4 ms·

To "win" a war you must have specific and measurable goals. If your politicians start a war but cannot articulate such goals, you're going to lose. They'll assu

To "win" a war you must have specific and measurable goals. If your politicians start a war but cannot articulate such goals, you're going to lose. They'll assure you they will win, but they've already lost. They are bad at their jobs, why did you hire these morons?

jongjong 3mo ago
The goal is to sell weapons during the war; then afterwards, sell loans to rebuild what the weapons have destroyed... And sometimes it's also to control access to natural resources or trading routes. They don't care who it is who facilitates them on the other side of the ocean; be it a dictator or an 'elected' official. The lobbyists running the show in the background make money from both the destruction as well as the reconstruction. What is stupid about that? The politicians later get appointed to lucrative executive roles at the companies which they helped enrich on taxpayer dollars (from both countries). Not stupid either. It's smart retirement planning. The government is a lot of things but absolutely not stupid; fooling people into thinking it is incompetence is likely part of the ruse... It's a lot easier for people to sit back quietly and watch incompetence unfold, then it is to sit back and watch evil unfold. "It's incompetence" is also a nice easy answer which prevents people from having to look deeper as I have done here. Julian Assange said about the war in Afghanistan: "The goal is to use Afghanistan to wash money out of the tax bases of the US and Europe through Afghanistan and back into the hands of a transnational security elite. The goal is an endless war, not a successful war." If you look at any war, you will realize that the same principles are at play. Our current global monetary order has a built-in mechanism for monetizing destruction, unfortunately. It's architected that way, intentionally or not. I've dedicated much of my life so far to try to convey this simple message.
- dudefeliciano 3mo ago
  it's stupid because there are ways of turning a profit without killing thousands of people while turning your own country into a pariah ridiculed by the whole world. It's stupid because it's shortsighted.
  - jongjong 3mo ago
    I want to see it that way too but it seems they've been winning for a very long time with this approach. So is it short-sighted? The way I see it there is a deep systemic issue beneath this which makes this profitable. That's the flaw which has to be solved. Private entities should not be able to profit from taxpayer money on such vast scales. Military contacts are massive, foreign aid is massive. It takes from a large number of public hands and gives to a small number of private hands. Diffuse harms, concentrated gains. I hope you're right though and those issues will be fixed.
- yubblegum 3mo ago
  It is surprising that you have the fabled MIC on top of the list of the nasties and not the international bankers. MIC is 2nd tier parasite layer in context of unnecessary and contrived warfare. On the top are the bankers who give loans to nations to buy these expensive weapons. They have no competition either, unlike the MIC players who have to chase contracts and compete. Only a select few get to print money out of thin air and they have no competition. "Who runs barter town" is imho the most geopolitically illuminating sentence to ever come out of Hollywood.. That's what it's all about.
RenThraysk 3mo ago
If the goal is to deny Iran nukes then it's been succeeding.
- dudefeliciano 3mo ago
  if anything they are looking at North Korea and confirming their belief that nuclear weapons are indispensable for their sovereignty.
  - RenThraysk 3mo ago
    Or at Ukraine that gave them up.
    - rbanffy 3mo ago
      At this point, everyone is thinking about getting nuclear weapons.
- microtonal 3mo ago
  So, where is the enriched uranium then? For now it's only a setback and it will make Iran only more determined to make a nuke.
  - RenThraysk 3mo ago
    Iran is never not going to want to make a nuke. How much determinism they have is irrelevant.
    - atmavatar 3mo ago
      Under Obama's deal with them, Iran was quite content to not have nukes. Had the deal not been torn up, they'd likely never acquire nuclear capability in our lifetimes. Trump's unprovoked attacks on them were not only extremely costly due to the Strait of Hormuz closing, but it underscored why Iran absolutely needs nukes to protect themselves. It's virtually guaranteed they'll attain nuclear weapons inside the next decade now. That's what happens when you elect a narcissistic fraudster to run your country and its foreign policy.
lo_zamoyski 3mo ago
> why did you hire these morons? The democratic process is the selection of incompetent people by unqualified people.
- chneu 3mo ago
  Feels over reals.
- rbanffy 3mo ago
  > by unqualified people. That's what the public education system was supposed to prevent.
  - jagged-chisel 3mo ago
    Which is why They have spent decades attempting to dismantle it.
- NordStreamYacht 3mo ago
  "Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few." George Bernard Shaw
worldthruword 3mo ago
Has anyone does analysis on Home vs Away wars ? Russia is in a Home war. Similarly US is in Away war. Also being a land power vs sea power. US is a sea power vs Iran being a land power.
- tpm 3mo ago
  > Russia is in a Home war no it is not, Russia is fighting an war of aggression on foreign soil
lopsotronic 3mo ago
I can't believe I had to scroll down to see this. Victory always flows down; you can have the most badass of technical equipment or cunning tactical victories in the field, then still quite enthusiastically lose the war, due to bad strategy or even the original political goals of conflict. Or because the political goals were impossible or - almost breathtaking that this state can even exist - because the goals are entirely absent. Incidentally, having a "rotating roster" of different political goals probably counts as something worse than "absent", due to the illusory impression that it gives of "someone deciding something".

