*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[OngBonga]

I'm talking about military expenditures and military conflicts. You're talkng here about economic war, which is not the same thing.

They are not mutually exclusive. Ok, the economic war against Iran has not, until now, been fought with weapons, but most wars that American military have engaged in since WWII have been, at least to some degree, economic wars.

The goal with the sanctions is to make the Iranian people so miserable they overthrow their government,

I think this is way too simplistic. I think the goal of sanctions against Iran is to hurt their economy, which in turn impacts on their military capabilities. If USA wanted Iranian people to overthrow their government, then they would be funding and arming internal opposition groups, like they did in Syria.

When Trump killed Sulemani, millions of Iranians instantly forgot how much they hate their own government and remembered how much they hate America.

I suspect you think Solemani is actually revered amongst these people. I don't think that's true. I think the opposite is true. Solemani was responsible for crushing uprisings in Iran, he was hated by a lot of people and there were celebrations when news broke. Those celebrations were somewhat muted when they remembered they still have to worry about those in power who remain alive and well. The people on the streets "mourning" are probably doing so under duress. I do not know this, it's what I suspect. I find it hard to believe that Iranian people could actually celebrate this guy. I suspect a lot of people feel this guy got what he deserved and hope his successor is less brutal.

I don't think Trump gives a fuck about impeachment. He's not going to be removed from power, we all know it. Impeachment is only something to worry about if your own party supports it. Otherwise it's just theatre.

I agree, but like I said there's no-one who can threaten them anyways. Even if their military budget were cut by 50%, they'd still be spending twice as much as the next biggest spender.

I'm in no doubt they're spending more than they need to in order to maintain their dominance, but I have no idea if their spending is unsustainable.

You would have a hard time convincing me that the US benefitted at all economically from Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq. Otoh, the costs of those wars are certainly much easier to estimate and they run into the trillions.

idk about Korea and Vietnam, but Iraq, USA certainly did benefit economically, assuming Saddam Hussein was actually trying to sell his oil in Euros. That sent a message out to every world leader that if you try to replace the dollar as the world's petrocurrency, then assassination is a serious risk.

How much is the dollar petrocurrency worth to the American economy? I'd wager it's in the trillions.

I also wouldn't put too much faith in the wisdom of our dear leaders. There's plenty of occasions in the past when leaders have done things that clearly weren't in their country's best interests.

True, but it's another matter to argue they made a mistake. Perhaps they have been bought off. People in these positions are a lot smarter than I am, and a lot more psychopathic. I can't get into their heads.

The drone the Iranians shot down a few months ago cost $123 million.

Yeah, because of corruption. They could likely make it for a couple of million, but that benefits the taxpayer, not the shareholder.

Obviously you can't fight a war with 8 soldiers.

I wasn't suggesting you can. I'm just saying that the money lost in training a soldier who dies is peanuts to a government, even if as many as 20% are being lost, which is a huge number. Ok so it's $100b to train a million soldiers. So if 20% were killed in action, then it cost $100b to train 800k soldiers.

Meanwhile, the average hurricane costs $20b. Seriously, we're talking peanuts here in the context of military and government spending.

Iran is not a pushover the way Iraq was, and the terrain is more like Afganistan than Iraq.

I'm sure with the right tactics, we could defeat them without too much economic hardship on our end.

[Poopadoop]

I think this is way too simplistic. I think the goal of sanctions against Iran is to hurt their economy, which in turn impacts on their military capabilities. If USA wanted Iranian people to overthrow their government, then they would be funding and arming internal opposition groups, like they did in Syria.

They have shortages of medicines in Iran, people are dying because they can't import meds. Explain to me how that is keeping them from being a military power. It's punishing the people so they'll turn against their gov't.

If USA wanted Iranian people to overthrow their government, then they would be funding and arming internal opposition groups, like they did in Syria.

Who says they aren't? They've done it before in Iran, you think they've stopped now?

[MadMojoMonkey]

You think bombing and invading Vietnam made them more amenable to US companies than not bombing and invading them would have? I dont see how this can be, but I guess we'll never know.

First of all, that's kinda a scandalous quote to leave off this part.

Maybe it was necessary to get those things on this time-scale, I guess.

I'm pretty sure the answer to your above question is stated here as a resounding, "dunno."

But whatever.
You seem to be talking like the US went to war against Vietnam. That's not a very clear representation of the conflict. The US was fighting alongside some Vietnamese, and the Soviets were supplying munitions and logistics to other Vietnamese. There was a civil war in Vietnam, perhaps a rebel uprising, and 2 OP neighbors decided to back opposing sides.

(As I understand it. Admittedly, I am not an expert on this.)

The US was overrun in the end when financial support was cut by Congress. This is the seed that has put the US in the position I described earlier. Once the troops are in the field, the notion of cutting the funding on them gives us cultural flashbacks to Vietnam. (obv. hyperbole, but still apt, I think)


Geez, I'm just talking out my ass mostly. I only know my cultural understanding of the conflict. I've never really researched it beyond watching a few documentaries, none recently, and a few Hollywood movies.
If you like a good semi-fictional Vietnam movie, Hamburger Hill (1987) was a solid film. Like all war movies, it was hard to watch in parts, but I was totally sucked into it. I'd rate it up there with Full Metal Jacket, though FMJ still top Vietnam movie, IMO. With FMJ, you get 2 for 1. Great bargain, and both excellent films.