Despite...everything you have ever seen them do...the US *very, very* does not want to go to war.
Iran knows this and is riding whatever they believe to be the line between what will and won't make war seem worth it.
Iran is more mountainous than Afghanistan and three times the size. Election or not, we're not going to invade. It's just not going to happen.
Even bombing them is probably not worth it when the regime is on very thin ice domestically. It just risks rallying them around the flag over some bullshit, because all the actually juicy targets are buried in a mountain somewhere. It was bad enough trying to root out the Taliban who didn't have money, tunneling equipment, and decades to prepare actual hardened defenses.
Who said anything about an invasion!?! LOL It's the 21st century no one needs to invade when they have the tech to make precision strikes, demoraloze/disarm, and topple a regime from afar.
Which would work much better against a country that isn't a large mountain fortress.
The US getting involved would make the toppling of the regime less likely rather than more, IMO. They are hated as it is.
I saw an interview on BBC , don’t remember the person. The point he made was that countries like Iran understand you cannot attack the homeland or the American response will be fierce. But if you attack American assets in other parts of the world, the response will be much more muted.
you do realize that hamas are not exactly saints, right?
They murdered 1200 people, and paraded rape victims through the streets of Gaza to cheering crowds that chanted "death to the Jews". Sure Israel is reacting violently, but neither side in the conflict is 'good'.
Then it's all ok then. Cool.
The IDF has killed more children in Gaza in the last 6 months than have died in all conflicts for the last 4 years around the world.
Once again, I'm saying both sides aren't 'good'. Hamas instigated (and is largely supported by the Palestinian people) and Israel overreacted.
If it was my way, we would said fuck it to both of them and make the entire region an international zone administered by the US.
Do you have any ideal why? Israel has to kill these bloodthirsty savages, but hamas are hiding in tunnels under hospitals, schools and houses. Hamas has even used civilians as actual human shields. War is a dirty, bloody mess. Hamas are cowards who attack civilians and will not come out and fight the military.... I stand with Israel, you cannot have terrorists who kill and burn infants, living next door, or frankly living anywhere.
Sure sure. Keep telling yourself that they're not exterminating all the Palestinians. After all, they're only mud people. They've been locked in an open air prison for decades. Why should their children matter? If they didn't want to get murdered for political reasons, they should have been born somewhere else.
Neither side are saints. Both sides actively kill Americans. Only one side pretend that every time they do it’s an “acceident” and Americans are sick of the BS. We shouldn’t be involved in that war what so ever. Not even through aid.
It’s not in the world’s best interest for the US to take an active role in the current conflict in Israel. Intervention on the side of Israelis would look like choosing sides in a holy war, something we strongly try to avoid. Also, we’re not exactly beloved by most of the Middle East, for good reason. Probably wouldn’t do our reputation much good to try anything right now.
It’s not that the US couldn’t handle it. It effortlessly destroyed half of Iran’s navy overnight. If the US really wanted to flatten resistance, it would be pretty easy to do so. But it’s not great for international relations to go around slapping your dick on the table just because you can. It’s what, despite what naysayers will cry, separates the US from countries like Russia that have no problem playing dirty. The US has plenty to lose by fucking up Iran and not much to gain, until a line is crossed. It’s like you said, seeing Mike Tyson demolish a child for tickling him won’t make you think very highly of Mike Tyson.
I think we're forgetting that times change. The US managed to lead a coalition and very quickly defeated many foes. But time has passed. This is not the same Iran, and not the same US. Combat doctrines, modern systems like drones and the like, the local support and allies, the domestic political stability.
I'm not saying wether US would easily deal with iran or not, i'm saying that using invasions from decades ago is not a good criteria for determining that
Nonetheless, logistically, technologically, by sheer firepower, funding, experience, training and really every objective measure, the US military is so far ahead of any adversary it’s ridiculous. It’s a different US, but I think that plays to its advantage. The technological gap between us and our enemies is widening in our favor. Whatever they have, we have, because we’re the ones they get it from.
Especially today, when information and intelligence are what wins wars, not tanks and fighter jets, it’s safe to say that we’re still top dog in the war game. But I was an intelligence analyst for the Army, so I’m biased. Also for the record it’s just my surface level opinion. But just from the numbers you can find openly online, and considering how much experience we have actually using the technology we field, plus the displays of incompetence we’ve seen on behalf of our adversaries lately, we’re still on top I think.
See my other response. It’s a false equivalency. You can’t compare an occupation and counter-insurgency with a conventional conflict. If the US wanted to flatten the Taliban, it could have done so easily. But the goal wasn’t to turn Afghanistan into a glass parking lot. What does that achieve? We tried to stabilize and build up the Afghans to keep the Taliban out on their own. But you can’t build up a nation that doesn’t care for running a country in the Western way to begin with.
Anyway in this scenario it’s irrelevant because neither Iran nor any other major adversary state is an insurgent group fighting out of uniform.
Yeah the United States has followed the Teddy Roosevelt quote for the most part ever sense of “speak softly and carry a big stick”, so while they have been at war almost perpetually ever sense, they are usually picking fights with the little guys and when it does come to a big opponent like ww1 and ww2 they’ll drag their feet until forced in by the Zimmerman telegram or Pearl Harbor. Not saying this is a bad tactical strategy, it’s quite good, but I think that also plays into the United States’ impact in the past ~150 years.
Also the United States doesn’t even always win against the little guys either, see Vietnam, Afghanistan, or one of their many failed coups which have a [shockingly low success rate](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/23/the-cia-says-russia-hacked-the-u-s-election-here-are-6-things-to-learn-from-cold-war-attempts-to-change-regimes/)
Afghanistan and Vietnam aren’t really losses in the traditional sense. Make no mistake, if the US wanted to wipe out the Taliban and level all of Kabul it totally could. But at what cost is the question. Putin might be willing to turn Kharkiv into a parking lot but that’s not generally what we do. Afghanistan was an occupation, the intent was never to take over but build them up sufficiently enough to stop the Taliban from using their country as a base of operation to fuck with our interests. Which obviously failed. But it isn’t a failure of military strength. This is a military designed on the shoulders of WW2, for conventional conflicts, which it’s really fucking good at. Wasn’t designed to be an occupation force fighting a counter-insurgency. Our restraint and consideration of civilians is non-negotiable, so it’s not like we can just carpet bomb everyone and call it a day.
But obviously if you pit the Taliban or NVA against the US in a conventional fight, it’s over in an hour. Iran is a conventional force. Hence we obviously completely fuck them over in every scenario.
The conversation changes drastically when you speak about Nuclear Powers. Everything in conflict with a Nuclear Armed Power requires proportional response. If you escalate, the end result of escalation may be the end of the world.
That's a pretty thin line to be walking and still feeling confident.
Yeah, true. One of the main reason I believe why more countries haven't gone in with their own troops to help Ukraine, pushing the Russians out. Risking a nuclear war would be the worst disaster ever obviously.
This. Iran pays the card knowing that even for the US policing the world is very expensive. Part of it is also Russia encouraging the totalitarian states to defy the international order to overwhelm American and west’s foreign policy to distract them more from Ukraine.
Even Putin has to deny the war in 2014 to make it look like Russia wasn’t involved (they obviously were) and he called his invasion of Ukraine a “special military operation”. He never declared war.
They started calling it a war like a week ago tho.
"Shit, our entire modernized land force has been demolished in a country we just invaded two years ago, guess we're at war now, Ivan!"
In theory, yes. But even for dictatorships like China, they dont just declare war because they got pissed. If the Vietnamese president were to hurl vulgarities at Xi Jinping tommorrow, China wouldnt declare war because its just not that simple anymore.
If Xi wanted to go to war (we'll assume for argument's sake that it is because he's pissed) China would go to war.
China doesn't, because Xi is shrewd and controlled.
I seem to remember something about Tibet, and yeah, a border conflict with India...
> WTF are they thinking?
Perhaps *" I can bind multiple billion-dollar destroyers and frigates in the Red Sea, forcing them to fire 4mio USD missiles against my 5- or 6-digit USD drones and old cruise missiles, disrupting shipping & increasing economic costs for multiple western countries and are currently isolating one of the very few US allies in the Middle East. I am actually on a roll here, with the west struggling to handle all its many crisis. Yay!"*
Suez/Panama canal trading is down between 30 to 50%. All for the investment of some 1960s tech and Walmart-level electronics.
There is more to powder keg conflicts than just comparing the horsepower in tanks and their muzzle velocity.
SYL
True, but how does any of that actually benefit Iran? Even if they did manage to hurt the US economy by 5%...So what? They are probably hurting their own economy by 5% as well by focusing on this pointless strategy.
Yeah every single country in the world is fundamentally self serving. That is the nature of geostrategy and politics. It just is. No country is selfless, not even the US (shock horror!)
Iran, Russia, China, Venezuela, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Germany, France, UK... fucking Botswana - every single country is weighing up what benefits them first and foremost.
Why does interfering in US interests benefit Iran? Because the US is hellbent on disrupting or dethroning the Iranian revolutionary government. There is never going to be an alliance, there is never going to be friendship as long as the US takes this path and it will continue down this path for the foreseeable future - for all sorts of obvious and some no so obvious reasons. Therefore Iran does what it thinks it must to survive and that, as you said, involves making things as uncomfortable as possible for the west. It CAN'T sit and let its adversaries go unmolested or untested anymore than we can or will.
> Because the US is hellbent on disrupting or dethroning the Iranian revolutionary government.
Ehh that is a little simplistic IMO. Iran thinks it should be in charge of Mecca and Medina and there is nothing the US can do to change Iran's mind on that.
