|
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 4033262)
We did. Still didn’t work.
Now what? Huh? We didn’t even scratch the surface. |
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 4033262)
We did. Still didn’t work.
Now what? |
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 4033259)
That is a common refrain from most pacifists. I don’t think any common enemy would be worth it in your/their minds.
An air war has already objectively proven that it won’t work. In order to keep the straight open (much less topple the iranian government) you would need to establish a defense in depth on land inside Iranian territory. Please enlighten me how you would do this without providing actual physical troops inside the border of Iran? we have two direct examples of failed wars in the Middle East, and yet people still buy into this easy war crap |
Originally Posted by Hubcapped
(Post 4033273)
pacifist lol. How many tclass checks have you done buddy?
An air war has already objectively proven that it won’t work. In order to keep the straight open (much less topple the iranian government) you would need to establish a defense in depth on land inside Iranian territory. Please enlighten me how you would do this without providing actual physical troops inside the border of Iran? we have two direct examples of failed wars in the Middle East, and yet people still buy into this easy war crap |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 4033272)
I’m still voting for nukes. Worked pretty well with the Code of Bushido zealots. They’ve been well behaved - in fact, exceptionally polite - for the last 80 years now.
To clarify, you are saying us nuke Iran. Do I have that right? And if so with that being said, can you blame Iran for wanting a nuke? You’re threatening their existence with a nuke (something ironically Israel feels all the time). You’re just giving them even more reasons to want a nuke. Code of Bushido Zealots? So what you are saying is that if an OUTSIDE aggressor bombs your country, nuking them in return is a fair response in order to get them to permanently stop and be well behaved. If so, then Iran needs nukes like yesterday. |
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 4033276)
Iraq (2003) and Afghanistan did not serve the national interest. Nor does Ukraine. Preventing a nuclear armed terror state does. That would likely take boots on the ground, yes.
That defies the very tenets of voting for the candidate that espoused America first, no more wars, more isolation. |
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 4033228)
If only we hadn’t been dragged into yet another stupid war, this time at the handing the Israelis. So we can bomb Iran with impunity, assassinate their Ayotallah and leadership, and then pretend like there won’t be consequences? The last time America was attacked at home by a foreign entity, we started 2 wars. Why wouldn’t Iran do something after being bombed in their homeland?
Iran is pulling the main card in their playbook - controlling and closing the SOH. They don’t have an effective Navy or Air Force. They know that. But SOH they can use, and they are using it extremely well. Have fun! I dont think Iran can really do anything anymore except delay negotiations. |
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 4033284)
That defies the very tenets of voting for the candidate that espoused America first, no more wars, more isolation.
|
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 4033272)
I’m still voting for nukes. Worked pretty well with the Code of Bushido zealots. They’ve been well behaved - in fact, exceptionally polite - for the last 80 years now.
|
Originally Posted by hoover
(Post 4033286)
how is Iran closing the straight? Wasn't boats going through until the US closed it again a few days ago?
I dont think Iran can really do anything anymore except delay negotiations. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:58 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands