WelcomeWEFreedomWindsorEssexCounty-ActionCommunicationsRalliesResourcesSocialEventsWednesdayNightMeetings-ActivismAgoraAgorismCanadaCommonLawCommunityDataCentersDataCentresDoocracyFarmersMarketIntroductionsNaturalLawNewslettersOntarioOrganizingOutreachProjexProjexWikiRalliesResistanceAnalysisSoireesSoiréesWikiSpooksWindsorElectionsTop Subs
5
AntiWar - - (+4|-0)
We are not going to win a war against Iran(self)
7 commentsbyx0x7

We just exited a war where we lost against poor goat-herders living on a $1,000 annual income while we threw trillions of dollars at the problem. And this isn't just a case of them wanting it more or it not being a war worth winning. The problem is from a geo-political perspective it looks really bad to lose that war. Because of that alone it was a pretty serious defense interest to win that war. It was critical. Yet we failed to execute on it despite the differences in resources.

Why? Layered ineptitude. See armies don't win wars. They lose them. The question is who loses first. In order to lose you only need one layer of your command system to be inept, and you lose. We lost so at least one layer is inept, and nothing has been done to fix that, so any conflict we enter by default we lose. We lost faster than goat herders standing against a multi-trillion dollar army can.

What one has higher probability. A rag tag of zero training nomads fought off a trillion dollar army that has personnel with real training, only because their cause it true and just? Or that a multi-trillion dollar behemoth is so dysfunctional it's able to lose conflicts by default. The Taliban did not win that war. That would make no sense. We lost it. A whole is different than the sum of its parts. So while parts of our military are very well trained, the whole sum of our military does not function in a way that succeeds against real strategic priorities, seemingly no matter how small.

The question is if Iran is built to lose as badly as we are. They haven't lost any wars recently. So it's not proven that losing is in their blood like it is in ours.

We would not be smart to get involved in any conflict now. Certainly not taking a lead role. We risk letting history repeat itself. There have been many empires who have been dragged into Afghanistan, lost, and within one or two more conflicts, that empire is over. Maybe it's just a sign that a country willing to put effort into taking a land locked country is on its last legs because that country no longer thinks. It will enter more conflicts without thinking. It will engage them resting on its relative might instead of real thinking, and its over.

I think if we attack Iran we really can kiss America good bye. We just don't have the humility to see it. We lost a war to goat herders. Maybe we should learn how that humility thing works. Let other people fight wars for a while.

If you are someone who needs citations instead of logic here is a case study where we lost a war game against Iran: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a30392654/millennium-challenge-qassem-soleimani/

I have doubts we would lose a war game against the Taliban yet we lost against them IRL. War games should be taken with a grain of salt in either direction. This is why I prefer logic to citations. Citations can be dismissed as one offs and sometimes rightly so. But the logic that there is something wrong with our war winning capacity is pretty solid. When we have such indications does it make sense to gamble against this logic when we have nothing to gain in the case I'm wrong and a lot to lose if the logic holds water?

Comment preview

[-]JasonCarswell5(+5|0)

" Says here in my history book that luckily the good guys have won every single time. What are the odds? " ~ Norm MacDonald

Orwell said the goal is perpetual war. So did Douglas Valentine in "The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America" which also outlines how.

Another example of the US military ineptitude and corruption for profit is how only now Louis is fighting WITH some of the US military for The Right To Repair.

We would not be smart to get involved in any conflict now.

It's never been about being smart. There's so much evidence of willful stupidity by "leadership". The corrupt debt-enslavement establishment system demands it before the inevitable collapse and rebirth as the New World Order with greater control.

parentlinkreply
[-]Ultrix3(+3|0)

Yep, agree 1,000%

parentlinkreply
[-]Tallest_Skil1(+1|0)

lost

The US military has never lost a war it was allowed to fight.

parentlinkreply
[-]x0x73(+3|0)

The whole system is all its parts and what it interacts with. If it produces success it is built for success. If it fails to reach its bottom line goals it is built for that outcome. It wouldn't be the first military in the world to find itself being the best on some metrics and yet unable to succeed at or even identify the real game in front of it.

The real game in front of the military is keep Americans safe domestically. Yet it's able to get dragged into wars that don't do that.

All because one country has really disproportionate influence over us. Fuck Israel.

It's America's greatest liability.

But either a system works or it doesn't. Or a system plus its surrounding interface works or it doesn't (if our pride forces us to apologize for something that doesn't work). Systems that work take over and systems that don't die. Ours doesn't work. Countries that don't fail to function will take over. There are all kinds of inept countries out there. They are inept differently than we are. But the key thing is some of their obvious faults can sometimes be less significant than our hidden faults. If we didn't have blinders for our faults we would see them and they wouldn't be faults for long. But we do. And it's a mistake to think these hidden faults can't be more critical than some of the poor training or bad equipment or lack of experience that other countries have. The Taliban had all those faults to the furthest extreme possible and they proved to be less significant than our own.

Now we want to fight a country like Iran who is less weak in all of those areas and has some actual strengths. Unless there is something seriously wrong with their system that we haven't accounted for (worse than the Taliban) they are already stacking up better than something we've lost against.

It would be so easy to not fight them. The risks to the American public are significant. The gains are zero.

parentlinkreply
[-]JasonCarswell2(+2|0)

The system has not worked as intended. And requires perpetual rebirth.

We need to be the ones birthing the new systems, not leave it up to the ruling class.

How are we going to do that?

I'd list some of the required criteria if I had time.

parentlinkreply
[-]x0x71(+1|0)

I agree. One problem is that a rebirth takes time. Long enough that the old system will collapse. If anything that will further the cause of rebirth. This sounds nice and all, but this kind of collapse is physical and comes with a lot of death and destruction. When the empire collapses it would be very nice to be able to convince all the other countries to not attack us. But that's living in a fantasy world. One thing that would make that more likely is if our current system retreated from its global extension and focused on domestic security. Walk quite and carry a big stick requires us to walk quietly. Something we refuse to do.

You are saying it is not worthwhile to try to convince this old guard of anything because we have something better to focus on. I agree. Except I think it's worth trying to convince them that one concept so we don't have war n shit.

Why is it that when men rebirth new systems we often make flawed ones? Psychology.

Humanity is disinterested in the careful thinking and conversation needed to create low error societies free from corruption and conflict. Because of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. The fear and anger people are confronted with makes them too impatient to care about minute details that mater in the long run. War would only accelerate this flaw in our communal psychology.

Error begets error. Reduction of error begets reduction of error. War would be a massive error. It's introduced by our erroneous thinking we have some need to protect Israel. Every error is a part of a chain. This flawed thinking is about to plunge us into a massive mistake that will increase general error all around. People will think even less carefully.

If there are hopes for our volunaryist utopia it was through the gradual lifting of humanity's collective head out of its ass. Some people want to plunge it deeper. They are about to succeed unless we can convince people that a war to defend Israel's genocidal behavior is not a reasonable or moral thing to do.

parentlinkreply
[-]Ultrix0(0|0)

I think the perfect timing for this is when the current guvmint systems fail. The problem I see with this timing is that they want to corral us into 15-minute cities for when that chaos erupts.

As for me personally, I'll be moving from Canada to Mexico for the foreseeable future and only come back if there is some sort of worthwhile rebirth.

parentlinkreply