Anonymous #1 1w

by project a sustained force do you mean get our asses handed to us by Iran? it’s fucking vietnam all over again

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

How is it Vietnam all over again? This shows you know zero about military history, of all conflicts to compare Nam to you choose this? Shit I would’ve taken Afghanistan as a comparison but we haven’t even launched a full force against Iran. Literally only one of our command theaters.

4

Anonymous #1 1w

i meant moreso in terms of getting shit on by a regime/belligerent with far less sophisticated weaponry/defenses

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

And how have they kicked our asses?

3

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

i’ll concede it’s nowhere near Nam in terms of the bloodshed, or the sheer idiocy of continuing the conflict, but the comparison to another instance of the whole “born too early to deploy to the middle east, born just in time to deploy to the middle east” felt too obvious

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

Yeah I’ll agree with you there, don’t get me wrong I don’t like the war either. But to say we don’t have the most powerful military in the world is just false any research or prior knowledge of our current enemies and other powers will tell you that.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

i’ll believe it when our military is actually able to do anything in Iran, at present we’re just crashing KC135s and losing planes to friendly fire, while begging to have the strait back open

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

like in terms of raw technology, sure, but my confidence in the operational/logistical prowess is extremely lacking, based on the way the current conflict is going

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

which i’d argue is illustrative of my money laundering point, we’ve had ridiculous defense spend (to prop up the military industrial complex and redirect taxpayer funds to the rich), and we can’t even make use of the toys we’ve spent billions on because everything else is dogshit

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

It’s because of nature of the conflict, we have a goal Iran just simply has to survive to win. And yeah losses are a hard part of any conflict they’re inevitable.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

if we were so powerful we could just use a fraction of the overwhelming might we used in venezuela, where special forces got to maduro before he was in his safe room (someone told me that idk if it’s true but it’s believable imo). also, we don’t really have a ‘goal’ in this conflict, Israel has a goal, and we’re just along for the ride.

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

We also sent a good deal of equipment overseas to support other militaries. I guarantee you’re going to start seeing new toys come out since we let the Ukrainians test our equipment on Russia’s.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

we gave the Ukrainians a bunch of old stuff we were decommissioning, which was great because it was useless to us and did well against russia. I personally doubt that much new development is going to come from how our handmedowns did against russias shitty tech.

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

Yeah the Israel goal is our goal (which is stupid), and Venezuela is a different animal. They’re in our hemisphere, not as many resources at stake, different military, lesser military than that of Iran.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

But doesn’t israel want an outright regime change? That’s what Bibi’s pleading for, and imo it’s clear that won’t happen without boots on the ground but we’re just twiddling our thumbs because the oil prices are bad

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

We didn’t though, when I was in the military I remember them taking munitions meant for us to use for training (or to go overseas to fight) to be sent to Ukraine.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

ah interesting, everything I saw was that we were sending old gear, but I mostly checked out for the latter parts of that conflict

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

That’s the the question everyone is asking and we won’t know until that decision is made.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

just watch poly market/kalshi; it’ll be there first

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

Yeah dude, we had dummy rounds for our man portable rocket and missile systems for quite awhile since we were sending stuff over there for so long.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

interesting. I wonder whether there’s a prioritization where munitions intended for training are the first to be sent as aid because that minimizes impact on defense necessary installations

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

Someone gets paid probably too much to make that decision.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

i mean if you’re talking about overpayment, staffing is not the military’s real problem, it’s contractors charging $50k for bushings

1