- 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 can admit I'm biased. 
1
Posted on 3/6/26 at 11:40 pm to northshorebamaman
As am I lol. I’d say the 1st Marine division is a better light infantry unit than the 82nd. But it’s a redundant cape. I’d rather have another army division like the 82nd than an extra Marine division. Call it streamlining.
Posted on 3/7/26 at 5:57 am to BOHICAMAN
quote:
I don’t think Trump wants to do “Nation Building” in Iran like we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan. He wants the Iranian people to overthrow their government and put a more palatable one in place. Whether or not that works remains to be seen.
What is the functional difference in the two scenarios? For Iraq, at least.
And for this "the people overthrow the government" scenario, how does that not turn into massive sectarian violence among multiple groups? It seems you're imagining a two-sided conflict when it would likely be multiple groups vying to take control.
Posted on 3/7/26 at 6:11 am to SlowFlowPro
They could take over the island from which 80% of the oil is processed and shipped by amphibious assault with marines and Tehrans airport with airborne.
But if you take the airport, you better have a plan to deal with the constant drone threat or you are a sitting duck.
But if you take the airport, you better have a plan to deal with the constant drone threat or you are a sitting duck.
Posted on 3/7/26 at 6:28 am to Boodis Man
quote:Sorry I missed this last evening. Look snailbrain, in the future if you think you have a point to make, attempt to make it.
Exhibit A of this board having a room temperature average IQ.
The phrase "boots on the ground" is a floating signifier. You Einsteins seem to believe there is some "W" style 2nd Iraq/Afghanistan War ground assault being covertly worked out. There isn't.
That plan only exists in the wet dreams of Schiff, Blumenthal, and Murphy. You fell for their BS. You wring your hands over it, and you have the unmitigated gall to refer to others as "room temperature average IQ"?
Sorry, but what a f*cking dumbass.
Posted on 3/7/26 at 6:31 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
You Einsteins seem to believe there is some "W" style 2nd Iraq/Afghanistan War ground assault being covertly worked out. There isn't.
Yet.
And even if it's a smaller version of that operation, it's the same mission...a mission Trump campaigned against and MAGA reportedly rejected.
I can see this being the next pivot "sure there are boots on the ground AND we're engaging in regime change, but with fewer troops so it's not the same thing at all" in the "you are here" meme progression.
Posted on 3/7/26 at 6:32 am to jbdawgs03
quote:
You bitch no matter what he does
And you will praise anything Trump does. So, there is no difference between you and him.
Posted on 3/7/26 at 6:33 am to SDVTiger
quote:
Sure does. Sounds like the last 10yrs of you tards and muh sources only to always be wrong
Posted on 3/7/26 at 6:35 am to SlowFlowPro
My favorite talking point lately is that this is not a new war, it started 47 years ago.
Posted on 3/7/26 at 7:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
And even if it's a smaller version of that operation,
Be specific.
All these are "boots on the ground":
Two downed pilots?
Twenty soldiers being flown in to covertly rescue those downed pilots?
Fifty special forces troops dropping in to remove the new Ayatollah?
Two hundred soldiers sent in to covertly distribute weapons in urban centers?
Or an entire division deployed for ground combat?
What are you intimating?
Posted on 3/7/26 at 7:02 am to Bunk Moreland
People will debase themselves with all sort of irrationality to avoid admitting hypocrisy, but it amplifies if they are doing it to avoid labeling Trump/MAGA as hypocrites.
That's why the "you are here" meme seems to be on deck for the "boots on the ground" discussion.
We are on 1 approaching 2
Can't wait for Step 4 in a few years when I say I was right and people call me a hater of America, enemy of America, or claim I'm enjoying troops dying...just like the original WOT.
That's why the "you are here" meme seems to be on deck for the "boots on the ground" discussion.
quote:
Step 1: It's not really happening
Step 2: Yeah, it's happening, but it's not a big deal
Step 3: It's a good thing, actually
Step 4: People freaking out about it are the real problem
We are on 1 approaching 2
Can't wait for Step 4 in a few years when I say I was right and people call me a hater of America, enemy of America, or claim I'm enjoying troops dying...just like the original WOT.
Posted on 3/7/26 at 7:05 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Two hundred soldiers sent in to covertly distribute weapons in urban centers?
This would be the start of "boots on the ground" for sure, and a terrible idea, generally.
But I can't wait for the "CIA Created them" talking points years later by the CT folks. when groups who got those weapons become our enemies
This post was edited on 3/7/26 at 7:06 am
Posted on 3/7/26 at 7:18 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:So you're going to stick with ambiguity, floating (meaningless) terminology, and wring your hands over possibilities you refuse to specifically address? A US combat division on the ground in Iran would be a sad culmination to this affair. It would be a bad idea. There is nothing whatsoever to indicate that is the direction this is headed. Nothing.
This would be the start of "boots on the ground" for sure, and a terrible idea, generally.
Posted on 3/7/26 at 7:25 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
So you're going to stick with ambiguity, floating (meaningless) terminology, and wring your hands over possibilities you refuse to specifically address?
I specifically addressed it. I said that would be the start of "boots on the ground". That isn't ambiguous or floating.
And the irony here is there is no objective/goal stated by the admin. Why don't you save those words for them?
quote:
There is nothing whatsoever to indicate that is the direction this is headed. Nothing.
