- 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: National Review: We are worse off than before
Posted on 4/10/26 at 8:15 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/10/26 at 8:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Well then explain what your point was, exactly.
The amount of handholding you require is embarrassing.
Friendly countries who rely on Mideast oil will look to us if supply is affected. That’s a really short walk to put those things together, thought it went without saying.
1
Posted on 4/10/26 at 8:17 am to Stonehog
quote:
The amount of handholding you require is embarrassing.
quote:
Friendly countries who rely on Mideast oil will look to us if supply is affected.
You've done two pivots in a row to get back to your original point that you just distanced yourself from.
It's not "handholding", it's trying to keep people who can't engage in proper rhetoric to not pivot (as you have done back to back now to come full circle).
Posted on 4/10/26 at 8:27 am to SlowFlowPro
You’ve shifted this multiple times instead of addressing the original point.
First, you reduced “risk” to a single metric, whether Iran has formally closed the Strait of Hormuz and dismissed everything else as irrelevant.
Then when I pointed to decades of ship seizures, harassment, and constant naval presence, you called that “pivoting” instead of engaging with it.
Now you’ve shifted again to regime change and what should be done going forward, which is a completely different discussion from whether a long-term pattern of coercion exists.
And at this point you’re explicitly saying you won’t acknowledge anything while still claiming the argument is wrong.
That’s not a debate, that’s just refusing to engage with the actual question.
The only point I’ve made from the beginning is that there’s been a consistent pattern of maritime coercion over decades.
If you can’t answer whether that pattern exists, then you’re not actually disputing the argument…you’re avoiding it.
At this point it looks like you’re trying to force “gotcha” moments instead of engaging with the substance because acknowledging that pattern would directly conflict with your earlier claim that there was “no real risk” prior to this war.
First, you reduced “risk” to a single metric, whether Iran has formally closed the Strait of Hormuz and dismissed everything else as irrelevant.
Then when I pointed to decades of ship seizures, harassment, and constant naval presence, you called that “pivoting” instead of engaging with it.
Now you’ve shifted again to regime change and what should be done going forward, which is a completely different discussion from whether a long-term pattern of coercion exists.
And at this point you’re explicitly saying you won’t acknowledge anything while still claiming the argument is wrong.
That’s not a debate, that’s just refusing to engage with the actual question.
The only point I’ve made from the beginning is that there’s been a consistent pattern of maritime coercion over decades.
If you can’t answer whether that pattern exists, then you’re not actually disputing the argument…you’re avoiding it.
At this point it looks like you’re trying to force “gotcha” moments instead of engaging with the substance because acknowledging that pattern would directly conflict with your earlier claim that there was “no real risk” prior to this war.
Posted on 4/10/26 at 8:27 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You've done two pivots in a row to get back to your original point that you just distanced yourself from.
Real quick, what do you think my original point was?
Posted on 4/10/26 at 8:32 am to bstew3006
quote:
You’ve shifted this multiple times instead of addressing the original point.
Holy fricking shite. I'm even using your selected language in your digression.
quote:
Now you’ve shifted again to regime change and what should be done going forward, which is a completely different discussion from whether a long-term pattern of coercion exists.
You are attempting to shift the discussion from actual closure of the SOH to potential threats of closing the SOH. The point of discussing regime change is to show that this "potential threat" status (you used the language "sustained behavior over time") is the status quo, and will remain so once this war is over without regime change.
As that "sustained behavior over time" is perpetual without regime change, then we can discard that argument entirely and...go back to the actual discussion (closing the SOH). Again, as I said about, I'm killing this illogical digression once and for all.
So I'll ask you again:
Without regime change with the US inserting a puppet replacement regime, what is going to be different in the future regarding this "sustained behavior over time"?
Posted on 4/10/26 at 8:32 am to bstew3006
quote:
At this point it looks like you’re trying to force “gotcha” moments instead of engaging with the substance because acknowledging that pattern would directly conflict with your earlier claim that there was “no real risk” prior to this war.
Posted on 4/10/26 at 8:33 am to Stonehog
quote:
Real quick, what do you think my original point was?
You're re-pivot above
quote:
Friendly countries who rely on Mideast oil will look to us if supply is affected.
To answer your pivot
quote:
Who said we could? I
You did, above.
Posted on 4/10/26 at 8:46 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You did, above.
No, I never said we could "unilaterally" fill the void. YOU used that word. I insinuated that we've positioned ourselves well in case those countries need to supplement.
And you still didn't answer the question. What do you think my point was?
This post was edited on 4/10/26 at 8:46 am
Posted on 4/10/26 at 9:12 am to SlowFlowPro
You’re not “killing a digression” you’re rewriting the argument.
I never said this was about permanent closure of the Strait of Hormuz or that regime change is the only mechanism that affects behavior. That’s your construction, not mine.
Your own framing has shifted:
From “US/Israel caused this” and “no real risk,” to dismissing decades of documented seizures, harassment, and disruption as irrelevant, to now saying only regime change would change the future.
Those are three different standards, not one consistent argument. Pointing that out is not a pivot it’s highlighting inconsistency in your position.
And you still haven’t addressed the core contradiction: you claimed there was “no real risk,” yet now argue the system is so entrenched that only regime change would alter it. Both positions cannot be true at the same time.
So the standard has shifted from “US/Israel caused this” and “no real risk” to now “regime change is required” that’s not a continuation of an argument, it’s a changing framework to avoid the original claim.
I never said this was about permanent closure of the Strait of Hormuz or that regime change is the only mechanism that affects behavior. That’s your construction, not mine.
Your own framing has shifted:
From “US/Israel caused this” and “no real risk,” to dismissing decades of documented seizures, harassment, and disruption as irrelevant, to now saying only regime change would change the future.
Those are three different standards, not one consistent argument. Pointing that out is not a pivot it’s highlighting inconsistency in your position.
And you still haven’t addressed the core contradiction: you claimed there was “no real risk,” yet now argue the system is so entrenched that only regime change would alter it. Both positions cannot be true at the same time.
So the standard has shifted from “US/Israel caused this” and “no real risk” to now “regime change is required” that’s not a continuation of an argument, it’s a changing framework to avoid the original claim.
Posted on 4/10/26 at 9:14 am to Stonehog
quote:
No, I never said we could "unilaterally" fill the void. YOU used that word.
Your words:
quote:
will look to us
Who is "us" exactly?
Posted on 4/10/26 at 9:41 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
will look to us
And then waayyy way down at the end of the sentence I said "to supplement."
Can you at least admit that those countries would look to import more oil from the U.S. if mideast exports are affected? Is that a wild idea to you?
Posted on 4/10/26 at 10:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Unless Iran keeps the SOH closed, China will get plenty of oil from Iran
Something to consider that I don’t see talked about is Russia supplying China with O&G. They’re already a big supplier of China’s and I’m sure they’d be more than happy to do more business with them given the opportunity to do so.
Posted on 4/10/26 at 6:32 pm to KingOrange
Buckley would think Trump is a fool…
Posted on 4/10/26 at 6:36 pm to prplhze2000
Posted on 4/10/26 at 6:48 pm to RohanGonzales
quote:
the stupid idea that Iran couldn't do what they want with the Strait of Hormuz whenever they wanted to anyway
If it is such a stupid idea then it would seem logical that the world's gteatest military would have planned on Iran "closing" the Straight. Instead, the US has begged Europe for help. So, on this issue it would appear either the idea you are talking about is not that stupid or this Administration is incompetent when it comes to basic war planning.
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News