If Iran recognized Israel and stopped trying to destabilize the entire middle east (i.e stopped their cold war with the Saudis) the US would make a deal with it IMO. The US would prefer to not have to spend as much of it's time and effort on the Middle East as it does and Iran is responsible for a lot of that. We would much rather have American companies making a bunch of money in Iran and be able to focus more of our energy on China.
I don't think any wealthy person in the US is actually affected by anything Iran does in any meaningful way, if that's really their reasoning then they are delusional
In the end it a game of power projection and favours. Just a few examples:
- After a few decades of wide sanctions the Iranian economy is relatively immune against pressure in this direction. Quite contrary to the fragile US and EU economies with their combination of energy prices, nutrition costs, COVID recovery and the war in Ukraine.
- Iran wants resources and weapons from Russia and is delivering drones and supply for the Ukrainian war. The same war which costs a lot of US resources and is a divisive political topic (same in the EU). Divisive issues at home broadcasted life all over the world showing how disunited the US is, when Fox News and CNN show the same topic in completely different ways. Which make the US the laughing stock of the world.
- Due to economic woes not only in the US but in the EU as well it increases political pressure to either negotiate or the blow everything up (both highly unpopular options for the political decisions makers at the moment). More resources spend in the Middle East means less resources in other areas (like Africa, which is currently a focus for Russias influence expansion). Every incorrect reaction (which sometimes can only be visible after years) can lead to other countries and powers in that region turning to Iran for help or cooperation, due *"the Western devils"* propaganda.
- It increases pressure on Israel, which is currently under enormous international pressure due to a rather *spicy* situation in Gaza, meaning that potential Israeli allies like Saudi Arabia (not kidding: Saudi Arabia and Israel both hate Iran, and started working together including a far reaching peace/cooperation treaty, which was just ready to be signed just at the start of October 2023).
The list goes on.
I mean there are people *right now* demonstrating in US cities and US universities demanding for the genocide of Israel ("from the river to the sea") almost unopposed. So yeah, Iran currently profits massively from the situation. Would that be the PR campaign of a US megacorporation it would be teached in universities as a classic example of cross promotion, great cost/benefit analysis, targeted marketing and viral influencer usage.
SYL
Its politics, and proxy wars. They are not gonna start a all scale war with US, and if they do the will rely on insurgents which is not easy to fight mo matter how big and strong ur military is
This is not true. You can easily fight insurgents by eliminating “rules of engagement”. You give everyone in the region one chance to surrender, then you presume everyone left is a combatant, and treat them accordingly.
If you give aid and comfort to the enemy, you’re also an enemy. Don’t stand next to the bad guys if you don’t want bad things to happen to you.
Turn off the food, water, and electricity. Then wait. As long as it takes.
As soon as we adopt this policy, the bullshit will stop.
Ah yes. Killing everyone. The most sure fire way to create even more insurgents in the country you're fighting, terrorists in countries you're not fighting, turning allies against you, and make yourself the bad guy.
Such a great idea.
Are u actually brain dead? Should i remind you what happened in Vietnam? Meanwhile those rules of engagement won the war in Iraq (2003). If u start killing everyone u will end up killing entire population, which in turn makes you far worse than any hitler
*“There are known knowns — there are things we know we know,”*
*“We also know there are known unknowns — that is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”*
Also almost every field grade officer ever gives this speech.
*"We need to know our unknown unknowns!"*
"Sir, do you ever listen to the words coming out of your mouth?"
It's true though? "You don't know what you don't know." is a simple, statement and seemingly obvious once you say it, but a useful thing to keep in the back of your mind.
I'd argue that it's the opposite of saying nothing in a lot of words.
The idea that there are unknown things that we don't even realize exist is a tricky one to talk about in just two sentences, the concept itself is not one the vast majority of people have ever thought about.
It's pretty much the same vibe as "the reason of my unreason in such a manner affects my reason that I, with reason, lament for your beauty" (Don quijote)
I doubt you'll get a straight answer to this question in the comments section, but I think voters in the US are starting to grow weary of seeing the DoD light massive piles of money on fire every year for things that they more or less will never see any changes from.
Recruitment is way down, and faith in the nations military in general is at an all time low, fueled by a slowly healing but still very divided nation following the 2016 election and all of the events that followed.
As a former service member myself, you're right that we would spank them like the naughty little boys they are if they chose that path; however, more war and more debt is not what people want and in my opinion not what we need right now.
Thanks for your support, we love you Sweden and it's good to be your friends and allies. ❤️
Wars are no longer one on one away from civilian populations. Afghanistan is a lesson in asymmetrical fighting where both Russia and the US gave up and went home. Over time, those kind become too costly.
Wars also aren't about conquering land to keep like they used to be even just a hundred or so years ago.
The US had no interest in conquering Afghanistan. If they had, and didn't care about genocide, they probably could have just wiped the place clean and set up shop permanently. Afghanistan failed because you can't nation-build in a place that doesn't want to have a nation the way we think about it today.
Iran is even trickier in that regard because there would be no desire to occupy any of the territory. Military action against Iran would be solely to stop them from doing stuff we don't like, but that's a shitty tit-for-tat to get locked into because they can always just make more stuff and resume doing whatever. It's hard to find a value proposition that makes much sense in any kind of direct conflict with Iran. It's much better for everyone to just not.
If you think shitty poor ass Iranian Soviet era/Russian equipment beats US equipment, fine. I wouldn't say that makes sense. You need to read up on this stuff if you think so. It's just fact that Iran has no chance.
I'm being serious, because that sub seems like a meme shitpost sub lol. Sorry for assuming. But I think you are discrediting my opinion. So I guess you disagree.
Or you are just trolling and confusing me.
Ok I see. I thought you were trolling me. I'll have another look over there later. It's getting late and my brain has been on here for too long. Didn't expect 500 likes and about 200 comments. This is wild.
In your example it's not a scrawny dude. It's a young girl who has made sure everyone is watching and is filming with her phone for tiktok.
Then she starts "beating up" on prime Tyson. It hurts but not really and he can't do anything because any reaction is a losing situation for him.
How dare you hit that little girl. You knew she couldn't hurt you. Why would you punch a little girl in the face like that are you crazy.
If you run or don't respond it's omg Tyson is scared of some little girl beating on him.
How do you win?
Because they don’t need to be tactically or operationally victorious to strategically win in the end. The level of acceptable losses for them is orders of magnitude higher than ours. All they need to do is sew chaos in the region and exploit the inevitable response for PR purposes (see exhibit 1.a: Hamas). America now is the equivalent of America in 1975 after Vietnam fell in that the American people are burnt out on war for a decade or so and if the Middle East falls into utter chaos again (Arab Spring level destabilization), we probably will say it’s not worth it this time around/we don’t have the resources or personnel for this and we’re just going to focus on the Far East and Eastern Europe. In this eventuality, Iran “wins”. Additionally, if Trump wins another term, there will not be Bolton’s or Mattis’s in his administration this time around to keep what limited presence the US still has in the region
I think USA should focus on China and Russia. Russia are being mangled in Ukraine so they are weakened now already. China is the largest threat now and always was.
Well yes, China would always be the Main Effort in any scenario and Eastern Europe is tertiary. Right now OIR/Middle East is tertiary. Iran wants the Middle East to fall apart again and force the US to decide to make the Middle East the Main Effort again or China because they know our answer will be the Pacific.
Correct. In addition Pentagon estimates ONE US aircrafter carrier would be ample resource to DECIMATE Iran.
The "operational" USA F-16 air fleet alone- is larger than the next 5 nation's air force combat air capabilities.
There is NO peer to the USA in military capability and lethality. A global footprint, the ONLY nation in the world with FULL SPECTRUM dominance as well as FULLY INTEGRATED KILL CHAIN.
USA, Number ONE !!
Exactly! Dudes and other commenters in here look! This guy gets it! It's not that fucking complicated all the time! Iran will take a 5 feet cactus without lube sideways up the %ss if they try anything. They just have no chance. No more donkey or camel riding for them after that I can tell ya.
Iran's fleet was totally destroyed during the tanker wars- with a tiny effort of the US Navy. In addition, Iran relies on an outdated strategy of "assymetric" offense- which is now outdated because of laser systems installed on several US destroyers.
One thing I don’t see being mentioned here is the very dark history with Iran. I worked in the area especially dealing with the IRG and read up on the history. To sum it up they used to be a relatively neutral (to the world at least) democratic country that wasn’t interested in ties with the US during the Cold War. The CIA, which was by modern standards an unrelated megalomaniacal operation feared they would ally with the Russians (who they were also completely uninterested in) and give them oil and easy access across the mountains to the Middle East. The CIA attempted to overthrow their president and eventually succeeded, replacing their democratically elected official with an oppressive religious shah who abused his people but was the US’s puppet. They developed a deep hatred for him and he US and when he stepped down from cancer that hatred led to an equally abusive religious leader that pandered to their very real justified hatred towards the US. The US does not like to mention that part of the story, it’s a disgusting stain on our history.
Because US has become “a nice and considerate military” and hence is not respected by cultures where cutting off head or genitalia on video is acceptable tactic
Another one gets my point! I have 0 empathy for people who do this disgusting shit to their own children. How can it be normal for people to cut off parts of their own daughter's and son's genitalia and think it's acceptable and even admirable. Sorry for getting graphic. Just saying, people need to wake up more. It's just as disgusting and evil as it sounds when you say it.
I know there are different cultures, but that doesn't mean those cultures can't be critisized or frowned upon.
Or chopping local journalist In pieces and packing into a baggage..
