American Journal: The wars in which the United States is involved are obviously losing

55
The American magazine Vice published an article analyzing military conflicts in which the United States participated after the victory over Nazi Germany in the 1945 year. The publication notes that all the major post-war campaigns ended with very dismal results for Washington.

American Journal: The wars in which the United States is involved are obviously losing


In particular, the Korean War actually ended in a draw, the Vietnam conflict brought defeat, the Gulf War had only limited success, and the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan in general became foreign policy disasters.

“The US has more firepower than any empire in storieshowever, they do not seem to be able to transform this power into something that can be called a victory, ”quotes an excerpt from the article RIA "News".

According to the authors of the material, Washington is engaging in deliberately losing wars, because in reality they are not needed by the United States. None of the conflicts in which the US military has been involved in recent decades has affected the country's key interests.

The publication notes that the American foreign policy elite is trying to hit the whole world with the successes of the American army.

“About every ten years, the United States must choose some miserable small country and smear it against the wall, just to show the world that we are not joking,” said the American journalist and writer John Goldberg.

“If a victory in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan really were important for the security or prosperity of the United States, the electorate would be willing to risk the lives of its children and perhaps pay more taxes. (...) The war, designed to impress the electorate, is doomed to failure. The main reason America is not capable of winning wars is because we are not obliged to do this. Maybe we should stop fighting, ”concluded the magazine.
55 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +9
    April 10 2015 08: 29
    Champions of the yard!)
    1. +22
      April 10 2015 08: 32
      laughing rather, a fat yard ok that nightmares youngsters, and when one of the little ones takes drin and starts to hit the brazen greasy hare, he runs away with screeches.
      1. +4
        April 10 2015 08: 47
        “About every ten years, the United States should pick out some miserable little country and smudge it against the wall, just to show the world that we're not joking.”
        What criminal cynicism in these words! This is not good for the Americans, they’re not friends with brains at all! And if all the small ones come together, and heap on the big one? Little does not seem!
        1. +5
          April 10 2015 09: 02
          “About every ten years, the United States should pick out some miserable little country and smudge it against the wall, just to show the world that we're not joking.”
          But how do American propaganda and mass media lose their temper in an effort to show evil Russians, Arabs, Chinese, Vietnamese, and create an image of non-existent American heroes who "save the world" from "universal evil"
        2. Rex
          +4
          April 10 2015 09: 16
          Cynicism is cynicism, but it is true.
          1. +2
            April 10 2015 09: 22
            The aggressor always loses, a matter of time.
        3. +1
          April 10 2015 09: 47
          Every American president should have his own small victorious war, said some Amer politician. So they are trying. And small countries will not unite on their own - they are too selfish, cowardly and the aura of beaten losers crushes more than once.
      2. +4
        April 10 2015 08: 52
        About every ten years, the United States needs to pick out a miserable little country and smudge it against the wall, just to show the world that we're not joking

        Exactly! Your show-offs, cheap don't impress anyone !!!
        To us you in vain poked, believed in your "exceptional invincibility" ....?! Duc, rams, you still have not fought for real !!!! And those raids and raids, with the bombing of the civilian population by you scabies, heroes, just gang dances around the fire ..... !!!!
      3. 0
        April 10 2015 09: 32
        In war, the one who fights for his land wins.
        1. 0
          April 14 2015 11: 16
          Quote: Alexey Bukin
          The war is won by those who fight for their land
          believe me, not always. Judging by your logic, the Second World War did not begin, with the Germans capturing Austria and the Czech Republic. And in the first world Serbs defeated ...
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. +5
      April 10 2015 09: 15
      The answer to this question is why all the wars that the United States has been losing is quite simple. For all the "democratic" rhetoric of the United States, they do not care about human life, both foreign and American. After all, only a handful of dollar tycoons are plunging the states into the war, who are only worried about the profit from the production and trade of weapons. Moreover, all wars are fought on other continents. And if these wars bring them profit, they don't care how many and what kind of people will die.
    4. +1
      April 10 2015 09: 26
      The gangster policy of the gangster state leads precisely to such deplorable results.
    5. 0
      April 10 2015 09: 27
      They cannot exist without world evil. It’s for them like a religion that can cement a nation ... Unfortunately, they didn’t come up with a more worthy one, unfortunately ... But if there were less pride and a bigger mind, they could become a great country ...
    6. +4
      April 10 2015 09: 46
      Quote: RUSOIVAN
      Champions of the yard!)

