>Try and make a list of all the wars the United States has fought during the 21st century>It ranges from 3 at the strictest definition to 13 at the most liberal
>>64408090It's all semantics, I consider any military intervention outside your boarders a war even if you are there at a foreign governments request to fight insurgents / rebels.
Does this include the War on Drugs
For those wondering, the strictest definition,>War in Afghanistan>Iraq War>War against ISMost liberal definition,>Iraqi no-fly zone (Operations Southern & Northern Watch)>War in Afghanistan (Operations Enduring Freedom & Freedom's Sentinel)>Iraq War (Operations Iraqi Freedom & New Dawn)>Somali Civil War (Operations Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa & Octave Shield)>Tuareg Rebellion (Operation Enduring Freedom - Trans Sahara)>War in the Sahel (Operations Enduring Freedom - Trans Sahara, Juniper Micron & Juniper Shield)>War against IS (Operations Inherent Resolve & Juniper Shield)>Syrian Civil War (Operation Inherent Resolve)>Airstrikes on Yemen (Operations Prosperity Guardian, Poseidon Archer & Rough Rider)>Israel-Hamas War (THAAD deployments)>Israel-Hezbollah War (THAAD deployments)>Israel-Iran War (THAAD deployments & Operation Midnight Hammer)>Airstrikes on Venezuelan boats
>>64408098>All of them in the Middle East. Hate that place. Just glass it already so we’re not wasting money on goat fuckers and kikes
It's not a war without official declaration.
>>64408663Have you ever been? It’s so much worse in person, like cartoonishly bad. It’s like a never ending roadrunner episode but middle easterners are all Wile E Coyote trying to trick each other and then when they fail they rape kids or livestock animals. Hatred is not a strong enough word for what I feel towards them
>>64408663Sorry, you elected Orange Gorbachev who loves writing Israel bank checks.
>>64408090>3 at the strictest definitionLast war we fought was WWII
US and canada went to war over a pig
>>64408790>canadaBritish
>>64408790>One likely apocryphal account has Cutlar saying to Griffin, "It was eating my potatoes"; and Griffin replying, "It is up to you to keep your potatoes out of my pig."
>>64408663Somalia, Libya, Niger and Mali are all in Africa.Venezuela is in South America and the boats were struck in the Caribbean.>>64408747Authorization for Use of Military Force is basically equivalent to a Declaration of War
>>64408098What did you use as your definitions for these two? Because, as a very very technical matter, not even the three you listed under the strictest definition count as "wars," since all Congress did was authorize the use of military force. The US has not declared war, in the constitutional sense, since 1941.
>>64410607First definition was based on Bas v. Tingy>one whole nation [...] at war with another whole nationThose three are the only ones that (from what I see) meet that criteria. However, I admittedly forgot about the follow-up line about declarations of war.It was also based off of how the United States government generally lists it's own wars; Operations Enduring Freedom, Freedom's Sentinel, Iraqi Freedom, New Dawn, and Inherent Resolve are generally the only operations mentioned on government website referring to conflicts the United States has fought that are universally referred to was "wars" by the government.For example,https://dcas.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/app/conflictCasualtieshttps://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RS21405Second definition was that defined in Section 4(a) of the War Powers Resolution, ie the>United States Armed Forces [being] introduced into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstancesAlthough I just realized that the Tuareg Rebellion wouldn't count under this definition, since the deployment related solely to supply, even though U.S. Armed Forces were ultimately (an arguably foreseeably) introduced into hostilities when Tuaregs fired on and struck an MC-130,https://www.stripes.com/news/rifle-fire-strikes-u-s-c-130-during-airdrop-over-mali-1.69006https://web.archive.org/web/20090322051935/http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L14864903.htmhttps://web.archive.org/web/20070916035259/http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E8024803-4ECA-4B46-BA9B-4EA7BE33A5E7.htmAlthough, I also just realized I forgot to add the First Libyan Civil War (Operations Odyssey Dawn & Unified Protector), so the max would still be 13.Also goes without saying that 6/13 violate the WPR.
>>64410940>one whole nation [...] at war with another whole nationWell I found your problem. America was not at war, we were managing the stability of the region, renegotiating contracts for the local oil reserves, and funneling funds towards our MIC.The war powers resolution details use of military force, not war in an official capacity.
