Iran

[Vol8188]

We unsecured the strait with our own money, so we could secure it and charge our allies for using it when they were using it without issue before this "special military operation".

Brilliant.

I didn’t find your strawman to be brilliant. But I’m glad you thought you did well.

 

[volfanhill]

So I take this to mean the IRGC are running the show and not the mullahs

 

[DuckInAPen]

You’re denying Iranians agency. They chose to shut the strait down.

They were always going to shut the strait down. We've always known they were going to shut the strait down. That's their only meaningful defense, and even godless regimes are going to defend themselves.

Surely you don’t blame us for Iran attacking a civilian airport in azerbaijan too? Their action are their own.

Since shutting the strait down as a defensive measure and attacking a civilian airport aren't comparable actions, this is a red herring. But, to answer your question, the entirety of the guilt for attacking the Azerbaijani airport is Iran's, though our own government is not without its own culpability viz-a-viz Azerbaijan for initiating the war of choice that gave scope for it to occur.

If that’s what is needed to open it, I’m not opposed, but if so we should charge both heavily

Asia can keep that tinderbox. America doesn't need it.

 

[Vol8188]

They were always going to shut the strait down. We've always known they were going to shut the strait down. That's their only meaningful defense, and even godless regimes are going to defend themselves.


Since shutting the strait down as a defensive measure and attacking a civilian airport aren't comparable actions, this is a red herring. But, to answer your question, the entirety of the guilt for attacking the Azerbaijani airport is Iran's, though our own government is not without its own culpability viz-a-viz Azerbaijan for initiating the war of choice that gave scope for it to occur.


Asia can keep that tinderbox. America doesn't need it.

If comparing Iranian attacks on civilian airports to Iranian attacks on civilian shipping vessels is a red herring?

That’s wild. Especially after you claim attacking civilian vessels is a defensive measure.

 

[MontyPython]

Suck it Hegseth you Brownshirt suckwad.

Just wait... when Trump eventually folds his losing hand in Iran, there's gonna be a scapegoat. Guess who's gonna get canned...

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has been taking steps to thwart news coverage of the Pentagon for more than a year. Now he has finally met some resistance.

Friday’s ruling by a federal judge striking down Pentagon press limits was cheered by the news organization that sued over the policy, The New York Times, and by a wide range of First Amendment advocates.

“This is a great day for freedom of the press in the United States,” the Pentagon Press Association, which represents scores of journalists who regularly cover the military, said. “It is also hopefully a learning opportunity for Pentagon leadership, which took extreme steps to limit press access to information in wartime.”

 

[Vol8188]

Suck it Hegseth you Brownshirt suckwad.

Just wait... when Trump eventually folds his losing hand in Iran, there's gonna be a scapegoat. Guess who's gonna get canned...

In your mind the US is going to loss and you’re unable to hide your excitement over it

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has been taking steps to thwart news coverage of the Pentagon for more than a year. Now he has finally met some resistance.

Friday’s ruling by a federal judge striking down Pentagon press limits was cheered by the news organization that sued over the policy, The New York Times, and by a wide range of First Amendment advocates.

“This is a great day for freedom of the press in the United States,” the Pentagon Press Association, which represents scores of journalists who regularly cover the military, said. “It is also hopefully a learning opportunity for Pentagon leadership, which took extreme steps to limit press access to information in wartime.”

View attachment 821114

 

[MontyPython]

In your mind the US is going to loss and you’re unable to hide your excitement over it

Yes, I think we are going to "loss" this war with Iran, because I think the only way we unblock Hormuz is with boots on the ground.

And how about that "regime change"... Tell me how that's going to happen. Be sure to list lots of details there.

And the nuclear program of Iran. Tell me everything you know about that.

You ready to go fight and die in Iran... for what?

You may not like me because I tell the truth but I'm still going to tell the truth. I'll probably survive.

Donald Trump is driving his little short bus straight off a f****** cliff.

 

[Vol8188]

Yes, I think we are going to "loss" this war with Iran, because I think the only way we unblock Hormuz is with boots on the ground.

And how about that "regime change"... Tell me how that's going to happen. Be sure to list lots of details there.

You ready to go fight and die in Iran... for what?

