I think this article forgets how Trump effectively surrendered Afghanistan to the Taliban the last time around.
post
He's never been anything but a silver spoon total loser. He's not even a skilled criminal. Fucking bush league in every measure.
He expected to lose the first election. He wanted to be able to use it as proof that the system was against him, to fire up the Fox News rubes and jumpstart his new TV network. He basically wanted to lose, and instead he won.
It's amazing. He's such a failure he failed at failing.
The BIGGEST Loser!!!
nobody loses as good as me, I'm not saying but everyone else is saying it. the best loser, the BIGGLIEST loser. Arnold Palmer, now he was a great loser, you know they say he had a really big penis, I never saw it myself it's what people tell me, tremendous dong and tremendous loser.
thank you for your attention to this matter.
In Afghanistan, Trump unconditionally surrendered to the Taliban, but left Biden to complete the withdrawal. Before that, Iraq was either a loss or a stalemate, depending on what the poorly articulated objectives actually were.
The last time the US won was WW2.
The US "won" in WW2 because they managed to pick the winning team. There was a significant pro-nazi faction in the country at the time and it wasn't really until Japan attacked Pear Harbour that they really picked a side and went all-in on it. Before that, they were fine with selling stuff to Nazi Germany, and Japan for that matter.
The allies won WW2. The US alone would have lost.
If we make that distinction then we're looking at Spanish American war as their last win.
The wars were won in both cases. Decisively.
Hearts and minds were not won, in either case. There is a good question whether the nationbuilding could even theoretically have succeeded, given how tribal and divided the countries were. IMO it was stupid to try in the first place, especially in Afghanistan.
We keep entering conflicts with no clear objective because our leadership lies about our reasons for entering the conflict. In both cases we had no hard evidence they were even continuing development of nuclear weapons.
We defeated their military and occupied their countries, but winning implies completing an objective successfully. When we exited Afghanistan the Taliban instantly took control. They completed their objective, they won the war.
You yanks REALLY need to lose this one. Your noses need to be rubbed in it. You need to feel the SHIT you put the rest of us though. And you need to get seriously angry at the Israelis and rub THEIR noses in it. You need a big enough shock to CHANGE.
(Like I know most of the people on Lemmy are not Republican idiots. I'm obviously not talking about you personally, but about the «general public opinion» in the US, especially the Republican idiots.)
In America, we punish the incumbents. BoTh PaRtIeS have told their own constituents to fuck off; membership of registered voters is at 30% each. Independents are now 40% of voters.
Whoever wins the election tells the people who elected them to fuck off; so, we vote them out. That's it. The new election winner then tells the people who elected them to fuck off, and so on.
Examples: Biden runs with minimum wage increase as platform, wins, then tells everybody to fuck off.
Trump then runs with "no war" as platform; wins, goes to war and tells his voters to fuck off.
He will be replaced by a Democrat, who will then also tell their voters to fuck off.
Repeat ad nauseam. Neither party does what they are elected to do and are then punished, to be replaced by the other party that will refuse to do what they were elected to do.
We can't vote ourselves out of this, unfortunately.
He will be replaced by a Democrat, who will then also tell their voters to fuck off.
The real political innovation here is that the Democratic party is telling its voters to fuck off before the next election.
They don't have anything to loose. Another Republican president? Great! They can sit on their asses for four more years writing angry tweets about how offended they are while telling voters to fuck off. Democrats win? Even better! Sit on their asses while insider trading and taking billionaire tributes while telling voters to fuck off. What a great system we have.
I agree with the incumbent part, but exactly how was Biden able to pass minimum wage law but decided not to? It can't go in reconciliation and they didn't have the votes for it in the Senate.
They don't care. It's a video game to most Americans. That's what having oceans between you and the bombs does.
I'm sadly forced to work alongside some republican asshats, and let me tell you, they're fucking ecstatic about how the usa military is kicking Iran's ass. Reality has no bearing on them.
The US committed a war crime on day one, and Israel has been on a war crime spree since Oct 7.... if this turns into a world war, it'll be that Mitchell and Webb skit.... "are we the baddies?"
You're being too lenient. It's not just Republicans, they're only 1/3 of the population, the even bigger issue is the "moderate" and "apolitical" people that make up another 1/3...these people will loudly oppose anything and everything but blatant extreme right wing authoritarianism, in fact they'll get more upset about the final 1/3 of the population that's against authoritarianism than they will ever get at literal dictators.
And you represent the real problem, in my opinion.
bOtH pArTiEs need to stop treating independents like shit. It doesn't help you. You REQUIRE independents to win, perhaps you should stop treating them with contempt? Maybe do what they want... like stop supporting Israel?
You might THINK not supporting Israel is "blatant extreme right wing authoritarianism", but independents don't agree with you. Have a little respect... a tiny bit.
Just an idea.
I'm not a Democrat and I sure as hell don't support Israel...what are you even talking about? The 1/3 thing is a consistent split throughout history across the globe, I'm not just talking about Israel or our right wing terrorist party and our super ultra right wing terrorist party.
I think you're way overestimating the consistency of independents in the US when it comes to Israel. See recent Gallup figures from February. It's only in the last year that net sentiment seems to cut against support for Israel.
This seems to come up a bit. Disaffected voters recognize that neither dominant party represents them, see that others feel the same way, and then seemingly assume that the other disaffecteds share their opinion on x or y. If only the party would align with me on this topic, they'd bring over all the independents! It's not that simple of an equation for many issues.
This isn't to say Democrats to a good job at triangulating public will or building a coalition. They do not.
