If you start a war in someone else's country and they push you out...they won the war which means the US lost it. Your definition that the country has to be taken over to lose is a very different situation. If you can't accept we started a war, lost thousands of US lives and left without achieving any objective we set out as a loss you might need to reflect on the propaganda you've been fed and how it's affected you.

I think you found a great way to never "lose" anything with this definition.

Going back to Clausewitz, war is a continuation of politics through other means. Moreover, victory is achieved by using force to compel one's opponent to carry out one's will.

> intact and combat capable

On its own, this claim is likely true. Nevertheless, this does not mean one's opponent is going to carry out one's will. Hence, one cannot declare victory. It follows that anything short of achieving one's goal is a loss. A loss doesn't have to be complete and utter destruction. It's fair to say that Argentina did not achieve its strategic objectives during the Falklands War, no?

> Losing is what happened to Germany after both World Wars.

Yes, but Germany is not as good of an example in this case as Japan during WWII. Japan would have likely accepted something short of unconditional surrender much sooner than August 1945, but the U.S. insisted on unconditional surrender. As such, the U.S. did not win until Japan agreed to unconditional surrender.

America simply "failed their strategic objectives" in Vietnam?

It's laughable to use such a silly euphemism to imply America was not defeated! The North Vietnamese won. Get over it.

How do you learn to cope so well? Did you attend the Dugin College of psychotic delusion or something?

> failed their strategic objective

copium

> It's their relentless deindustrialization that will eventually do them in

Agree, China has already won, at this point a lot of the world sees them as a more sane option than USA as well which is a nuts timeline