I mean it is not like they are going to say, "Okay, you got us; we give up!"
151
hookem982 days ago
+57
They will, but only after 20 years, thousands of lives, and trillions have been lost there first.
Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan...
57
faffc2602 days ago
+43
south korea exists today as a democracy because of that UN mandated action..
43
hgaben902 days ago
-6
Probably the first and last time the UN actually served its purpose.
-6
faffc2602 days ago
+24
it's purpose is to prevent ww3 between the winners of world war 2, so it's worked for it's primary purpose of dialogue between adversaries as best as it could really. it's purpose isn't to be world government and the only reason it was un mandated is the soviets were protesting it for some reason I've long forgotten and didn't participate, and taiwan (republic of china) still held china's seat lol.
24
Brief_Hospital_17662 days ago
+5
Oddly enough, the primary victors of WW2 have both destroyed themselves within a 5 year period. I don't know there has ever been a time in history where two of the most dominant world powers simultaneously elected to self-immolate. Until now.
5
BendicantMias2 days ago
-6
Its purpose is to prevent war in general, and it has manifestly failed at that. Even among the winners of WW2, nukes prevented all out war, so they switched to proxy wars. Which the UN has also failed to put an end to.
-6
wintersdark2 days ago
+6
The UN has prevented countless wars. Expecting any body to prevent any and all wars is unrealistic and frankly f****** stupid.
It's role is simply to present a safe, open table for every nation to talk, even those at war.
Wars start because of bargaining friction, so the UN aims to reduce that friction. It does so, but can only reduce, not fully eliminate.
You seem to think the UN is supposed to be some kind of authority that can "put an end to" wars, but that's absurd. It has no enforcement power, so that's obviously impossible. It's just a formal avenue for global diplomacy, no more or less.
6
DistractedADD2 days ago
+30
Im sorry, you are wrong about Korea. US saved South Korea.
30
Fallouttgrrl2 days ago
-1
And still fumbled North Korea
Greatest military on Earth, folks
-1
EquivalentOne2412 days ago
+12
You forgot to mention Japan and Germany. Both are top 5 economic powerhouses now.
12
Scypher_Tzu2 days ago
+15
They won korea, and just lost interest in vietnam
15
emilygrey4eva2 days ago
+2
Not sure what history books you have been reading man...
2
Scypher_Tzu2 days ago
-3
Real ones
-3
N33DL2 days ago
Vietnam wants to make many trade deals, and participate in joint military exercises. The vast majority of vietnamese were born well after the war, so the USA won it in the end.
0
purepotstill2 days ago
-6
No, Korea was a UN effort, not a US one.
-6
I_Roll_Chicago2 days ago
+5
The UN at the time was more or less the allies ww2. So.
5
Templar-Order2 days ago
The U.N. because Soviet protests was basically just the US and its Allies
0
[deleted]2 days ago
[deleted]
0
BetSquare71902 days ago
+3
South. Wouldn't exist otherwise.
3
HalfADozenOfAnother2 days ago
+5
North Korea invaded south Korea. The U.S along with the U.N Command pushed north Korea out of South Korea. I guess you can call that a win.
5
SwedeLostInCanada2 days ago
+18
The US does not lose wars, it just stops having an interest in fighting and leave.
18
I_Roll_Chicago2 days ago
+16
Wars have political objectives, religious objectives, or resources objectives
If you fail at your objectives, you lost.
America lost plenty of wars
16
danamesjrupin2 days ago
+7
What if the objective was to get more money in the defense companies pockets?
7
I_Roll_Chicago2 days ago
+4
The defense company makes money whether there is s war or not.
War just makes them more money. But make no mistake our annual military budget during peacetime keeps them well taken care of.
4
Relevant-Ad22542 days ago
+1
Agreed
And a fucked up economy hurts everyone including defense contractors.
War time boosts in profits are not sustainable since war is not sustainable.
Sure you can point Iraq and Afghanistan as examples of forever wars, but at that time we had a budget surplus. We Are in a much different economic situation .
Our debt is so massive and the economy is so fucked from this war in particular, that it’s not even in the defense contractors best interest for this war to go too long.
The worst case scenario for them is if the US economy forces military to stop immediately.
