of the world sees them as a more sane option than USA The rest of the world is finding China a more predictable and stable trading partner than the USA. |
|
|
| ▲ | pibaker 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| How do you learn to cope so well? Did you attend the Dugin College of psychotic delusion or something? |
