Vance: America hasn't won a single war in the last 40 years
- Thread starter chinasun
- Start date
LeGenD
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
You need to study history and refresh your knowledge.
The US fought and defeated the Imperial Japanese Empire in the Pacific War in the 1940s. The US still has military footprint in Japan.
The US fought to restore South Korea in the Korean War in the 1950s when North Korea attempted to annex South Korea with support of China and Soviet Union. The US still has military footprint in South Korea.
The US fought to liberate Kuwait from Iraq in 1991 and dismantled Saddam setup in Iraq in recent years. The US still has military footprint in Iraq.
Pentagon quietly increases number of US troops in Syria, Iraq
US officials recently admitted that they were hiding the actual number of American boots on the ground in Syria, citing diplomatic and security concerns.
english.alarabiya.net
U.S. Army AH-64 Apaches Armed With Israeli Spike Missiles Now Flying in Iraq
With Israeli Spike-NLOS missiles, Army AH-64s have a new and very precise way to engage threats on land and at sea at greater ranges.
www.twz.com
The US fought to dismantle the Al-Qaeda Network in Afghanistan and convinced Taliban groups to drop support for the Al-Qaeda Network in Doha Accords. However, Trump administration refused to rebuild Afghanistan and allowed Taliban groups to return to power after Doha Accords.
The US never took Lebanon for a serious foe and attempt to reshape its political landscape. A small number of American troops were involved in a peacekeeping mission in Lebanon in 1982 but President Reagan withdrew them because he wasn't interested in stabilizing and rebuilding Lebanon. However, those who were deemed responsible for killing American troops in Lebanon were killed in return, the cost was paid back with interest.
Do you expect from the US to occupy every country it chooses to attack for long-term basis? The US is not interested in occupying every country it chooses to attack for long-term basis. The US did not occupy Panama, Yugoslavia, and Libya for long-term basis. The US has thoroughly reshaped the political landscape of some countries that it seems to regard as having strategic value such as Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Iraq.
Last edited:
Beijingwalker
VIP Member
Why omitted the Vietnam War?You need to study history and refresh your knowledge.
The US fought and defeated the Imperial Japanese Empire in the Pacific War in the 1940s. The US still has military footprint in Japan.
The US fought to restore South Korea in the Korean War in the 1950s when North Korea attempted to annex South Korea with support of China and Soviet Union. The US still has military footprint in South Korea.
The US fought to liberate Kuwait from Iraq in 1991 and dismantled Saddam setup in Iraq in recent years. The US still has military footprint in Iraq.
Pentagon quietly increases number of US troops in Syria, Iraq
US officials recently admitted that they were hiding the actual number of American boots on the ground in Syria, citing diplomatic and security concerns.
U.S. Army AH-64 Apaches Armed With Israeli Spike Missiles Now Flying in Iraq
With Israeli Spike-NLOS missiles, Army AH-64s have a new and very precise way to engage threats on land and at sea at greater ranges.
The US fought to dismantle the Al-Qaeda Network in Afghanistan and convinced Taliban groups to drop support for the Al-Qaeda Network in Doha Accords. However, Trump administration refused to rebuild Afghanistan and allowed Taliban groups to return to power after Doha Accords.
The US never took Lebanon for a serious foe and attempt to reshape its political landscape. A small number of American troops were involved in a peacekeeping mission in Lebanon in 1982 but President Reagan withdrew them because he wasn't interested in stabilizing and rebuilding Lebanon. However, those who were deemed responsible for killing American troops in Lebanon were killed in return, the cost was paid back with interest.
Do you expect from the US to occupy every country it chooses to attack for long-term basis? The US is not interested in occupying every country it chooses to attack for long-term basis. The US did not occupy Panama, Yugoslavia, and Libya for long-term basis. The US has thoroughly reshaped the political landscape of some countries that it seems to regard as having strategic value such as Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Iraq.
LeGenD
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Kindly recheck the flow of conversation before asking a question. OP boasted in post # 191 that the US withdrew from every country where it fought a war, this claim is FALSE and I debunked it in post # 197.
There is no need to talk about who withdrew from where in like every post. I did not mention Soviet withdrawal from Cuba and Afghanistan and Chinese withdrawal from Vietnam either. If you want me to create this list then sure.
tower9
Registered Member
The US won the first Iraq war of the 90s and overthrew countless governments. However most of the wars the US has fought in the past three decades have been nothing but embezzlement schemes for the military industrial complex. They were not meant to be won, they were meant to just embezzle money.