If the economy that fucked up, there will be a MASSIVE drop in defense spending which will devastate the defense industry for years if not decades.
So I’m sure the defense contractors prefer their steady stream of profits with a short Venezuela-like escapade or two every now and then.
1
Fritzkreig2 days ago
+1
They were doing perfectly fine before the war, they are just doing better now going forward with additional demand; I follow them somewhat closely.
It is almost a former President and general of the US warned us about the Military Industrial Complex 70 years ago!
1
Relevant-Ad22542 days ago
+1
And a fucked up economy hurts everyone including defense contractors.
War time boosts in profits are not sustainable since war is not sustainable.
Sure you can point Iraq and Afghanistan as examples of forever wars, but at that time we had a budget surplus. We Are in a much different economic situation .
Our debt is so massive and the economy is so fucked from this war in particular, that it’s not even in the defense contractors best interest for this war to go too long.
The worst case scenario for them is if the US economy forces military to stop immediately.
If the economy that fucked up, there will be a MASSIVE drop in defense spending which will devastate the defense industry for years if not decades.
So I’m sure the defense contractors prefer their steady stream of profits with a short Venezuela-like military escapade or two every now and then.
Like every publicly traded company, they would prefer predictable and steadily improving profits over unsustainable + unpredictable booms and busts.
1
Fallouttgrrl2 days ago
+2
"we don't lose, we just don't like how the game is going so we take our toys and go home"
Mission accomplished
2
SetPhasersToFuckUp2 days ago
+1
Sounds a lot like a Swede lost in Canada(!)
1
fellatio-del-toro2 days ago
+1
If we completely disregard whether or not we met our initial objectives…yeah, I guess you could say that’s true.
But you’re wrong. While we don’t physically lose wars, we certainly do politically.
1
Brief_Hospital_17662 days ago
+2
War is the kinetic extension of politics. That's it. The US is very good at winning battles. It's also very good at losing the wars those battles comprise.
2
fellatio-del-toro2 days ago
+1
Very well said.
1
morerelativebacons2 days ago
-4
We've got a pretty good out right now...but the fighting will probably escalate. So stupid, so trump.
-4
Topsyye2 days ago
+7
Can’t get much crazier when you execute 30,000 people for simply protesting against you.
7
Cl1mh4224rd2 days ago
>Can’t get much crazier when you execute 30,000 people for simply protesting against you.
It's a shame we didn't do anything to help those protesters at the time, like Trump said we would.
0
84Cressida2 days ago
+2
And what could he have done? That Listnook wouldn’t absolutely blast him for anyway?
2
angelus142 days ago
Honestly incredible that we still managed to lose the war of public opinion after that happened. If someone sane was at the helm we could have had the international community on our side and a whole coalition. The fact that he managed to botch this badly what should have been a free PR win is kind of amazing.
0
scuzzy9872 days ago
-2
Like he helped in Minneapolis?
-2
Topsyye2 days ago
-3
True, America is not known to be quick. Late to both world wars after all.
-3
Brief_Hospital_17662 days ago
-2
Funnier still is how they showed up to Versailles and started making demands like they'd actually done something.
-2
Topsyye2 days ago
-1
Haha okay now I know you’re not serious.
-1
Brief_Hospital_17661 day ago
Why do you think Wilson left without a deal? He showed up and behaved like the Americans had some role in the winning of the war and Foch told him to straight up f*** off. And rightly so, too.
0
84Cressida2 days ago
Iraq is a democracy and better off today than they were 20 years ago.
0
Brief_Hospital_17662 days ago
-2
Iraq is an Iranian vassal state.
-2
Fritzkreig2 days ago
+1
Yeah, I unfortunately ended up in one of those invasions; that part was the easy part, after that it got a lot more difficult!
1
PapaSheev72 days ago
+1
Hey in fairness we kicked the snot out of the North Koreans and stopped them from conquering South Korea.
