701–710 of 774 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then I’d stop at claiming “best” is meaningless in a military context without defining what the mission is. If it is starting wars, I’d say it’s great. If it means achieving goals, then it’s kind of meh.
In terms of logistics ? US is the best ever conceived in the history of mankind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Source - trust me bro Please don't post snark on HN, no matter how right you are or feel you are. The guidelines make it clear we're trying for something better here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
How about you find a better job than policing speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Do you wear the police uniform as well while you are about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem well versed in the wiseness of the Ayatollahs. Fellow world events observer. The ayatollahs are stupid for their restraint. I wouldn't have their patience. They only recently resorted to 2 for 1 and promised 10 for 1 on escalation. I would have gone 1k to 1 on the first day if it were me :)
I would have gone all out on the biggest military power in the world too, if only I were the one calling the shots
What was the article about. Oh yeah, "all of its long-range precision missiles" gone.
Iran claims they only used their old stock till now. Not looking so good for your "expensive military".
So yeah. Judging by the current state, I would have gone all out against the "paper tiger" military whose bases in the middle east have been destroyed as we speak using just the old stock.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
It is public opinion that is keeping the US from using boots on the ground.
Last I checked war reparations are paid by the losing side to the winning side.
US military strength is air and naval forces. Not ground troops. They will get slaughtered if they go against Iran on the ground let alone Yemen.
It's sad, the idiots who signs the deployment is signing the death warrant of the US ground troops. This is not Afghanistan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is hilarious. Yeah. Air superiority. Last I heard they moved all their equipments to Jordan to stay out of range from Sijjeel and they are still getting hammered in Jordan. Saw the video taken by the US service men. In movies you see US soldiers yelling "go go go" while in the battlefield we saw them scream "run run run". Your confidence in claiming air superiority is commendable. Keep it up.
I don’t think you understand meaning behind air superiority.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the main role of our military is to ensure that our ideology (liberal democracy) is protected across the world. How is US defending liberal democracy? So far they've killed 3,000+ Iranians. 110k+ causalities in IRAQ and Afghanistan.. don't even get me started on Vietnam.
A generation of Afghan women got to learn to read because of the US intervention. I don't think you'd find very many Afghans who prefer life pre- or post-US occupation to even the very shitty, corrupt government the US set up. Iran was funding terror attacks on Israel (and has been for decades) which for all its many faults is a liberal democracy which grants citizenship to millions of Palestinians who get to vote. T…
Iran had a democratically elected government that the US helped overthrow and that is why the current regime is in power.
Before Iraq 1 it was the most modern middle eastern state, US deliberately destroyed civilian infrastructure. This was after propping up Saddam as a dictator for two decades as they fought Iran, also selling chemical weapons precursors to Iraq while knowing they would create those weapons.
Iraq 2 was a lot more than that. Prime example of blowback as it led to ISIS.
US carpet bombed north korea and killed 20% of its population, looked the other way as south Korea executed civilians. Then it turned into a military dictatorship for decades. This is not the win you think it is even if turned out okay decades later.
While the US, or more correctly the UN, has done some peace keeping missions with decent results it pales in comparison to the chaos the US has created. From overthrowing democracies, installing and supporting dictators and terrorist groups, ignoring and fueling genocides, etc.
Americas superpower is its ability to ignore its own hypocrisy, and you certainly embody that with a hefty sprinkle of willful ignorance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In terms of logistics ? US is the best ever conceived in the history of mankind.
Generals say it’s logistics that win wars. The US record in winning wars is simply terrible.
US also has a large strategic-sealift force: dozens of RO/RO ships, commercial shipping agreements and prepositioned Army equipment in the Pacific and Indian Ocean.
It can move man and materiel anywhere it pleases and fast.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is public opinion that is keeping the US from using boots on the ground.
And what prevented those boots on the ground from winning in vietnam?
Vietnam is more like asking the question, could the US Military occupy all of Iran? Which I think the answer is essentially No, just like Vietnam.
The strait is one small objective , and the US had lots of successes in Vietnam with capturing key strategic areas, they just couldn’t cover that into a successful occupation
Not an American but live here. But I don’t understand the fixation of US in middle east theatre. With the abundance of onshore oil through fracking revolution, presumably US doesn’t need to police the Middle East. The president himself said US doesn’t need their oil. So what is this conflict all about? Is there bigger geopolitical price tag attached to victory in Iran? Or US is just besieged by corruption to the exte…
It’s because Israel has captured the US government through a combination of lobbying and probably blackmail. The endless wars in the Middle East are to bolster them as a regional and then global superpower. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_... The TikTok deal happened because too many young people were being exposed to anti Zionist content. It’s illegal to criticize Israel in many regions o…
In 2004, the FBI investigated Chalabi after U.S. intelligence sources revealed that he was working as a double agent for Iran.[2] Perle was also involved in efforts to develop alternative intelligence estimates to help justify the decision to go to war in Iraq. He and other neoconservative leaders claimed that the intelligence community had grossly underestimated threats to the national security of the U.S.[2] Thus, they established two secret offices in the Pentagon after September 11 – the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group and the Office of Special Plans.[2] Nonetheless, Perle helped manage and hire neoconservative affiliated staff for both these organizations that created their own policies and intelligence reports by dodging existing government entities.[2] Perle's reasoning for implementing the Office of Special Plans was essentially to "bring in people with fresh eyes to review the intelligence that the CIA and other agencies had collected."[2] In an interview with CNN on September 16, 2001, Perle announced "Even if we cannot prove to the standards that we enjoy in our own civil society that they were involved, we do know, for example, that Saddam Hussein has ties to Osama Bin Laden ..."[17] Flynt Leverett, a senior staff member of the Bush National Security Council states: "There were constant efforts to pressure the intelligence community to provide assessments that would support their views. If they couldn't get what they wanted out of the intelligence community, they simply created their own intelligence."[2] Moreover, Perle allegedly gave several speeches and talks throughout Europe trying to promote the war effort abroad. He allegedly told the British House of Commons that the U.S. would attack Iraq even if UN weapons inspectors didn't find anything.[2] Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell announced that Perle was "making remarks as if he were an official inside the U.S. government."[2] In countries like Germany, France, Britain, and Japan, people perceived him as a government authority whose knowledge and clout on U.S. policy appeared legitimate.[2]