- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
I'm Just Curious About What Posters Who Are Against This Military Action Think We Should
Posted on 4/7/26 at 12:21 pm
Posted on 4/7/26 at 12:21 pm
Be doing instead of what we're doing.
I've seen people post that we definitely shouldn't have boots on the ground. For sure. Those people KNOW we shouldn't have boots on the ground.
They also know without any shadow of any doubt that we shouldn't leave without accomplishing a regime change because "it will go right back to what it was before quickly." Which are two opposing theses.
They also (somehow) KNOW that since we aren't out of Iran by day 40, that means we are starting another "forever war." They want us to pack up and leave immediately. Only they also don't, because that wouldn't accomplish a regime change, and it would leave the Strait of Hormuz closed and they want lower gas prices.
They don't want the pressure ramped up on Iran, and they also claim that Iran won't give in unless the pressure gets ramped up.
Trump (for once in his whole life) is speaking literally and truthfully about killing the entire country of Iran if they won't give in. They know this.
If this describes you, take a minute to armchair QB this thing for me. The only answer off the table is, "Well, they never should have bombed them in the first place," which I don't care about for multiple reasons. Should we:
Leave immediately?
Bomb even more and ramp up the pressure? Hit civilian targets?
Bomb even more and ramp up the pressure, but only to the extent possible without hitting power sources and other targets that affect civilians?
Force Iran to open the Strait? How? What would you do to accomplish this?
Leave immediately in return for Iran agreeing to open the Strait?
Send all the troops home and just bomb? Send more troops to occupy and usher in regime change?
Has Trump really become the Mad King from GOT?
If so, isn't it time to call your representative and urge them to invoke the 25th Amendment? Protest in the streets? After all, that's a serious situation. We could be looking at Trump starting a nuclear war next.
We're barely 40 days into this. I personally am not confident enough with what is known to have a firm opinion on any of those things, but many here post like they do.
So let's hear it. What should we be doing, those who are sure?
I've seen people post that we definitely shouldn't have boots on the ground. For sure. Those people KNOW we shouldn't have boots on the ground.
They also know without any shadow of any doubt that we shouldn't leave without accomplishing a regime change because "it will go right back to what it was before quickly." Which are two opposing theses.
They also (somehow) KNOW that since we aren't out of Iran by day 40, that means we are starting another "forever war." They want us to pack up and leave immediately. Only they also don't, because that wouldn't accomplish a regime change, and it would leave the Strait of Hormuz closed and they want lower gas prices.
They don't want the pressure ramped up on Iran, and they also claim that Iran won't give in unless the pressure gets ramped up.
Trump (for once in his whole life) is speaking literally and truthfully about killing the entire country of Iran if they won't give in. They know this.
If this describes you, take a minute to armchair QB this thing for me. The only answer off the table is, "Well, they never should have bombed them in the first place," which I don't care about for multiple reasons. Should we:
Leave immediately?
Bomb even more and ramp up the pressure? Hit civilian targets?
Bomb even more and ramp up the pressure, but only to the extent possible without hitting power sources and other targets that affect civilians?
Force Iran to open the Strait? How? What would you do to accomplish this?
Leave immediately in return for Iran agreeing to open the Strait?
Send all the troops home and just bomb? Send more troops to occupy and usher in regime change?
Has Trump really become the Mad King from GOT?
If so, isn't it time to call your representative and urge them to invoke the 25th Amendment? Protest in the streets? After all, that's a serious situation. We could be looking at Trump starting a nuclear war next.
We're barely 40 days into this. I personally am not confident enough with what is known to have a firm opinion on any of those things, but many here post like they do.
So let's hear it. What should we be doing, those who are sure?
21
Posted on 4/7/26 at 12:23 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
I'm Just Curious About What Posters Who Are Against This Military Action Think We Should
You assume those folks are capable of thinking past their TDS!
Posted on 4/7/26 at 12:24 pm to wackatimesthree
We should never have started this conflict.
However, now that we’re here, we broke it, we gotta buy it. I don’t think there’s a reasonable offramp the IRGC would accept. I don’t think the Iranian people are capable of overthrowing the IRGC. I think a full scale ground invasion, something for which little to no political will exists, is the only option that could realistically, even possibly, deliver Trump’s stated war gains. Just a campaign would cost tens of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.
In short, Trump stepped in a bear trap, and has no way forward beyond letting it take his leg and accepting that he’ll likely bleed out as a result.
However, now that we’re here, we broke it, we gotta buy it. I don’t think there’s a reasonable offramp the IRGC would accept. I don’t think the Iranian people are capable of overthrowing the IRGC. I think a full scale ground invasion, something for which little to no political will exists, is the only option that could realistically, even possibly, deliver Trump’s stated war gains. Just a campaign would cost tens of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.
