2
- 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 4:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 10/2/26 at 4:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
No, the assumption is baked into the definition you chose.
You defined “boots on the ground” to mean conventional combat forces and explicitly excluded special operations, logistics, support, security, and other personnel who could still be physically operating inside Iran.
So yes, your OP is framed around combat troops from the start. That was my point. You can keep pretending this is about my grammar, but it doesn’t change how you constructed the question.
You defined “boots on the ground” to mean conventional combat forces and explicitly excluded special operations, logistics, support, security, and other personnel who could still be physically operating inside Iran.
So yes, your OP is framed around combat troops from the start. That was my point. You can keep pretending this is about my grammar, but it doesn’t change how you constructed the question.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 4:03 pm to jorconalx
quote:
As a conservative that’s voted for him 3 times, not no but frick no.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 4:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
I don’t want to see boots on the ground.
But…if you want to achieve true regime change you have to do it. We thought we could pull it off with an air only campaign, won’t work.
But…if you want to achieve true regime change you have to do it. We thought we could pull it off with an air only campaign, won’t work.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 4:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
Hell no.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 4:05 pm to ninthward
quote:
No, the assumption is baked into the definition you chose.
There is no assumption.
The definition is important and being used elsewhere ITT, if you didn't notice.
quote:
You defined “boots on the ground” to mean conventional combat forces and explicitly excluded special operations,
Yes, there's a reason for that. Again, see the other ongoing discussions.
quote:
and other personnel who could still be physically operating inside Iran.
This is to help Trump by not creating too broad of a definition that would lead to absurd discussions.
I don't think most doves would consider small spec ops forces to be "boots on the ground" anywhere.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 4:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
That’s exactly my point.
You deliberately defined “boots on the ground” to exclude other forms of U.S. personnel on the ground because you wanted the thread focused on conventional combat forces.
That is framing. You’re not neutrally asking whether the U.S. should put personnel into Iran; you’re defining the term so the question becomes whether people support conventional ground combat forces in Iran.
You can explain why you chose that framing, but you can’t simultaneously pretend the framing doesn’t exist.
You deliberately defined “boots on the ground” to exclude other forms of U.S. personnel on the ground because you wanted the thread focused on conventional combat forces.
That is framing. You’re not neutrally asking whether the U.S. should put personnel into Iran; you’re defining the term so the question becomes whether people support conventional ground combat forces in Iran.
You can explain why you chose that framing, but you can’t simultaneously pretend the framing doesn’t exist.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 4:11 pm to ninthward
Using special forces has become the convention in modern day American warfare planning and tactics. So there ya go.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 4:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Indeed.
There is no argument in OP
There is no flaw in the wording of OP
There is no assumption in OP
Well done BTW.
Essentially taking the absolutely idiotic (likely Massie sourced) MSM ""rumor"" that the US has Desert Storm II lined up for late-Nov in Iran .... and turning it into a query implying an absurd factset without actually declaring it as such. This will go for a while.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 4:13 pm to ninthward
quote:
That is framing.
Yeah I contained a definition to do this. On purpose. That's the point.
It was to give Trump the benefit of the doubt and avoid absurd gotcha attempts about spec ops or logistical coordination with rebels. This was a very common theme during the Ukraine war and it wasn't productive then and isn't productive now.
quote:
but you can’t simultaneously pretend the framing doesn’t exist.
I've never denied framing exists
Update: still not an argument
Posted on 10/2/26 at 4:14 pm to davyjones
quote:
Using special forces has become the convention in modern day American warfare planning and tactics. So there ya go.
That expansive view would be unfair to Trump
Posted on 10/2/26 at 4:16 pm to DeBoar
Typical retard post.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 4:17 pm to DeBoar
quote:
DeBoar
4 pages deep and you still haven’t answered the question.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 4:17 pm to SlowFlowPro
How so? A “conventional” war without the widespread use of enlisted men? This is a scenario falling within the category of hypothetical, considering that you’re assigning your own definitions and meanings to key aspects.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 4:17 pm to SlowFlowPro
No and is this the TDS making you make this thread?
Posted on 10/2/26 at 4:18 pm to davyjones
quote:
This is a scenario falling within the category of hypothetical,
Of course its hypothetical. We haven't started a ground invasion as of the creation of OP
Posted on 10/2/26 at 4:19 pm to SDVTiger
quote:
is this the TDS making you make this thread?
I don't have TDS
Reports came out about "Boots on the ground" (see a different thread)
I made this thread to get people committed to a side so they can't flip flop if this hypothetical becomes a reality.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 4:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
And we’ll never start one operating under key terms and definitions that you set yourself. So it will never not be a hypothetical.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 4:20 pm to davyjones
quote:
And we’ll never start one operating under key terms and definitions that you set yourself.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 4:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Do you support Trump employing a "boots on the ground" policy/strategy in Iran?
Sure, as long as they aren’t American boots. Iran’s neighbors can provide troops and I believe there was an African country volunteering fighters. We can provide air support.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 4:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
Nope.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News