>>64411010We were doing so within the whole nations of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the self-described Islamic State. In the case of the two former, we were taking noteworthy casualties (3 hostiles deaths per day in Iraq during the hot years)
>>64410940Okay, those are sensible legal definitions for the term.It is a little funny that Congress has repeatedly failed to invoke its powers under the WPR. Even if there are ulterior motives, it'll be interesting to see how impeachment goes based on an actual invocation of Congressional authority under the WPR, assuming the talking heads are right and the strikes on Venezuelan boats are the pretext for the presumably-Democrat-controlled House to impeach Trump.
>>64411023There were less than 3500 deaths in Iraqi freedom.There were over 4400 deaths on d-day.The second nagorno karabakh war had roughly 3000 and 4000 deaths on the two sides in 44 days.Not to mention the ongoing kerfuffle in the ukraine.The scale is really not comparable to actual wars.
>>64411023>noteworthy casualties>less than 2000 kia in 20 years in Afghanistan>3 hostile deaths per dayI've seen 10x more people die in a single 30 second clip from some shithole in Africa
>>64411190>>64411232You two are conflating counter-insurgencies with conventional wars. Quadruple digit casualties for counter-insurgents are high by any metric.For reference, 95 Brits were killed in the Mau Mau Uprising, 79 killed in Dhofar, and a maximum of ~700 during 30+ years of the Troubles. For other American examples, 130 Americans were killed during the 11 year Moro War, 32 during the Sandino Rebellion, and 65 during the Pancho Villa Expedition.>But VietnamJust because severe casualties in one war are more severe than severe casualties in another, doesn't mean the latter's stop being severe. Outside of Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, the only other counter-insurgency where we've taken more than a thousand KIA was the Philippine-American War, and just barely. (~3,000 out of ~4,000 were disease)Wars like the Malayan Emergency, Indonesian War of Independence, First Indochina War and Algerian War are all rightly remembered as having high casualties for the counter-insurgents, and the Malayan Emergency saw fewer Brits killed than Americans in Afghanistan.
>>64408714>blank check>literally ended the warDumbass.
>>64411665>You two are conflating counter-insurgencies with conventional wars.YOU are conflating counter-insurgencies with conventional wars.America hasn't fought a war since WWII.Maybe you could consider Korea.The rest have been just that, counter-insurgencies and police actions across the world.
>>64411665How many Russians have died in Mali so far? Pretty sure in a single clip I saw more dead bodies than a years worth in Afghanistan.
>>64408090These days the line is blurred even further by shit like russias "hybrid war" tacticsIs russia at war with Europe? Theu say they are, and thier constant threats and acts of sabotage certainly indicate hostile intent, but at the same time they have also been very, very careful to avoid anything that might provoke an armed response so which is it?
>>64411692Almost twice as many Americans were killed in Vietnam than in Korea.https://dcas.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/app/conflictCasualties/vietnam/vietnamSumhttps://dcas.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/app/conflictCasualties/korea/koreaSumAlso you saying that "akshually America has fought 0 wars in the 21st century" only furthers my original point that war is in fact a very vague word.>>64411701Good question and one I'll look into more, since I'm not finding a total list anywhere. It'd take me a while to compile sources, though.You seem to think me stating the fact that 3,519 hostile deaths in Iraq is significant is me pushing some form of anti-American agenda rather than me taking into account an observable truth. You are mistaken. I'd be surprised if Wagner didn't have higher proportional casualties than the United States Armed Forces.
>>64411732I fundamentally do not believe it is significant. No, I don't think you're pushing an agenda, I simply think you are wrong.When it is a simple verifiable fact that serving in the US military during active conflict is significantly less dangerous than being a truck driver or construction worker in a first world country, those numbers ain't shit.
>>64411701>>64411732Although, I should add, counting Wagner casualties in Mali wouldn't be equivalent to counting U.S. casualties in Iraq/Afghanistan, because American PMC deaths are left out of the DCAS casualties for those wars.I actually tried documenting and counting how many American PMCs hired by the U.S. military were KIA in Iraq, but it's a fucking unfathomably Herculean task doing it as one person manually. Very few resources to call on for it.>>64411754I wouldn't be surprised if outside of the Napoleonic and World Wars other labor jobs have always had a higher likelihood of death that combat, honestly. I'd fancy my chances on a Civil War battlefield than inside an Appalachian coal mine, but that doesn't make the Civil War's casualties insignificant.