You’ve fully lost your mind. You’re openly cheering against your own country just because your team isn’t in charge.

 

[MontyPython]

You’ve fully lost your mind. You’re openly cheering against your own country just because your team isn’t in charge.

What part of telling the truth that we are currently losing the war and likely will lose the war is cheering against our country, Juicebox?

Question: Do you think it was a good idea for us to send troops into Afghanistan? Do you still support the fact that over 3,000 of our men died? And tell us why exactly you supported that war.

Then do Vietnam. 52,000 dead Americans.

 

[Vol8188]

What part of telling the truth that we are currently losing the war and likely will lose the war is cheering against our country, Juicebox?

It’s not a matter of what you believe is the truth, but rather that you’re openly excited about your belief that they will lose.

 

[MontyPython]

It’s not a matter of what you believe is the truth, but rather that you’re openly excited about your belief that they will lose.

 

[luthervol]

You’ve fully lost your mind. You’re openly cheering against your own country just because your team isn’t in charge.

I'm guessing we don't all define winning and losing the same.

Every time trump says "we're winning", I know that means there is a 98% chance we are actually losing.

 

[Smokey123]

This is a very difficult evening in the campaign for our future. Just a short while ago, I spoke with the Mayor of Arad, Yair Maayan, and asked him to convey, on behalf of all Israeli citizens, our prayers for the peace of the injured.

I have instructed the Director General of my office to provide all the necessary assistance together with all government ministries.

I strengthen the emergency and rescue forces operating in the field right now, and I call on everyone to heed the instructions of the Home Front Command.

We are determined to continue to strike our enemies on all fronts.

 

[Vol8188]

I'm guessing we don't all define winning and losing the same.

Every time trump says "we're winning", I know that means there is a 98% chance we are actually losing.

My comments were not about if we are or are not winning. But rather his open excitement about his belief that we are losing

 

[EasternVol]

Either way as long as they force us to ensure the safety of their shipments, they should be charged for that service.

You sure like to twist things around. They haven't forced us to do anything.

 

[Vol8188]

You sure like to twist things around. They haven't forced us to do anything.

They want the strait open. They have no intent of lifting a finger. I will agree force was the wrong term. But either way if they refuse to help, why would we not charge them?

 

[85SugarVol]

Fixed the washing machine and they are ready to go! It’s hell trying to find decent appliance repair service these days.

I figured the Ford would have been laid up for quite a while… she’s been out on deployment for quite some time.

 

[VAVol85]

I figured the Ford would have been laid up for quite a while… she’s been out on deployment for quite some time.

Edit: I was mistaken about deploying recently.

According to 19fortyfive.com:
Originally deployed in June 2025 for what was expected to be a standard rotation, the Ford’s mission quickly expanded. Instead of the typical six- to seven-month deployment, the carrier has remained at sea far longer, with officials indicating it could stretch to roughly 11 months—potentially returning around May 2026.

This would place it among the longest carrier deployments in modern U.S. Navy history, rivaling or exceeding post-Vietnam benchmarks.

Another article suggested she had accumulated a “maintenance deficit” and might be in port for a while.

Among the challenges on this deployment were plumbing issues and the recent laundry fire.

 

[BeardedVol]

Trump declares he's 'blown Iran off the map' and exceeded his goals

President Donald Trump claimed the US has 'blown Iran off the map' and achieved its war goals 'weeks ahead of schedule' in a fiery social media post.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[DuckInAPen]

If comparing Iranian attacks on civilian airports to Iranian attacks on civilian shipping vessels is a red herring?

That’s wild. Especially after you claim attacking civilian vessels is a defensive measure.

Before we go further down this rabbit hole, my initial point, to which everything else I've written is but a footnote, is that it is contrary to our national interest to get bogged down in occupying the Strait of Hormuz and exacting tribute from other great powers whose ships attempt to pass through it. Nothing written in our exchange has given me cause to reconsider my stance.

With regard to the message I've quoted above, I admit to ignorance of the details of the Irani's blockade and its effect on non-combatants (perhaps @SubVet676 would be willing to weigh in). My bottom line is that I condemn any violence against non-combatants, and I will readily revise anything I may have written inconsistent with this bottom line.

