Discussing politics and other contentious sunjects online feels to me like it’s counterproductive these days and even though I try not to get suckered in, I often can’t help myself. Usually though I just end up feeling frustrated and sometimes angry at the other person either missing my points or refusing to accept them.
Thinking back to conversations I’ve had here and previously on Reddit, not only can I not remember an example of me “winning” the discussion and the other person changing their mind or conceding the point, I also cannot think of a time where my mind was changed either.
So have you ever begun a discussion online with someone with a different view point to yours and either you, or they, changed the others mind?
I mean… if it were done in an intelligent, tactful way, the US could be far more effective in a war (not that I support it at all). This strongarm BS is just ridiculous when viewed logistically, which is 90% of modern warfare.
Maybe, but if it were done intelligently they’d avoid it totally if possible. Trump is an idiot, but it’s not like there’s a particular strategic error with the current war. It is being conducted by fairly intelligent people. It’s just not a war the US was set up to win.
Iran’s military is largely underground (in the literal sense, not figurative). There just aren’t any bombs that can defeat that. Even a largest nukes wouldn’t do it. After the entrances are collapsed, they have the equipment in the tunnels to dig themselves out, and then they can continue to launch drones.
The only way to actually win would be a ground invasion. That’s the big strategic failure. If you’re going to invade Iran, you need to be committed and willing to send in people to die fighting for these tunnels. I’m not saying the US should do this (we absolutely should not), but that’s the only time an attack on Iran should have happened.