>>64411763You say that, but they are the main Russian peacekeeping force there. Or were, last I heard they were pulling out. It's not like they're there supporting the Russian army, they are the army.Just compare the numbers to French casualties in the same region, same conflict. It's like 59 soldiers in a 10 year period, and a big chunk of those were in one incident that had nothing to do with hostile action.>I'd fancy my chances on a Civil War battlefield than inside an Appalachian coal mineBut we're not comparing 1800s coal mining, just normal construction or trucking in the modern first world with all the OSHA and regulations you can imagine. That's less dangerous than people actively trying to kill you, because the US military is that good. No, that's not normal. The Taliban would have literally been more effective at killing Americans if they ceased all combat operations and US soldiers spent their time building roads and buildings. We're talking 3x as many veterans die of suicide every year, than died by hostile action in Afghanistan. No, that is not normal.
>>64411922And coal mining in the 19th century you and I both know is uniquely physically destructive. It is a certain death sentence. Might as well say "well I mean you could be painting radium watch dials!" yeah homie, the point is a normal trade held to modern safety standards is more dangerous than being a soldier during active conflict, not some of the most uniquely hazardous and certain killers are grotesquely horrible.It doesn't mean anything if statistically you have a higher chance dying doing underwater welding than combat arms, everyone already knew that job was uniquely dangerous. You can contort yourself in a circle trying to misunderstand, but it's still ridiculous when your best attempt is>wow during the absolute worst year, working construction was still more dangerous than being a soldier during active wartimehurdur it's not a war doesn't count fucker>I think this train of thought is rather silly anyway since counter-insurgencies should be compared to other counter-insurgencies rather than labor.it's a made up term to pretend a war isn't a war.
>>64411959undelete your post fucker get back here>I think this train of thought is rather silly anyway since counter-insurgencies should be compared to other counter-insurgencies rather than labor.The entire point is that other (non first world) counter-insurgencies actually have casualties, and there has to be an entire web of cope surrounding them to deflect this fact. Meanwhile the US military is so effective and combat deaths so negligible that one, we forget there was even a conventional war and pretend it was entirely COIN, and two, vastly more US soldiers kill themselves than were killed by hostile action in the war on terror. It's not even close. The ghosts of the dead are more effective combatants than actual soldiers and guerilla fighters with real weapons trying to kill people.Fundamentally no, the US did not have noteworthy casualties in our pointless escapades in the middle east. Pretending otherwise is asinine.
>>64411959>>64412000I deleted my post because I got my statistics on coal mining deaths from 1952-1953 wrong.To clear the record, Korean War hostile deaths were more numerous than either construction or coal mining deaths. Construction deaths from 1950-1953 numbered an estimated 8,990 and coal mining deaths 2,437 for the same period, while as mentioned hostile deaths in the Korean War were 23,613.>The entire point is that other (non first world) counter-insurgencies actually have casualtiesOkay, now you've fucked up. If you had stuck to labor death statistics you would have at least been right even if it doesn't prove your argument, but here you're wrong.Egypt, a non-first world country, fought a counter-insurgency in the Sinai against IS and sustained 3,277 hostile deaths over the course of 10 years, per the Egyptian President Sisihttps://www.thenationalnews.com/mena/2022/04/27/egypt-has-lost-more-than-3000-in-fight-against-militants-since-2013-says-el-sisi/As mentioned before, per DCAS the Iraq War had 3,519 hostile deaths in the course of 8 years and 8 months. We actually lost more men in a shorter time than the Egyptians.This isn't to say that the American military performed worse in Iraq than Egypt did in the Sinai; it's to say that casualties in Iraq were HIGH because the fighting was more INTENSE due to it being a WAR with one whole nation against another whole nation.
>>64412000>>64412031Sources on 1950-1953 construction and coal deaths for anyone who gives a fuck, since I went through the effort of looking>Construction>1950 - 2,300 estimated based on small sample studieshttps://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SERIALSET-11641_00_00-006-0501-0000/pdf/SERIALSET-11641_00_00-006-0501-0000.pdf (p. 2)>1951 - 2,500 estimated based on small sample surveyshttps://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/publications/bls/bls_1137_1953.pdf?utm_source=direct_download (p. 3)>1952 - 2,142https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/publications/bls/bls_1164_1954.pdf?utm_source=direct_download (p. 23)https://www.jstor.org/stable/41830892 (p. 32)>1953 - 2,048https://www.jstor.org/stable/41831082 (p. 1227)>Coal>1950-1953 - 2,437https://arlweb.msha.gov/stats/centurystats/coalstats.asp
>>64412031>Egypt, a non-first world country, fought a counter-insurgency in Sinai against IS and sustained 3,277 hostile deaths over the course of 10 yearsso in an absolutely tiny area the Egyptian military's 25,000 deployed troops took 3,277 casualties, and you think this supports your stance? Come on anon.
