6 ms·
It wouldn’t be the first war the USA loose against a smaller enemy. See Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc etc.
by thinkindie 2mo ago
It wouldn’t be the first war the USA loose against a smaller enemy. See Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc etc.
- actionfromafar 2mo agoThis was very quick though.
- thibaut_barrere 2mo agoIt turns out public money is more expensive these days. Debt is a more mainstreamly exposed problem.
- leonidasrup 2mo agohttps://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&psid=3468 https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&... "The estimated cost of the war in Vietnam during the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations was $176 billion." Adjusted for inflation, that is $1,192 billion in 2026 dollars. "The longest war in American history had significant economic effects both domestically and internationally in terms of what was spent on the war and what expenses had to be cut." https://www.thecollector.com/vietnam-war-economic-effects/ https://www.thecollector.com/vietnam-war-economic-effects/
- thinkindie 2mo agoIran has been preparing for this war for almost 50 years, and they have more leverage than Vietnamese or Talebans had.
- breppp 2mo agoThey have been preparing for 50 years yet lost all their leadership, nuclear facilities, ballistic missile manufacturing ecosystem and air defenses in minutes to days. The US is not doing amazing in this war but no need to give the Iranians too much credit. The Iranians are expanding a lot of resources of their own as much as this war drags on. It is still very early to say how a country will fare considering that it ran out of water and was on a verge of economic breakdown and revolt before fighting a prolonged war with economic blockade of its main export.
- thinkindie 2mo agoAccording to the US administration Iran military was supposed to be obliterated, and still. Either way, they have figure out they have a much cheaper way to hold Trump by the balls, and let him dance to their tune. I believe Ukraine and Iran are showing that there is a new level of inflicting damage to your aggressor.
- breppp 2mo agoThey are mainly using the known fact that there's no chance in hell that the US will invade Iran with ground forces. They also previously negotiated as if this war would never start, so they might make a mistake as this is Trump after all. In any case, Iran is not in a prime position either, it has many economic assets that can be completely destroyed as it has no air defense and then leave them in a much worse situation, while the only real damage they can do to the US is by attacking their own neighbors
- firesteelrain 2mo agoIran is a paper tiger.
- thinkindie 2mo agothe US can make Iran look like Afghanistan and still loose the war.
- firesteelrain 2mo ago[flagged]
- theandrewbailey 2mo agoSaigon fell, and the Taliban regained control of Afghanistan.
- firesteelrain 2mo ago[flagged]
- matheusmoreira 2mo ago[flagged]
- srean 2mo ago> Yeah, because the USA pulled out. Is that and act of victory or defeat ?
- matheusmoreira 2mo ago[flagged]
- firesteelrain 2mo ago[flagged]
- bothers 2mo agoThat just means the military, aircraft carriers, all that, were so ineffective that the enemy didn't even need to bother destroying them to achieve victory. It doesn't matter what would have happened if various parameters were different, if only we had gone all out this one time, and the point of war isn't the act itself of making cool trucks shoot at each other, and it's silly to argue that your home isn't insecure after a thief absconds with your valuables, but failed to pick the lock you put on the chest-high fence gate. (Pardon my silly phrasing, I mean no hostility or condescension!)
- matheusmoreira 2mo agoThe USA has never been defeated. It's never been taken over by force and forced to submit to a foreign power. War getting a little too expensive or politically unpopular for their tastes is not really a loss, and it implies nothing about their true capabilities. It's their relentless deindustrialization that will eventually do them in. The USA's industrial output back in WWII was staggering, its enemies had little hope of victory given the sheer number of materiel that would eventually get deployed. Since then they've been voluntarily giving up much of that industrial advantage out of greed.
- padjo 2mo agoIf you set out to achieve an objective, but the enemy prevents you from achieving that objective, you lost.
- matheusmoreira 2mo agoI wouldn't say they lost. They failed their strategic objectives, but they're still out there, intact and combat capable. Losing is what happened to Germany after both World Wars.
- GJim 2mo agoAmerica simply "failed their strategic objectives" in Vietnam? It's laughable to use such a silly euphemism to imply America was not defeated! The North Vietnamese won. Get over it.
- mustardo 2mo ago> failed their strategic objective copium > It's their relentless deindustrialization that will eventually do them in Agree, China has already won, at this point a lot of the world sees them as a more sane option than USA as well which is a nuts timeline
- GJim 2mo ago> China has already won, at this point a lot of the world sees them as a more sane option than USA The rest of the world is finding China a more predictable and stable trading partner than the USA.