      no. it is a destruction virus on the planet. get rid of it. and the faster the better
  2. +4
    April 10 2015 08: 30
    What did they even win?
    1. +4
      April 10 2015 08: 37
      Print Dollar (green candy wrappers are not provided with anything), for the whole world, although they do not include military victories and battles.
    2. Dimka
      +2
      April 10 2015 08: 37
      They say WWII)))
      And the Soviet Union fought so-so)))
      1. +2
        April 10 2015 10: 14
        Quote: Dima
        They say WWII)))
        And the Soviet Union fought so-so)))

        Not about the heroism of the people and the battles won. Able to assess the results of the Second World War? The United States was able to create, and very quickly, an overwhelming military advantage in any region of the WORLD - they dominate the sea. With a few exceptions, the USSR had a large territory inaccessible from the sea. What am I telling you a story? And in my youth, I considered the Soviet army the coolest, and everyone called the deadliest fighter in the unit "a storm of green berets." And they banged both the SA and the USSR without any weapons, by the hands of soldiers' mothers and other individual entrepreneurs. And they created an enemy for us in Ukraine. Now under our Hurray !!!! Serdyukov, Vasilyeva, the head of Sakhalin, the leaders of the construction of the Eastern ... Have they already been shot? Or a woman egonnuyu flooded from work? So far, only Rogozin ASKED to fire her. And she is a "worthy worker". Read the story carefully. Prussia in 1806 loudly ran into Napoleon. Jena and Auerstedt - and where is Prussia? Ponte France beat in 1870 - Sedan, and where is France? What prevented Russia from picking up the straits at least as a result of WWI? And you got into the war at the close, and - along with England and France, received the title of winners. And they just bought the rest for the money that Europe paid them out of fear of Germany.
    3. +3
      April 10 2015 08: 45
      Quote: Genych
      What did they even win?

      “If victory in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan were really important for US security or prosperity
      And what are they mocking? request Their main goal is to support green toilet paper, while they cope, I hope that they will not be enough for a long time
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. +1
      April 10 2015 08: 46
      Quote: Genych
      What did they even win?


      They themselves won nothing. At the end of 1 MV, they clung to the winners. In 2 MB, for 4 years, we fought with the Japanese without end and edge, until ours intervened and wiped the Japanese into powder for a month.
    6. 3axap
      +2
      April 10 2015 08: 46
      Quote: Genych
      What did they even win?

      In fact, in those wars where Russia or the Soviet Union were her allies, they were the winners. hi
    7. -6
      April 10 2015 08: 51
      Quote: Genych
      What did they even win?

      Both world wars.
      1. Alex_Popovson
        +2
        April 10 2015 09: 12
        Both world wars.

        I’ll support it - the losses are minimal, and they got rich fabulously, and even grabbed a third of the planet for themselves. The USSR and Deutschland can be considered the main losers.
        1. Dimka
          +2
          April 10 2015 09: 52
          If it weren’t for the USSR, the USA would have landed in France!)))
          1. 0
            April 10 2015 17: 10
            Quote: Dima
            If it weren’t for the USSR, the USA would have landed in France!)))

            So go on. If it weren’t for the USSR, the United States would have disposed of its 14-inch shells in Beirut. Or 16 inch. There is neither the strength nor the desire to tell children about life. USA - in the second world winner. And we have already been driven into a corner. Cum, boys, ponte pound. Nobody will compete with you in an open battle. You will be bought, sold and bought again. Yes eyes, damn it with caviar, open it. WAR WITH US, WAR! And they minus me! CHILDREN! You had no decent foremen! YOU TO WAR WHAT IS UNDERSTANDABLE?
    8. +2
      April 10 2015 09: 02
      they won nothing (themselves)
      2 World - USSR
      and all the rest they pissed away
      well learned to rake the heat with the wrong hands
      and call yourself the saviors of mankind
      1. +7
        April 10 2015 09: 08
        You confuse victory and gain. He defeated the USSR, and won the United States.
        1. +2
          April 10 2015 09: 31
          Quote: Mother Teresa
          You confuse victory and gain. He defeated the USSR, and won the United States.

          I would not call it a win, they profited, very large profits. You can call them with a capital MARODER, not for nothing that they have an eagle on the coat of arms, picking up fish from the surface of the water, small game and eating.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    9. 0
      April 10 2015 09: 14
      Quote: Genych
      What did they even win?