>>64411673>>literally ended the warZionists in Israel think they're entitled to the entire Middle-East, you think they're going to stop because Orange Man said so?
>>64412082Over a longer duration, counting the three years in Iraq where the war wore down? Yeah.We lost 127 from 2009-2011, meaning really we're talking 3,392 lost in the span of 5 years compared to 3,277 lost in the span of 10. We took roughly the same casualties just half the time.(2010 repeats since it transitions from Iraqi Freedom to New Dawn)I'll throw you a bone; I looked into Pakistan's counter-insurgency performance (even if they were a Cold War ally I assume you'd consider them non-first world) and in the period of 2001-2021 (ie Operations Enduring Freedom and Freedom's Sentinel) they lost 6,423 security forces per SATP (4,750 in Khyber Pass and 1,673 in Balochistan)https://satp.org/datasheet-terrorist-attack/fatalities/pakistan-khyberpakhtunkhwahttps://satp.org/datasheet-terrorist-attack/fatalities/pakistan-fatahttps://satp.org/datasheet-terrorist-attack/fatalities/pakistan-balochistanThose are 3.2x higher than the 1,922 we lost in the same time frame in Afghanistanhttps://dcas.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/app/conflictCasualties/oef/byCategoryhttps://dcas.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/app/conflictCasualties/ofs/byCategoryHOWEVER, if you take the worst five year period of Khyber Pass, and compare it to the first five years of Iraq, the margin narrows significantly, with 3,108 killed in Khyber Pass from 2006-2012. If you count the deaths in Balochistan over the same period (566) you get 3,674. Again, we have casualties near identical to Iraq.I'll concede that Afghanistan's casualties were low under your criteria if you concede that Iraq's were high under most criteria.
>>64412082>>644121532006-2011*So just to reiterate,>United States suffers 3,392 hostile deaths from 2003-2008 in Iraq>Pakistan suffers 3,674 hostiles deaths from 2006-2011 in Khyber Pass and Balochistan>Egypt suffers 3277 hostile deaths from 2013-2022If you want me to check other non-first world counter-insurgencies I can, but I knew the Sinai off the top of my head and wanted to look into Pakistan as well to make sure.Again, I'm not using this as an anti-American jab at our martial prowess. I'm using it to show that casualties in Iraq were in fact quite high because it was close to a "perfect war" under Bas v. Tingy.
>>64412169>were in fact quite highCompare the number of troops deployed and scale of the conflict. You have a very small scale and frankly not incredibly intense insurgency in Sinai, just 25,000 troops deployed, more than 3000 die. It's incomparable to the US in Iraq. That'd be like if 20,000 Americans died instead.
>>64412188>very small scale and frankly not incredibly intenseYou're starting to get it, anon. You're almost there!>That'd be like if 20,000 Americans died instead.Over a 5 year period or a 10 year period? Because you seem to be ignoring the duration of the Sinai insurgency.Also, you've ignored the Pakistan point. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan are roughly the same size as Iraq if not larger. Combined they're 173,332 square miles while Iraq is 169,235. You've got similar troop levels to the U.S. in Iraq as well.Honestly if anything you've given me a greater interest in the insurgencies in Pakistan.
>>64412219>almost thereNo, I directly stated my view, I don't have to rely on implication or redditspeak: Sinai was a nothinburger and Egypt had catastrophic losses regardless. The US pacified an entire country after defeating them in a conventional war, and took paltry casualties in the process.>b-but number bigger!3,000 deaths when you only have 25,000 troops stationed in a tiny area is massive. 3,000 deaths in an nation with 170,000 deployed is literally nothing.
That's because the word 'war' comes from German, where it means something along the lines of 'confusion', similar to the Dutch word 'verwarring'. Also, the Dutch word for war is actually 'oorlog', which means 'primordial law', and has far older roots, probably Nordic, since 'log' is also found in Scandinavian languages
>>64414000Anon... we're talking about overall fatalities, not fatalities as a percentage of deployed forces.By your logic the Battle of Wabash in 1791 is several times more deadly than the Battle of the Bulge in '44/'45. Wabash saw 65.6% hostile deaths of troops engaged while the Bulge saw only 3.6%, despite Wabash having a total of 656 killed while the Bulge had 8,407.If you can't see how very, very silly your argument is, then I don't know what to say.By the way, you're STILL ignoring the Pakistan casualties; 3,000 deaths in an area the same size as Iraq with 200,000 deployed during the same span of time.
