4 ms·

Counterpoint: it would be a three-week special operation a lot like invading Iraq, in that after minor victories the administration would declare "Mission Accom

Counterpoint: it would be a three-week special operation a lot like invading Iraq, in that after minor victories the administration would declare "Mission Accomplished" before burning trillions of dollars and thousands of lives fighting an insurgency.

vkou 4mo ago
It wouldn't even get to that point, because in order to be fighting an insurgency, you have to actually win on the ground and occupy the country. Without a coalition of fools, the US has zero odds of success in that first step. It wouldn't be a long war of insurgency, it would just be a long war. Iran is far bigger, far more capable, and far more difficult to wage war in than Iraq ever was.
- burnerRhodov3 4mo ago
  not saying this should be a tactic we should employ, but the us has never invaded a country with the intent to conquor(except mexico). like, as in, iran is now part of the us. the world would be aghast... but they already are?
  - vkou 4mo ago
    It couldn't do it without switching to a war economy and full mobilization. And that would spell the end of the current US regime long before it would end the Iranian one. Trump's approval rating has a floor of 40%, but that would likely send it to the 30s, and turn MAGA into a 30-seat party.
    - burnerRhodov3 4mo ago
      I completely agree. I guess i should say it vice a versa. It will be impossible to win Iran and has been proven by everything from vietnam to the middle east escapades... If you go to war with a country, you cannot allow the country to exist in any form if you truely wish the 'win a war'. It's a modern, wierd, primarily US based 'design of war', we learned from the cold war. Go in, destabalize it enough, ensure a coup every couple of years, so that region cannot ever be a material threat to you (like the ottoman empire)
  - MengerSponge 4mo ago
    (except mexico) and Canada and Hawaii The fact that we've invaded every bordering country with the intent to conquer kind of invalidates your argument...
    - burnerRhodov3 4mo ago
      well.. those are the ones we won?
      - yareally 4mo ago
        The United States did not win the invasion of Canada during the revolutionary war.
        MengerSponge 4mo ago
        The US also did not win the invasion of Canada during the war of 1812. I'm sensing a theme.
fulafel 4mo ago
The death toll was several orders of magnitude more (300k?).
- MengerSponge 4mo ago
  If you're counting Iraqi deaths (which you should) it's probably past 500k. 600k if you count excess deaths. Ghoulish. My point was what the American administration would burn and care about, and they clearly didn't/don't care about civilian deaths. TBH they only care about American military losses as far as it hurts their political capital at home.

vkou 4mo ago

It wouldn't even get to that point, because in order to be fighting an insurgency, you have to actually win on the ground and occupy the country. Without a coalition of fools, the US has zero odds of success in that first step. It wouldn't be a long war of insurgency, it would just be a long war. Iran is far bigger, far more capable, and far more difficult to wage war in than Iraq ever was.

burnerRhodov3 4mo ago
not saying this should be a tactic we should employ, but the us has never invaded a country with the intent to conquor(except mexico). like, as in, iran is now part of the us. the world would be aghast... but they already are?
- vkou 4mo ago
  It couldn't do it without switching to a war economy and full mobilization. And that would spell the end of the current US regime long before it would end the Iranian one. Trump's approval rating has a floor of 40%, but that would likely send it to the 30s, and turn MAGA into a 30-seat party.
  - burnerRhodov3 4mo ago
    I completely agree. I guess i should say it vice a versa. It will be impossible to win Iran and has been proven by everything from vietnam to the middle east escapades... If you go to war with a country, you cannot allow the country to exist in any form if you truely wish the 'win a war'. It's a modern, wierd, primarily US based 'design of war', we learned from the cold war. Go in, destabalize it enough, ensure a coup every couple of years, so that region cannot ever be a material threat to you (like the ottoman empire)
- MengerSponge 4mo ago
  (except mexico) and Canada and Hawaii The fact that we've invaded every bordering country with the intent to conquer kind of invalidates your argument...
  - burnerRhodov3 4mo ago
    well.. those are the ones we won?
    - yareally 4mo ago
      The United States did not win the invasion of Canada during the revolutionary war.
      - MengerSponge 4mo ago
        The US also did not win the invasion of Canada during the war of 1812. I'm sensing a theme.

fulafel 4mo ago

The death toll was several orders of magnitude more (300k?).

MengerSponge 4mo ago
If you're counting Iraqi deaths (which you should) it's probably past 500k. 600k if you count excess deaths. Ghoulish. My point was what the American administration would burn and care about, and they clearly didn't/don't care about civilian deaths. TBH they only care about American military losses as far as it hurts their political capital at home.