You always hear America going on about how great its military is, how strong it is, blah blah blah. But then I started thinking about how many recent wars they have actually won in any real sense. Vietnam? No. Afghanistan? No. Iraq? Depends who you ask. Korea? More of a stalemate than anything. Somalia? Not exactly a glowing success either. And now Iran. Who knows?

So I am not really convinced by all the chest beating.

My take on it is a bit different. Yeah, they have some of the most advanced and destructive weapons on the planet, and they are really very good at blowing things up and vaporizing them. No doubt about that. But that is not really the same at all as winning a war, is it?

It is almost like they win the fighting part, but then lose everything that comes after.

The US military goes in, overwhelms a place with pure force, and then… what? That is where it always seems to go wrong. The military is not designed for making peace or bringing about meaningful change in leadership. It is not their job, and yet they are the ones who go in and seemingly start to try and do that job once they establish some ground. They do not want to only be seen as destroyers, but liberators. But the eventual diplomacy, long term planning, actual stabilizing of things, understanding the people on the other side, that actually comes later and is the part that never seems to go particularly well, at all.

And maybe it is not even just incompetence. Maybe it is because the goal was never really about the narrative of helping the other country in the first place. It often looks more like securing influence, natural resources, or strategic positioning, then setting something up that suits them and leaving.

So yeah, if you ask me, they are not bad at fighting wars. They are actually very good at that part. But when it comes to winning them in any meaningful or lasting way, that is a different story entirely.

More often than not, they leave behind a big, fat bloody mess, and the people living there are the ones stuck dealing with it, often far worse off than they were before.

They consistently save the world from fascism.

Like their Roman counterparts, the United States Empire is very good at creating deserts in foreign lands and then calling it "Peace."

1 hour ago, Kyoto Kyle said:

You always hear America going on about how great its military is, how strong it is, blah blah blah. But then I started thinking about how many recent wars they have actually won in any real sense. Vietnam? No. Afghanistan? No. Iraq? Depends who you ask. Korea? More of a stalemate than anything. Somalia? Not exactly a glowing success either. And now Iran. Who knows?

So I am not really convinced by all the chest beating.

My take on it is a bit different. Yeah, they have some of the most advanced and destructive weapons on the planet, and they are really very good at blowing things up and vaporizing them. No doubt about that. But that is not really the same at all as winning a war, is it?

It is almost like they win the fighting part, but then lose everything that comes after.

The US military goes in, overwhelms a place with pure force, and then… what? That is where it always seems to go wrong. The military is not designed for making peace or bringing about meaningful change in leadership. It is not their job, and yet they are the ones who go in and seemingly start to try and do that job once they establish some ground. They do not want to only be seen as destroyers, but liberators. But the eventual diplomacy, long term planning, actual stabilizing of things, understanding the people on the other side, that actually comes later and is the part that never seems to go particularly well, at all.

And maybe it is not even just incompetence. Maybe it is because the goal was never really about the narrative of helping the other country in the first place. It often looks more like securing influence, natural resources, or strategic positioning, then setting something up that suits them and leaving.

So yeah, if you ask me, they are not bad at fighting wars. They are actually very good at that part. But when it comes to winning them in any meaningful or lasting way, that is a different story entirely.

More often than not, they leave behind a big, fat bloody mess, and the people living there are the ones stuck dealing with it, often far worse off than they were before.

Almost impossible to win a war with a country like Iran without completely destroying its infrastructure and killing millions of civilians. America isn't going to do that which begs the question. Why do they keep going to war with little chance of winning. Maybe Iran will be the exception but I seriously doubt it.

The military fights wars on the behalf of the political class. Often the political class is not willing to do what it truly takes to win the war.

The answer is no , thankfully Nazi's never win wars.

It was said recently that the US military has exactly the same approach, strategy and tactics as they had in WW2. US is fighting a 1944 war, while Iran is fighting a 2026 war. america is blowing up novelty balloons in the shape of tanks, and 50 year old ships and calling it success, but Iran is fighting with drones and missiles. As a result, america has great highlight reals, but Iran's dominance of arabian/israeli airspace and maritime routes suggest Iran is winning the war, irrespective of what various media outlets report.

8 hours ago, Kyoto Kyle said:

You always hear America going on about how great its military is, how strong it is, blah blah blah. But then I started thinking about how many recent wars they have actually won in any real sense. Vietnam? No. Afghanistan? No. Iraq? Depends who you ask. Korea? More of a stalemate than anything. Somalia? Not exactly a glowing success either. And now Iran. Who knows?

So I am not really convinced by all the chest beating.

My take on it is a bit different. Yeah, they have some of the most advanced and destructive weapons on the planet, and they are really very good at blowing things up and vaporizing them. No doubt about that. But that is not really the same at all as winning a war, is it?

It is almost like they win the fighting part, but then lose everything that comes after.