Looking at a blockade conceptually, I see three fundamental differences from a strike such as that unleashed by the government of Iran on the Azerbaijani civilian airport:

1) The blockade in question is taking place at Iran's doorstep and within the zone of war.

2) A blockade allows civilian vessels to be given due warning that no sea traffic will be allowed to pass due to war (I unconditionally condemn any Iranian act that has not given civilian vessels the opportunity to return to safety).

3) Without condoning violence against non-combatant men, I do believe that it differs morally from violence against women and children. As there are (I would think) no children aboard these vessels and very few women, the calculus of the potential for collateral damage is different.

Before anyone attempts to poison the well, I should state plainly that:

1) the Iranian regime is abhorrent and morally illegitimate;

2) I pray for the safety and success of our American soldiers.

 

[hog88]

View attachment 821118

I took his advice and pretty much ignore you.

 

[hog88]

Before we go further down this rabbit hole, my initial point, to which everything else I've written is but a footnote, is that it is contrary to our national interest to get bogged down in occupying the Strait of Hormuz and exacting tribute from other great powers whose ships attempt to pass through it. Nothing written in our exchange has given me cause to reconsider my stance.

With regard to the message I've quoted above, I admit to ignorance of the details of the Irani's blockade and its effect on non-combatants (perhaps @SubVet676 would be willing to weigh in). My bottom line is that I condemn any violence against non-combatants, and I will readily revise anything I may have written inconsistent with this bottom line.

Looking at a blockade conceptually, I see three fundamental differences from a strike such as that unleashed by the government of Iran on the Azerbaijani civilian airport:

1) The blockade in question is taking place at Iran's doorstep and within the zone of war.

2) A blockade allows civilian vessels to be given due warning that no sea traffic will be allowed to pass due to war (I unconditionally condemn any Iranian act that has not given civilian vessels the opportunity to return to safety).

3) Without condoning violence against non-combatant men, I do believe that it differs morally from violence against women and children. As there are (I would think) no children aboard these vessels and very few women, the calculus of the potential for collateral damage is different.

Before anyone attempts to poison the well, I should state plainly that:

1) the Iranian regime is abhorrent and morally illegitimate;

2) I pray for the safety and success of our American soldiers.

The insurance companies are blockading the straight.

 

[Vol8188]

Before we go further down this rabbit hole, my initial point, to which everything else I've written is but a footnote, is that it is contrary to our national interest to get bogged down in occupying the Strait of Hormuz and exacting tribute from other great powers whose ships attempt to pass through it. Nothing written in our exchange has given me cause to reconsider my stance.

The protection of trade is very much in our national interest. I don’t see that as being bogged down.

With regard to the message I've quoted above, I admit to ignorance of the details of the Irani's blockade and its effect on non-combatants (perhaps @SubVet676 would be willing to weigh in). My bottom line is that I condemn any violence against non-combatants, and I will readily revise anything I may have written inconsistent with this bottom line.

Looking at a blockade conceptually, I see three fundamental differences from a strike such as that unleashed by the government of Iran on the Azerbaijani civilian airport:

1) The blockade in question is taking place at Iran's doorstep and within the zone of war.

2) A blockade allows civilian vessels to be given due warning that no sea traffic will be allowed to pass due to war (I unconditionally condemn any Iranian act that has not given civilian vessels the opportunity to return to safety).

3) Without condoning violence against non-combatant men, I do believe that it differs morally from violence against women and children. As there are (I would think) no children aboard these vessels and very few women, the calculus of the potential for collateral damage is different.

Before anyone attempts to poison the well, I should state plainly that:

1) the Iranian regime is abhorrent and morally illegitimate;

2) I pray for the safety and success of our American soldiers.

The majority of this we aren’t far off on

 

[MontyPython]

I took his advice and pretty much ignore you.

Et tu Hogge?

Alas I shall put you on ignore, sweet prince.

Buh bye.

 

[EasternVol]

That’s what just baffles me about the Muslim man. How are 10s of thousands of regular Army men with access to weapons allowing these murderous POS stay in power?

What makes it a Muslim thing? The Spanish had Franco for how long? The Argentinians and Burmese had and have their juntas and the Chileans and Paraguayans had Pinochet and Stroesssner and on and on.