1
JojenCopyPaste1 day ago
+1
"we're not ready but we will be in 10 days"
1
NutsyFlamingo2 days ago
+26
Pretty weird if they didn’t say that… you better or else we’ll do nothing
Reuters is really mailing it in as far as articles nowadays
26
teflon_soap2 days ago
+3
Kind of need to say that to save face
3
JojenCopyPaste1 day ago
+1
"it's all a shambles and they basically have to start over" -- no army pr person ever in any country
1
Fallouttgrrl2 days ago
+27
"hold me back bro, someone hold me back!"
27
TheGambit2 days ago
+5
Military ready for military things. Huh. Never would have thought
5
Fallouttgrrl2 days ago
+1
If the cease fire ceases we will fire!
1
kezow2 days ago
+17
Wait, we tried Diplomacy? Does threatening to commit war crimes count as Diplomacy now?
17
IXMandalorianXI2 days ago
+2
War is inherently an aggressive diplomatic tool.
2
DarkFireFenrir2 days ago
+1
Consequently, could war crimes be considered negotiations?
1
lethargy862 days ago
+2
Trump negotiated the ceasefire with himself and still failed
2
Daigann2 days ago
+4
Oh for f***'s sake
4
MachineSpirited70852 days ago
+4
There is no need to resume if you never even stopped lol wym
4
monotvtv2 days ago
+4
Ready to fight” is just Pentagon budget season talk
The real question is: who profits when diplomacy “fails”?
4
Dark_World_Blues2 days ago
Israel
0
boboguitar2 days ago
+6
I think it’s equally as likely that Trump just tacos further and leaves.
6
QanonQuinoa2 days ago
+2
Which is probably the best thing he can do atp
2
machopsychologist2 days ago
+1
It's a tough one... Iran or Greenland..
1
IBM2962 days ago
+1
Cuba is first. Then Greenland.
1
Lor_azepam2 days ago
Leave israel to dral with this if they want to
0
BOPSurfcasting2 days ago
+3
Iran will start scaling back it's missile/drone attacks within the next 4-6 weeks as stockpiles run low, but it's greatest weapon - the Hormuz choke - can be sustained for years. But they got about another 6 months or so before their economy collapses completely.
3
meechmeechmeecho2 days ago
+1
Whether or not they can enforce/extort tolls over the long term is extremely questionable. The only reason it’s not working now is because insurance companies have been cancelling and restricting policies related to the strait.
This works in the short term because there’s no point taking the risk if it may be resolved in a month. If Iran tries to uphold this toll over the long term, I actually doubt they’ll be able to sustain it from a geopolitical stance.
All it takes is a government backed push by a middle power to call their bluff. What if France or GB says “We’re not going to pay the toll. Attacking this ship will be considered a declaration of war.”
1. Iran attacks the ship, draws the neutral party into the war, and further turns global opinion against them.
2. Iran doesn’t attack the ship. This signals to every other middle power that Iran is full of it. Their control of the strait is effectively over.
It’s a lose-lose bluff from Iran and is only a temporary bargaining chip.
1
poonslyr692 days ago
+2
Even without an economy all it takes to block the strait is a few missiles donated from Russia and a couple of guys to move them into position.
Or if they're ever worried about fully losing the strait they could mine it with small boats and it'll take days or weeks to fully clear, enough time to come up with some new resources to try to block it all over again.
Oh also if things become that existential they'll use the last of their remaining drones to destroy all the essential infrastructure around the region, creating tens of millions of refugees in addition to the tens of millions of refugees that will be created by the collapse of their own country.
And the numerous warlords will rule in the collapse, creating a super massive Afghanistan type situation.
And, they're a highly educated country with 90 million people, many of whom have engineering or STEM degrees.
Al Qaeda had like... A dozen guys with the same skills and knowledge that the average IRGC engineer has. There are at a minimum a few hundred thousand people who are committed enough to the cause and have the knowledge.
So, if their country fully collapses the result will be a much much larger and much more intelligent Al Qaeda with numerous allies around the region and within a few major powers, with tens of billions in hidden wealth. And potentially with thousands of sympathizers globally.
Great, yeah bud, sounds winnable and not like an ever expanding cluster f***.
2
BOPSurfcasting2 days ago
+1
This is going to go on for months at the minimum, I wonder what the fuel and food and everything prices will look like 3 months from now.
