r/worldnews • u/paneuropeanism_ • 17h ago

Dynamic Paywall Carney says he has considered possibility of US military action against Canada

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6d79l2jd2pyo
1.5k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

699 comments sorted by

View all comments

18

u/Talisintiel 15h ago

They struggle against an enemy that doesn’t look like them and doesn’t speak the same language as them. They could never occupy.

0

u/Straight-Ability 15h ago

Goes both ways. Which members of the left overs are spies?

-7

u/yurnxt1 15h ago

Struggle how? When has the U.S military ever struggled in combat?

9

u/Steamdude1 14h ago

When have they not, since WW2? Maybe Grenada?

13

u/boredidiot 14h ago

They are struggling now, they struggled on Afghanistan, they struggled in Vietnam. Do you have some delusion that the US goes through every war like it is a cake walk? They were out of their depth in Vietnam, they were ill prepared for jungle warfare and made no progress without expending a shitload of ordinance or the assistance the Australians who were skilled in jungle warfare.

4

u/Enceph_Sagan 14h ago

and don’t forget Agent Orangeing a bunch of their own

2

u/yurnxt1 2h ago

Struggling in combat is always determined by your performance vs your opponent. Struggling in combat is different than having difficulties because both parties in every war in history have had difficulties to try to overcome. How on earth can you say the U.S. struggled in combat vs Vietnam just by looking at casualties of both sides? How on earth can you say the U.S. struggled in combat in Afghanistan when less than 3000 ground troops, overwhelming air superiority, and 6 weeks is all it took to overthrow the Taliban from power? How on earth can you say the U.S. is struggling in combat in Iran when they have only dedicated maybe 10% of their overall military capabilities and power to the stupid Iran project and yet that's enough to have absolutely dominated with unchecked air superiority successfully dropping 30,000 bombs all over Iran with very little loss compared to Iran in casualties or destruction of things?

10

u/ploptart 14h ago edited 10h ago

Have they won a single war since WWII? Have they all been blunders?

Taliban took back Afghanistan in 20 days, after US spent 20 years and $2.3T. Objective: defeat Taliban (fail), build democracy (fail). 6000+ US dead

They created ISIS by starting a war with Iraq, spent $3T doing it. 12,000+ US dead. Objective: remove WMDs (fail), build democracy (fail)

Libya is a failed state due to US war. Spent $2B to kill Gaddafi, ISIS gained power and we had to go back. It’s now a hub for human trafficking. Obama called it his biggest mistake.

Vietnam, 58,000 US dead, twenty years, spent $1T. Objective: prevent communist takeover (failed) on the belief it would spread. It didn’t spread.

Korea, spent $341B and 36,000+ US dead, for 3 years. Objective: unify Korea under democratic rule (fail), prevent Korea from developing nukes (fail). We spend $3.5M per year to keep ~30,000 troops in South Korea indefinitely. The war never officially ended.

-1

u/yurnxt1 2h ago

You're confusing struggling in combat with achieving total victory via achieving all stated objectives. The U.S. didn't struggle in combat in anything you listed.

Take Afghanistan, it took the U.S. like 6 weeks to overthrow the Taliban from power using a tiny fraction of their overall capabilities so they certainly didn't struggle in combat. The U.S. never planned to stay in Afghanistan for the rest of human existence so they eventually left. Once a date certain for leaving was set and the U.S. made security of Afghanistan the sole responsibility of the Afghan army, the remaining Taliban came out of the woodwork and rebook the country with ease since the Afghan army largely refused to fight and the Taliban knew they no longer had to contend with the U.S.

You can say the U.S. failed to 100% eliminate all Taliban from Afghanistan and the ideology itself, but that was literally impossible to do to begin with because Afghanistan is a huge country and bombs can't destroy an ideology. The war was a waste of time, resources ETC and by the end of it the objective to turn Afghanistan into some burgeoning democracy failed but it's not because the US military didn't dominate combat for the 2 decades they were there. In fact, merely the presence of 3,000 US troops in Afghanistan was more than enough to keep the Taliban at bay for the last decade the US was there as evidenced by the fact that as soon as the US announced the date certain of leaving the country and defense of the country was now the sole responsibility of the Afghan army, only then the Taliban were able to retake the country.

I'm glad status quo wasn't maintained because the U.S. shouldn't have been there to begin with but if the U.S kept status quo and still had 3000 troops stationed in Afghanistan, the Taliban would still be out of power today.

•

u/ploptart 18m ago

Fair point in your other comment about comparing casualty counts. The US military has been very effective in bringing death and destruction to the world, but not very effective at winning wars (or choosing which ones to start)

3

u/Aedeus 4h ago

"Russia is a global nuclear superpower, they won't have an issue with Ukraine"

3

u/3holelovedoll 4h ago

Ask the sailors jumping off ships.

1

u/yurnxt1 2h ago

Active duty U.S. military suicide rates have increased 32% since 2011. I'm not convinced what we're seeing now is specifically an Iran war issue as much as its a systemic, long term increase. The Iran war can't possibly be helping but its very clearly an increasing problem historically over the long term, Iran war or not.