How many wars will the US lose by the end of this decade?

[IndianaGreen]

Poll question: How many wars will the US lose by the end of this decade?

Currently the US is involved militarily in the following countries, some of which have not made the news: Colombia, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Nigeria, Philippines, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo.

US military involvement ranges from providing funding and training to combat support.

There is also the possibility of US military intervention in Latin America to reestablish hegemony.

The question is how many wars the US will lose by the end of this decade?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. Well, we've got two de facto lost ones going on now. But, out "leaders" aren't out of bogeymen yet.

[MercutioATC]

2. Two. Afghanistan and Iran.

We won't actually have declared "wars" anyplace else for the next 10 years.

[timeforpeace]

43. Correct. Also, how many more will Obama start? That's how many we will lose.

[jefferson_dem]

3. Tasteless.

Define "lose".

[dionysus]

4. well, they're down to hoping we lose multiple (imaginary) military engagements...

how precious...

[IndianaGreen]

11. The only thing we won in Iraq was installing a fundamentalist Shia government in power

and sending Iraqi women back to the Middle Ages.

We already lost the war in Afghanistan, the only remaining issue is the fate of the Karzai regime.

[leveymg]

19. Apparently, China won the war in Iraq. We started the job of destroying ourselves in Iraq, and seem

intent upon completing that job in Iran.

I used to think Iran won in Iraq, but am increasingly convinced that we're going to destroy yer another ancient civilization before we're finished.

[IndianaGreen]

8. A quite appropriate poll

There are many ways of losing. The Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989 was portrayed as a victory in the USSR. The collapse of the Thieu regime in South Vietnam, or the Somoza regime in Nicaragua, were defeats of American imperialism.

[jefferson_dem]

32. Your desire for "defeat" is as seamy as the neo-cons lust for "victory".

Both outcomes are really only distorted states of mind - phony rationale for your own dogmatism. Have fun with your little game.

[valerief]

10. Not win (whatever win means). nt

[Fumesucker]

26. Spend large quantities of blood and treasure for no perceptible benefit..

I would say that's a pretty decent definition of "losing a war"..

[polly7]

5. The second you start a 'war' (invasion / occupation)

you lose. Every dime spent cheats a child out of education, food, health care, safe roads, a feeling of being safe as a human being. "war' is pure loss, period. jmo.

[RC]

17. Not if you are making replacement parts for the war machine.

Then it's win/win no mater who actually loses. The longer it goes on, the better.

[provis99]

20. not if we can steal their stuff.

that's what war is really about anyways; how much stuff we can steal from other countries.

[polly7]

34. I saw that rationale on other message boards.

To the victor go the spoils ..... only they said it like it was a big surprise bonus after losing all that money not finding the WMD. Silly stuff.

(and I know you're kidding .... was just saying, some aren't).

[Cleita]

6. The one that an alliance of other countries wage against us because they

are sick of our war profiteering and blood letting on account of lies. If we don't start bringing home troops and ending these invasions soon, we might end up being the occupied instead. It used to be that countries like England and Canada allied with us because our powerful war machine protected them. But we haven't protected any nations in decades and they will wake up and start realizing this. Then...watch out! These terrorist attacks on our home territory are the vanguard of that.

[anonymous171]

12. We do protect them though. nt

[polly7]

31. Who did you protect us from?

We have our own Military, which we used in fact years before you in both world wars. Who exactly has attacked us that we've depended on your military? I don't understand your comment, when we wake up and realize - realize what? We've never depended on anyone but ourselves and been one of the quickest all over the world to jump in as peacekeepers and allies in war.

[Cleita]

37. We protected you from us, the USA.

There was a reason that Bush was able to do some arm twisting to Tony Blair to create the coalition of the willing (such BS). I believe now that those countries who didn't want to draw a line in the sand and cross us will start seeing us in a new light as greatly weakened and not so militarily mighty after all. Replacing citizen soldiers in the military with mercenaries has always been the sign of weakness in military might through the ages.

If this administration doesn't start pulling back and concentrate it's defenses on our borders and our citizens who are abroad and vulnerable, whose to stop an alliance of nations who are fed up with us and our bellicoseness towards third world nations just for some war profiteering?