jongjong 3mo ago

The goal is to sell weapons during the war; then afterwards, sell loans to rebuild what the weapons have destroyed... And sometimes it's also to control access to natural resources or trading routes. They don't care who it is who facilitates them on the other side of the ocean; be it a dictator or an 'elected' official. The lobbyists running the show in the background make money from both the destruction as well as the reconstruction. What is stupid about that? The politicians later get appointed to lucrative executive roles at the companies which they helped enrich on taxpayer dollars (from both countries). Not stupid either. It's smart retirement planning. The government is a lot of things but absolutely not stupid; fooling people into thinking it is incompetence is likely part of the ruse... It's a lot easier for people to sit back quietly and watch incompetence unfold, then it is to sit back and watch evil unfold. "It's incompetence" is also a nice easy answer which prevents people from having to look deeper as I have done here. Julian Assange said about the war in Afghanistan: "The goal is to use Afghanistan to wash money out of the tax bases of the US and Europe through Afghanistan and back into the hands of a transnational security elite. The goal is an endless war, not a successful war." If you look at any war, you will realize that the same principles are at play. Our current global monetary order has a built-in mechanism for monetizing destruction, unfortunately. It's architected that way, intentionally or not. I've dedicated much of my life so far to try to convey this simple message.

dudefeliciano 3mo ago
it's stupid because there are ways of turning a profit without killing thousands of people while turning your own country into a pariah ridiculed by the whole world. It's stupid because it's shortsighted.
- jongjong 3mo ago
  I want to see it that way too but it seems they've been winning for a very long time with this approach. So is it short-sighted? The way I see it there is a deep systemic issue beneath this which makes this profitable. That's the flaw which has to be solved. Private entities should not be able to profit from taxpayer money on such vast scales. Military contacts are massive, foreign aid is massive. It takes from a large number of public hands and gives to a small number of private hands. Diffuse harms, concentrated gains. I hope you're right though and those issues will be fixed.
yubblegum 3mo ago
It is surprising that you have the fabled MIC on top of the list of the nasties and not the international bankers. MIC is 2nd tier parasite layer in context of unnecessary and contrived warfare. On the top are the bankers who give loans to nations to buy these expensive weapons. They have no competition either, unlike the MIC players who have to chase contracts and compete. Only a select few get to print money out of thin air and they have no competition. "Who runs barter town" is imho the most geopolitically illuminating sentence to ever come out of Hollywood.. That's what it's all about.

RenThraysk 3mo ago

If the goal is to deny Iran nukes then it's been succeeding.

dudefeliciano 3mo ago
if anything they are looking at North Korea and confirming their belief that nuclear weapons are indispensable for their sovereignty.
- RenThraysk 3mo ago
  Or at Ukraine that gave them up.
  - rbanffy 3mo ago
    At this point, everyone is thinking about getting nuclear weapons.
microtonal 3mo ago
So, where is the enriched uranium then? For now it's only a setback and it will make Iran only more determined to make a nuke.
- RenThraysk 3mo ago
  Iran is never not going to want to make a nuke. How much determinism they have is irrelevant.
  - atmavatar 3mo ago
    Under Obama's deal with them, Iran was quite content to not have nukes. Had the deal not been torn up, they'd likely never acquire nuclear capability in our lifetimes. Trump's unprovoked attacks on them were not only extremely costly due to the Strait of Hormuz closing, but it underscored why Iran absolutely needs nukes to protect themselves. It's virtually guaranteed they'll attain nuclear weapons inside the next decade now. That's what happens when you elect a narcissistic fraudster to run your country and its foreign policy.

lo_zamoyski 3mo ago

> why did you hire these morons? The democratic process is the selection of incompetent people by unqualified people.

chneu 3mo ago
Feels over reals.
rbanffy 3mo ago
> by unqualified people. That's what the public education system was supposed to prevent.
- jagged-chisel 3mo ago
  Which is why They have spent decades attempting to dismantle it.
NordStreamYacht 3mo ago
"Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few." George Bernard Shaw

worldthruword 3mo ago

Has anyone does analysis on Home vs Away wars ? Russia is in a Home war. Similarly US is in Away war. Also being a land power vs sea power. US is a sea power vs Iran being a land power.

tpm 3mo ago
> Russia is in a Home war no it is not, Russia is fighting an war of aggression on foreign soil

lopsotronic 3mo ago

I can't believe I had to scroll down to see this. Victory always flows down; you can have the most badass of technical equipment or cunning tactical victories in the field, then still quite enthusiastically lose the war, due to bad strategy or even the original political goals of conflict. Or because the political goals were impossible or - almost breathtaking that this state can even exist - because the goals are entirely absent. Incidentally, having a "rotating roster" of different political goals probably counts as something worse than "absent", due to the illusory impression that it gives of "someone deciding something".