119
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2025
119 points (99.2% liked)
chapotraphouse
13777 readers
950 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
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.
That doesn't seem to be true. What is your source?
I'm sorry, but it's a 17-minute video that is obviously not a study and does not seem to cite any relevant studies that support your claim that a state that had recently had a much more disastrous economic situation than the US, did not have the same ability to outsource production as the US, did not have the capability to invade everywhere in the world the way the US does, did not have the coup tools like what the US has, did not have the nukes, ICBMS, etc., did not have control over the world's reserve currency.
So far, your claim regarding the US somehow not only being weaker than Germany of 1930-1940s, but at least ten times weaker (in some sense) seems very wild and not supported by anything that I'm aware of.
Do you have any sources that are studies on the matter, or which cite relevant studies?
Yes, and I said that that does not seem to be the case at all. Relative to the rest of the world, Germany seems to have been in a much, much weaker position in 1930-1940s than the US now.
I welcome serious sources to be proven incorrect.
And now, it's just the US (and the vassals that it controls), with no opposition from the USSR or a similar polity. The PRC does not seem to take any military action today the way the USSR and the PRC did last century.
So far, the US seems to be miles ahead of 1930-1940s Germany.
Firstly, the PRC hasn't been taking any action to beat the US and to liberate its colonies so far. It doesn't matter if the PRC has a better military (this claim seems to be untested, given no recent experience of the PLA fighting), and/or if it has a better economy if it's not going to be used to fight the US.
Secondly, the PRC and the US seem to have militaries of rather similar sizes, with the US also having the rest of NATO to back it up and with the US also having a military with recent experience.
Thirdly, while the PRC has much greater actual productive capacity, that productive capacity is used in large part to supply the imperial core with the produced goods. The productive capacity of the PRC is thus, effectively, in part, the productive capacity of NATO. Furthermore, I would argue that the USSR also had a saner economy than Germany in 1930-1940s.
I have gone through the slides, looked into the description. I did not find any relevant sources. Can you provide the timestamps and/or write the sources down?
So far, it does not seem like the claim that the US is in a significantly worse position than Germany was in 1930-1940s has any studies to support it.
When did it become a bizarre requirement for claims to be sourced and for those sources to actually provide evidence for said claims?
EDIT:
Furthermore, I do not see how you can look at the US be able to dictate most of the world - including the rest of the imperial core - what to do, including blockade and invade countries that try to defy the US, and claim that Germany was in a stronger position in 1930-1940s when it did not have anywhere near the same capabilities.
I'm going to be real. Arguing about a hyperbolic statement is not something I have the time or energy to do. I'll simply retract my statement and disengage. And honestly, I should also be logging off social media for a while.
"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.
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.
The US has lost every war it's started since WW2
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.
Nearly every one than
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.
You should check out the Milennium Challenge
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.
I mean wouldn’t Iraq and Libya be on the ground invasions won? The US obviously couldn’t take Iran but why wouldn’t you count those? Iraq at least
The US could beat Iran now but couldn’t beat the Taliban lol? Sure buddy
Well conquering a land and destroying a nation are two different things. Afghanistan isn't some beacon of progress since being utterly decimated by the west. I don't think the US could literally invade Iran but they could certainly slaughter people and destroy the economy without putting people on the ground. Iran's only available retaliation would be to strike US allies in the area
The comment said invasion so destroying a nation isn’t actually winning an invasion. I wouldn’t imagine that Hexbear would have a lot of people saying that the US won in Afghanistan but they failed to ever actually achieve their goals and beat the Taliban. I think it’s obvious that if they couldn’t do that then they couldn’t beat Iran
The Taliban was their proxy though? Their actual goals were never to beat the Taliban, it was to extract resources, sell weapons, and destabilize the region which they succeeded in. I agree they couldn't successfully invade and occupy Iran but they could definitely kill a lot of Iranians and destroy key infrastructure with little to no direct retaliation from Iran. Best Iran can do is destroy oil production in nearby US allies
The Taliban was no longer focusing as US proxy by the 2000s. The US’s goal was to extract resources and control Afghanistan and they failed to do that with a much more hostile group being successful.
Wym, they extracted resources for two decades under the guise of fighting the Taliban. Even if they weren't directly a proxy anymore, their existence was all the US needed to be there and do that for longer than some users on hexbear has been alive.
Yes, but the Taliban was unnecessary for that goal and having a pro-US government would make that goal easier. That was certainly the US’s goal but the Taliban was exactly helping them with it as it opposed the US being in Afghanistan at all.
Who else was going to justify the invasion? The war on terror against the people that did 9/11 was certainly an important part of manufacturing consent, no?
Sure, but the Taliban did legitimately oppose the US, both can be true at the same time, especially one the US actually invaded Afghanistan. I think the US using something to invade a country doesn’t make them a proxy in-of-itself. Gaddafi was not a US proxy for example
sorry I'm not sure what that have to do with anything we've been talking about? the point I was making is that "beating" the taliban or Iran or whoever isn't about literally invading and physically taking over a country, it's about regional chaos, murdering as many people as possible, selling weapons and gaining concessions, which could be resources, regime change, etc. In Afghanistan's case they accomplished all those things in the 20 years they spent there. In Iran's case it would be less about immediate resource extraction, although they'd love a regime change and access to what Iran has, but the main point is the same: the US can achieve a lot of this without any US boots on the ground, and at a great cost to Iran. This is why Iran has been bending over backwards for years to avoid such a thing, even to their own long term detriment. I hadn't said anything about the Taliban not opposing the US, or that a proxy is always required for manufacturing consent, but obviously in the Afghanistan context this was the strategy that was pursued to great success of the actual goals of the ruling class despite whatever their stated goals were to manufacture consent. The US is eating itself alive but it is already doing immense harm to others in the process and it could be very bad for Iran specifically, they are the next domino.
on the topic of the Taliban, the US had to pull out of Afghanistan because it was done there and it needed to free up those resources for the next thing, looking at it like "The Taliban won and the US lost" as some are doing in these comments seems very reductive to me. The Taliban inherited an immensely fucked situation that will take generations to recover from and the US moved on after draining all the blood out of them. What did the US lose, really? Some weapons and equipment that the current administration has already signaled will be an excuse to go back in and do it again whenever they feel the desire?
Luckily Iran is somewhat prepared to strike a lot of regional US allies hard if it gets attacked, and they just signed a 20 year agreement with Russia, so I have faith that they are organized and unified enough to weather the attacks from the US instead of going the way of Afghanistan. It is easy to be critical of Iran from the sidelines, wishing they would take the lead like Yemen, but they are truly the pillar of so many important movements in the region and enabling the technological advantage that would have never been possible otherwise. Yemen couldn't bomb Israel or shoot down US drones if Iran didn't make that possible. I hope for the least death of anyone in that region as possible as the US dies of auto-erotic asphyxiation trying to get off on the destruction of humanity. I also hope Iran get nukes soon before the US is done flailing.