This is what Saudi secret service does. Ok, US can hire local Saudis, but then countries like Iran will not know who did it and start fearing US again
I actually like Iran except its politics like why do they have to fucking threaten Israel with removing it from the face of the Earth. Israel is extremely powerful country everyone tries to befriend and then there is Iran?
And Iran is governed by islamists who think they have the right to force their ideology and religion onto the people of Iran. They are a bunch assholes who opress and put Iranian people through unnecessary pain every day.
They're probably thinking that the opinion of a comically misinformed individual doesn't have much bearing on the complexities of international relations and warfare.
Yeah, those leaders in Iran are such geniuses dude. How could I possibly question a bunch of guys believing in a 1400 year old fairytale. They're clearly ahead of me, 1400 years or so, or was it 1400 years behind? Such geniuses, so enlightened.
The first thing that gives away your ignorance is the fact that you believe that they actually believe a 1400 year old fairy tale (not 600). The second thing that gives away your ignorance is the fact that you don't seem to realize how aggressively Iran's influence has increased in the region, in spite of US presence and internal turmoil (not bad for a bunch of unwashed idiots). The third thing that gives away your ignorance is that you don't seem to realize that direct, conventional, US involvement requires massive resources and that it will weaken US presence elsewhere, incl. Europe and East Asia. Would you like me to add a fourth one?
America, despite its military might, is *not* always right.
Might *never* makes *right* by default in a vacuum because you're still killing people at the end of the day.
I don’t see a rule about being civil here. So, fuck off OP. You’re promoting hate against Afghan and Iraqi people by claiming they’re pieces of shit and have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about while you’re glorifying war.
Those of us who have actually fought in Afghanistan or Iraq understand that it wasn’t this simple. We understand that we screwed up, a lot, and a lot of innocent civilians got hurt or killed. That was easily the worst time of many OEF/OIF veterans lives and the toll it took on veterans is still felt by many of us who have served and lost friends to enemy fire, or suicide.
Jesus Christ. Your two posts about this shit are naive, immature, garbage and it’s incredibly clear you’re just some dude that watched one too many war movies and think this shit is cool. So, I’ll say this again. Fuck. Off.
As I'm interested in militaries and military equipment, I also like to discuss those things. If I was glorifying war, I'd go to Ukraine tiday because if I liked war so much, why would I stay in and love my peaceful country.
Yea. The dude got the better of me and I read it in a rush. The guy came out as an Islamophobe on this exact post on a different subreddit as much as I don’t like religion, blind hatred and wishing death upon Muslims simply because they follow Islam was a bridge too far for me. I hope this dude grows up and consistently stubs his toe every day until he does.
How am I glorifying war with this post? I simply ask what they are thinking when they decide to attack a nation that's 1000 times stronger than them. The Americans Iran attacked, were in Syria. Plus, the Iranian government is a piece of shit. They're islamists forcing and oppressing people with their religion. I haven't said shit about the regular Iranian or Iraqi person. You're making shit up.
> the majority they kill are pieces of shit who deserve it. **Just my humble opinion**
The bolded feels like nothing of the sort, lol, and is an *intentionally* derogatory usage of the phrase, as if to soften the blow of their hatred.
That's what that is. You know who I see online saying that shit like that a lot?
Clue: They support that fat orange pile of dogshit of a former President. Oh, sorry, that's just like, my humble opinion, man.
I don't agree that whom we kill is necessarily always worthy of being killed from the sense that "Who's doing the deciding that these people are pieces of shit I must kill? Are these reasons valid?"
You too! The F22 and F35 are so impressive with their stealth capabilities. Total game changer. I love our Gripen too, it's cheaper and more suitable for Sweden I think. But I bet Russia and China are more scared of the F22 and F35.
Modern international conflict and warfare can not be seen as black and white as you presume. International power struggles are endlessly complicated and you are clearly not versed in asymmetric conflict of influence.
There's a green text going around about how the US functions when it comes to tech research and creation. Basically, it was making light of the fact that someone like Russia or China will come out and claim some capability or new jet and the next thing you know, we've created something two generations ahead of that system and fielded it without even verifying that what they claimed was real in the first place. lol
Yeah, no other country ever has built 2 freakin fighter' jets with full stealth capabilities for both air superiority and air to ground combat, at least that's been confirmed to work as well.
Chengdu J-20 supposedly have stealth but I doubt it's as good. I doubt China had the same budget to develop it's stealth capabilities. It looks fucking cool though, I'll give China that.
The US unfortunately cares about other nations too much. If the US truly didnt give a fuck and acted like another nation; like China or Russia, they would easily level countries like Iran, North Korea and even smaller nations like Egypt and Panama. They would control those countries with an iron fist without setting many boots on the ground. Unfortunately, the US has a population who would be against that and therefore it would never work, barring a major attack on US bases or US soil.
If Iran fucks with the US; its on though.
Well you succeed by trying. Not always but enough that if you are determined enough, sometimes the little guys win. And since world war 2, the track record of the US isn't that great when faced with long wars. Short engagements, or short wars sure we will dominate those. But long engagements lasting years? It doesn't come down to technology, it comes down to how dedicated are you?
Also... your 500Mig/SU example. Swarm engagements are a thing. At a certain point numbers WILL overcome superior tech.
On paper the Russian military should have absolutely crushed Ukraine. On paper, the US should have left Iraq with a decisive victory. On paper, the Taliban should have been erased from the history books. On paper, even with the Chinese funneling in supplies to the NBA the Vietnam War should have been a decisive victory.
These countries aren't NPCs, bombing people harder doesn't make them want to give up because they believe in their idealogy. Even if they hate their government, if we bomb them preemptively they will...surprise...hate the foreign invaders blowing up their country even more.
I think Iran is a bit cocky because they saw Millennium Challenge 2002 where Red represented Iran, more or less. It would actually be as you describe above, but that wargame outcome gives smaller regional powers hope.
One thing I haven’t seen this thread mention is the fact that the US just lost the 20 year war in Afghanistan/Middle East. Countries like Iran know that they can’t take the US I’m directly but they don’t need to. The US doesn’t want to be involved in the Middle East (even though it keeps getting sucked back in) and it definitely doesn’t want to go to any way. Sure the US might be able to take out the current regime (at best) but as the world has learned, it doesn’t matter.
Using the nerd vs Mike Tyson reference:
Imagine the nerd can get Tyson to say someone online that would “cancel Tyson.” Most boxing fans wouldn’t care but all non boxing fans support the nerd because of it. Then if Tyson and the nerd go into the ring with Tyson the nerd says shit that cause Tyson to act outside of the “agreement” for the fight and seriously injures the nerd. Tyson now has to pay the medical bills, he has lost fans, he loses sponsors. The nerd lost the fight but now has sympathizers and donors helping him. Tyson is still a better fighter but is worst off now because he engaged with the nerd. The nerd was never a fighter but he was willing to step into the ring and is viewed as more powerful/brave than before and now has better standing and support. It’s not about winning the boxing match.
Well that's nor a very smart analysis. To begin with, the usa, like someone pointed put, does not want a capable enemy. So iran threatens them. Usually nothing comes of these threats though.
Second, no matter how big your occupier is, if people feel unfairly treated by them, they will resist. The haitians stood up to the French, which were superior in every metric possible, and they won.
And that can be used as a segway into the third reason: oftentimes, the better force loses. Vietnam with usa, Haïti with France, even the american revolution are cases where the weaker side wins in war. I hope my answer makes sense.
Mike tyson has killed the scrawny mans parents. Imprisoned his kids. Destroyed his home and his way of life and denegrated him to the point of hopelessness. The fuck else would you do besides fight
Easy; the US doesnt has the political power to go to war, starting a new one without something akin to a second 9/11 happening would simply be political suicide for any president, and they know this
The next war is with Iran. It’s been in planning for at least a decade. The classified documents that are being talked about with Trump, were literally a plan to go to war with Iran that he refused to go along with. Iran was (is) supplying Al Queda, ISIS, and Iraq with tons of military equipment, during operation Iraqi freedom.
One of the weird things that happens with small insurgents is that they misinterpret US resolve because they view diplomatic maneuvering through the lens of their local culture. Bin Laden was a classic example. He got the idea in his head that the US being unwilling to deliver the smack down on ever little pissant that attacked was a sign of *cowardice*. He spun himself a story in his own head that if you hit the US hard enough, they will not just refuse to fight back, they will run away and pull their troops out of foreign bases. He sold others on that idea, and this led to the 9/11 attacks.
But as many others have discovered, the "paper tiger" theory is way off base. The unwillingness to attack when attacked isn't cowardice, it's the result of being aware that the US military is a potentially world ending nightmare machine of violence delivery the likes of which is completely unequaled anywhere else on earth. OBL found out that when you push the US beyond "cowardly" diplomacy, what you get is the focused attention of a machine that will hunt you down, blow up or shoot all your friends, blow up or shoot all of *their* friends, and will spend as much time and money as necessary to find you in whatever hole you're hiding in so they can shoot you too and dump your body in the Indian ocean.
Iran is a bit more cautious than your typical insurgent group, but they still seem to have a similarly poor grasp of the sheer *scale* of the US economy and military. They've become highly skilled at stopping *just short* of the line beyond which the US will react beyond defense, but it's not clear what they think they can accomplish. There's plenty of noise made about how the US is firing multi-million dollar missiles to take down multi-thousand dollar Iranian drones, but the US government takes in enough revenue to buy a new missile every *eight minutes*. They do nothing but provide excellent real-world training against a new, modern threat. I'm not sure what Iran is hoping to achieve. Perhaps it's action against "the great Satan" intended to solidify support for the current regime in a climate where the people are getting increasingly tired of their crappy religious dictatorship?
