Study: Israel leads in ignoring Security Council resolutions - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper
And that was just up until 2002.
Neither of those were defeats. In Iraq, our goal was to overthrow Saddam and establish a democracy, while finding proof of WMDs. We accomplished 2/3 of those, and the third wasn't Obama's fault.
In Afghanistan, the goal was to eliminate Osama bin Laden and curb al-Qaeda's influence in the nation. We killed Osama, but our own heavyhanded tactics in the region have done nothing but strengthened al-Qaeda's recruitment. That is a failure of both Bush and Obama.
Do tell.
Barrack Obama has already announced when the US is retreating, which begs the question of why honorable men and woman are still stationed there. Why are their lives still being risked?
We had 120,000 soldiers stationed in Afghanistan, plus supporting personnel, supplies, and ordnance. Withdrawal isn't a matter of one day saying "Let's go home." You have to steadily draw troops out in such a way that our previously-achieved objectives are not compromised and allow for a smooth transition of authority to Afghan military forces. Even then, under our wasteful policies, we'll be leaving hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment behind because it's "too costly" to ship back home. That is the nature of US warfare since Vietnam.
To be replaced that one that kills Americans and their Ambassador. The Libyan government, like the US, did nothing to stop it and said almost immediately that it was the work of well-prepared terrorists. Of course the Obama administration lied and the American people appear to accept this.
How much do you expect from a government that is still struggling to assert control over a divided nation, which is still trying to disarm dozens of militias? The Libyan government had no active hand in the attack, and their resources were stretched too thin to cover every single embassy. Besides, Benghazi has been the only attack against an American diplomatic mission under Obama; there were twelve under Bush. Were you howling from the rooftops after each of those attacks?
$550 billion with more to come, And other countries are increasing their military.
We don't NEED a military as large as we have. All it does is make our economy more dependant upon an industry that profits from killing and fear. Eisenhower, a general, warned of the dangers of the military-industrial complex, and we have ignored every bit of that advice. Defense cuts are just as necessary as social spending cuts; when we have a trillion-dollar deficit, we cannot afford to keep building bigger bombs.
Yes, but never use it. And your enemies know it. There is even a debate about "enhanced interrogation". The US is training people to kill them.
"Never use it?" What the hell world do you live in?
1890 - US Navy dispatched to defend consulate in Argentina
1891 - US Army deployed to Haiti
1893 - US military overthrows Hawaiian government
1894 - US military deployed to Brazil and Nicaragua to defend economic interests; troops deployed to China as peacekeeping force after Sino-Japanese War
1898 - Spanish-American War
1899-1913 - US military suppresses Filipino rebellion
1900 - Boxer Rebellion fended off by multinational peacekeeping force, including US
1901-1914 - US intervention in Panamanian separation from Columbia
1910 - US occupies Nicaragua
1912-1941 - Increased US presence in China
1914-1917 - Undeclared war with Mexico
1915-1934 - US occupation of Haiti
1916-1924 - US occupation of Dominican Republic
1917-1918 - World War One
1918-1919 - Further US military action in Mexico
1918-1920 - US and Allied Expedition in support of White Russians
1932 - US military under MacArthur opens fire upon WW1 vets in the Bonus Army at Washington, DC
1941 - US establishes protectorates over Greenland and Iceland
1941-1945 - World War 2
1945-1947 - 50,000 US Marines deployed to China
1945-1952 - US participation in occupation of Germany, Austria, and Japan
1944-1946 - Reoccupation of the Philippines
1945-1949 - Occupation of South Korea
1946 - US troop presence along Yugoslav-Italian border increased
1947 - US intervention in Greek Civil War
1950-1953 - Korean War
1950-1955 - US Navy deployed to end hostilities between Taiwan and China
1955-1975 - US involvement in Vietnam
1958 - Lebanon Crisis
1962 - US troops deployed to Thailand; Cuban Missile Crisis
1962-1975 - Operations against Communists in Laos
1965 - Operation Power Pack; 20,000 US troops invade Dominican Republic
1970 - Cambodian Campaign
1976 - Additional forces deployed to Korea
1983 - US invades Grenada
1986 - US bombs Libya
1987-1988 - US intervention in Iran-Iraq War
1988 - US military action against Nicaragua; increases presence in Panama
1989 - US military overthrows military junta in Panama
1990-1991 - Gulf War
1992-1995 - US involvement in Somali Civil War
1993-1995 - No-fly zone established over Bosnia
1994-1995 - US troops deployed to Haiti
1995 - US begins bombing Bosnia
1998 - US bombing of Iraq
1998 - US cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan
1999 - US & NATO bombing of Serbia
2001- War on Terror begins
2003-2011 - War in Iraq
2004 - US begins drone strikes in Pakistan
2011 - Bombing of Libya
This is not taking into account smaller military actions and all military actions before 1890.