      Well, they defeated the Japanese in World War II by dropping atomic bombs on them. And they very cleverly planted most of the world on their dollar.
    10. Rex
      +2
      April 10 2015 09: 21
      Panama, Grenada, Yugoslavia, Libya were defeated. Maybe some more some pathetic little country
    11. +1
      April 10 2015 12: 05
      yes, for example, such a powerful country as Panama won
  3. +3
    April 10 2015 08: 30
    None of the conflicts in which the US military has been involved in recent decades has affected the country's key interests.


    But he touched upon the ambitions and "exclusiveness" of the United States. Yes, and his vassals had to show who is in charge in this world.
  4. +2
    April 10 2015 08: 34
    Maybe we should stop fighting


    Perhaps you need to learn to think? If not about others, then about yourself?
  5. +4
    April 10 2015 08: 35
    “If a victory in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan were really important for the security or prosperity of the United States, the electorate would be willing to risk the lives of their children and possibly pay more taxes.
    This must be so rave. Where is Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan and where is the USA.
  6. +6
    April 10 2015 08: 35
    "The United States has more firepower than any empire in history, but it seems that they are not able to transform this power into something that can be called a victory," the extract from the RIA Novosti article quotes.


    Perhaps WASHINGTON does not intend to win a purely military victory ... the main thing is to go to someone else's territory to turn a hill anthill .... open the PANDORA box and then watch all this from across the sea, correcting the events in the right direction with the help of other people.

    Separate and rule here is the principle that they use ... it happened with YUGOSLAVIA, IRAQ, LIVIA, UKRAINE and so they want to do with RUSSIA.

    But with Russia, they had a major bummer and RUSSIA will put more than one hedgehog in the pants of the American eagle.
  7. +6
    April 10 2015 08: 36
    Firepower alone is not enough. The goal is also important, which gives rise to the fighting spirit and fortitude of a simple soldier and officer. And when there is no goal, when it is not clear why your comrades are dying, it is impossible to win.
  8. +3
    April 10 2015 08: 37
    That is why the United States is fighting mainly by proxy. A decent part of the Armed Forces is made up of applicants for citizenship, well, there is no need to forget about the various "rebels" and "freedom fighters". Plus, the heads of state, controlled from the embassies. So they will soon not need to maintain their army.
  9. +4
    April 10 2015 08: 38
    Perhaps we should stop fighting, ”the magazine concluded.


    Unfortunately, the merikatos cannot fight.
    And only the FULL collapse of this cockerel empire will make the world stable and lasting.
    1. +2
      April 10 2015 08: 48
      In-in, .. "cock empire" ...
      In the 95th or 96th year, green berets came to compete in the Asbestov brigade of the Special Forces. Equipped, all in body kits, uniforms, boots, all show-offs ... Stretched ...
      We rode our boys conscripts.
  10. +2
    April 10 2015 08: 40
    The purpose of these wars is one - so that a few old moneybags (otherwise - eccentrics on the "m") at the expense of taxpayers multiply their fortune. And the president and the whole ragtag from the Senate will get their piece.
    Capitalism EPT
  11. +8
    April 10 2015 08: 40
    The United States has not tried Russia yet ... Ask the Germans .. They know and remember Russians well! We can remind you at any time .. hi
  12. +1
    April 10 2015 08: 43
    The behavior of the United States on the world stage is the behavior of an ambitious overgrowth, who delivered several hits in the company of the same imperfections, and went out to hit the girls with the relief and volume of muscles. And they demonstrate their boldness and strength solely on obviously uninvolved and weak passers-by. Therefore, where they are given a real rebuff, there is no need to talk about the presence of minor victories. To muscles, there would also be a mind with the right upbringing, maybe something worthwhile would have turned out. And so ... shit, she is shit ...
  13. +2
    April 10 2015 08: 44
    Someday they will finally lose!
  14. +3
    April 10 2015 08: 45
    “About every ten years, the United States should pick out some miserable little country and smudge it against the wall, just to show the world that we're not joking.”
    This is the meaning of their existence, all the time striving to prove that they are GREAT.
  15. 0
    April 10 2015 08: 49
    All wars are somewhere very far away, the motivation for taking part in hostilities is money. In the end, there is no idea or incentive to protect your parents, children, your loved ones, and your homeland. And the warriors of them, as their go.vna bullet!
  16. +1
    April 10 2015 08: 50
    Quote: The same Lech
    "The United States has more firepower than any empire in history, but it seems that they are not able to transform this power into something that can be called a victory," the extract from the RIA Novosti article quotes.