1
poonslyr692 days ago
+1
I have no idea. This isn't the sort of conflict that the USA can "win" without destroying the world economy and the whole middle east in the process. If they keep going for 3 months I believe Iran would have been backed into the corner where they choose to destroy a lot of essential infrastructure, creating the refugee crisis. If they do that, there is no possibility of de-escalation and a ground invasion or even nuclear threats (god forbid, an actual nuclear strike), could be the only outcomes at that point.
The USA basically taking a loss now and backing down is the least damaging option I can see.
1
BOPSurfcasting2 days ago
+2
No way Trump backs down, his ego won't let him, unless he can frame any outcome as a victory. Same goes for the IRGC, they can't have anything that looks like a surrender, but in their case their survival depends on it.
Iran will be in ruins when this eventually concludes, but it will also prove to the Islam regime that the choke point and their mosaic defence works real well in keeping them in power (their No.1 goal if attacked).
2
Majestic-Attitude6152 days ago
+1
do we know how many drones (and missiles - though those are harder to hide/keep quiet about) they have stashed all over that vast country - the only need enough to take pot shots at shipping once in awhile to wreak havoc - I imagine they have enough to do that for a very long time (and more if they can get c**** parts from China or India through back channels - particularly given that we lifted oil sanctions on them last month - which - hmm.....does that usually happen when actively fighting another country?!) - I just wonder how much they have stashed everywhere ....
1
BOPSurfcasting2 days ago
+1
I don't know how much they got stashed away but they will make damn well sure they got enough drones in reserve to threaten shipping.
Iran also have one of the largest stockpiles of sea mines in the world combined with a fast deployment capability.
1
Majestic-Attitude6152 days ago
+1
it's just as if nobody is paying attention to what the Ukranians are doing to Russia with asymmetrical warfare using c**** drones - while they do have better quality missile systems from the West - a lot of the damage they are doing is just c**** drones and hitting refineries and infrastructure - and I think Iran could also do it for a very long time - even if sporadically to elicit a response - make us waste more money and missiles and etc - you could bomb that country over and over again - and - as long as there are some drones -and some people wanting to fire them off - it will be enough to screw with energy prices and supplies for a very long time...should they choose to do so
1
lethargy862 days ago
+1
No you're right about the drones. There's no way we've even scratched the surface with those considering Iran designed and is continually producing them with internal supply chains, and they're relatively c**** as far as materiel is concerned, so they can be stashed all over the place.
There's really no way of knowing for sure how many they have. Considering you need very little operational capability to launch them, it's hard to imagine how the bulk of them wouldn't be staying closer to the vest, since they offer a greater force multiplier, the more asymmetric the war gets.
There's probably a ton of them stashed in nondescript delivery trucks, shipping containers, random tunnels/bunkers, etc.
1
thatfilipinoguy2 days ago
+4
all of this is just posturing and shit before they talk from both sides. I started to realize this yesterday that both sides have to look like they're in the strong position but behind the scenes things are probably different. We were looking like it's going to a nuclear Armageddon yesterday and most people just waiting for news like you and me have no idea and suddenly there's a ceasefire.
in any case israel is really the wild card here but both US and Iran will try and look strong and say things to their base and then who really knows what'll happen if the talks proceed in Pakistan. I'm fatigued of following the news and i'll just walk stay at home and try not to stress about this shit.
4
dwitman2 days ago
+3
What diplomacy?
3
No_Conversation_93252 days ago
+2
Market manipulation at it again
2
QanonQuinoa2 days ago
+5
That’ll be this weekend when Vance, Kush, and Wilkoff cancel their trip to Pakistan due to “Iran not being serious in negotiating/honoring the ceasefire”.
5
Worst_Comment_Evar2 days ago
+1
Duh.
1
008Zulu2 days ago
+2
Diplomacy was always going to fail with Trump and his cabal of inept bootlickers.
2
InfiniteNerve13842 days ago
+1
Boy that didn’t take long!
1
Talentagentfriend2 days ago
+2
Why did they need to say anything? Isnt the whole point of the military to be prepared? This sounds political.
2
Inevitable-Row17592 days ago
+2
Bunch of apes fighting each other
2
whatproblems2 days ago
+2
pretty guaranteed everyones reloading
2
SkyboundJet2 days ago
+2
Are are we just manipulating the stock market at this point.
