But thats the whole point. There are many ways to win a war and many ways to lose it. Winning militarily doesn't necessarily mean you've won the war.

If i'm playing a game of golf vs tiger woods.  He has a 500 stroke lead going into the final hole... then gets distracted by a woman and gets a +600 on the last hole...

Did I beat Tiger Woods ass?  Or did Tiger Woods beat himself.  Was Tiger Woods in an unwinnable match vs me?

I'm not saying the US won the war.  I'm saying they very eaisly could have won the war... and any defeat wasn't vietnam inflicted but inflicted by the country itself.

Refight that war in 1000 divergent histories... and chances are... the US wins most of them.

Beating yourself is a valid way to lose a war. You can be your own worse enemy.

People cannot change what has already happened (yet anyway...). I'm not saying that I'm happy we lost the Vietnam war (my country was part of it as-well), and whilst there wasn't the domino effect like people thought there would be, if there was it probably would have affected Australia far more then the US since we're much closer to Vietnam.

China couldn't even defeat the UK in a 1 on 1 war.

It has a troops advantage... but it doesn't even remotely have a Navy capable of getting those troops to anywhere it could matter.

The US or UK could fight China to a everlasting stalemate if they wanted to, Or just bomb the crap out of it until it surrenders.

Yeah, we lost vietnam.  That wasn't the issue at hand.  He said vietnam was unwinnable.  Which clearly wasn't the case.

Vietnam was actually incredibly winnable.  It was actually a bit of a fluke we didn't win.

If you win a war largely because they enemy beat themselves... chances are you were VERY lucky.

Doesn't the UK have the 2nd best Navy in the world?

I've got a mate from the South thats always told me that as-well. I can't remember the specifics of why though.

Yep, that's partly why I picked them.

China isn't going to currently be able to beat any modern country it has to take a boat to.  Well except Japan... which they'd have a fair shot at consdiering proximity.

The rest of europe is sketchy because you don't know if 1 on 1 war means they can walk though all of eurasia or not... but in general China's weak navy pretty much would ruin it's chances of conquests.

Thats what I've been telling people in Australia for a long time. Though more in regards to indonesia then China. People just seem to think its a walk in the park to invade another country. Projecting power is tremendously difficult and costly.

Especially when dealing with water.

Yeah, I mean... granted Australia and Indoneisa are a lot closer together... so the Indonesians could land on Australia fairly eaisly... but what they're going to be landing on is brutal areas people don't want to live on... and once the invasion starts... chances are their shipping lanes would be cut off by the Australian ships... and the troops would be routed and bombed into submission.

Plus moving through that land would be well... just counter productive and not worth it.  It'd be like trying to cross the Sahara to invade southern africa.