That depends on the goal, which we don't know what it is, because the admin has "stuck with ambiguity, floating (meaningless) terminology"
If our goal is simply to destabilize Iran and kill a bunch of meat suits in leadership roles, then sure, nothing indicates we need boots on the ground. Then Iran will just go back to the status quo and get back on track developing nukes in time.
Posted on 3/7/26 at 7:37 am to BOHICAMAN
quote:
I don’t think Trump wants to do “Nation Building” in Iran like we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan. He
This could be a bluff to convince some IRGC who are holding out from joining the plan.
Posted on 3/7/26 at 7:44 am to SlowFlowPro
What do you think our goal should be in regards to Iran? I constantly see you arguing against other peoples points without even taking a position of your own.
For the record I support the war. I’ve also said repeatedly since before the war started that it would require “boots on the ground” and not just special operations, conventional troops as well. I think more Americans will die in this conflict, possibly a lot more, and I’m okay with that because regime change in Iran is worth it. The next regime doesn’t even have to be perfect, it just has to be better than the current one. A regime that doesn’t fund, train or equip proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis. That needs to stop.
For the record I support the war. I’ve also said repeatedly since before the war started that it would require “boots on the ground” and not just special operations, conventional troops as well. I think more Americans will die in this conflict, possibly a lot more, and I’m okay with that because regime change in Iran is worth it. The next regime doesn’t even have to be perfect, it just has to be better than the current one. A regime that doesn’t fund, train or equip proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis. That needs to stop.
Posted on 3/7/26 at 7:52 am to BOHICAMAN
quote:
What do you think our goal should be in regards to Iran? I constantly see you arguing against other peoples points without even taking a position of your own.
You see this because lots of people are arguing for war and regime change, typically hypocritically and in conflict with decades of data of conflicts in the ME
Outside of that paradigm, your question is kind of a false premise that requires the presumption that we have to do something re: Iran.
quote:
The next regime doesn’t even have to be perfect, it just has to be better than the current one. A regime that doesn’t fund, train or equip proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis. That needs to stop.
The regime doesn't have to support these groups for those groups to remain in operation and a problem. Just because we get a regime that combats them doesn't mean that it will stop. With extremist Muslims, Iranians aren't even needed for this conflict. They have hundreds of millions from other countries ready to fight and die. This is the quagmire of conflict in the ME with fanatical Muslims.
The other issue is how does the US/Israel create/support a regime that will always be seen as a puppet of the US/Israel? It doesn't seem like that will work out in the long term and will be a beacon similar to Palestine for the fanatical Islamist world.
Posted on 3/7/26 at 7:56 am to SlowFlowPro
I had no idea Khamenei was like the second most important guy in the Shi'a world. So, now there is kind of a holy war angle to this.
Posted on 3/7/26 at 8:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You see this because lots of people are arguing for war and regime change, typically hypocritically and in conflict with decades of data of conflicts in the ME
I don’t give a shite how hypocritical other people are. I’m asking you what your position is. What do you think Iran should look like when we’re done and what’s the best course of action to get us there.
quote:
The regime doesn't have to support these groups for those groups to remain in operation and a problem. Just because we get a regime that combats them doesn't mean that it will stop. With extremist Muslims, Iranians aren't even needed for this conflict. They have hundreds of millions from other countries ready to fight and die. This is the quagmire of conflict in the ME with fanatical Muslims.
The H groups absolutely need Iran to continue to operate in any real capacity. The Quds force is the 2nd most active special forces unit in the world, maybe the most active. Without Iranian funding and training the groups will not have easy access to high tech missiles and drones. Regime change in Iran doesn’t mean they’ll cease to exist but they’ll will become a much less potent force.
Posted on 3/7/26 at 8:04 am to Bunk Moreland
The thing that makes Iran tricky long-term is that in addition to the typical ME/Muslim quagmire aspects, China (and to a much lesser extent Russia) can play a role.
China is the most direct way to invalidate the sovereignty of Iran with this new regime, and China knows that. If the regime is prohibited from normal relations with China, then it will not be a sovereign nation anymore, as the US will clearly be the actual sovereign involved. That just amplifies the "US/Israel puppet" angle.
And if we do let Iran to operate as a sovereign, I don't see any way China doesn't beat us to the initial "deal" (so to speak) with that regime. China will take a loss early to establish dominion long-term, and the US knows this.
Then there is the Saudi Arabia issue looming.
Short-term emotional thinkers focusing on the "the booms means we wun" and "America isn't a pussy anymore" stuff clearly haven't thought this through.
China is the most direct way to invalidate the sovereignty of Iran with this new regime, and China knows that. If the regime is prohibited from normal relations with China, then it will not be a sovereign nation anymore, as the US will clearly be the actual sovereign involved. That just amplifies the "US/Israel puppet" angle.
And if we do let Iran to operate as a sovereign, I don't see any way China doesn't beat us to the initial "deal" (so to speak) with that regime. China will take a loss early to establish dominion long-term, and the US knows this.
Then there is the Saudi Arabia issue looming.
Short-term emotional thinkers focusing on the "the booms means we wun" and "America isn't a pussy anymore" stuff clearly haven't thought this through.
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News