The US military is obviously neither feared or respected. Why should they be? How many victories have they had? They know that the American public will lose interest quickly and urge retreat. US enemies never insist on an "exit strategy". Only Americans want that.
Damn near every war the US has been involved in was a military victory. The only decisive defeat we suffered was in Vietnam. If our military was not feared or respected, do you really think the world would put up with this?
In fact China is increasing the size and strength their military. You can look it up.
Yet they still spend far less per capita on defense than we do. Increasing your military as your economy grows is a far cry from actively challenging the US.
You're more likely to be squabbling on the US mainland within the next generation.
Oh, please. If China were to go to war against the United States, they would have to fight the entirety of NATO and most of SEATO as well, and if they failed to punch in a decisive victory within the first year or so, their society would completely collapse. Furthermore, if China goes to war with America, they won't be able to collect on our debt to them. Stop listening to Alex Jones so much.
If spending won wars the US wouldn't be retreating from Afghanistan or Iraq. Sad fact is that the US shows little interest in winning, only attacking, winning the first round, and then sitting on their heels until they finally retreat
Okay, then why are you adverse to cutting defense spending?
No, of course not but Obama is spending more time talking about social issues rather than genuine and urgent matters. What difference will Gay marriage make (and I support it) when the country goes bankrupt, or when there are more terrorist attacks?
Bread and circuses, my friend. Gay marriage is a real issue, but it should have been resolved eons ago. So long as the government is engaged in unpopular wars and failing to act on important issues, they need these big social issues to distract the public. Don't know why they bother...cable TV does wonders on that account.
No, but of course Vietnam was another Afghanistan and Iraq. They were able to handle different issues while Obama cannot. He was reelected by people who should have known better. It makes it interesting to watch history in the making but, given the greatness that was America, and what it once stood for, is hard to accept.
You got Obama because he was the lesser of two evils. If Romney were president, we'd be facing the same problems and the same lack of action, except we'd have a president less popular with our allies. If we had a nation with real choices, you might have had a Gary Johnson or Jill Stein for president, someone who would develop a foreign policy based on mutual respect rather than heavy-handed threats. America didn't stop being great spontaneously when Obama was elected; it stopped being great sometime after Kennedy, when politics and foreign policy were determined by the interests of the wealthy and it became "wasteful" to vote for anyone but the two big parties.
A government must set priorities also. Gay marriage, or the role of women in the military, are not among them.
I beg to differ. If all people had equal rights in all aspects, then we would no longer have to worry about that debate. It is not the place of anyone, Republican or Democrat, Christian or atheist, to deny those rights to others.
The US is losing many of its former allies while picking up a few new ones, such as the Muslim Brotherhood. I see that trend continuing
.
Who have we lost? Pakistan? They've been a fickle ally at best. NATO stands by us as solidly as ever. We were allies with the despotic regime of Mubarak, so how is it more unethical to ally with the Islamic government of Egypt today?
You should read more foreign media rather than rely on the US MSM.
I should say the same to you. My primary news sources are Deutsche Welle, BBC, and al-Jazeera. The only American news I watch or read are my own local station. I have no delusions about the righteousness of our government or the benevolence of special interest groups. I'm not an Obama supporter and never will be, but I don't particularly care for exaggeration. Don't worry yourself about his foreign policy. Why don't you start fretting about his very real assault on your civil liberties?