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 4:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 10/2/26 at 4:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
If we do it with our allies and we flat out at the start admit this will take many years, cost trillions, we can do it.
Bush fault was sending his lackey's like Paul Wolfowitz out there to say Iraq will pay it all back with oil and others to say how quick and easy it will be.
Bush fault was sending his lackey's like Paul Wolfowitz out there to say Iraq will pay it all back with oil and others to say how quick and easy it will be.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 4:29 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Make your own thread. Discussing goals is specifically prohibited by OP.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 4:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
Yes if it's limited to taking Kharg Island, which they should have done back in the spring. It would have been an amphibious and aerial operation and there would be some U.S. casualties, but that's life in the military.
This whole thing would be over right now if they had done that.
This whole thing would be over right now if they had done that.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 5:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
No.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 5:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
This post was edited on 10/2/26 at 5:10 pm
Posted on 10/2/26 at 5:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
No. Maybe I’d support special forces if the mission was to assassinate leaders and end this war.
Otherwise, I’d support nuking Tehran before risking American soldiers in that shithole
Otherwise, I’d support nuking Tehran before risking American soldiers in that shithole
Posted on 10/2/26 at 5:41 pm to Eurocat
quote:
If we do it with our allies and we flat out at the start admit this will take many years, cost trillions, we can do it.
Being truthful about shitty policy doesn’t make it less shitty
At least Trump does follow through with controlling the oil
Posted on 10/2/26 at 5:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
No
Posted on 10/2/26 at 6:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
Right — so we’re finally there.
You intentionally narrowed the definition to conventional combat forces because you wanted to exclude other forms of U.S. involvement on the ground and shape the scope of the discussion.
That was my point from the beginning.
You can keep repeating “not an argument” if you want, but that’s just semantics at this point. The substance is that you deliberately constructed the question around conventional ground combat troops.
You intentionally narrowed the definition to conventional combat forces because you wanted to exclude other forms of U.S. involvement on the ground and shape the scope of the discussion.
That was my point from the beginning.
You can keep repeating “not an argument” if you want, but that’s just semantics at this point. The substance is that you deliberately constructed the question around conventional ground combat troops.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 6:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:how about illegal aliens dropped into fight , literally !
So more than special forces/ops, air, and/or naval campaigns.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 6:12 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
So more than special forces/ops, air, and/or naval campaigns.
In that case, no. With all the tech and firepower we have, we should be able to pick off not just anything that comes off shore from Iran, but zero in on the origin point and blast it as well. Exhaust them of their arms while also shutting off their income, right now we seem to only be focused on one half of that equation.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 6:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
Better get minds right, because there will be boots on the ground whether we like it or not.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 6:38 pm to LSUSUPERSTAR
I hope not
Posted on 10/2/26 at 6:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
They would have to explain it. Not just do it. Maybe they wouldn't want to telegraph. But I'm not 100% trusting.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 6:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
I hope not either.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 8:29 pm to SlowFlowPro
No but possibly yes. It just depends on how they would fight. If they’re going to worry about civilian casualties then you just have to skip it.
America doesn’t have the balls for any more war the way it needs to if it really needed to survive.
You can’t fight in the Middle East and worry about civilians. You got to do like Israel and just mow down everybody. Let it just sort itself out.
America doesn’t have the balls for any more war the way it needs to if it really needed to survive.
You can’t fight in the Middle East and worry about civilians. You got to do like Israel and just mow down everybody. Let it just sort itself out.
Posted on 10/2/26 at 8:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
don't have TDS
quote:
Reports came out about "Boots on the ground"
Sources said. Got it
Posted on 10/2/26 at 8:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
I'm for world peace. But guess what
Posted on 10/2/26 at 8:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
The total tonnage of what you don’t know about the “policy/strategy in Iran” could sink all the boats in the history of history…
Posted on 10/2/26 at 8:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
The goal is directly related to the process, and it’s hard to separate the two issues. Boots on the ground in Iran
Will likely result in substantial American casualties. The “goal” must be obtainable and worthwhile. I’m skeptical…
Will likely result in substantial American casualties. The “goal” must be obtainable and worthwhile. I’m skeptical…
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News