• billwashere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    Look, everyone talks about Vietnam… terrible situation, lots of mistakes by the generals, very sad… but what we did with Iran, let me tell you, it makes Vietnam look like an absolute walk in the park. The incompetent leaders in Washington gave us a total disaster with Iran, frankly the worst failure in the history of our country, maybe ever, believe me!

  • lennybird@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 days ago

    (That’s the point).

    Been saying since the start: Iran is likely in on all this

    • IRGC Coup – The IRGC has LONG been wanting to make a move over the Ayatollah. Now the new Ayatollah is a sockpuppet and the IRGC has completely taken over by way of coup.

    • Quelled Civil Unrest – Prior to this conflict, civil unrest in Iran was heavily mounting. Thousands upon thousands out on the street. Now Iranian dissidents hopeful for being rescued were baited out of their homes, only to be slaughtered the first time Trump left them hanging, and the second time Israel and USA suddenly became the new threat and rallied the masses around while also indicating nobody was actually coming to save them from the tyranny within.

    • Superficial Damage – Most damage done to Iran has largely been superficial for media optics. Even their nuclear program has largely remained intact.

    • New Cashflow – Not only has this massively benefitted Russia with lifted oil sanctions, the IRGC got a massive injection into their own economy, both with the new toll system but also the literal cited fucking article above.

    Meanwhile Trump doesn’t give a shit. His goal as a Trojan Orange has been a success.

  • Gladaed@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 days ago

    Iran wasn’t a ground operation. And so much shorter. And there was no revolution.

    Such a weird comparison.

    • tempest@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Lasts a month costs about half at much of the entire 20 years of the Vietnam war.

      In straight monetary values it is probably a bigger loss.

    • Photonic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      There are many differences, but the main similarity is the asymmetric warfare that happened in Iran Vietnam and is happening in Iran.

      So, while the situation in these wars are different, the reasons for losing the war are similar: because the American military and government don’t understand asymmetric warfare.

      • 2nd_Fermenter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        I can’t agree enough. Vietnam and Iran employed the same strategy – bypass the US military and strike the US economy, international position, and resolve. And Iran accomplished in four months what took Vietnam nineteen years.

    • MehBlah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yeah, Thats why. He just rolled over after fucking everyone in the country over first.

  • workerONE@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    News outlets like to pretend that cessation of further attacks is failure. We started the war with a Tomahawk missile which killed 168 people, more than 100 school children. Destroyed apartments, hospitals, bridges, water supply. Continuing that shit would have been a success? A victory?

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’m pretty sure they’re saying trump didn’t achieve what he wanted. Mainly because he didn’t even know what he wanted.

    • gjoel@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 days ago

      Probably more like the initiation of attacks was a failure. Me yielding when getting beaten up by a boxer isn’t the mistake. Me starting a fight with one in the first place was.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Defeat was inevitable already when the first missile was sent. No matter if USA sent more or didn’t. there was no possible winning strategy. All analysts knew this.

    • Gladaed@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      That’s just wrong. The war started with great many missiles and bombs some of which did what you claimed. A single missile can only destroy a single thing. And when you remember how many bombs fell a minor amount of collateral and misstargeting is the usual horror of war.

    • YappyMonotheist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I mean, America likes to destroy civilizations (a country that has Native genocide as its origin story), it’s the anti-civ “civ” after all, so I guess it is an American failure. Now, those now left in power in Iran could still sell off the country to Western oligarchs, which would be a victory for America but that’s still seemingly undecided.

    • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      You’re presenting a false binary where this MOU and continuing the conflict, as it is, are the only options.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Not really, because he describes an escalation, which is the third option. As in there are 2 ways to continue the war, status quo or escalation, and the alternative to those is the peace agreement.

        • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          There are other peace agreements available. A continued engagement would be more likely to generate them, too.

          • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            Holy fuck I’ve never seen someone so callously support continuing to kill civilians just to get “a better deal” when it took 3 months of killing civilians and life supporting infrastructure to get to this deal.

          • Buffalox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            So you are saying an infinite number of possible peace agreements equals infinite possibilities?

            That’s not how this works, peace talks is one option, not infinite.

  • TheStaffmaster@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    TBF this thing didn’t last the better part of a decade and a half and cost hundreds of thousands of American lives. The war on “terror” was a better comparison