>"strongest military force in the history of humanity"
>last "war" they "won" was bombing retreating soldiers from 8 miles away with a coalition of 40 countries
Do amerisharts really?
>"strongest military force in the history of humanity". >lost Vietnam. >lost Cuba. >lost Lebanon
>"strongest military force in the history of humanity"
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
The citizens are armed to the teeth, no one would invade America. The federal military is shit, though.
Well, Ukraine is going pretty well
>controlled the global ocean for decades with the largest naval armada in human history and dominates and controls the global economy as a result
Why the post-WW2 generations of Americans are so worse
The point of those wars wasn't "winning" in a conventional sense
Not really, we wiped out millions of asiatics in that war we only lost like 50k
damn you still lost after that?
Nah we didn't really lose
>south fell, Vietnam became communist
>largest city is Ho Chi Minh City
yeah about that
>remains in the US sphere of influence
>US sphere of influence
Just because their cultural ministry promotes coffee,non-chinese opera, and other things doesn't mean they're not in the sinosphere.
the kda argument makes no sense since america fought alongside south vietnamese forces that took even more casualties than the north
Just face it, you lost. Move on
To answer your question OP, it's because the American military was never really amazing. It was the ability for the United States to produce tons and tons of supplies and materials that made it a global hegemon. It's why we spend so much of our budget on maintaining the largest navy in the world along with treating NATO like our golems and funding "rebel groups" to do our dirty work. It's because our military strategy is to throw money at problems until they go away.
all of those wars were decisive victories for the Military Industrial Complex.
/thread and OP is a 3rd world fag seething at his imperial overlords
>OP is a 3rd world fag
Then he would be living in the nation of immigrants, fulfilling his patriotic duty towards Israel on the side.
Bingo. War is a racket.
Wow, so you are admitting that Muttland is not a nation but only a tool for some "rich men" to make more money at cost of mutt lives? i apreciate your honesty golems.
China COPE detected
bruh df you talking about america is the strongest force
What's crazy is how we keep getting away with it
Winning Ukraine makes up for all those defeats. It is impossible to overstate how huge a win the permanent destruction of Russia as a great power without the loss of a single American life is. It also means that China will be too scared shitless to invade Taiwan now.
Why are Americans so obsessed with Russia?
They wouldn't be if Russia didn't pretend to be a superpower able to compete with America. If they just behaved themselves like a good little shithole oligarchy they'd be ignored, but they insist on playing with the big boys and keep getting curbstomped.
Not all of us are
Because America needs another nation to lose a war to make their last defeats less embarrassing
More like "Russia's defeat in Ukraine overshadows all of those defeats". I say this because Russia's failures and despair in Ukraine is very much self-inflicted and has the uttermost dire implications for its future as a nation.
>It also means that China will be too scared shitless to invade Taiwan now.
No it just means they wont see value in grey zone warfare and will go straight to overwhelming force. Fact is, Xi Jinping is just a few months short of being a septuagenarian leader and has promised to bring them back one way or another during his rule. What do you think the odds are of Taiwan just going willingly? If he doesnt get Taiwan back his legacy will be condemned for eternity. You know how ok chinks are with losing face...
How did they lose?
They could wipe all those shitholes from the face of the earth if they chose to do so, even without using nukes.
Sorry you live in a shithole OP.
>loses all the time
>still owns OPs country as a vassal
lol, lmao even
Yet, you're still a vassal.
>Do amerisharts really?
Is it "losing" to effectively garrison a foreign country in the time of war for over 22+ years, completely liquidate the current government and its infrastructure, and only remove oneself from internal pressure due to economic pressure and domestics politics? The Taliban did not "repulse" the US from the country and the Taliban were literally for the last 10+ years forced to simply generally go after 'soft' targets and civilians since they were effectively neutered since 2013 in any large scale military roles.
Doesn’t matter a win is a win
We never tried to win those wars, they weren't conventional in any sense. We fought in those countries to feed the economy.