    Perhaps WASHINGTON does not intend to win a purely military victory ... the main thing is to go to someone else's territory to turn a hill anthill .... open the PANDORA box and then watch all this from across the sea, correcting the events in the right direction with the help of other people.

    Separate and rule here is the principle that they use ... it happened with YUGOSLAVIA, IRAQ, LIVIA, UKRAINE and so they want to do with RUSSIA.

    But with Russia, they had a major bummer and RUSSIA will put more than one hedgehog in the pants of the American eagle.

    That's right! Washington did not start a single war for no reason! No need to relax.
    And in no war did he set a goal to seize and win (in our understanding) !!!
    The goals are completely different - some sweep away the government that is not in the wake of the states, others have a strategic position, many have strategic resources, some are not allowed to rise, get stronger.
    Victory as such, they do not need! Need chaos, devastation, which leads to the weakening of any country and ... take advantage of the prepared!
  17. +2
    April 10 2015 08: 53
    What is Goldberg attracted to criticism. Something is wrong with Israel. Iranian footprint?
    1. +1
      April 10 2015 09: 11
      Quote: fomkin
      What is Goldberg attracted to criticism. Something is wrong with Israel. Iranian footprint?

      It is the most ..! Just be quiet .. bully
  18. +5
    April 10 2015 08: 57
    I would not judge so categorically ... for example, in the same Iraq, oil is being pumped and a pro-American government is in power. Yugoslavia and the Balkans in general are bases near Russian borders, the deployment of missile defense systems. Some conflicts gave some advantageous moments. Are they comparable to the costs both monetary and in terms of the strategy and prestige of the United States, as a state, this is a big question ... "To smear on the wall" some unwanted regime in a militarily weak state is to show one's strength in front of a deliberately weak adversary. pitfalls, as, for example, happened in Vietnam, where the United States, beaten by peasants, went home and to this day do not like to talk about this shame.
    But the US army did not face a well-armed and trained enemy. And I think it will not, because this obviously leads to defeat and destruction of the myth of a superpower with the most powerful army in the world. The American military is not warriors. And this is a fact. Their small "victories" "as, for example, in Yugoslavia, it can be explained by the presence of high-precision weapons, the absence of good air defense and missile defense in Yugoslavia, and by the fact that a civil war was going on on the territory of this state.
    To this day, they blow up and shoot in Iraq, in general, a guerrilla war is going on, as in Afghanistan and in the wrong country, the Amers cannot see victory. hi
  19. 0
    April 10 2015 09: 03
    You can call this article "The Era of Enlightenment in the States"
  20. +1
    April 10 2015 09: 03
    Just don’t throw hats. The states still have a strong economy. Huge experience in financial and ideological wars. Advanced science. A powerful system for attracting human resources. Why would they win wars? It is then that the territory needs to be protected, restored and so on. Interested people have decent incomes from the war. War allows you to strain your own population, release the "steam" of passionaries, keep the financial pump on, not give resources to others, use resources for yourself.
  21. ZAM
    0
    April 10 2015 09: 04
    The most important war in their history books is the war of the North and the South. And the war in which they won undoubtedly is a war with the indigenous people of America - the Indians. Those wars where the Shay took part outside the borders of their country are only business with the goal of grabbing ...
  22. 0
    April 10 2015 09: 21
    "... Maybe we should stop fighting," the magazine concluded.
    Star-lined gopnik should sit on his USG territory, as in a reservation and not leave and swim out of it.
    Then we will still tolerate them.
  23. 0
    April 10 2015 09: 29
    "The stronger is the one who has the truth."
    Systematic etching of all in their interests sooner or later ends with an awareness of the setup of the etched. And here you can rake ...
  24. 0
    April 10 2015 09: 31
    If every day and every night to bite into their back, bite peacefully! Only systematically. A chicken on a peck is pecking and full. They do not need to touch our Motherland, either verbally or in writing! And now be afraid!
  25. 0
    April 10 2015 09: 32
    the most interesting thing in the Western world is always a cover for military aggression, moreover, it is not at all intricate. earlier it was the crusades against the Gentiles, to Russia and the east, then they sowed civilization, as in Africa, India and America. and now they carry democracy. times and names change, the essence remains.
  26. anakonda
    0
    April 10 2015 09: 38
    Any war is a loss if you have no other leverage and you are forced to engage in conflict.
  27. 0
    April 10 2015 09: 44
    Evil can never win. So everything is very simple, if the US takes the path of good, then there will be no need to fight.
  28. 0
    April 10 2015 09: 50
    And they don’t need to win these wars, why? They brought chaos to the region of presence, overthrew the power, threw it away in development, and seized what they wanted. Weapons corporations rub their hands, politicians and senators too. The world is not calm, the potential enemy has another mmmm, difficulties, say. Soldiers are dying - yes, they do not care about them, but "fanfare" blows on the "heroes" in the United States, the ideas of "patriotism", the defense of democracy, the chosen nation and other heresy are being drummed into their people. And then milking the taxpayers. While there is a war, there are colossal earnings on everything. As well as resources, geopolitical influence. And most importantly, the probable ally of the probable enemy for the United States is permanently incapacitated. I'm exaggerating, of course, but if you look at the same Vietnam (war), it’s the people who were told fairy tales about "terrible communists", but in fact it is a testing ground for running in all that is possible and earnings of military corporations. How much they earned on bombs alone.
  29. +1
    April 10 2015 10: 10
    Quote: 97110
    Quote: Genych
    What did they even win?