In short, Trump stepped in a bear trap, and has no way forward beyond letting it take his leg and accepting that he’ll likely bleed out as a result.
This post was edited on 4/7/26 at 12:26 pm
Posted on 4/7/26 at 12:25 pm to wackatimesthree
You won’t get an answer.
.png)
Posted on 4/7/26 at 12:25 pm to wackatimesthree
We should remove ourselves and tell Israel to finish their war.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 12:28 pm to sorantable
quote:
We should remove ourselves and tell Israel to finish their war.
For clarity, you're of the position that there's zero reason for US participation in OEF other than Israel asked us to?
Posted on 4/7/26 at 12:29 pm to lake chuck fan
By TDS, you are referring to Trump's Derangement Syndrome, aren't you?
Posted on 4/7/26 at 12:30 pm to wackatimesthree
I was 100% on board with the strikes on their nuclear facilities 7 months ago, that was a good call, and it should've stopped right there. Iran had made zero progress in recovering their nuclear program after those strikes, there was absolutely zero reason to get into this quagmire.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 12:31 pm to JiminyCricket
quote:
For clarity, you're of the position that there's zero reason for US participation in OEF other than Israel asked us to?
Yes. If our “allies” in Europe and the Near East want oil from the Middle East, they can go fetch it. We should let the whole damn world fend for itself. If they descend into war and madness without us playing world police, let them.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 12:33 pm to kingbob
quote:
Yes. If our “allies” in Europe and the Near East want oil from the Middle East, they can go fetch it. We should let the whole damn world fend for itself. If they descend into war and madness without us playing world police, let them.
I just think pinning the entire thing on Bibi calling in a favor is ignorant of the other portions of this. I don't think it's as simple as "Israel told us to." One could make a coherent argument as to how it benefits the US.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 12:33 pm to wackatimesthree
Israel needs to send in their elite squads to arm the citizenry, take our any remaining IRGC and mullahs. Once things go dark, you're not charging your handhelds. You're not able to communicate with your commanders.
Limiting Iran in what they can and can't do is paramount right now IMO and starting with the rail system and bridges etc was a good way to get this going.
Limiting Iran in what they can and can't do is paramount right now IMO and starting with the rail system and bridges etc was a good way to get this going.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 12:33 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
I've seen people post that we definitely shouldn't have boots on the ground. For sure. Those people KNOW we shouldn't have boots on the ground.
A month ago this board would have laughed if you said we'd have boots on the ground.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 12:35 pm to SoFlaGuy
quote:
You won’t get an answer.
He definitely will. Now, those answers will likely just be dismissed by calling the author some insulting name with a few emojis sprinkled in, but he will get answers nonetheless.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 12:35 pm to JiminyCricket
Long term, an IRGC-less Iran could benefit the U.S.
However, most of those benefits are only in increased security to U.S. troops already stationed in the Middle East. If our soldiers weren’t there, they would be a lot safer, obviously.
The process of removing the IRGC would not benefit the average U.S. citizen in any way.
However, most of those benefits are only in increased security to U.S. troops already stationed in the Middle East. If our soldiers weren’t there, they would be a lot safer, obviously.
The process of removing the IRGC would not benefit the average U.S. citizen in any way.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 12:36 pm to kingbob
And when the rest of the world sanctions us for making this mess and not fixing it?
Posted on 4/7/26 at 12:38 pm to wackatimesthree
They Fuentes/Owens crowd are only against this because Israel is involved.
The proggies are only against this because Trump is involved.
The proggies are only against this because Trump is involved.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 12:40 pm to kingbob
quote:
Long term, an IRGC-less Iran could benefit the U.S.
However, most of those benefits are only in increased security to U.S. troops already stationed in the Middle East. If our soldiers weren’t there, they would be a lot safer, obviously.
The process of removing the IRGC would not benefit the average U.S. citizen in any way.
I think an argument can be made for US benefits but I'm sure most here will blow their stack and claim I'm supporting epic fury just because I'm not 100% behind this all being Israel's play.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 12:40 pm to wadewilson
quote:
And when the rest of the world sanctions us
Posted on 4/7/26 at 12:40 pm to wadewilson
Who cares? We’re one of the only energy independent nations on earth. We can survive without fuel from the strait of hormuz. They can’t. We’re the only other gas station in town. We control virtually the only LNG export terminals outside of the conflict zone. Where else are they going to go?
This post was edited on 4/7/26 at 12:42 pm
Posted on 4/7/26 at 12:42 pm to wackatimesthree
We've bombed the crap out of them. The "nuke" threat (WMD amiright fellas?) should be handled. If those folks over there have not risen up to change their government/leadership, frick em. Bring everyone home.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News