- 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
re: I was told Boots on the Ground were needed to defeat Iran?
Posted on 4/18/26 at 9:58 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/18/26 at 9:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
There has been no regime change.
How was I wrong?
The regime HAS changed. They have lost virtually all of their military. They've lost multiple levels of leaders. They aren't negotiating from anywhere near their original level of strength.
Lawyers know to be specific. You just said "has the regime changed"
Edit: congrats you took it too seriously. I was poking fun with the definition of the word "changed"
This post was edited on 4/18/26 at 10:13 am
2
Posted on 4/18/26 at 10:04 am to Bigdawgb
quote:
The regime HAS changed.
It hasn’t.
Posted on 4/18/26 at 10:06 am to SDVTiger
quote:What alternative universe do you live in?
We are in full control of the strait
From Fox News this morning:
quote:Update April 18, 2026, 11:05 AM EDT
Iran has reversed it's decision to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, citing an ongoing U.S. naval blockade. A regional intelligence official has confirmed to Fox News' Trey Yingst that the Strait of Hormuz is "under full IRGC control and effectively closed at this moment."
Multiple vessels have already been forced to turn around, and the IRGC reportedly opened fire on at least one ship.
Posted on 4/18/26 at 10:07 am to Mo Jeaux
You wouldn’t acknowledge that fact no matter whether it did or didn’t. So this is a pointless exercise. That’s a sad state of affairs.
Posted on 4/18/26 at 10:08 am to davyjones
quote:
You wouldn’t acknowledge that fact no matter whether it did or didn’t. So this is a pointless exercise. That’s a sad state of affairs.
Of course I would, but the fact is that it hasn’t.
Posted on 4/18/26 at 10:10 am to Bigdawgb
quote:
The regime HAS changed.
No it hasn't.
quote:
They have lost virtually all of their military. They've lost multiple levels of leaders. They aren't negotiating from anywhere near their original level of strength.
None of this has much, if anything, to do with changing the regime.
Posted on 4/18/26 at 10:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The regime HAS changed.
No it hasn't.
I take out all the Partners in a law firm, all gone but a handful of practicing attorneys and a few interns remain.
They haven't changed the firm at all!
Posted on 4/18/26 at 10:19 am to Jbird
quote:
I take out all the Partners in a law firm, all gone but a handful of practicing attorneys and a few interns remain.
They haven't changed the firm at all!
You're pivoting from "regime change" to 'no change at all"
Everyone agrees that certain meat suits are dead. That's not really relevant unless you're changing the definition of "regime" to fit a preconceived notion/argument.
If the firm survives with the same population from within the firm replacing those that left, then it's the same law firm.
Posted on 4/18/26 at 10:23 am to Jbird
quote:
I take out all the Partners in a law firm, all gone but a handful of practicing attorneys and a few interns remain.
They haven't changed the firm at all!
Let’s use your dumb analogy. The clients all stay with the firm. The remaining attorneys step into the same cases and transactions following the same tactics and strategies as the prior partners.
Posted on 4/18/26 at 10:24 am to SlowFlowPro
So say Vance were to win in 2028. Prior President’s VP. Same political party. Is that not regime change?
How about if a different Republican candidate than Vance wins the nomination in 2028. That person ends up winning the general election. No “regime change” happened?
How about if a different Republican candidate than Vance wins the nomination in 2028. That person ends up winning the general election. No “regime change” happened?
Posted on 4/18/26 at 10:25 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Experience meat suits.
Everyone agrees that certain meat suits are dead.
Irrelavant!
quote:Yes fill them with interns!
If the firm survives with the same population from within the firm replacing those that left, then it's the same law firm.
Posted on 4/18/26 at 10:26 am to Mo Jeaux
Posted on 4/18/26 at 10:27 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:Is that a given?
The clients all stay with the firm.
Posted on 4/18/26 at 10:27 am to roadGator
Thought you had a mountain to fall off of?
Posted on 4/18/26 at 10:28 am to Jbird
I think that must’ve been more like a hill, or just a rise perhaps.
Posted on 4/18/26 at 10:29 am to SDVTiger
quote:
woke right
Ok James Lindsay
Posted on 4/18/26 at 10:31 am to Jbird
quote:
Is that a given?
Is it a given that the clients stay with the firm even if nothing happened to the partners? I’ll answer that for you, “no”.
I just wish I knew why those of you who are saying that it has changed are doing so. What is it getting you?
Posted on 4/18/26 at 10:33 am to Jbird
Just pulled up.
Are you wish casting?
It’s a beautiful day for a quick jaunt.
Y’all have fun beating back the Trump attackers. Excellent work by the squad
Are you wish casting?
It’s a beautiful day for a quick jaunt.
Y’all have fun beating back the Trump attackers. Excellent work by the squad
Posted on 4/18/26 at 10:33 am to davyjones
quote:
So say Vance were to win in 2028. Prior President’s VP. Same political party. Is that not regime change?
The concept doesn't really work as well in liberal democracies (hence the use of administrations to describe the population/government), but theoretically if he kept the exact same infrastructure, you could make an argument.
But odds are he would replace members of the admin with people from outside the admin, which creates an entirely different scenario than Iran.
Posted on 4/18/26 at 10:33 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:So why hire an established law firm and pat more when I could just hire the first year attorney?
Is it a given that the clients stay with the firm even if nothing happened to the partners? I’ll answer that for you, “no”.
I just wish I knew why those of you who are saying that it has changed are doing so. What is it getting you?
If you wipe out all the experience and wisdom, why the frick would you expect the same level of performance?
Page 11 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News