this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2025
111 points (99.1% liked)
chapotraphouse
13906 readers
766 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Firstly, America is not nazi Germany 2.0, nazi Germany was America 2.0.
Secondly, Who will declare war on America?
China? They already are preparing for WW3 scenarios and Trump's statements do nothing to change the timeline of preparations
Russia? They are already at (proxy) war with the US
Iran or North korea? They have enough defensive capabilities to have a good chance of defeating a US invasion (which appears to be a matter of when not if). But no real offensive capabilities against the US (discounting US satelites).
India or NATO minus the US? Their ideological conviction would lead them to siding with American fascism rather than against it. Like, why would they invade the heartland of world-historical fascism when they themselves are fascist?
~~Modern america doesn't a tenth the (relative to the rest of the world) military or economic power that Nazi Germany did. And that's because~~ other countries haven't been sitting on their asses all this time. They've been struggling for decades to create the multipolar world.
"They have enough defensive capabilities to have a good chance of defeating a US invasion"
Lol, you really believe that? If the US wanted to, they could go into Iranian airspace and take out whatever they wanted to and leave without Iran even being able to detect them.
The US couldn't defeat Afghanistan.
Defeating them wasn't the problem. The US toppled the Taliban all the way back in 2001. What the US failed at was the rebuilding of the country and turning it over to Afghan government and military.
I find it really hard to argue that the US lost in Libya or Iraq.
Yeah it just depends on the goal stated, because war is politics. If the political goal in Iraq was overthrowing the government and getting oil, the US won. If it was ending resistance in the middle east, the US failed. If it was to create a chaotic region which can be used for profit and war for the coming centuries, the US won. Libya is almost exactly the same.
The US has several times achieved its material goal while failing its stated goal. They might do that in Iran, too, though I think it'll be harder than Iraq was because Iran learned from the past decades and I'm unconvinced that the US did
Aren't stated goals kind of irrelevant? The stated goal of invading Iraq was to rid them of imaginary WMDs. The US invaded to loot, destroy and destabilize. All those goals were achieved.
For sure but that's my point. To throw it in conservatives faces to make yourself feel better, use the stated goals. But, to really understand the problem of the US in the world, the stated goals isn't relevant and leads one astray in the analysis.
It’s honestly so disheartening watching people here throw out the Millennium challenge as some kind of end-all gotcha to own the libs.
The Millennium challenge result was only achieved by Red side forces assuming motorcycles could travel cross country at the speed of light unbothered by enemy actions (they can’t), tiny speedboats could carry 4 giant ridiculously heavy anti ship missiles (they can’t), the entire Blue fleet would place themselves on the shoreline (they wouldn’t), and that it is possible to use a world ending amount of chemical and biological weapons to render your entire country’s landmass uninhabitable and therefore impervious to ground invasion.
Like, yes we get it. The US “sucks” at war. However people here are acting like the US military industrial complex is some kind of paper mache figure to blow over when in reality, it produces weapons of unimaginable destructive capability en masse. The same weapons that are killing Palestinians today, right now.
This is the opposite of material analysis and is, frankly, reactionary - a mindset I’ve seen a disturbing number of times here lately.
I wouldn't call it "winning" when your invasion leads to nothing but state collapse, formation of ISIS and US troops getting merced by IEDs. Regional instability may be an outcome the US can live with, but it wasn't the military goal of the invasion, they wanted to turn Iraq into a regional ally like postwar Germany and they didn't come anywhere close to that.
What's the evidence for that being the goal of the invasion? The US invaded Iraq to loot the country and destabilize the region. What's my evidence for this? It happened. It's what they did.
I don't see how any of these things are bad for the American ruling class.
IMO, they achieved their political goals in Libya (overthrowing Gaddafi, destroying Libya which further destabilized Africa by allowing ISIS a foothold into Africa) while Iraq is a very mixed bag. They overthrew Hussein, but now there's greater Iranian presence within Iraq. Hussein might have had designs against the petrodollar, but he was also a check against Iranian influence within the region. Post-Hussein, Iraqi militias were launching drones against the Zionist entity while shouting "Labbayk ya Hussain" before the so-called ceasefire in Gaza. This would never happen under Hussein. I'm not sure to what extent a Hussein-led Iraq would agree to be part of the Axis of Resistance since Iran is such a key player. Overall, I would say that Iran probably benefited most from Syria with Assad and Iraq without Hussein.
The US has threatened to invade and destroy Iran for at least the last 30 years. If they actually could invade Iran that easily, don't you think they already would have?
Fucking armchair general
brainless comment.
No, they wouldn't. The US could wipe out countries all over the globe if they wanted to, but that doesn't mean their going to do it. There's a lot of factors that go into deciding something like that. The US has the weaponry to go into Iran undetected and take out their nuclear facilities and leave without ever being spotted. Matter of fact, right now the US has 6 B21 bombers loaded with bunker buster bombs sitting outside of Iran right now just in case the nuclear negotiations do not go as planned, although I suspect they will since Iran has lost so much power lately. One reason we don't just go in and start bombing though is because we don't have issue with the Iranian people. It's just their leadership. Another reason, just like with Putin in Russia, if we were to take their leadership out, we don't know who will replace them and we don't want another situation like Syria or Libya.
The US also has bigger fish to fry. Iran is nowhere near the biggest threat to the US, so for now, the smarter move is to negotiate with them and keep the financial pressure on them which should be enough for now.
Millennium Challenge
The US should learn how to win against geurellas in the third world before trying to fight against actual militaries.
Yanqi devils have learned nothing from not winning a single boots on the ground war since 1945.