>>64414165I know nothing about Pakistan, how many troops they have in the area, nor do I care.>Anon... we're talking about overall fatalities, not fatalities as a percentage of deployed forces.No, you are. "We" are not.>Wabash saw 65.6% hostile deaths of troops engaged while the Bulge saw only 3.6%Seems pretty clear which was a bigger fuckup, you're right on the money. Same way the British retreat from Kabul was a catastrophic failure on all levels (entire force utterly destroyed, massive embarrassment for the entire nation, unthinkable tragedy) but "only" 699 or so British soldiers died. When you have a 100% destruction of the fighting force, and the only potential survivors but one are literally sold into slavery and never seen again, that is indeed quite an unsalvageable disaster.The entire point from the beginning is that no, the US did not take significant casualties in any of its pointless wars in the middle east. That is why serving as a US soldier is less dangerous than working as a construction worker or trucker: because there were so remarkably few deaths. The same cannot be said of being an Egyptian soldier, that is a much more dangerous job. The same cannot be said of a British soldier in their first attempt to occupy Afghanistan, when literally one single sole solitary English soldier returned alive.This has been the point from the beginning, and your strategy from the beginning has been to contort your brain into coming up with some "well akshually" that would dispel fact and make it seem like you are correct.
>>64414203>I know nothing about Pakistan, how many troops they have in the area, nor do I care.Well it entirely disproves your point, so you maybe should. I've also provided you sources for casualties.>No, you are. "We" are not.Then fuck off retard lol holy shit you've been arguing nothing this entire time>Seems pretty clear which was a bigger fuckupWe're not talking about whether or not Iraq was a fuckup, we're talking about whether or not Iraq had high or significant fatalities. Fuckups generally have high casualties but high casualty wars aren't necessarily fuckups.>The entire point from the beginning is that no, the US did not take significant casualties3,000 killed in a counter-insurgency IS significant based on the number of overall fatalities. THAT was the point from the beginning.>The same cannot be said of being an Egyptian soldier, that is a much more dangerous jobOkay, I think I finally understand the point you were trying to make with construction/trucking. Here's the problem, buddy. In 2007, the fatality rate for construction was 10.4 per 100,000. That's 0.01%. Meanwhile the hostile deaths in Iraq during 2007 were 0.4% of troops deployed. It was, in fact, more dangerous by percentage being a soldier in Iraq than a construction worker in 2007.Source,https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/cfoi_08202008.pdfPage 3If I've contorted my brain at all here, it's only because you've been arguing an irrelevant off-topic point (one that you're wrong about anyway) while poorly articulating your argument to where it took until now to figure out what your fucking point was.
>>64414203>>64414283Let me give reiterate again,for the year 2007, you were 4x more likely to die being a soldier in Iraq than a construction worker. Pakistan had near identical casualties to us with near identical numbers of troops deployed in a near identically sized area with an identical period of time.You were wrong on both points and they weren't even arguments that would ever disprove my initial point.
>>64414283>>64414295>in one singular year, it was more dangerousThe goalpost has been moved significantly.>Pakistan had near identical casualties to us with near identical numbers of troops deployed in a near identically sized area with an identical period of time.Cite their troop deployment numbers. I can't find any and literally everything Pakistan releases about any issue is chest beating propaganda that is altered significantly from any level of fact.>dropped the Egypt thingBecause you realized it proved my point and US casualties were abnormally low, when Egypt has the same casualties in a much smaller scale, lower intensity conflict.
>>64414355>The goalpost has been moved significantly.Ironic since you're the one shifting the goalpost by now acting like hostile deaths in Iraq outnumbered construction deaths at home actually doesn't matter when it was your whole argument.By the way, I mistyped; you were 40x more like to die as a soldier in Iraq than as a construction worker. Not 4x; 40x. If you think that 2003-2006 and 2008 would manage to flip it over 40x with construction deaths outnumbering hostile soldier deaths, you'd be rather silly, but I can double check for you on those if you really insist.>Cite their troop deployment numbers.https://archive.is/cqmj2>It has 140,000 troops on its western borderhttps://www.thenews.com.pk/print/228894-The-on-off-partnership>The strength of Pakistani forces in the tribal areas had to be increased to 200,000 at mounting financial costs.That's in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa alone, by the way. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is only 49,000 square miles while Balochistan 134,000.>>dropped the Egypt thing>Because you realized it proved my pointBecause I realized what your fucking point was lolIf you had been clearer what is was you were arguing I could've settled this sooner.
