1
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- 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
re: Do you support Trump employing a "boots on the ground" policy/strategy in Iran?
Posted on 10/2/26 at 3:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 10/2/26 at 3:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The specific goal (regime change, etc.) isn't relevant
That's like asking, "Do you support a guy lighting a really big fire?" without knowing whether it is for the purpose of being rescued from a desert island or burning down the Capital building.
The only way you can answer it is if you philosophically oppose building a big fire for any reason imaginable or you are a pyromaniac who approves of setting a big fire at any opportunity without regard for potential damage.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 3:30 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
The only way you can answer it is if you philosophically oppose building a big fire
A large population of the US is philosophically opposed to more boots on the ground in the ME, specifically Iran.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 3:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:NO!
Do you support Trump employing a "boots on the ground" policy/strategy in Iran?
Nor do I remotely believe there is a chance in Hell of that happening. But I do believe someone like Massie would gaslight it.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 3:30 pm to NC_Tigah
I thought he was irrelevant?
Posted on 10/2/26 at 3:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
No.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 3:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
No and no one but "anonymous sources" are even suggesting it.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 3:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
Yes
Posted on 10/2/26 at 3:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
A large population of the US is philosophically opposed to more boots on the ground in the ME
Yet if the choice was to put boots on the ground for the purpose of keeping oil under $250 a barrel (not saying that's our current situation, just a hypothetical for argument's sake), magically only the independently wealthy among that group would hold fast to that position. Including the vast majority of the people on this thread typing "NO."
Saying the purpose doesn't matter is pretty asinine.
This post was edited on 10/2/26 at 3:37 pm
Posted on 10/2/26 at 3:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
Pretty classic SFP thread where it's tilted to discuss a scenario that isn't going to happen as if it's currently happening.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 3:34 pm to DeBoar
quote:Massie?
I thought he was irrelevant?
He is as relevant as his CNN/MSNow press allegiances allow.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 3:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
I support threatening to use them for negotiations but then again you should already know that’s all it is
Posted on 10/2/26 at 3:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
I’d love to know the extent in your mind that you’re superior to everyone else. It would be shocking, I bet. Same level of shock you’d experience if you actually knew the accurate truth of the matter.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 3:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Make your own thread. Discussing goals is specifically prohibited by OP.
You got the idea for this damn thread FROM HIM in my thread on nearly exactly the same subject.
I write a thread entitled, "Trump is considering ground forces in Iran after the elections", deltadoc asks me in that thread, "do you support ground troops in Iran", a couple minutes later SFP creates thread entitled, "do you support ground troops in Iran?" And then tells the guy he got the question from in the first place to start his own thread.
Holy frickin shite.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 3:37 pm to BoarEd
quote:
I write a thread entitled, "Trump is considering ground forces in Iran after the elections", deltadoc asks me in that thread, "do you support ground troops in Iran", a couple minutes later SFP creates thread entitled, "do you support ground troops in Iran?" And then tells the guy he got the question from in the first place to start his own thread.
Holy frickin shite.
I started my own thread...
Posted on 10/2/26 at 3:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
Yes, full on invasion with all our troops. Let's flood into their country and take over. We should do it now, before midterms. Get it done! 
Posted on 10/2/26 at 3:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
Just funny is all.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 3:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:No, youre argument is flawed from the start; you are making an assumption that we will send combat troops, not logistics or policing.
Physical deployment of conventional ground forces—such as infantry, armored divisions, artillery units, and combat engineers, in Iran. The purpose of this direct insertion of ground troops would be to physically seize, hold, and secure territory; conduct offensive maneuvers; protect critical infrastructure; or execute sustained direct-action missions within Iranian territory or disputed border areas.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 3:40 pm to BoarEd
He’s trying real hard to get on the record for future message board posts because doc couldn’t do it himself in the other thread.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 3:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
I support SOF inside Iran now to take out the leadership etc .
Posted on 10/2/26 at 3:42 pm to ninthward
quote:
youre argument is flawed from the start;
OP doesn't contain an argument
Page 2 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News