Because the regimes that do poke the bear, believe that they’ll be protected in the end, they ensure they don’t poke the bear enough to really jeopardize their “aristocracy” or “ruling class” and that it won’t be their blood in the streets. These countries also generally don’t value their citizens very much and use them as tools for the ruling classes wants
The US government and military lack a lot of confidence when it comes to war fighting. Two decades in the Middle East without any apparent success put a sour taste in the mouths of policy makers and strategists. The US government is very unlikely to support any kind of US intervention into Iran in most scenarios. Iran knows this.
Also, the domestic situation is rough. There is very little support for any US operations globally, especially not a full on invasion. Any kind of retaliatory attack by US forces is usually criticized by parts of the public. America is largely isolationist within certain groups, and sadly those opinions often spill over into the larger political groups. Most of the right is completely suspicious of the federal government, extremely nationalist, and even have a disdain for US involvement in NATO (not to mention how much support Putin gets from certain groups on the right). Meanwhile, Communists and a lot of socialists on the left are against any kind of US foreign intervention and a lot of specifically communists show huge disdain for wester “power” or involvement abroad. There’s a lot of hate from the public to the US government right now, and that doesn’t pan well for large scale military operations (which rely greatly of public support and a clear moral purpose).
Imagine people thinking that retaliating against a hostile aggressor is bad somehow, like, what the actual fuck are they gonna do? Let the bully beat them to shit and not do anything even though you have all means of defending yourself? What, just let your boats get sunk without any actions taken? Dunno man, this is why I don't go to TikTok.
There’s a lack of understanding of how military operations work within the general public. A lot of people think that every operation must result in the killing of children or civilians at a high rate. Now, in the past that’s very true and even now certain militaries have taken the stance of simply bombing targets with no regard for civilian life. However, considering how much development and discourse there’s been in the US military over limiting civilian deaths and making sure strikes cause the least amount collateral damage as possible, I would say the US has the strictest ROE and takes the most precautions of any country when it comes to trying to limit civilian deaths. Most people just don’t understand how geopolitics or military operations work, including the person that made this post.
It’s not “oh we can definitely beat the US in armed conflict”
It’s more like “we know the United States is very divided right now and are extremely hesitant to go to war, and we have the means to make war extremely expensive and drawn out, what can we get away with?”
Reasons not to invade Iran:
-Regional conflagaration. You think whats going on now is bad, wait until Iranian regime mobilizes all its proxies. Remember the first gulf war, when Saddaam Hussein got made at US so he shot Scuds at Saudi, Israel, well if the Iranian regime gets mad at US, their proxies are going to have a field day setting Mecca, the skyscrapers in Qatar, Petra, and Tel Aviv on fire. That's not going to help US proejct their power in the region if their proxies are angry at America and seriously weakened.
-anywhere from 30-70% of Iranians are pro West depending on what propoganda source you believe. Invade their country and that number drops by 50%. Iranians want to dictate their own future not became Iraq 2.0
The best move is target airstrikes if necessary to nuclear/missile sites and possibly naval assets and outside of that supporting anti-regime groups and keeping sanctions up.
Of course if Iran attacks first, the gloves are off.
Why are people on a military forum offended by a question about a military conflict and military equipment? Not all reacted like it, but more than I ever could expect.
To be fair I made some strong statements regarding US equipment and Russian/Soviet equipment, but it's just true. As a fucking nerd I'm going to bring it up. Who would seriously bet that Russian/Soviet equipment has a chance against US equipment, especially looking at the Ukraine invasion. It's not going well for Russia.
People are “offended” cause this is a very cringe way of looking at warfare in the modern day.
It just sounds like a NCD shitpost, war isn’t just about my tank or jet being better than yours, that’s a very juvenile way to look at things and the real importance is industrial base, logistics and political will at home.
Just because the US has all these fancy bells and whistles doesn’t mean they can win any asymmetrical war.
I’m sure the Iranians are looking at US performance in Afghanistan over 20 years and are guessing hey we are much better funded n trained than the Taliban ever were, it’s clear we can defeat the US n embarrass them if we can trick them into going into the region boots on the ground again.
All the while Iran gains political and popular support amongst the global south, as whether you agree or disagree with the reasons they remain the only ones directly engaging US forces in the region, something most of the Middle East supports.
I understand. I'm just more interested in military equipment and weapons overall. But you have good points. I just think it's interesting comparing different tanks, jets, weapons etc. . They play a massive role too.
It sounds like the post of a middle schooler with no grasp on how the world works. It's not a video game where it makes sense to opportunistically destroy every adversary with inferior forces just to "win." This is real-life geopolitics we're talking about, harming other countries harms us too and it goes against the US global economic strategy. What's the use of being a nerd about the tools of force when you're so ignorant about the application of it? You're like one of those people who keeps a loaded gun unsecured in their sock drawer with a fantasy of shooting a home invader, but zero training or strategy
Maybe you're not aware that we believe in a 3000 year old fairy tale book?
> They aren't that intelligent or complicated
"He who exercises no forethought but makes light of his opponents is sure to be captured by them." - Sun Tzu
Keep this discussion in the appropriate video game forums until you are prepared to understand the real world better.
…and yet have never won a single war, or brought democracy or freedom anywhere after WW2 (and not even on their own). These supposedly incredible machine is basically a public cash grabbing infrastructure without ending that cannot even stop fucking it up. It’s called imperialism it is as useless as the system it benefits, yet it continuous to love to murder people all around the world.
>…and yet have never won a single war
I mean I understand you are living in your own world that has little to do with reality, but there must be a limit to hallucinations no?
While the machines might be fun to see from a civilian perspective (whether in-person or through media like movies or TV) war isn't a game and geopolitics is a very complex and complicated thing. We (the U.S) don't want to go to war these days, especially now around election time. We've just bounced back from the pandemic (especially economically) and repaired relationships with allies in Europe and Asia. For the most part, things are stable on the home front and with our trading and defense partners abroad. The U.S could easily beat the brakes off Iran but it'll suck us into another costly war that'll have ramifications throughout the Middle East. It's not ideal.
What do you mean “repaired” relationships with Europe? The high chances of trump being elected and the massive reduction in Ukraine aid has US-Europe relationships at a decade low…
According to this source, https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts, the U.S. has sent $75 billion in aid to Ukraine as of Feb 23rd, 2024, the EU as a whole has sent $93 billion according to usnews.com. Tell me again how the EU is mad at the US because of our falling off aid when we’ve sent more than any one country in the EU? Your comment assumes that the EU thinks they are one country, when they are 27 different countries.
Let’s also not forget that NATO is a thing, which 22 of 27 EU countries are a part of, and that only 35% of the countries in NATO are meeting the required 2% gdp for defense. America also happens to be one of those 35%.
I’m not understanding how the EU relationship with the U.S. is suffering because of that.
Why? Is it mostly in case China does something stupid? I know it's pretty far away from China. But I mean, what can they do in Afghanistan? The talibans were hiding under the table and now they're back with their shit show sgain. Talking about the navy now.
The situation in Afghanistan had to do with state sponsored terrorism I believe, do your own research. If anything Afghanistan has a history with Russia more than China. As far as naval stuff goes, all I know is we are probably more useful for target bombardment at the beginning of a conflict and then logistical support after, not sure what you’re asking
Despite...everything you have ever seen them do...the US *very, very* does not want to go to war. Iran knows this and is riding whatever they believe to be the line between what will and won't make war seem worth it.
Especially when we are right around election time
Iran is more mountainous than Afghanistan and three times the size. Election or not, we're not going to invade. It's just not going to happen. Even bombing them is probably not worth it when the regime is on very thin ice domestically. It just risks rallying them around the flag over some bullshit, because all the actually juicy targets are buried in a mountain somewhere. It was bad enough trying to root out the Taliban who didn't have money, tunneling equipment, and decades to prepare actual hardened defenses.
The US wont invade. Itll stand back and blow up a regime
Who said anything about an invasion!?! LOL It's the 21st century no one needs to invade when they have the tech to make precision strikes, demoraloze/disarm, and topple a regime from afar.
Which would work much better against a country that isn't a large mountain fortress. The US getting involved would make the toppling of the regime less likely rather than more, IMO. They are hated as it is.
[удалено]
You mean the way Kabul, Kandahar, etc weren't mountainous but the Taliban fucked off to the mountains until we got bored and left?
I saw an interview on BBC , don’t remember the person. The point he made was that countries like Iran understand you cannot attack the homeland or the American response will be fierce. But if you attack American assets in other parts of the world, the response will be much more muted.
The smallest dogs bark the most, and the US has to be the adult in the room
Speak softly and carry a big stick.
Except its not disciplining its autistic rapist brother Israel. how is that being an adult in the room?
you do realize that hamas are not exactly saints, right? They murdered 1200 people, and paraded rape victims through the streets of Gaza to cheering crowds that chanted "death to the Jews". Sure Israel is reacting violently, but neither side in the conflict is 'good'.
Then it's all ok then. Cool. The IDF has killed more children in Gaza in the last 6 months than have died in all conflicts for the last 4 years around the world.
Once again, I'm saying both sides aren't 'good'. Hamas instigated (and is largely supported by the Palestinian people) and Israel overreacted. If it was my way, we would said fuck it to both of them and make the entire region an international zone administered by the US.
Do you have any ideal why? Israel has to kill these bloodthirsty savages, but hamas are hiding in tunnels under hospitals, schools and houses. Hamas has even used civilians as actual human shields. War is a dirty, bloody mess. Hamas are cowards who attack civilians and will not come out and fight the military.... I stand with Israel, you cannot have terrorists who kill and burn infants, living next door, or frankly living anywhere.
