4 ms·
When America lost in Vietnam it was at least an honorable defeat: both the USSR and the PRC invested vast quantities of materiel and military advisors into the
by PearlRiver 6mo ago
When America lost in Vietnam it was at least an honorable defeat: both the USSR and the PRC invested vast quantities of materiel and military advisors into the war. For decades. It was fought with stuff that was designed for WW3.
- esperent 6mo agoThere was nothing honorable about the US war in Vietnam, from any side. You can make all kinds of arguments for and against the necessity of it. But honor? Bullshit historical revisionism.
- verdverm 6mo agoI think they mean at least the US lost to a worthy adversary, but I also think they underestimate the relative advantages each side has in this war. Perhaps Iran is not as weakly positioned as traditional measures of military strength suggest. Their are unique circumstances from geography and a paradigm shift from drone economics.
- __patchbit__ 6mo agoWars of choice are about getting paid enormous amounts to the owners of The Economist. The latest iteration has $5 billion installations wiped out by $7 thousand drone shots over weeks.
- esperent 6mo ago"Worthy adversary" is also a bullshit phrase that tries to make war sounds like a football game or something like that. There's no "worthiness", no "honor" in war. There's just dumb young men being sent to kill, rape, and die by evil old men. The only exception is if you're fighting purely in defense of your country. But that's not what any of these so called "honorable, worthy" opponents were doing.
- verdverm 6mo agoa better phrasing would have been "peer" or "near peer" adversary