LeGenD
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
I was not discussing this scenario. I was alluding to the extent of American kinetic options to destroy a regional power in war. American mission in Afghanistan was largely limited to dismantling the Al-Qaeda Network and eroding its support base in the region. The US wasn't trying to wipe out Afghanistan in war. Afghan cities and villages were not bombed to dust and extermination camps were not opened. Those who are boasting about the prowess of Taliban groups need a reality check.
Thousands of ICBMs? I do not recall these numbers in any report. Russia, China and North Korea do not have a nuclear security pact, and [each] will be on its own in a hypothetical all out war with the US.
China
China is developing impressive military capability and posit a credible threat to the US mainland in a hypothetical all out war but Chinese strategic planners assume that a nuclear war cannot be won. China does not have a comprehensive First Strike Plan and believes in creating deterrence instead.
China has always advocated the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons. 60 years ago, China solemnly declared that it would not be the first to use nuclear weapons at any time under any circumstances. This demonstrated the most transparent policy with the most responsible attitude. It has maintained a high degree of stability and continuity and is in itself a major contribution to the international nuclear disarmament. Regardless of changes in the international landscape, China always abides by this commitment, firmly pursues its nuclear strategy of self defense, refrains from participating in any form of nuclear arms race, continues to maintain its nuclear force at a minimal level required for its national security, and continues to work to promote international nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.
Link
There is evidence of China creating dummy silos and developing and testing new ballistic missile variants but the US is also developing and testing ICBM-class interceptors.
The US and China might clash over Taiwan or another country in the Pacific but this war is unlikely to escalate to nuclear exchange. This will be a conventional showdown at most.
Russia
Russia posit a substantial threat to the US in a hypothetical all out war because of its massive nuclear force but we don't know for sure how this hypothetical scenario will pan out. The US has fielded the largest and most reliable nuclear strike force in the world (American ICBMs have a very low failure rate) and the overarching American security regime have its classified components besides developing, testing, and fielding ICBM class interceptors. The US has a comprehensive First Strike Plan and American kinetic responses will be aimed to cripple military infrastructure of a nuclear armed state:
The United States has never been content with a mere second-strike capability. If it were, Washington would only need a couple of hundred (maybe even just a couple of dozen) warheads on survivable platforms, such as submarines. But, for decades, the United States has possessed a more robust nuclear posture, with thousands of nuclear weapons on a variety of delivery vehicles and missile defenses. Moreover, the United States has long practiced counterforce, not countervalue nuclear targeting. In other words, in the event of a nuclear conflict, the United States plans to use its nuclear weapons not to intentionally slaughter innocent civilians, but to destroy an adversary’s military targets, including nuclear missile silos, air bases, naval bases, and command and control sites.
(LTRI)
American Navy is much better developed than Russian Navy and will attempt to find and eliminate Russian submarines in all out war. There is still the possibility of some Russian nuclear payloads reaching American cities but the US aims to reduce this threat.
North Korea
North Korea is a formidable regional power but does not stand a chance against the US in all out war. South Korea has developed very advanced and accurate cruise missiles and ballistic missiles for decapitation strikes in North Korea. The US and South Korea can work together to cripple North Korean defenses from up close and far away if necessary.
North Korea has accused Seoul of flying drones over its capital – what is going on?
Pyongyang has reacted to an apparent flyover with furious rhetoric, ordering artillery units at its border with South Korea to ‘get fully ready to open fire’. What happened and how worrying is it?
www.theguardian.com
---
To put all of the above into perspective:
Currently, the United States possesses a clear nuclear superiority over at least two of its nuclear-armed rivals. North Korea is believed to possess a few dozen nuclear weapons and may or may not have the ability to deliver them to the continental United States. There is no doubt, however, that Washington retains the ability to promptly deliver over one thousand warheads to North Korea and end the regime of Kim Jong-un.
China is estimated to possess only seventy-five or so warheads capable of reaching the continental United States, although its arsenal is expected to double in size over the coming decade. Like with North Korea, the United States retains the ability to impose much more significant costs on China, and Chinese nuclear experts fear that Washington may even be able to deny China’s deterrent with a nuclear first strike on China’s nuclear forces.
The nuclear balance of power with Russia is less clear. Russia is a nuclear superpower and, according to the limits of the New START Treaty, possesses quantitative strategic parity with the United States. Moreover, Russia has a large advantage in nonstrategic nuclear weapons. But the United States possesses a qualitative strategic edge, with more accurate missiles, more survivable submarines, stealthier aircraft, and more impressive nonnuclear strategic potential, including with missile defenses and prompt conventional strike. Indeed, Russian officials are also paranoid that US technological advances could in the future give Washington the ability to conduct a disarming first strike.