[anonymous171]

7. America has never been defeated and probably never will be.

[leveymg]

21. Tell that to the Vietnamese and the Iraqis.

Yes, I know they lost every major battle, but it was we who were forced into an ignominious retreat from the rooftops of Ho Chi Minh City, and we who are departing Iraq leaving the oil concessions to Chinese petroleum firms. Now, tell me again, who won those wars?

[anonymous171]

27. Winning a war = Driving the occupying/attacking force out against their will

The Vietnamese could not drive us out by force. We withdrew from the area because the political will to stay had evaporated. In Iraq the American military crushed all opposition and installed a nice puppet government, so I think we won that one.

[leveymg]

36. Breaking the enemy's will to continue fighting is the definition of victory.

So, whose victory was it? Did we really install the "nice puppet government" we wanted? Did the Iraqi Parliament pass the "Hydrocarbon Law" written at Foggy Bottom that would have given U.S. companies extraction rights to new oil fields? No, they did not. So, how and what did we win in Iraq, pray tell?

[StarfarerBill]

39. +1

[IndianaGreen]

41. Iraq's government is heavily influenced by Iran, politically and culturally

Iraq was a major strategic defeat for the US, and we are still there.

[valerief]

9. More wars, the richer the rich get. I say eleven! nt

[jpak]

13. Obama is going to invade Latin America to reestablish hegemony!

Yellow Journalism much?

:rofl:

[IndianaGreen]

14. Obama Administration was involved in the rightwing coup in Honduras

And Obama's ambassador to Honduras is a Bush holdover, a Miami Cuban-American.

The joke is on you!

[jpak]

16. Has he started carpet bombing them yet?

Can't reestablish hegemony without a good old fashioned B-52 strike.

Nosireee Bob.

What next - invasion of Kenya to keep 'em quiet about that birth certificate thingy????

:D


BTW: Obama tried to STOP the coup in Honduras...

Obama Tried To Stop Honduras Coup

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/29/obama-tried-to-stop-hondu_n_222140.html

Obama says Honduras coup illegal

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8125292.stm

In a Coup in Honduras, Ghosts of Past U.S. Policies

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/world/americas/30honduras.html

and the US right wing claimed that Obama sided with Chavez and Castro on this one....

The Honduran “Coup”: Obama Sides with Chavez and Castro

http://www.frumforum.com/the-honduran-coup-obama-sides-with-chavez-and-castro

Sorry - no hegemony for you...

:rofl:

[provis99]

22. Obama backs Honduran election to confirm right-wing government.

you are bloody naive, aren't you?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=a4QDwm3DYQBQ

[jpak]

25. Yes - and a paid operative of Rahm to boot!

:rofl:

[Odin2005]

29. *FACEPALM*

[Nay]

15. Four: Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Drugs. nt

[IndianaGreen]

44. The War on Drugs was lost decades ago!

It is now being used as a pretext for militarism in Latin America.

[totodeinhere]

18. Let me pull a Bill Clinton on you.

It depends on the definition of "lose."

[donco6]

23. I don't think there was any way of winning, so we won't be losing, either.

This isn't a win/lose situation for us, it's just a wrongheaded approach to a problem that can't be solved with military. And I don't see us actually declaring war on anyone in the near future. So I vote zero.

[Subdivisions]

24. Wars don't have to be won to be profitable. n/t

[Odin2005]

28. Tasteless.

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. None. They won't call them wars so they won't be won or lost.

[KansDem]

33. Well, let's see...

I don't know about the next decade, but when you consider we haven't won a war since WWII, you begin to wonder about our track record:

Korea--stalemate
Vietnam--lost
Iraq--losing
Afghanistan--losing

But the MIC is sure raking it in!

I don't know where to begin with Colombia, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Nigeria, Philippines, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I agree with proud2BLibKansan up thread: these won't be called "wars."

Now, however, there was Grenada! :woohoo:

[StarfarerBill]

40. Don't forget the Great Panama War of 1989.

:patriot:

[KansDem]

42. Ah, yes...

Poppy's finest hour. How could I forget!

[Mari333]

35. these are occupations

they are our troops and mercenaries occupying other countries for corporate profit. corporate takeovers using our kids as cannon fodder.

[bermudat]

38. All of them.

[uppityperson]

45. Define "lose" first. eom