@kebman more or less my argument. The people aren't interested in an occupation, and the current political promises don't allow for it without consequences.

Destroying their air defense systems, aircraft, select refineries, and their ports? Much more effective in terms of gross economic costs.

why are people still comparing Iran to Vietnam, nothing alike, no one is gonna occcupy Iran

not to mention even if we did we have tech that would have made Vietnam much less messy AND Iran doesn't have the same type of terain to hide in.

just keep bombing single leaders until the new guy would rather keep his head down, that's all we need to do in the area.

and take out any longer range stuff like rockets and such, but again, can be done form the air.

^this

kill every leader that doesn't play nice.

keep killing till they learn

might take a while

I mean, you can even just drop dummy missles on his door step the first time :)

written in something they can understand "next one is live, have a nice day!"

well if i remember correctly, the strategy of proportional increase of force was what led to Vietnam's disaster

but we couldn't next day air warheads to anyone in that country at any time, so it's not gonna be Vietnam in any way.

I've always thought that decisive force is imperative in ending conflicts swiftly... a lesson not learned even as it was what ended WW2

well, reacting with 1 dead leader for every attack would be decisive I think.

yes

I said before I was in awe at the surgical precision of the strike....

the US , has never been good at doing that

Vietnam wasn't lost on a battlefield, it was lost in the universities. And no one intelligent is listening to those anymore

Not for political discourse at least

that is one of the other things i had heard about Vietnam, the leaders didn't have the drive to Win that war proper.
but I havn't done any real digging into it.

It came down to all the hippies telling people that we were bullying Vietnam. Ignoring the existence of the Vietcong and the fact that they were killing allot more Vietnamese than we were

so, nothing really new huh?

the people who don't have to go to war don't understand what war is really about.

Not unless they bother reading

We really need a better focus on history in education

I would agree if i trusted "we" to teach something so complex, or trust that the kids would be interested when "we" try to shove it on to them.

I just mean no more of this barely covering any information about past wars. Kids are just getting taught "these were the bad guys, they lost" no information on the political climate prior to war or why wars are fought in general

Y'know, basic stuff

yah that's a big problem, people going into all of this like we are the bad guys.

Because power=oppression

sure, we haven't always been fully in the right, but we were NOT the bad guys in anything.

By far the greatest and the most advances in epistemology, especially towards the scientific method, were made after the church lost its monopoly on it and it entered the hands of the citizen, allowing for the industrial revolution. Then it turned into academia.
However, since then academia has been corrupted by false authorities, and now we need another revolution against that new monopoly.
My point being that, until that step has been made, we won't have history be taught properly on a large scale. The monopoly on research needs to fall and be returned to the citizens.

I feel like I totally agree with that ETBrooD.

^

seems like the more trust put into large institutions the worse they become, i'm not even sure if i know of an exception.

I agree, all science requires maximum scrutiny. There are only two reasons why we're not entering a dark age of information, 1) because the monopoly of academia is not (yet) entirely united, 2) the internet. But the more one side (in this case progressives) take over academia, the more monopolistic it gets. So for now we have to try to main freedom within the internet, but to really get things going we also need to reduce the public education sector.

I think the internet could suffice to get both things done. We'll see.

when I was learning I was homeschooled, for part of that mom used a system that put us kids in a sort of cubeical with a work book that we could do as much of as we wanted, with a minimum goal over a certain term.

I feel like it worked really well for me and schools would do well to make things like that more of an option.