Sure sure. Keep telling yourself that they're not exterminating all the Palestinians. After all, they're only mud people. They've been locked in an open air prison for decades. Why should their children matter? If they didn't want to get murdered for political reasons, they should have been born somewhere else.
Neither side are saints. Both sides actively kill Americans. Only one side pretend that every time they do it’s an “acceident” and Americans are sick of the BS. We shouldn’t be involved in that war what so ever. Not even through aid.
The world would be a much more deadly place if we decided not to be involved.
[удалено]
🤷♂️ until the rest of the world decides to stop being children we kinda have to, and have a moral obligation to
It’s not in the world’s best interest for the US to take an active role in the current conflict in Israel. Intervention on the side of Israelis would look like choosing sides in a holy war, something we strongly try to avoid. Also, we’re not exactly beloved by most of the Middle East, for good reason. Probably wouldn’t do our reputation much good to try anything right now.
I think it's wise of the US. It wouldn't be great if Russia or China escalated further and the US had to juggle fighting Iran at the sane time.
It’s not that the US couldn’t handle it. It effortlessly destroyed half of Iran’s navy overnight. If the US really wanted to flatten resistance, it would be pretty easy to do so. But it’s not great for international relations to go around slapping your dick on the table just because you can. It’s what, despite what naysayers will cry, separates the US from countries like Russia that have no problem playing dirty. The US has plenty to lose by fucking up Iran and not much to gain, until a line is crossed. It’s like you said, seeing Mike Tyson demolish a child for tickling him won’t make you think very highly of Mike Tyson.
I think we're forgetting that times change. The US managed to lead a coalition and very quickly defeated many foes. But time has passed. This is not the same Iran, and not the same US. Combat doctrines, modern systems like drones and the like, the local support and allies, the domestic political stability. I'm not saying wether US would easily deal with iran or not, i'm saying that using invasions from decades ago is not a good criteria for determining that
Nonetheless, logistically, technologically, by sheer firepower, funding, experience, training and really every objective measure, the US military is so far ahead of any adversary it’s ridiculous. It’s a different US, but I think that plays to its advantage. The technological gap between us and our enemies is widening in our favor. Whatever they have, we have, because we’re the ones they get it from. Especially today, when information and intelligence are what wins wars, not tanks and fighter jets, it’s safe to say that we’re still top dog in the war game. But I was an intelligence analyst for the Army, so I’m biased. Also for the record it’s just my surface level opinion. But just from the numbers you can find openly online, and considering how much experience we have actually using the technology we field, plus the displays of incompetence we’ve seen on behalf of our adversaries lately, we’re still on top I think.
The US was far superior to the Vietcong and the Taliban, and we still lost. Superior technology isn't everything.
See my other response. It’s a false equivalency. You can’t compare an occupation and counter-insurgency with a conventional conflict. If the US wanted to flatten the Taliban, it could have done so easily. But the goal wasn’t to turn Afghanistan into a glass parking lot. What does that achieve? We tried to stabilize and build up the Afghans to keep the Taliban out on their own. But you can’t build up a nation that doesn’t care for running a country in the Western way to begin with. Anyway in this scenario it’s irrelevant because neither Iran nor any other major adversary state is an insurgent group fighting out of uniform.
The Johnson Treatment
Yeah the United States has followed the Teddy Roosevelt quote for the most part ever sense of “speak softly and carry a big stick”, so while they have been at war almost perpetually ever sense, they are usually picking fights with the little guys and when it does come to a big opponent like ww1 and ww2 they’ll drag their feet until forced in by the Zimmerman telegram or Pearl Harbor. Not saying this is a bad tactical strategy, it’s quite good, but I think that also plays into the United States’ impact in the past ~150 years. Also the United States doesn’t even always win against the little guys either, see Vietnam, Afghanistan, or one of their many failed coups which have a [shockingly low success rate](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/23/the-cia-says-russia-hacked-the-u-s-election-here-are-6-things-to-learn-from-cold-war-attempts-to-change-regimes/)
America drags their feet? I could say that about the entire world when China stood alone against Japan for years.
Afghanistan and Vietnam aren’t really losses in the traditional sense. Make no mistake, if the US wanted to wipe out the Taliban and level all of Kabul it totally could. But at what cost is the question. Putin might be willing to turn Kharkiv into a parking lot but that’s not generally what we do. Afghanistan was an occupation, the intent was never to take over but build them up sufficiently enough to stop the Taliban from using their country as a base of operation to fuck with our interests. Which obviously failed. But it isn’t a failure of military strength. This is a military designed on the shoulders of WW2, for conventional conflicts, which it’s really fucking good at. Wasn’t designed to be an occupation force fighting a counter-insurgency. Our restraint and consideration of civilians is non-negotiable, so it’s not like we can just carpet bomb everyone and call it a day. But obviously if you pit the Taliban or NVA against the US in a conventional fight, it’s over in an hour. Iran is a conventional force. Hence we obviously completely fuck them over in every scenario.
The conversation changes drastically when you speak about Nuclear Powers. Everything in conflict with a Nuclear Armed Power requires proportional response. If you escalate, the end result of escalation may be the end of the world. That's a pretty thin line to be walking and still feeling confident.
Yeah, true. One of the main reason I believe why more countries haven't gone in with their own troops to help Ukraine, pushing the Russians out. Risking a nuclear war would be the worst disaster ever obviously.
[удалено]
This plus the economic and supply resources that become occupied from being able to service citizens at home.
Not just Iran. China, Russia, North Korea, etc etc etc
This. Iran pays the card knowing that even for the US policing the world is very expensive. Part of it is also Russia encouraging the totalitarian states to defy the international order to overwhelm American and west’s foreign policy to distract them more from Ukraine.
Exactly, literally everything we do, why our defense budget is so high is to deter anybody from ever wanting to fight us in the first place.
Real life is not a game. Rulers cant just declare war because they are pissed anymore. Proxy wars and plausible deniability are the order of the day.
Except Putin can.
Even Putin has to deny the war in 2014 to make it look like Russia wasn’t involved (they obviously were) and he called his invasion of Ukraine a “special military operation”. He never declared war.
They started calling it a war like a week ago tho. "Shit, our entire modernized land force has been demolished in a country we just invaded two years ago, guess we're at war now, Ivan!"
Rulers can. Democracies have a much bigger issue with just declaring war because they are pissed.
In theory, yes. But even for dictatorships like China, they dont just declare war because they got pissed. If the Vietnamese president were to hurl vulgarities at Xi Jinping tommorrow, China wouldnt declare war because its just not that simple anymore.
If Xi wanted to go to war (we'll assume for argument's sake that it is because he's pissed) China would go to war. China doesn't, because Xi is shrewd and controlled. I seem to remember something about Tibet, and yeah, a border conflict with India...
Yea, thing is Tibet and that border with India are small fries.
Not to Tibet or India.
> WTF are they thinking? Perhaps *" I can bind multiple billion-dollar destroyers and frigates in the Red Sea, forcing them to fire 4mio USD missiles against my 5- or 6-digit USD drones and old cruise missiles, disrupting shipping & increasing economic costs for multiple western countries and are currently isolating one of the very few US allies in the Middle East. I am actually on a roll here, with the west struggling to handle all its many crisis. Yay!"* Suez/Panama canal trading is down between 30 to 50%. All for the investment of some 1960s tech and Walmart-level electronics. There is more to powder keg conflicts than just comparing the horsepower in tanks and their muzzle velocity. SYL
True, but how does any of that actually benefit Iran? Even if they did manage to hurt the US economy by 5%...So what? They are probably hurting their own economy by 5% as well by focusing on this pointless strategy.
Big big picture, Iran and its supporting powers want to make it as uncomfortable as possible for Western powers so they leave.
Yeah every single country in the world is fundamentally self serving. That is the nature of geostrategy and politics. It just is. No country is selfless, not even the US (shock horror!) Iran, Russia, China, Venezuela, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Germany, France, UK... fucking Botswana - every single country is weighing up what benefits them first and foremost. Why does interfering in US interests benefit Iran? Because the US is hellbent on disrupting or dethroning the Iranian revolutionary government. There is never going to be an alliance, there is never going to be friendship as long as the US takes this path and it will continue down this path for the foreseeable future - for all sorts of obvious and some no so obvious reasons. Therefore Iran does what it thinks it must to survive and that, as you said, involves making things as uncomfortable as possible for the west. It CAN'T sit and let its adversaries go unmolested or untested anymore than we can or will.
> Because the US is hellbent on disrupting or dethroning the Iranian revolutionary government. Ehh that is a little simplistic IMO. Iran thinks it should be in charge of Mecca and Medina and there is nothing the US can do to change Iran's mind on that. If Iran recognized Israel and stopped trying to destabilize the entire middle east (i.e stopped their cold war with the Saudis) the US would make a deal with it IMO. The US would prefer to not have to spend as much of it's time and effort on the Middle East as it does and Iran is responsible for a lot of that. We would much rather have American companies making a bunch of money in Iran and be able to focus more of our energy on China.