2
mostdope282 days ago
+2
Diplomacy? Since when is diplomacy saying you’re eliminating an entire civilization
2
FeistyTie52812 days ago
+1
Right.
The US has exhausted their weapons supply.
Guess it's time to serve up some "suckers and losers" with "boots on the ground".
1
Brief_Hospital_17662 days ago
+1
Hegseth is not the US military. He is unanimously despised by active service members.
1
SnooOnions33692 days ago
+1
Like what else would they say, we’re too tired to continue?
1
IKillZombies4Cash2 days ago
+1
Bros, there are still troops being actively deployed , artillery is on its way…I think the powers that be are just swing trading this all
1
FinishImmediate66842 days ago
+1
What diplomacy?
1
Appropriate_Value1222 days ago
+1
The fighting never stopped.
1
genericusername111012 days ago
+1
When
1
Effective-Split-13332 days ago
+2
so they can loose again?
2
not_old_redditor2 days ago
+2
Now they're stuck in a war they can't win lol
2
baalsebul2 days ago
+2
Problem: the US doesn't have skilled diplomats. Just idiots.
2
Apprehensive_Sea95242 days ago
+2
US says, Kremlin says... What's the difference now?
2
highdimensionaldata2 days ago
+2
He’ll start a crisis somewhere else and then move on.
2
squeezy1021 day ago
+2
True US military members would never follow this order, much less be excited at the opportunity to engage in illegal warfare.
History is watching, boys and girls.
It is your duty to reject unlawful orders. To fight all enemies foreign and domestic. I am a US Navy Veteran, and had this happened during my tenure as a sailor, I'd sooner be dishonorably discharged than participate in this nonsense.
I signed up to protect America and American citizens. This war does the opposite of both.
Where is your honor? Who do you fight for?
2
-wearetheworld-2 days ago
+1
wait, the US has diplomacy now?
1
GoneSilent2 days ago
+1
If an act of war needs congress approval, Shouldn't congress now control the "department of war"?
1
throwaway2772522 days ago
+5
No because it falls under the executive branch. Congress is just there for checks and balances. If congress did not already approve of what was going on then they would have acted against it by now, but they are on board with this.
5
Nostrilsdamus2 days ago
+1
US military? Or chicken hawk Hegseth?
1
Chardan00012 days ago
+1
But they completed all their objectives!!?
1
grasshopper2392 days ago
+2
Diplomacy failed. It actually won, but the current administration couldn't deal with the fact that a black man negotiated a favorable settlement.
2
jsar162 days ago
+1
If? It failed fifteen minutes after it was announced.
1
Ultra_Metal2 days ago
-1
The main conditions of the ceasefire are:
1. Stop firing at the US and its allies.
2. Fully open the Strait of Hormuz
Iran has not done either of these things, which means there will be no ceasefire.
-1
Luke_zuke2 days ago
Just this morning Kegsbreth was touting “complete and overwhelming military victory.” The whiplash is awe inspiring. It’s too unbelievable for fiction. It feels like a comedy skit.
It’s going to evolve into Schrödinger’s War. We are at war, and have just won, and will imminently win, every day for the remainder of this government.
0
NomadFH2 days ago
Wow, we really aren't going to have any serious conversations about what Israel is doing in Lebanon at all. It's like it's not even happening.
0
[deleted]2 days ago
-2
[deleted]
-2
Stepfordhusband692 days ago
+2
This isn’t even right. The US wasn’t really an ally of Israel at its inception
2
Fantastic_Piece58692 days ago
+1
history set things up badly, but netanyaho went out of his way to piss on the situation.
1
mvw22 days ago
-1
It's...a one sided fight. The US and Israel are the aggressors. The US and Israel need to literally stop and Iran would stop automatically.
It's the "stop making me beat you" mentality of an abusive husband smacking around his wife...but also in front of his kids, the neighbors, and on live tv for the world to see.
Iran didn't start the war. Iran had nuclear terms before the war started. There was no reason for the war at all. And then the US and Israel decided it was a good idea to kill a bunch of Iran leaders.
This isn't about diplomacy. This was never about diplomacy.
116 Comments