(LTRI)
LeGenD
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Fair point. There is evidence to support this position.
VCheng
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Huh? I literally said "The American people are sick of carrying global burdens that are not theirs to bear " but perhaps comprehension is not your strong suit. My apologies.
You say that as if it were a bad thing.
I cannot predict the future as awesomely as you did above, but an isolationist USA with a collapsed economy would finally give the people a chance to achieve their true dreams freely in the Chinese century.
An excellent idea whose time should come, the sooner the better, I agree.
That_Guy
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
I don't think it's bad at all.
Having said that, it hope there's enough time that Canada can diversify enough to stave off the negative effects.
I'm confident in Canada's banking system, as it has made itself quite resistant to US economic downturn, but there is concern that Canada could suffer.
And its not just Canada. China is also heavily reliant on trade with the US and vice versa simply because the two nations are the biggest economies in the world (minus the EU trade union). A collapse would mean hundreds of billions, if not trillions in losses for China as well.
Mero
Registered Member
Remember MAGA Muslims, Vance is saying that as though it was a bad thing. Vance is raising alarm bells of panic that America must dominate because the old America and the old system was a total failure.
Mero
Registered Member
Vance is saying the American Empire's problem was it was losing too much. Reversing failures of the American Empire is the billionaire fake populist movement/global populism. Writers such as David Horowitz are the apostles giving fake victimhood to the American Empire saying it was wronged during the War on Terror and it must be more brutal says Hegseth. Trump, the Ultra Nationalist is planning to change the present condition of the American Empire as a failure.
Speaking on his time in Iraq, for example, Hegseth recalled a judge advocate general — or, as Hegseth wrote, “jagoff” — telling his men that they were not allowed to fire on a hypothetical man carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher “until that RPG becomes a threat. It must be pointed at you with the intent to fire.” Hegseth told his men to disregard the instruction: “if you see an enemy who you believe is a threat, you engage and destroy the threat. That’s a bullshit rule that’s going to get people killed.”
Trump Defense Secretary Pick Thinks ‘Marxists Are Our Enemies’
He also wants to rewrite the laws of war.
The real question is what were the Americans doing in Iraq in the first place.
Those that would not want Americans gunning down Iraqi Muslims during the Iraq War were Marxists:
Trump Defense Secretary Pick Thinks ‘Marxists Are Our Enemies’
"America is the victim of Soros and leftists" keeping down the American Empire from crushing opponents with an American boot.
"If you don't support the American Empire, the World Economic Forum will turn you gay", so see you have to support Netanyahu or else the WEF/Soros will get you. As Osama was hiding in your closet to get you, Soros is under your bed. "Only America can save Muslim nations from Osama, therefore America must drone strike your nation, to save it from Soros, I mean Osama". Fools fall for cia psy-ops.
Last edited:
VCheng
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Just think of it as the price to be paid to kill off evil Uncle Sam, and pay up gladly to rejoice in the new freedoms. Simple.
I really do not see any problem here.
That_Guy
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
On a long term scale, the world might better off.
In the short scale, my family will personally be affected, which is why I'm hesitant.
VCheng
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
I suppose it is perfectly natural to want others to sacrifice their well-being for one's own beliefs. USA is evil, but as long as one's own economic well-being does not suffer, just like Israel should be destroyed, but by Palestinians fighting them so that - as was said on the most heavily trafficked thread on PDF - Iran does not commit suicide, only others.
Human nature is human nature.
Back to the topic, it is quite telling to note that while USA may have lost all, or most, wars it has fought as is often claimed, somehow it continues to go from strength to strength. Quite paradoxical. Of course, anyday now, it will all come crashing down.
As always, one lives in hope, right?
Mero
Registered Member
Wars? Wars... Looking for a photograph of American Wars...
If you are pissed off over this photo, you are a gay woke Mexican.
You are working for Soros if you oppose the American Empire boot crushing your skull.
"The Americans did not do these crimes, Soros and the Left did Iraq. Soros and the Left are the real enemy destroying America. They hate America. The American Empire is the victim."
If you are pissed off over this photo, you are a gay woke Mexican.
You are working for Soros if you oppose the American Empire boot crushing your skull.
"The Americans did not do these crimes, Soros and the Left did Iraq. Soros and the Left are the real enemy destroying America. They hate America. The American Empire is the victim."
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
Pakistan Defence Latest
Country Watch Latest
-
-
-
-
India’s long submarine journey: What went wrong and the plan ahead (12 Viewers)
- Latest: ChineseTiger1986
-