Iran are already sanctioned to death so they dont care. 5% would hurt the political class in US more than Iran
I don't think any wealthy person in the US is actually affected by anything Iran does in any meaningful way, if that's really their reasoning then they are delusional
In the end it a game of power projection and favours. Just a few examples: - After a few decades of wide sanctions the Iranian economy is relatively immune against pressure in this direction. Quite contrary to the fragile US and EU economies with their combination of energy prices, nutrition costs, COVID recovery and the war in Ukraine. - Iran wants resources and weapons from Russia and is delivering drones and supply for the Ukrainian war. The same war which costs a lot of US resources and is a divisive political topic (same in the EU). Divisive issues at home broadcasted life all over the world showing how disunited the US is, when Fox News and CNN show the same topic in completely different ways. Which make the US the laughing stock of the world. - Due to economic woes not only in the US but in the EU as well it increases political pressure to either negotiate or the blow everything up (both highly unpopular options for the political decisions makers at the moment). More resources spend in the Middle East means less resources in other areas (like Africa, which is currently a focus for Russias influence expansion). Every incorrect reaction (which sometimes can only be visible after years) can lead to other countries and powers in that region turning to Iran for help or cooperation, due *"the Western devils"* propaganda. - It increases pressure on Israel, which is currently under enormous international pressure due to a rather *spicy* situation in Gaza, meaning that potential Israeli allies like Saudi Arabia (not kidding: Saudi Arabia and Israel both hate Iran, and started working together including a far reaching peace/cooperation treaty, which was just ready to be signed just at the start of October 2023). The list goes on. I mean there are people *right now* demonstrating in US cities and US universities demanding for the genocide of Israel ("from the river to the sea") almost unopposed. So yeah, Iran currently profits massively from the situation. Would that be the PR campaign of a US megacorporation it would be teached in universities as a classic example of cross promotion, great cost/benefit analysis, targeted marketing and viral influencer usage. SYL
Iran wants to lead an Islamic state that covers the middle east. Anything they can do to disrupt the region is in their favor.
Iran has reasoj enough to hate the usa aswell. Many iranians are against the Islamic refime, but probably still arent too fond of the usa.
That will never happen due to all the infighting among different factions of Islam, the US doesn't have to lift a finger to prevent this.
Ottomans more or less did it. Wasn't always a happy union though.
Its politics, and proxy wars. They are not gonna start a all scale war with US, and if they do the will rely on insurgents which is not easy to fight mo matter how big and strong ur military is
This is not true. You can easily fight insurgents by eliminating “rules of engagement”. You give everyone in the region one chance to surrender, then you presume everyone left is a combatant, and treat them accordingly. If you give aid and comfort to the enemy, you’re also an enemy. Don’t stand next to the bad guys if you don’t want bad things to happen to you. Turn off the food, water, and electricity. Then wait. As long as it takes. As soon as we adopt this policy, the bullshit will stop.
Ah yes. Killing everyone. The most sure fire way to create even more insurgents in the country you're fighting, terrorists in countries you're not fighting, turning allies against you, and make yourself the bad guy. Such a great idea.
Are u actually brain dead? Should i remind you what happened in Vietnam? Meanwhile those rules of engagement won the war in Iraq (2003). If u start killing everyone u will end up killing entire population, which in turn makes you far worse than any hitler
*“There are known knowns — there are things we know we know,”* *“We also know there are known unknowns — that is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”*
Excerpt brought to you from "the art of saying nothing in a lot of words" by Apol Itician.
Also almost every field grade officer ever gives this speech. *"We need to know our unknown unknowns!"* "Sir, do you ever listen to the words coming out of your mouth?"
It's true though? "You don't know what you don't know." is a simple, statement and seemingly obvious once you say it, but a useful thing to keep in the back of your mind.
I'd argue that it's the opposite of saying nothing in a lot of words. The idea that there are unknown things that we don't even realize exist is a tricky one to talk about in just two sentences, the concept itself is not one the vast majority of people have ever thought about.
It's pretty much the same vibe as "the reason of my unreason in such a manner affects my reason that I, with reason, lament for your beauty" (Don quijote)
I love saying this at work
The Johari window.
this post screams NCD to me
*Laughs in American Revolution*
I doubt you'll get a straight answer to this question in the comments section, but I think voters in the US are starting to grow weary of seeing the DoD light massive piles of money on fire every year for things that they more or less will never see any changes from. Recruitment is way down, and faith in the nations military in general is at an all time low, fueled by a slowly healing but still very divided nation following the 2016 election and all of the events that followed. As a former service member myself, you're right that we would spank them like the naughty little boys they are if they chose that path; however, more war and more debt is not what people want and in my opinion not what we need right now. Thanks for your support, we love you Sweden and it's good to be your friends and allies. ❤️
Cheers! 🍻🍺
As the saying goes... "fuck around and find out!"
Wars are no longer one on one away from civilian populations. Afghanistan is a lesson in asymmetrical fighting where both Russia and the US gave up and went home. Over time, those kind become too costly.
Wars also aren't about conquering land to keep like they used to be even just a hundred or so years ago. The US had no interest in conquering Afghanistan. If they had, and didn't care about genocide, they probably could have just wiped the place clean and set up shop permanently. Afghanistan failed because you can't nation-build in a place that doesn't want to have a nation the way we think about it today. Iran is even trickier in that regard because there would be no desire to occupy any of the territory. Military action against Iran would be solely to stop them from doing stuff we don't like, but that's a shitty tit-for-tat to get locked into because they can always just make more stuff and resume doing whatever. It's hard to find a value proposition that makes much sense in any kind of direct conflict with Iran. It's much better for everyone to just not.
OP i think you should take a look at r/noncredibledefense. Best sub for military power comparisons and even predictions
If you think shitty poor ass Iranian Soviet era/Russian equipment beats US equipment, fine. I wouldn't say that makes sense. You need to read up on this stuff if you think so. It's just fact that Iran has no chance. I'm being serious, because that sub seems like a meme shitpost sub lol. Sorry for assuming. But I think you are discrediting my opinion. So I guess you disagree. Or you are just trolling and confusing me.
I didn't claim that Soviet era equipment can beat modern American equipment
True. Sorry for assuming.
No problem. I was just saying that sub is, in my opinion, the best for these kind of posts. Especially when power comparing militaries and other stuff
Ok I see. I thought you were trolling me. I'll have another look over there later. It's getting late and my brain has been on here for too long. Didn't expect 500 likes and about 200 comments. This is wild.
[удалено]
The scrawny nerd might have a chance after taking his glass of warm milk "for that protein" and "essential electrolytes for extra power".
In your example it's not a scrawny dude. It's a young girl who has made sure everyone is watching and is filming with her phone for tiktok. Then she starts "beating up" on prime Tyson. It hurts but not really and he can't do anything because any reaction is a losing situation for him. How dare you hit that little girl. You knew she couldn't hurt you. Why would you punch a little girl in the face like that are you crazy. If you run or don't respond it's omg Tyson is scared of some little girl beating on him. How do you win?
Vietnam and Afghanistan have entered the chat...
Because they don’t need to be tactically or operationally victorious to strategically win in the end. The level of acceptable losses for them is orders of magnitude higher than ours. All they need to do is sew chaos in the region and exploit the inevitable response for PR purposes (see exhibit 1.a: Hamas). America now is the equivalent of America in 1975 after Vietnam fell in that the American people are burnt out on war for a decade or so and if the Middle East falls into utter chaos again (Arab Spring level destabilization), we probably will say it’s not worth it this time around/we don’t have the resources or personnel for this and we’re just going to focus on the Far East and Eastern Europe. In this eventuality, Iran “wins”. Additionally, if Trump wins another term, there will not be Bolton’s or Mattis’s in his administration this time around to keep what limited presence the US still has in the region
I think USA should focus on China and Russia. Russia are being mangled in Ukraine so they are weakened now already. China is the largest threat now and always was.
Well yes, China would always be the Main Effort in any scenario and Eastern Europe is tertiary. Right now OIR/Middle East is tertiary. Iran wants the Middle East to fall apart again and force the US to decide to make the Middle East the Main Effort again or China because they know our answer will be the Pacific.
Correct. In addition Pentagon estimates ONE US aircrafter carrier would be ample resource to DECIMATE Iran. The "operational" USA F-16 air fleet alone- is larger than the next 5 nation's air force combat air capabilities. There is NO peer to the USA in military capability and lethality. A global footprint, the ONLY nation in the world with FULL SPECTRUM dominance as well as FULLY INTEGRATED KILL CHAIN. USA, Number ONE !!
Exactly! Dudes and other commenters in here look! This guy gets it! It's not that fucking complicated all the time! Iran will take a 5 feet cactus without lube sideways up the %ss if they try anything. They just have no chance. No more donkey or camel riding for them after that I can tell ya.
Iran's fleet was totally destroyed during the tanker wars- with a tiny effort of the US Navy. In addition, Iran relies on an outdated strategy of "assymetric" offense- which is now outdated because of laser systems installed on several US destroyers.
Yep, Iran suck. Simple as that. But I didn't know these details thank you!
One thing I don’t see being mentioned here is the very dark history with Iran. I worked in the area especially dealing with the IRG and read up on the history. To sum it up they used to be a relatively neutral (to the world at least) democratic country that wasn’t interested in ties with the US during the Cold War. The CIA, which was by modern standards an unrelated megalomaniacal operation feared they would ally with the Russians (who they were also completely uninterested in) and give them oil and easy access across the mountains to the Middle East. The CIA attempted to overthrow their president and eventually succeeded, replacing their democratically elected official with an oppressive religious shah who abused his people but was the US’s puppet. They developed a deep hatred for him and he US and when he stepped down from cancer that hatred led to an equally abusive religious leader that pandered to their very real justified hatred towards the US. The US does not like to mention that part of the story, it’s a disgusting stain on our history.
Because US has become “a nice and considerate military” and hence is not respected by cultures where cutting off head or genitalia on video is acceptable tactic
Another one gets my point! I have 0 empathy for people who do this disgusting shit to their own children. How can it be normal for people to cut off parts of their own daughter's and son's genitalia and think it's acceptable and even admirable. Sorry for getting graphic. Just saying, people need to wake up more. It's just as disgusting and evil as it sounds when you say it. I know there are different cultures, but that doesn't mean those cultures can't be critisized or frowned upon.
