- 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: No ground troops
Posted on 3/8/26 at 10:25 am to Jbird
Posted on 3/8/26 at 10:25 am to Jbird
quote:
How exactly is China going to pull that off?
This all depends on what our goals are with this regime change
Which then changes the calculus on "ground troops"
If we aren't committed to enforcing a new regime with ground troops, why would China not be able to cozy up to the new regime to the exclusion of the US? Especially with their ability to more cheaply offer infrastructure and other goods/services compared to the US/West. Belt and Road ring a bell?
1
Posted on 3/8/26 at 10:26 am to Jbird
quote:
Okay name them.
Whatever group of camel frickers emerges to praise Allah can do this in time.
Could you name ISIS in 2004?
This post was edited on 3/8/26 at 10:27 am
Posted on 3/8/26 at 10:26 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
How exactly is China going to pull that off?
This all depends on what our goals are with this regime change
quote:They were doing that already clown.
If we aren't committed to enforcing a new regime with ground troops, why would China not be able to cozy up to the new regime to the exclusion of the US? Especially with their ability to more cheaply offer infrastructure and other goods/services compared to the US/West. Belt and Road ring a bell?
Posted on 3/8/26 at 10:26 am to BOHICAMAN
quote:
While not ideal, an Iran controlled by China would still be better than the status quo of the last 50 years.
I have a thread brewing on this very subject
Posted on 3/8/26 at 10:27 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:With what funding?
Whatever group of camel frickers emerges to praise Allah can do this in time.
Posted on 3/8/26 at 10:28 am to Jbird
quote:
They were doing that already clown.
So this new conflict doesn't always "castrate" them?
To bring this back full circle.
Posted on 3/8/26 at 10:28 am to Jbird
quote:
With what funding?
The same way the current regime does. Again, the presupposition is these new groups step in
Posted on 3/8/26 at 10:28 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:That cheap oil stopped flowing, but yeah take your big "win".
So this new conflict doesn't always "castrate" them?
To bring this back full circle.
Posted on 3/8/26 at 10:29 am to Jbird
quote:
That cheap oil stopped flowing
But you just admitted it can just as easily start flowing again with a new regime that cozies up to China.
Posted on 3/8/26 at 10:29 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:So the new regime is the same as the old regime will be your argument?
The same way the current regime does. Again, the presupposition is these new groups step in
Posted on 3/8/26 at 10:31 am to Jbird
quote:
So the new regime is the same as the old regime will be your argument?
It's much more likely to end up that way without ground troops, yes.
Ending up right where we started, or worse, is a very common scenario with engagements in the ME. That's why people are so against these wars
Posted on 3/8/26 at 10:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Meh we shall see.
It's much more likely to end up that way without ground troops, yes.
quote:Well at the end of the day you can fap on.
Ending up right where we started, or worse, is a very common scenario with engagements in the ME. That's why people are so against these wars
Posted on 3/8/26 at 10:33 am to Jbird
quote:
Well at the end of the day you can fap on.
There was a time, not long ago, when the words you quoted to give this response were the policy of Trump/MAGA
This post was edited on 3/8/26 at 10:33 am
Posted on 3/8/26 at 10:33 am to NashvilleTider
Why try to sound definitive? Especially you have to add the word “current”.
It’s almost as if the mismatch between the subject header and the content is intentional.
It’s almost as if the mismatch between the subject header and the content is intentional.
Posted on 3/8/26 at 10:35 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Well everyone knows the only reason you are here is for attention and to claim 100% correct in every thread. Here I gave you your fapping material. jerk on counsellor!
There was a time, not long ago, when the words you quoted to give this response were the policy of Trump/MAGA
Posted on 3/8/26 at 10:35 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
Isn't that the goal?
Civil war and a destabilized Iran is the goal?
Im confused.
Do you want a different regime in Iran? Or no?
You can't say that the Islamic Republic of Iran is the leading cause of regional terror and death in the middle east and simultaneously argue against regime change and civil war as a better alternative.
quote:
Centralizing fanatical Muslim conflict doesn't tend to lead to positive outcomes, historically
Regime change is definitionally decentralization. Do you disagree?
You seem to be defining these hyper-specifically to the current regime and ignoring that other groups can do this as well.
By your definition, addressing 1 problem is ignoring all other problems.
How can you even begin to address 1 problem without being accused of ignoring other problems? It sounds like you just prefer ignoring problems.
Posted on 3/8/26 at 10:38 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Assuming the new guys want to go with a marginal China, sure.
But you just admitted it can just as easily start flowing again with a new regime that cozies up to China.
Posted on 3/8/26 at 10:40 am to meansonny
quote:
Do you want a different regime in Iran? Or no?
I don't support this war.
I'm just giving reasons why the conflict is likely to turn out bad in discussing the regime change/no regime change scenarios, to explain my stance above.
quote:
You can't say that the Islamic Republic of Iran is the leading cause of regional terror and death in the middle east and simultaneously argue against regime change and civil war as a better alternative.
Because it's not guaranteed to be better or create a situation that was better than where we were.
We literally did this with Iraq 20 years ago and a similar terrible regime. And people tried to do this "you're supporting that terrible regime by pointing out why this is a bad idea" shite 20 years ago, too. I know because people did it to me. Who turned out to be correct?
Posted on 3/8/26 at 10:40 am to TDsngumbo
quote:
Not part of his “current” plan. I don’t see how an acceptable regime change happens without ground troops in some capacity.
Amazing how badly some of you want American troops to die
Posted on 3/8/26 at 10:40 am to Jbird
quote:
Assuming the new guys want to go with a marginal China, sure.
China is one of the leading experts in this area currently.
They can offer better terms than we can. Why wouldn't the new regime go with the cheaper (at least short term) option?
Page 3 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News