The US military goes in, overwhelms a place with pure force, and then… what? That is where it always seems to go wrong. The military is not designed for making peace or bringing about meaningful change in leadership. It is not their job, and yet they are the ones who go in and seemingly start to try and do that job once they establish some ground. They do not want to only be seen as destroyers, but liberators. But the eventual diplomacy, long term planning, actual stabilizing of things, understanding the people on the other side, that actually comes later and is the part that never seems to go particularly well, at all.

And maybe it is not even just incompetence. Maybe it is because the goal was never really about the narrative of helping the other country in the first place. It often looks more like securing influence, natural resources, or strategic positioning, then setting something up that suits them and leaving.

So yeah, if you ask me, they are not bad at fighting wars. They are actually very good at that part. But when it comes to winning them in any meaningful or lasting way, that is a different story entirely.

More often than not, they leave behind a big, fat bloody mess, and the people living there are the ones stuck dealing with it, often far worse off than they were before.

I went to Vietnam in 1966, the most notable thing I first noticed was how undisciplined they were.

If the one's responsible for starting wars and ordering the troops into battle were compelled to be leading from the front there would be a lot less wars.

Hard to imagine Trump jumping out of a plane or charging up a beach littered with mines, from a landing craft into a hail of machine gun fire.

America has this mindset that it is the biggest most powerful military in the world nothing or no country can stand against it and to a large extent that is true.

Because they have all that firepower and self belief it gives them a feeling of invincibility that leads to overconfidence, they also frequently underestimate the enemy's resilience and it's ability to adapt and use unconventional tactics.

What is there to be gained by using all that firepower to completely flatten and destroy a country and kill its people apart from giving some deranged individuals a hard on. It only leads to more hatred for America and terrorists.

If military action is ever employed it should always be a very last resort and must always have a clear objective not just the one at hand like destroy a bridge or whatever but the main objective to achieve its goal.

Take the UK for instance when Argentina invaded the Falklands.

The clear objective was to retake the Falklands and expel all Argentinian invaders. Mission accomplished end of.

If we forget all the wars that the US has started since WW2 which just happens to be more than 80% of all wars since then you will find that they didn't win because there was either no clear objective or that objective was unrealistic.

If we take the current Iranian debacle just what is the objective does anyone actually know and if they do know how do they know when they have won or is it even achievable.

This is yet another war America has started that they cannot win and will have repercussions for decades to come.

What I do know is that wars rarely achieve anything apart from a lot of destruction and human suffering and the USA has been responsible for the vast majority in my lifetime.

10 hours ago, Furioso said:

They consistently save the world from fascism.

... and they are so lucky that they usually find oil where they fight for freedom

Trump would not win a game of Tiddley Winks let alone a war. The idiot has lost at everything it has ever touched, why would this debacle be any different.

53 minutes ago, theshu25 said:

Trump would not win a game of Tiddley Winks let alone a war. The idiot has lost at everything it has ever touched, why would this debacle be any different.

People who don't live in the US have little idea of what goes on there, even if they listen to the daily news from there. Trump isn't too swift a person, and I dislike him myself, but he has done some good so far, and in the end of his term, only then will everyone know if his actions have been positive, negative or both. Many opinions on both sides, but the facts will come out.................https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2026/01/365-wins-in-365-days-president-trumps-return-marks-new-era-of-success-prosperity/.

The problem is the US always fights far overseas wars.

Most countries don't have the ability to strike back the US itself.

If they could the US would not be so quick to start a war,

(and loose it).

Maybe they "won" in Grenada, but that's about it!

They get bored and walk away ,just like Trump 🤡 is doing now,

he would rather be playing golf ,after the mess he has created

in the middle east ,

regards worgeordie

12 hours ago, Furioso said:

They consistently save the world from fascism.

The current US is fascism.

14 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Maybe they "won" in Grenada, but that's about it!

And Germany, Iraq, Japan and militarily, all others, although some forget those. Yes, they had help but that's wars.

32 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

People who don't live in the US have little idea of what goes on there, even if they listen to the daily news from there. Trump isn't too swift a person, and I dislike him myself, but he has done some good so far, and in the end of his term, only then will everyone know if his actions have been positive, negative or both. Many opinions on both sides, but the facts will come out.................https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2026/01/365-wins-in-365-days-president-trumps-return-marks-new-era-of-success-prosperity/.

Funny. You quote a White House document to show how well Trump is doing. 555

Better measure is to see how many 10s of millions show up for Saturday's No Kings protests.

6 minutes ago, gargamon said:

Funny. You quote a White House document to show how well Trump is doing. 555

6 minutes ago, gargamon said:

Anything quoted can be looked up, with many sources. People believe many other's opinions, and make judgement on those. Always best to have the facts along with those opinions.

Looks like the great American experiment is in serious trouble. Forget wars, the so called peace president, all his promises made and broken. He will be gone soon. But what people should really be worried about is that in 10 years, their Social Security system could collapse, and healthcare for the elderly may barely exist. Large parts of major cities are already starting to resemble skid row.

Poverty will keep rising, along with crime, murder, mass shootings, racial violence, and drug addiction. Meanwhile, China will be watching through binoculars and laughing.