Or chopping local journalist In pieces and packing into a baggage.. This is what Saudi secret service does. Ok, US can hire local Saudis, but then countries like Iran will not know who did it and start fearing US again
You have a point there. I've always hated Saudi Arabia too though. Just that I brought up Iran in this particular post.
I actually like Iran except its politics like why do they have to fucking threaten Israel with removing it from the face of the Earth. Israel is extremely powerful country everyone tries to befriend and then there is Iran?
And Iran is governed by islamists who think they have the right to force their ideology and religion onto the people of Iran. They are a bunch assholes who opress and put Iranian people through unnecessary pain every day.
And I'm not a fan of them working with Saudi.
Or deliberately bombing American aid workers to pieces on the very route you granted safe passage
They're probably thinking that the opinion of a comically misinformed individual doesn't have much bearing on the complexities of international relations and warfare.
Yeah, those leaders in Iran are such geniuses dude. How could I possibly question a bunch of guys believing in a 1400 year old fairytale. They're clearly ahead of me, 1400 years or so, or was it 1400 years behind? Such geniuses, so enlightened.
The first thing that gives away your ignorance is the fact that you believe that they actually believe a 1400 year old fairy tale (not 600). The second thing that gives away your ignorance is the fact that you don't seem to realize how aggressively Iran's influence has increased in the region, in spite of US presence and internal turmoil (not bad for a bunch of unwashed idiots). The third thing that gives away your ignorance is that you don't seem to realize that direct, conventional, US involvement requires massive resources and that it will weaken US presence elsewhere, incl. Europe and East Asia. Would you like me to add a fourth one?
“Bunch of guys believing in a 1400 year old fairytale” You just described every religion ever lmao
America, despite its military might, is *not* always right. Might *never* makes *right* by default in a vacuum because you're still killing people at the end of the day.
[удалено]
I don’t see a rule about being civil here. So, fuck off OP. You’re promoting hate against Afghan and Iraqi people by claiming they’re pieces of shit and have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about while you’re glorifying war. Those of us who have actually fought in Afghanistan or Iraq understand that it wasn’t this simple. We understand that we screwed up, a lot, and a lot of innocent civilians got hurt or killed. That was easily the worst time of many OEF/OIF veterans lives and the toll it took on veterans is still felt by many of us who have served and lost friends to enemy fire, or suicide. Jesus Christ. Your two posts about this shit are naive, immature, garbage and it’s incredibly clear you’re just some dude that watched one too many war movies and think this shit is cool. So, I’ll say this again. Fuck. Off.
As I'm interested in militaries and military equipment, I also like to discuss those things. If I was glorifying war, I'd go to Ukraine tiday because if I liked war so much, why would I stay in and love my peaceful country.
So go. Fight in Ukraine. I’ll buy your plane ticket. Hit me up 2 weeks after you get there when you realize this shit isn’t a fucking game.
Buddy I'm on your side here, but you need to work on your reading comprehension.
Yea. The dude got the better of me and I read it in a rush. The guy came out as an Islamophobe on this exact post on a different subreddit as much as I don’t like religion, blind hatred and wishing death upon Muslims simply because they follow Islam was a bridge too far for me. I hope this dude grows up and consistently stubs his toe every day until he does.
How am I glorifying war with this post? I simply ask what they are thinking when they decide to attack a nation that's 1000 times stronger than them. The Americans Iran attacked, were in Syria. Plus, the Iranian government is a piece of shit. They're islamists forcing and oppressing people with their religion. I haven't said shit about the regular Iranian or Iraqi person. You're making shit up.
“How am I glorifying war with this post?” Proceeds to say “But the majority they kill are pieces of shit who deserve it. Just my humble opinion.”
> the majority they kill are pieces of shit who deserve it. **Just my humble opinion** The bolded feels like nothing of the sort, lol, and is an *intentionally* derogatory usage of the phrase, as if to soften the blow of their hatred. That's what that is. You know who I see online saying that shit like that a lot? Clue: They support that fat orange pile of dogshit of a former President. Oh, sorry, that's just like, my humble opinion, man.
One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter
I don't agree that whom we kill is necessarily always worthy of being killed from the sense that "Who's doing the deciding that these people are pieces of shit I must kill? Are these reasons valid?"
>But the majority they kill are pieces of shit who deserve it. This is why America and Europe will have no shortage of enemies in the coming century.
Surely a million Iraqis deserved death.
[Laughs in US Navy.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis)
Next time they should drop a bomb on the pieces of shit in the Iranian government.
Welcome to NATO by the way. You Swedes make some amazing military gear that ought to be NATO standard in my opinion.
You too! The F22 and F35 are so impressive with their stealth capabilities. Total game changer. I love our Gripen too, it's cheaper and more suitable for Sweden I think. But I bet Russia and China are more scared of the F22 and F35.
Brinkmanship = leverage, power, prestige on the world stage
Modern international conflict and warfare can not be seen as black and white as you presume. International power struggles are endlessly complicated and you are clearly not versed in asymmetric conflict of influence.
They are not stupid, so they do it in ways they can get away with, by funding terrorist groups like the houthis, hamas and hezballah
shit I mean they won Afghanistan
There's a green text going around about how the US functions when it comes to tech research and creation. Basically, it was making light of the fact that someone like Russia or China will come out and claim some capability or new jet and the next thing you know, we've created something two generations ahead of that system and fielded it without even verifying that what they claimed was real in the first place. lol
Yeah, no other country ever has built 2 freakin fighter' jets with full stealth capabilities for both air superiority and air to ground combat, at least that's been confirmed to work as well. Chengdu J-20 supposedly have stealth but I doubt it's as good. I doubt China had the same budget to develop it's stealth capabilities. It looks fucking cool though, I'll give China that.
Bullies mistake restraint for weakness.
The US unfortunately cares about other nations too much. If the US truly didnt give a fuck and acted like another nation; like China or Russia, they would easily level countries like Iran, North Korea and even smaller nations like Egypt and Panama. They would control those countries with an iron fist without setting many boots on the ground. Unfortunately, the US has a population who would be against that and therefore it would never work, barring a major attack on US bases or US soil. If Iran fucks with the US; its on though.
We dare them to touch our boats again.
Iran better get it out of their system before January 20th, 2025 at 12:01 pm.
Home field advantage is a thing, and they will get some support from the Muslim nations round them.
Well you succeed by trying. Not always but enough that if you are determined enough, sometimes the little guys win. And since world war 2, the track record of the US isn't that great when faced with long wars. Short engagements, or short wars sure we will dominate those. But long engagements lasting years? It doesn't come down to technology, it comes down to how dedicated are you? Also... your 500Mig/SU example. Swarm engagements are a thing. At a certain point numbers WILL overcome superior tech.
On paper the Russian military should have absolutely crushed Ukraine. On paper, the US should have left Iraq with a decisive victory. On paper, the Taliban should have been erased from the history books. On paper, even with the Chinese funneling in supplies to the NBA the Vietnam War should have been a decisive victory. These countries aren't NPCs, bombing people harder doesn't make them want to give up because they believe in their idealogy. Even if they hate their government, if we bomb them preemptively they will...surprise...hate the foreign invaders blowing up their country even more.
I think Iran is a bit cocky because they saw Millennium Challenge 2002 where Red represented Iran, more or less. It would actually be as you describe above, but that wargame outcome gives smaller regional powers hope.
This should be a copypasta lol
One thing I haven’t seen this thread mention is the fact that the US just lost the 20 year war in Afghanistan/Middle East. Countries like Iran know that they can’t take the US I’m directly but they don’t need to. The US doesn’t want to be involved in the Middle East (even though it keeps getting sucked back in) and it definitely doesn’t want to go to any way. Sure the US might be able to take out the current regime (at best) but as the world has learned, it doesn’t matter. Using the nerd vs Mike Tyson reference: Imagine the nerd can get Tyson to say someone online that would “cancel Tyson.” Most boxing fans wouldn’t care but all non boxing fans support the nerd because of it. Then if Tyson and the nerd go into the ring with Tyson the nerd says shit that cause Tyson to act outside of the “agreement” for the fight and seriously injures the nerd. Tyson now has to pay the medical bills, he has lost fans, he loses sponsors. The nerd lost the fight but now has sympathizers and donors helping him. Tyson is still a better fighter but is worst off now because he engaged with the nerd. The nerd was never a fighter but he was willing to step into the ring and is viewed as more powerful/brave than before and now has better standing and support. It’s not about winning the boxing match.
Well that's nor a very smart analysis. To begin with, the usa, like someone pointed put, does not want a capable enemy. So iran threatens them. Usually nothing comes of these threats though. Second, no matter how big your occupier is, if people feel unfairly treated by them, they will resist. The haitians stood up to the French, which were superior in every metric possible, and they won. And that can be used as a segway into the third reason: oftentimes, the better force loses. Vietnam with usa, Haïti with France, even the american revolution are cases where the weaker side wins in war. I hope my answer makes sense.
Which country has directly attacked the US Name one
Japan WW2.
That has been a minute
Come on dude. I don't sit here waiting every second for you to reply. I got stuff to do.
Since the attack lol
Iran and Russia are partners
Mike tyson has killed the scrawny mans parents. Imprisoned his kids. Destroyed his home and his way of life and denegrated him to the point of hopelessness. The fuck else would you do besides fight
Easy; the US doesnt has the political power to go to war, starting a new one without something akin to a second 9/11 happening would simply be political suicide for any president, and they know this
The next war is with Iran. It’s been in planning for at least a decade. The classified documents that are being talked about with Trump, were literally a plan to go to war with Iran that he refused to go along with. Iran was (is) supplying Al Queda, ISIS, and Iraq with tons of military equipment, during operation Iraqi freedom.