...I'm not sure Europe would be better off if Iran was controlled by Russia, and I'm not sure if an independent Iran is a realistic option. At the end of the day, it seems like Europe needs the oil more than America does.
I sort of agree though. I haven't heard a compelling argument as to why we are interfering in Europe's problems. They have the strength of character to take on countries like Iran and Russia.
Europe didn't fight Israel's war against Iran for it. Europe was quite happy leaving Iran alone, having the odd awkward diplomatic discussion. Europe was happy buying oil and related good from the gulf states as needed.
The US need to lose because they shat the bed.
What? Pretty sure Afghanistan was lost too?? Or are we using strategic ambiguity in new ways?
The way I interpret this is single-handedly lost the war. Afghanistan was over 4 presidents (Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden). The sloppy withdrawal by Biden was die to no planning and a treaty signed by Trump to do so by 2/29/2020.
Trump is the one who unconditionally surrendered Afghanistan. It's on him.
If that's the case, then Nixon didn't single handily lose the Vietnam War either.
But let's be real. The Democrat president who inherits this war in 2028 will be the one blamed for loosing it.
The sloppy withdrawal by Biden was a treaty signed by Trump to do so by 2/29/2020.
The war was won, the person you handed the reigns to just ran away so fast when the enemy came it appeared like it was you being run out of the country.
a) This headline forgets W losing Afghanistan
b) Fuck Nixon, but Eisenhower deserves the blame for Vietnam (admittedly one of the reasons he did that was because he thought it would give him political cover to shut McCarthyism down, but still)
Nixon continuing horrible foreign policy doesn't absolve him. Also he conspired with Hanoi to sabotage LBJ which is straight up treason and extended the war another five years
admittedly one of the reasons he did that was because he thought it would give him political cover to shut McCarthyism down
I want to learn more about that. Got a recommendation?
Eisenhower deserves the blame for Vietnam
Eisenhower sent a small number of "advisors." JFK sent more. The big escalation happened under Johnson, who was furious at how the Pentagon outmaneuvered him.
Has America actually ever won a war since Gulf War 1?
I would amend that to "since WWII", and the answer would still be no.
The "global war on terror" ended with a rather dramatic raid that killed bin laden. And the war part of Gulf war 2 was an obvious victory.
But winning a peace is a fuckton harder. And we haven't done that since Vietnam.
And the war part of Gulf war 2 was an obvious victory.
Really? What were the objectives? Kill a bunch of civilians and hand Saddam over to a lynch mob? Because the end state in Iraq was collapse, chaos and a massive increase in Iranian influence.
You nailed it in one.
Wars are fought to knock down opponents. No war has ever had an actual goal of "make that country happy".
As I said before, the war part of Gulf War 2 was a resounding success that ended the Bathist tyranny in Iraq. That chaos replaced it was not a failure of war fighting which might have been solved by more bullets and bombs, but rather a failure of the post-war peace.
If Gulf war 2 was a "loss" because it led to chaos and civil war, then WW1 was the biggest loss in history since its end led directly to.tne Nazis. Which i suppose is a reasonable philosophy., except that it would utterly neuter statements about the USA not winning many wars with "nobody else does either."
The "global war on terror" ended with a rather dramatic raid that killed bin laden.
No, they executed an accused without a trial or prosecution. In India, they had a multiyear fair trial before the terrorist was executed. Difference between democracy and not a democracy.
No, they executed an accused without a trial or prosecution.
Binladen got what he deserved, and there was little chance that it was safe to capture him and transport him back to the US for trial.
Or rather any trial would be unconstitutional as it would rely heavily on “evidence” gained by torture. To save itself the embarrassment, America did what it always does and kill with impunity.
Well of course he got what he deserved. But they're was no trial though. There was also no Trial for Kissinger, Bush. There won't be one for Nethanyahu, Biden, Trump, etc too.
Like on their own? If so, then not even Gulf War 1 counts, b/c they were part of the UN coalition. I think maybe the invasion of Panama?
No one wins when people start shooting at each other. There are only different degrees of losing. There is no glory in war, only suffering of the poor for the rich.
While somehow Biden get's blamed for the fiasco, Trump did order the full withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, essentially a surrender to the Taliban, though he did keep their US bank account held treasury.
Nixon had the decency to resign, Trump will drive us all 6ft under without any hesitation.
Nixon was not decent. The difference was that a Senator (Goldwater) told Nixon point blank that he was getting impeached and the senate had the votes to convict and remove.
Like most government officials "retirement" is getting fired.
I'm pretty sure Trump would give the order to launch the nukes and kill us all in that situation.
That's why he's firing the top military people. They won't follow illegal (and reprehensible) orders, so he knows they won't bomb blue states.
absurd claim even as a die-hard cynic.
He won't nuke his top money makers, California and NY pay for half of the US military already
Trump 100% does not think that way.
Man bankrupted casinos, he has failed upwards most of his life and I don't doubt he'd try some shit on CA and NY if he thought he could get away with it. It's not their economies stopping him, its knowledge he might have to face consrquences if he did something too excessive, and as his brain liquifies I find myself wondering how long before he thinks the odds are okay.
I have to hope the people with access would refuse to obey these illegal orders.
They also didn't have Faux "News", hate radio, or the Internet back then, either.
What's so fucked up is that POS of a FCC chairman just celebrated making it even worse than it already was for truth.
I genuinely think he's by far the most likely president in this country's history to launch ICBMs if he knows he is fucked. Which was a conclusion myself and any non-moron also came to in 2015.
He is really old now. A good cold, covid, a peanut or even a strong fart could do him in.
No one's done that since Nixon? Would you call Afghanistan a victory? Although that was also Trump.

top 94 comments