this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2026

257 points (99.2% liked)

People Twitter

9763 readers

1347 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

Mark NSFW content.
No doxxing people.
Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
No bullying or international politcs
Be excellent to each other.
Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

SendMeYourTaTas@sh.itjust.works

pelespirit@sh.itjust.works

257

It's a solid plan (infosec.pub)

submitted 3 hours ago by pelespirit@sh.itjust.works to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 20 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io 6 points 1 hour ago

Fuck that, trade it for Trump dead or alive

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 42 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

They can just hold the world’s supply of oil, ammonia and helium to ransom. Breaking an Iranian blockade by force would require a WW2-scale effort, with the US, Europe, China and the gulf states fighting alongside each other to take Tehran and impose some kind of regime change all parties find acceptable.

[–] chellomere@lemmy.world 1 points 16 minutes ago

Have you looked at a map? Do you know how far Hormuz is from Tehran?

[+] rumschlumpel@feddit.org -15 points 2 hours ago (5 children)

You don't think the US army would be enough to conquer Iran if they actually started puttng boots on the ground?

[–] dalekcaan@feddit.nl 21 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

You mean the same army that spent 20 years replacing the Taliban with the Taliban? And is now under new, significantly dumber management? No, no I don't.

[–] chellomere@lemmy.world 1 points 1 minute ago

As an Afghan friend of mine says, it was not the fault of the US. The Afghan people is not ready to form a western-style government, as it's a land of a hundred tribes where most just think of themselves. This is why the government fell so quickly when the US left. Few are motivated to defend the country, corruption is immense.

In her words, it was totally understandable for them to leave, as they saw this and realized they would be fighting a losing battle for decades by staying.

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Winning a war and installing a lasting regime are two very different things. The US crushed the war part and fumbled the regime building.

[–] Bbbbbbbbbbb@lemmy.world 5 points 58 minutes ago (1 children)

So they won the battle but lost the war?

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 1 points 20 minutes ago* (last edited 19 minutes ago)

They won the war but failed at installing a lasting regime that aligns with their interests. A decades-long occupation is not generally counted as part of a war.

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 35 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

Given how well they did in Afghanistan and Iraq, sure.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 23 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

And Vietnam. Our military isn't great with boots on the ground because that's not the point. This is for making military money and that's it.

[–] just2look@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

That isn't quite accurate. The US military is very good at killing people and destroying things. To win you need a strategy that goes beyond those things. It involves aspects outside the military. You need diplomats to coordinate and negotiate with allies, diplomats to meet and negotiate with the opposition in conflicts where that is feasible, a strategy that has end goals and a reasonable way to get to those goals, political entities to explain to the US citizenry and the world at large why the conflict is necessary, and a bunch more. The military doesn't really do most of that, and the US hasn't bothered with having any of those things for a long time. The problem is the US government keeps just saying to 'conquer' some country and giving no real sense of what that even means.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 points 41 minutes ago

And making Petrobarrens richer and maintaining USD hegemony through petrodollar. We invaded Iraq because Hussein was trying to convert Iraq's UN Food-for-Oil account from petrodollar to petroeuro.

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago

It's an attempt to distract from the Epstein files.

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

They conquere Iraq and Afghanistan quite fast, what they half-heartedly tried and failed at was building a lasting regime that they didn't directly control.

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 13 points 2 hours ago

Trump has fired a lot of our best generals, alienated NATO, and screwed over the young men he'd need to join up.

One thing that people overlook is that FDR had been helping Americans for almost a decade when WW2 broke out. And there was still a memory of the draft from WW1. Trump's already having to reduce military standards and the War hasn't gotten out of first gear yet.

[–] StealthLizardDrop@piefed.social 4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Considering how bad Afghanistan was with half population and no stranglehold on critical shortcut... yeah not a chance. USA population is what 300mil+? Iran is about 90+.

[–] Psionicsickness@reddthat.com 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Considering how bad Afghanistan was

How bad what was? America took that entire country in two months. Iraq was just one.

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 6 points 2 hours ago

I'm all in favor of getting rid of the US military, I'm not sure I support doing so by sending American troops to die

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 hours ago

They already released most of the victims names, they can't really pretend they care about them anymore.