We won the cold war, and stopped the spread of communism. That's the only reason why this thread is being made. Its always third world shitskins seething we stopped leftists from hijacking their governments there to be used against us.
>We won the cold war, and stopped the spread of communism
after you fucktards managed to spread it over half of Europe Vietnam aso. Even Cuba and SA was a reaction to your plunderung and support of the worst's assholes of all. Why are burgers so retarded, greedy and subhuman?
>Even Cuba and SA was a reaction to your plunderung and support of the worst's assholes of all.
Why so dishonest and disgenuine
>america spread communism to half of europe
I to was dropped on my head as a baby
Ah so you are from an irrelevant shithole. Got it
Professional armies will almost always lose to guerilla forces.
It just seems that way because only the victorious guerrilla lives to tell the tale. There are just as many failed guerrilla movements that were eradicated as there were successful ones. Picrel, Estonian guerrillas during the Forest Brothers insurgency. Lasted over 12 years taking place across the Baltic states and ended with Soviet victory. They are merely a footnote in history.
Wrong. Completely fucking wrong. Professional armies will, 99 times out of 100, absolutely destroy guerilla forces in combat. Just look at Vietnam, the Americans killed like 20 Vietnamese guerillas for every single American that fell. Guerillas are SHIT at fighting. What they're good at is undermining long-term occupation and eroding strategic positions. They do this by attacking supplies, recon teams, and generally forcing their enemy to waste war material chasing them down to no real effect. If the guerilla force is up against a foreign invader, they often just slip into a waiting game of trying to outlast their enemy's wherewithal to continue the occupation. That's the tactic used in Vietnam, and in Afghanistan. Trying to fight the superior army is how you get destroyed, it's how yo get Vietnam-tier casualty ratios.
>guerilla forces are not conventional army
And yet somehow you think a conventional army will lose to a bunch of guerillas. Retard.
>the ARVN also suffered casualties from engagement against the VC/PAVN? No, that doesn't count.
>Our soldiers claimed body count from two pieces of the same person? Oy vey, drop the press.
Failing strategic objectives =/= military defeat. US has an immensely powerful military but this doesn't matter if your goals are not achieved by having supreme military might. If the goal was to simply annihilate every living soul in a foreign country, the US could do that, easily, and nobody could stop them. Nobody.
So you're just bunch of retards with le big guns? got it
America's military is extremely effective at destroying and killing enemy forces. But this supreme military power is controlled by a civilian government that is preoccupied with election cycles and internal power struggles in Washington DC, and relies on intelligence reports from rogue agencies like the CIA which are often totally detached from reality. I find it hilarious how the CIA are the ultimate boogieman for so many third worlders but in the USA they're a joke because a lot of the greatest boondoggles in American history are a result of laughably bad CIA intel.
Pretty much all of America's best successes are the result of the high quality of its armed forces. Its biggest embarrassments are due to its cowardly, backbiting politicians and intelligence failures. Bay of Pigs was probably the worst CIA fuckup in history.
more we are so rich that the government was able to spend trillions of dollars kicking the can down the road because no one wanted to either solve the problem or initiate a withdrawal
Nope. Signed an agreement to a truce akin to Korea. North and South. Problem is that America wanted out of Vietnam and this was the way to get us out. No intention of leaving troops. Plus, the South made no attempts to solidify themselves. The US left Vietnam, and the North flooded in at the same time.
Bautista was installed, yes, but the US military did not invade. They armed Contras, they attempted proxy conflicts, but JFK nullified any false flag to invade. Rightfully so, Russia was prepared to join and that would have escalated to MAD.
Insofar as I can tell, the US was successful in their goals.
Same as Vietnam. The people no longer wanted to be there. The people in Afghanistan were unwilling to fight for their new country and wanted to live as a territorial puppet under US auspices. The soldiers who were trained to fight willingly gave their arms to the approaching Taliban without a fight. The only ones who fought back were elevated tribal leaders who were already in conflict with the Taliban from the start.