    Both world wars.

    it's sarcasm!?
    1. 0
      April 10 2015 11: 25
      Quote: gozmosZh
      it's sarcasm!?

      Can't you evaluate the results, the ratio of losses and acquisitions? The USSR, without speaking on the hump, pulled out VICTORY in WW2. And in the winners, on a par with us, prostitute France, which fought for Germany and the United States with losses of half of the Piskarevsky cemetery. Our country is broken up into trash, and they have half the world in their fists and an overwhelming advantage at sea. We are in the process of disposing of ammunition - a disaster with a glow in the middle of the horizon, they have shot in Beirut. It's in the forehead. And if you consider that the USSR is no longer there, and the Russian football club has just been punished for using NAZI symbols by its fans ... Shout further. Here (at VO) thunderstorms of green berets have spread ... The country is not going to fight. It does not give a rebuff to aggression. I'm not talking about bringing troops to Donbass - this is a defeat. If you understand defeat as a military one, in an open battle, the victory of the enemy, then the gyrus cut you into a band. I'm about preparing for war. Mobilizing the economy is very important. But training of personnel, of the entire population is a hundred times more important. At the moment of the highest tension in the Second World War, they shouted "Communists - go ahead!" And they got up. They shouted "For the Motherland, for Stalin!" And the people won. What will raise you to certain death? For the builders of the East! What is the rank of Serdyukovsky shooter? Promoted for amerovskie money-dollars, the image of a special officer with TT and NKVDshnik with Maxim?
      URAYAYAYAYAYAYA !!! Let them touch! They have already shredded half the country of the victorious, pitted its peoples among themselves, and dragged all the allies of the USSR to their side. URAYAYAYAYA!
      So who won the second world war? And today he still wins. We, the Russians, have one opportunity to win - to work for victory, to tear the veins, like MY grandfathers, and yours, I believe, great-great-grandfathers. And you, like a kid, ponte pound. They, the USA, are now the strongest. And this is a fact. And our country cannot cope with the theft of governors.
      AU-U, minusers. Opportunities have opened up for work in the USA.
  30. 0
    April 10 2015 10: 20
    Only in Hollywood action movies they know how to fight. And if there was a real war, and even in their territory, there will not be enough diapers.
  31. 0
    April 10 2015 10: 25
    “The United States has more firepower than any empire in history, but they seem unable to convert that power into something that can be called a victory.”
    Like a monkey with a grenade wassat, look, or else you’ll put a grenade in your ass laughing
  32. 0
    April 10 2015 13: 47
    They don’t even have to start fighting, all this is futile .....
  33. 0
    April 10 2015 15: 36
    You will know them by their deeds ...
  34. 0
    April 10 2015 15: 57
    "If victory in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan were really important to the security or prosperity of the United States, the electorate would be willing to risk the lives of their children and perhaps pay more taxes."
    Here is the answer to you: Why all the hysteria about the enemy number 1 - Russia. Intimidate to the cramps of mattress covers to knock out money.