- 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
1
Posted on 4/2/26 at 10:53 am to Powerman
quote:
The question then becomes...why would they put their own naval assets at risk when they had nothing to do with this war?
They might want to secure THEIR oil supply.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 11:06 am to Techdave
The Navy can 100% shoot down conventional land artillery.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 11:06 am to Powerman
quote:
The question then becomes...why would they put their own naval assets at risk when they had nothing to do with this war?
The person who asks a question as stupid as the one above is in not in a position to make the following statement.
quote:
This isn't quite as simple as walking away and saying frick it as if it can't affect us
That is exactly what is happening.
Ridiculous post after ridiculous post.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 11:08 am to Powerman
quote:
The question then becomes...why would they put their own naval assets at risk when they had nothing to do with this war?
Because it benefits them to do so. It would be a net gain for them.
Which is the only reason any country ever engages in any military action.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 11:08 am to Powerman
quote:Why would they put their own naval assets at risk? Because their own internal strategic interests demand it.
The question then becomes...why would they put their own naval assets at risk when they had nothing to do with this war?
Had they been at all forward-thinking, had they recognized lay-of-the-land early on, their attitudes would not have been as insolent and uncooperative. Really dumb stuff by a bunch of liberal pansy "leaders." They just assumed the US would guarantee safe passage for them, because that's what we've always done despite their disrespect.
This time they miscalculated ... badly.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 11:09 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Why would they put their own naval assets at risk? Because their own internal strategic interests demand it.
Had they been at all forward-thinking, had they recognized lay-of-the-land early on, their attitudes would not have been as insolent and uncooperative. Really dumb stuff by a bunch of liberal pansy "leaders." They just assumed the US would guarantee safe passage for them, because that's what we've always done despite their disrespect.
This time they miscalculated ... badly.
Thread/
Posted on 4/2/26 at 11:10 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
They just assumed the US would guarantee safe passage for them, because that's what we've always done despite their disrespect.
I think a more accurate description is they assumed the US wouldn't cause international chaos with severe international economic impacts.
Of course they assumed the US would take responsibility for these negative externalities. Why wouldn't they?
Posted on 4/2/26 at 11:13 am to Techdave
If the supposed allies aren't helping, why do their work for them. The US has oil and we need to uncouple from world markets to bring cost to us down. The world can figure out on their own the supply issue
Posted on 4/2/26 at 11:13 am to Powerman
quote:
The question then becomes...why would they put their own naval assets at risk when they had nothing to do with this war?
That’s their choice. The gulf states need it open to export the oil and they backed us in this war. They can help open it.
Europe? Well they can help open it or buy higher priced oil from us. Their choice
Posted on 4/2/26 at 11:14 am to MikkUGA
quote:
The Navy can 100% shoot down conventional land artillery.
Are you serious? If they shot a dozen 155mm sized shells simultaneously, at a frigate type ship. You think one Phalanx CIWS type gun could even hit one of those rounds that are coming at them 3000 ft/sec?
Nah bro. that's basically hitting a bullet with a bullet. Not the same as shooting down a missile or drone.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 11:14 am to SlowFlowPro
Its not like Iran was not already pulling shite in the gulf before we started bombing the shite out of them and European countries ever engaged them before.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 11:20 am to AlterEd
quote:
That is exactly what is happening.
This remains to be seen
Posted on 4/2/26 at 11:20 am to Powerman
quote:
The question then becomes...why would they put their own naval assets at risk when they had nothing to do with this war?
My question is why won't they at least let us use our bases within their countries and/or fly through their air space?
Posted on 4/2/26 at 11:20 am to Techdave
They used CRAMs at the bases I was stationed at in Afghanistan and they shot down conventional artillery all the time.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 11:23 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Why wouldn't they?
Maybe because they were as snotty and dickish as they possibly could have been about the US flying over their airspace and using our bases.
Just a guess.
I don't expect someone that I give the finger to to turn around and do me a solid when it only benefits me. That could just be me, though.
This post was edited on 4/2/26 at 11:25 am
Posted on 4/2/26 at 11:29 am to MikkUGA
Way different man. I was in Afghanistan too.
Those were likely mortars or rockets coming in. Much slower than a howitzer. And when we got hit, the rounds were spaced out.
If you shot 10 howitzer shells simultaneously at a ship I bet 9 of them get through defenses.
Those were likely mortars or rockets coming in. Much slower than a howitzer. And when we got hit, the rounds were spaced out.
If you shot 10 howitzer shells simultaneously at a ship I bet 9 of them get through defenses.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 11:43 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Just as you are assuming Iran would not have sown chaos as soon as they were a nuclear threat. Those are a grouping of terrible assumptions.
I think a more accurate description is they assumed the US wouldn't cause international chaos with severe international economic impacts.
Regarding the Europeans, poor assumptions have become the rule rather than the exception. They assumed their post-WWII unilateral trade impediments would never draw a US response. They assumed importation of masses of Islamic immigrants was a good idea. They assumed their dependence on Russian gas was not problematic. They assumed Trump was a strategic simpleton when he warned them of the risk. They assumed they could abandon the US without consequence as we preempted eventual inevitable Iranian destabilization of ME oil supply.
There seems to be a pattern.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 11:45 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
This time they miscalculated ... badly.
The one who miscalculated badly (or not at all) is trump
Posted on 4/2/26 at 11:47 am to Techdave
quote:I thought Trump said they were decimated though
Iran would like nothing more than to see massive US ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz, within striking range..... They would launch 50 drones and missiles at the same time to sink a US ship. In addition, the Strait is within range of conventional land-based artillery. Which cannot be intercepted or shot down at all.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News