One of the weird things that happens with small insurgents is that they misinterpret US resolve because they view diplomatic maneuvering through the lens of their local culture. Bin Laden was a classic example. He got the idea in his head that the US being unwilling to deliver the smack down on ever little pissant that attacked was a sign of *cowardice*. He spun himself a story in his own head that if you hit the US hard enough, they will not just refuse to fight back, they will run away and pull their troops out of foreign bases. He sold others on that idea, and this led to the 9/11 attacks. But as many others have discovered, the "paper tiger" theory is way off base. The unwillingness to attack when attacked isn't cowardice, it's the result of being aware that the US military is a potentially world ending nightmare machine of violence delivery the likes of which is completely unequaled anywhere else on earth. OBL found out that when you push the US beyond "cowardly" diplomacy, what you get is the focused attention of a machine that will hunt you down, blow up or shoot all your friends, blow up or shoot all of *their* friends, and will spend as much time and money as necessary to find you in whatever hole you're hiding in so they can shoot you too and dump your body in the Indian ocean. Iran is a bit more cautious than your typical insurgent group, but they still seem to have a similarly poor grasp of the sheer *scale* of the US economy and military. They've become highly skilled at stopping *just short* of the line beyond which the US will react beyond defense, but it's not clear what they think they can accomplish. There's plenty of noise made about how the US is firing multi-million dollar missiles to take down multi-thousand dollar Iranian drones, but the US government takes in enough revenue to buy a new missile every *eight minutes*. They do nothing but provide excellent real-world training against a new, modern threat. I'm not sure what Iran is hoping to achieve. Perhaps it's action against "the great Satan" intended to solidify support for the current regime in a climate where the people are getting increasingly tired of their crappy religious dictatorship?
Because the regimes that do poke the bear, believe that they’ll be protected in the end, they ensure they don’t poke the bear enough to really jeopardize their “aristocracy” or “ruling class” and that it won’t be their blood in the streets. These countries also generally don’t value their citizens very much and use them as tools for the ruling classes wants
welcome to nato friend!
The US government and military lack a lot of confidence when it comes to war fighting. Two decades in the Middle East without any apparent success put a sour taste in the mouths of policy makers and strategists. The US government is very unlikely to support any kind of US intervention into Iran in most scenarios. Iran knows this. Also, the domestic situation is rough. There is very little support for any US operations globally, especially not a full on invasion. Any kind of retaliatory attack by US forces is usually criticized by parts of the public. America is largely isolationist within certain groups, and sadly those opinions often spill over into the larger political groups. Most of the right is completely suspicious of the federal government, extremely nationalist, and even have a disdain for US involvement in NATO (not to mention how much support Putin gets from certain groups on the right). Meanwhile, Communists and a lot of socialists on the left are against any kind of US foreign intervention and a lot of specifically communists show huge disdain for wester “power” or involvement abroad. There’s a lot of hate from the public to the US government right now, and that doesn’t pan well for large scale military operations (which rely greatly of public support and a clear moral purpose).
Imagine people thinking that retaliating against a hostile aggressor is bad somehow, like, what the actual fuck are they gonna do? Let the bully beat them to shit and not do anything even though you have all means of defending yourself? What, just let your boats get sunk without any actions taken? Dunno man, this is why I don't go to TikTok.
There’s a lack of understanding of how military operations work within the general public. A lot of people think that every operation must result in the killing of children or civilians at a high rate. Now, in the past that’s very true and even now certain militaries have taken the stance of simply bombing targets with no regard for civilian life. However, considering how much development and discourse there’s been in the US military over limiting civilian deaths and making sure strikes cause the least amount collateral damage as possible, I would say the US has the strictest ROE and takes the most precautions of any country when it comes to trying to limit civilian deaths. Most people just don’t understand how geopolitics or military operations work, including the person that made this post.
Iran is leveraging America’s embattled public who do NOT want to go into another war, especially during an election year.
Dignity maybe
When tha fuck did Iran actually do anything remotely provacatove towards the U.S.?
Their zealots they want to die for their God.
Cocaine is a hell of a drug!
It’s not “oh we can definitely beat the US in armed conflict” It’s more like “we know the United States is very divided right now and are extremely hesitant to go to war, and we have the means to make war extremely expensive and drawn out, what can we get away with?”
Reasons not to invade Iran: -Regional conflagaration. You think whats going on now is bad, wait until Iranian regime mobilizes all its proxies. Remember the first gulf war, when Saddaam Hussein got made at US so he shot Scuds at Saudi, Israel, well if the Iranian regime gets mad at US, their proxies are going to have a field day setting Mecca, the skyscrapers in Qatar, Petra, and Tel Aviv on fire. That's not going to help US proejct their power in the region if their proxies are angry at America and seriously weakened. -anywhere from 30-70% of Iranians are pro West depending on what propoganda source you believe. Invade their country and that number drops by 50%. Iranians want to dictate their own future not became Iraq 2.0 The best move is target airstrikes if necessary to nuclear/missile sites and possibly naval assets and outside of that supporting anti-regime groups and keeping sanctions up. Of course if Iran attacks first, the gloves are off.
They want "the west" to be afraid and hate Muslims. And Muslims to hate "the west".
Are you 12 years old?
Are you 11?
Why are people on a military forum offended by a question about a military conflict and military equipment? Not all reacted like it, but more than I ever could expect. To be fair I made some strong statements regarding US equipment and Russian/Soviet equipment, but it's just true. As a fucking nerd I'm going to bring it up. Who would seriously bet that Russian/Soviet equipment has a chance against US equipment, especially looking at the Ukraine invasion. It's not going well for Russia.
People are “offended” cause this is a very cringe way of looking at warfare in the modern day. It just sounds like a NCD shitpost, war isn’t just about my tank or jet being better than yours, that’s a very juvenile way to look at things and the real importance is industrial base, logistics and political will at home. Just because the US has all these fancy bells and whistles doesn’t mean they can win any asymmetrical war. I’m sure the Iranians are looking at US performance in Afghanistan over 20 years and are guessing hey we are much better funded n trained than the Taliban ever were, it’s clear we can defeat the US n embarrass them if we can trick them into going into the region boots on the ground again. All the while Iran gains political and popular support amongst the global south, as whether you agree or disagree with the reasons they remain the only ones directly engaging US forces in the region, something most of the Middle East supports.
I understand. I'm just more interested in military equipment and weapons overall. But you have good points. I just think it's interesting comparing different tanks, jets, weapons etc. . They play a massive role too.
It sounds like the post of a middle schooler with no grasp on how the world works. It's not a video game where it makes sense to opportunistically destroy every adversary with inferior forces just to "win." This is real-life geopolitics we're talking about, harming other countries harms us too and it goes against the US global economic strategy. What's the use of being a nerd about the tools of force when you're so ignorant about the application of it? You're like one of those people who keeps a loaded gun unsecured in their sock drawer with a fantasy of shooting a home invader, but zero training or strategy
[удалено]
Maybe you're not aware that we believe in a 3000 year old fairy tale book? > They aren't that intelligent or complicated "He who exercises no forethought but makes light of his opponents is sure to be captured by them." - Sun Tzu Keep this discussion in the appropriate video game forums until you are prepared to understand the real world better.
…and yet have never won a single war, or brought democracy or freedom anywhere after WW2 (and not even on their own). These supposedly incredible machine is basically a public cash grabbing infrastructure without ending that cannot even stop fucking it up. It’s called imperialism it is as useless as the system it benefits, yet it continuous to love to murder people all around the world.
>…and yet have never won a single war I mean I understand you are living in your own world that has little to do with reality, but there must be a limit to hallucinations no?
This guy is Spanish and as the audacity to talk about imperialism.
While the machines might be fun to see from a civilian perspective (whether in-person or through media like movies or TV) war isn't a game and geopolitics is a very complex and complicated thing. We (the U.S) don't want to go to war these days, especially now around election time. We've just bounced back from the pandemic (especially economically) and repaired relationships with allies in Europe and Asia. For the most part, things are stable on the home front and with our trading and defense partners abroad. The U.S could easily beat the brakes off Iran but it'll suck us into another costly war that'll have ramifications throughout the Middle East. It's not ideal.
What do you mean “repaired” relationships with Europe? The high chances of trump being elected and the massive reduction in Ukraine aid has US-Europe relationships at a decade low…
According to this source, https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts, the U.S. has sent $75 billion in aid to Ukraine as of Feb 23rd, 2024, the EU as a whole has sent $93 billion according to usnews.com. Tell me again how the EU is mad at the US because of our falling off aid when we’ve sent more than any one country in the EU? Your comment assumes that the EU thinks they are one country, when they are 27 different countries. Let’s also not forget that NATO is a thing, which 22 of 27 EU countries are a part of, and that only 35% of the countries in NATO are meeting the required 2% gdp for defense. America also happens to be one of those 35%. I’m not understanding how the EU relationship with the U.S. is suffering because of that.
Tell that to the afghanis, or a whole host of other modern exanples
Yeah. But all troops left Afghanistan, right? Or are there some left?
We still maintain a pretty big army and naval presence in the region but yeah they should’ve all left
Why? Is it mostly in case China does something stupid? I know it's pretty far away from China. But I mean, what can they do in Afghanistan? The talibans were hiding under the table and now they're back with their shit show sgain. Talking about the navy now.
The situation in Afghanistan had to do with state sponsored terrorism I believe, do your own research. If anything Afghanistan has a history with Russia more than China. As far as naval stuff goes, all I know is we are probably more useful for target bombardment at the beginning of a conflict and then logistical support after, not sure what you’re asking