Frankly, the Taliban surrendered within a month after the US invasion. Bush, however, wanted total and complete victory. He wanted to turn Afghanistan into America and refused the surrender.
Since Korea, the US has engaged into "armed conflicts" with no real goal aside from destabilize powers who give you trouble. Even the Ukraine is a proxy conflict.
>The people in Afghanistan were unwilling to fight for their new country and wanted to live as a territorial puppet under US auspices. The soldiers who were trained to fight willingly gave their arms to the approaching Taliban without a fight. The only ones who fought back were elevated tribal leaders who were already in conflict with the Taliban from the start.
That's not entirely true. Some ANA soldiers did surrender without a fight, but there were others who fought to the bitter end, and there are many former ANA members in the anti-Taliban resistance.
>Frankly, the Taliban surrendered within a month after the US invasion. Bush, however, wanted total and complete victory. He wanted to turn Afghanistan into America and refused the surrender.
To be (somewhat) fair to Bush, the Taliban's surrender conditions would have put them in a position to take back power in a few years, and they'd already proven themselves inconsistent at best, dishonest at worst. Maybe it was a mistake in retrospect, but barring the ability to look at alternate timelines, we have no way of knowing if accepting the surrender would have been a good idea.
>there are many former ANA members in the anti-Taliban resistance.
>Nope. Signed an agreement to a truce akin to Korea.
The puppet state collapsed and turned red when the stated goals of the US were to prevent that exact thing from happening. That is a loss.
>Afghanistan same as Vietnam.
Afghanistan was a way worse own. South Vietnam fell two years after the americans left. Soviet Afghanistan managed to hold out longer than the USSR itself. The american puppet state crumbled faster than they and their collaborators could leave.
>The people in Afghanistan were unwilling to fight for their new country and wanted to live as a territorial puppet under US auspices.
False. The people never wanted america, or the soviets, or the british there to begin with. They were unwilling to fight because the Taliban were their legitimate representation all along.
>Bush, however, wanted total and complete victory. He wanted to turn Afghanistan into America and refused the surrender.
Bullshit. The entire war was just a racket for the glownigs and defense contractors to profit off of, same as Iraq and Ukraine. Hardly a cohencidence either that opium trade production boomed during the occupation after The Taliban had banned it months prior to the invasion.
>there are many former ANA members in the anti-Taliban resistance.
So they're basically terrorists then, seeing as how the only anti-talib "resistance" left in Afghan are the Daesh mercs.
>barring the ability to look at alternate timelines, we have no way of knowing if accepting the surrender would have been a good idea.
Talibs were willing to hand Bin Laden over to the US in 1998, but they got bombed, so they called it off. They entered talks about handing him over again in 2000 in exchange for recognition of their government, but talks faltered, as they did again after 9/11 when the US delivered an ultimatum rather than agreeing to their terms of providing evidence of guilt. But again, all this, as well as 9/11 itself, was merely pretext for the war and the US had every intention to go in regardless of how trustworthy the talibs were.
"haha you didnt genocide ALL of us so... we win!" ok
You're definitely one of those. So at this point you're also a pathetic liar. Embarrassed to name your shithole after blowing all that hot air?
Hey they didn't claim to be the best governing force.
>>last "war" they "won" was bombing retreating soldiers from 8 miles away with a coalition of 40 countries
Which one was this?
the gulf war?
I like how there are at least 3 wars the US had that fit the description
don't forget they're losing ukraine to russia right now despite arming them with everything they got
>despite arming them with everything they got
are Russians still telling themselves this
>they're losing ukraine to russia right now
Just 2 more weeks to Ukrainian surrender.
>don't forget they're losing ukraine to russia right now despite arming them with everything they got
100,000 Russian dead before Christmas.
hope he got shot and left for dead by robbers in the street
Is the American in the room with us right now?
at least as far as afghanistan goes the claim that the U.S.A lost because it didn't behave like if assyria had nuclear weapons and dump one third of the army to genocide afghans is retarded.