3 ms·

What? How many is the right number of personnel and materiel to lose for this war that isn't war and seems to have been either purchased for a few hundred mill

What? How many is the right number of personnel and materiel to lose for this war that isn't war and seems to have been either purchased for a few hundred million by political bribes or is just a distraction from the administrations involvement in a monstrous child sex ring? Also didn't we already win this war last year, last month, and last week? It is really easy to wave away our fellow dead citizens (and Iranians, including a school full of children!) from an internet comment form but damn, real people are dead here and it's an actual tragedy. For me, zero deaths seems like the right answer for these objectives and anything else is egregious abuse of power. I'd love it if everyone stopped being happy with people lying to them. When you catch people lying to you, be angry and stop trusting them!

decimalenough 6mo ago
I hate to interrupt a good rant, but we actually agree on this. To spell it out: the abject failure of the war is not a failure of the US military, it's a failure of its executive leadership, meaning Trump and his coterie of yes-men.
- tokai 6mo ago
  Are you one of those that claim the US won the Vietnam war?
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  > the abject failure of the war is not a failure of the US military, it's a failure of its executive leadership It's a bit of both. Our lack of mine-clearing and anti-drone technology is a legitimate weakness, as are our defence-production gaps. The damage done to our system of alliances, moreover, directly weakens our military standing.