4 minutes ago, BilllyGOAT said:

Looks like the great American experiment is in serious trouble. Forget wars, the so called peace president, all his promises made and broken. He will be gone soon. But what people should really be worried about is that in 10 years, their Social Security system could collapse, and healthcare for the elderly may barely exist. Large parts of major cities are already starting to resemble skid row.

Poverty will keep rising, along with crime, murder, mass shootings, racial violence, and drug addiction. Meanwhile, China will be watching through binoculars and laughing.

Of course, like many countries, ignoring their own poverty, rape and sexual entitlement, drug addiction and other violence.

The Social Security might sound like it will have problems, but this is money the people put in, and thinking they will stop that for those millions would see a much larger problem happen to those who try.

All major cities worldwide have their own skid rows. Even Japan has it's share, called Yoseba's.

Yes, Trump will be gone soon enough, but no one really knows the future of his "experiments"., even though some look really hurtful and alienating. Hopefully things will work out for the better. China needs the US and the US needs China, so it's no laughing matter.

3 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Of course, like many countries, ignoring their own poverty, rape and sexual entitlement, drug addiction and other violence.

The Social Security might sound like it will have problems, but this is money the people put in, and thinking they will stop that for those millions would see a much larger problem happen to those who try.

All major cities worldwide have their own skid rows. Even Japan has it's share, called Yoseba's.

Yes, Trump will be gone soon enough, but no one really knows the future of his "experiments"., even though some look really hurtful and alienating. Hopefully things will work out for the better. China needs the US and the US needs China, so it's no laughing matter.

I was being optimistic when I said the Social Security system still has 10 years to go. The financial news media has been putting up articles for the last two weeks talking about how the Social Security system will run out of money in six years. Insolvent, for the lack of a better word.

1 minute ago, BilllyGOAT said:

I was being optimistic when I said the Social Security system still has 10 years to go. The financial news media has been putting up articles for the last two weeks talking about how the Social Security system will run out of money in six years. Insolvent, for the lack of a better word.

Been reading myself, but it would be a major mistake trying to stop all the people from getting their own money. Almost 75 million angry at the government, especially taking their only means of surviving, would not end well for them.

59 minutes ago, gargamon said:

Funny. You quote a White House document to show how well Trump is doing. 555

Better measure is to see how many 10s of millions show up for Saturday's No Kings protests.

You beat me to it. Quoting a Government Truth blurb. 1984!😀

1 hour ago, fredwiggy said:

People who don't live in the US have little idea of what goes on there, even if they listen to the daily news from there. Trump isn't too swift a person, and I dislike him myself, but he has done some good so far, and in the end of his term, only then will everyone know if his actions have been positive, negative or both. Many opinions on both sides, but the facts will come out.................https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2026/01/365-wins-in-365-days-president-trumps-return-marks-new-era-of-success-prosperity/.

I suppose if you fire the person producing the job statistics, you can always get the facts to lean in your favor.

Get real, the White House has more spin than a laundromat.

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I suppose if you fire the person producing the job statistics, you can always get the facts to lean in your favor.

Get real, the White House has more spin than a laundromat.

Many things that are done can be researched. I never thought a president can increase jobs, as it takes a lot of factors which aren't in his control.

30 minutes ago, BilllyGOAT said:

I was being optimistic when I said the Social Security system still has 10 years to go. The financial news media has been putting up articles for the last two weeks talking about how the Social Security system will run out of money in six years. Insolvent, for the lack of a better word.

They will never run out of "money".

Mouse click money and all the different names they will have for it.

No. Just look at the history of American wars and interventions the last war America won was 81 years ago. There have been over a hundred incursions, bombings, invasions and wars since then, and guess what? Other than the incredibly inconsequential war in Panama and Grenada, all have been lost.

That kind of History seems to be lost on dunces like Trump and Hegseth, and they seem to be desperate to somehow prove their manhood by invading nation after nation. This is not going to work out well for them and invading Iran was a mistake of historic proportions.

The Iranians are used to suffering and they will hold out until the end of the world. America on the other hand is very impatient, the average American is very soft and totally unprepared to make personal sacrifices,

This war was a huge miscalculation and this is going to come back to haunt Trump and this will be his demise. And billions of people will be celebrating in the streets for weeks once Trump is either gone from office, or rotting in the ground.

Good topic. My summary thoughts are same as the OP's. I'd just add that, IMO, the US military personnel travel the world with the Pentagon's precise intention of enriching the military-industrial establishment by firing off as much expensive ordinance as possible (that requires billions to replenish) and play with other fancy but eyewateringly expensive toys. So is America really good at winning wars?

Just because your daddy bought you the most expensive pair of hockey skates doesn't mean you're going to be an NHL player - maybe just an ankle skater at best.

This reminds me...Putin thought he was good at winning wars, too. He thought he'd take Ukraine in three days. Trump thought similarly about Iran.

Putin is suffering through Year 4, after losing a million soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars. Trump, sadly, may leave the Iran War to the incoming Democrat President.