- 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: Trump gives Iran 48-hour deadline to reopen Strait of Hormuz
Posted on 4/4/26 at 10:32 pm to SirWinston
Posted on 4/4/26 at 10:32 pm to SirWinston
quote:
We've literally cost each European country tens or hundreds of millions of dollars with this ill advised war. They are probably champing at the bit to stick it to Trump.
If the Europeans built their economies based on oil coming from an extremely volatile country and through a narrow waterway then shame on them. Seriously. They set themselves up for this 100%.
0
Posted on 4/4/26 at 11:00 pm to SirWinston
quote:
this ill advised war.
Dumb take.
Posted on 4/4/26 at 11:05 pm to oldskule
quote:
NATO countries need to STEP UP!!!!!!! We are helping their cause, not ours!
Yeah...let's do a quick recap of reality.
We started stupid unnecessary trade wars with our allies and pissed off NATO by making stupid threats about taking Greenland. Then we act surprised when no one wants to join our war of choice. We stupidly created this situation and now say it is for others to fix.
Just a master class in stupidity at this point.
Posted on 4/4/26 at 11:17 pm to Powerman
So you think a NATO country supporting another NATO country is dependent upon their trade agreements?
If so then the only stupidity is
1) how we’ve been taking it in the rear trade wise from our NATO “partners” for decades and (more importantly)
2) why NATO exists in the first place
If so then the only stupidity is
1) how we’ve been taking it in the rear trade wise from our NATO “partners” for decades and (more importantly)
2) why NATO exists in the first place
Posted on 4/4/26 at 11:19 pm to Powerman
quote:
pissed off NATO
And yet they aren’t mad enough to turn down our money.
Posted on 4/4/26 at 11:25 pm to jammajin
quote:
So you think a NATO country supporting another NATO country is dependent upon their trade agreements?
NATO nations have an agreement to help other nations when they are attacked. We started the war. We were not under attack.
Posted on 4/4/26 at 11:30 pm to Powerman
quote:
NATO nations have an agreement to help other nations when they are attacked. We started the war. We were not under attack.
I understand that. And don’t give a rats arse if they respond or not.
I just wanted to make sure the horse shite you were flinging about trade agreements and Greenland didn’t go unspoken to relative to what the purpose of NATO is
You were being pretty self righteous about stupidity for a guy posting something so stupid.
Posted on 4/4/26 at 11:31 pm to jammajin
This is getting interesting.
Posted on 4/4/26 at 11:33 pm to jammajin
quote:
I just wanted to make sure the horse shite you were flinging about trade agreements and Greenland didn’t go unspoken to relative to what the purpose of NATO is
There are some real legs to it. When you start pissing off your allies and start a war without consulting them you would be a complete buffoon to act shocked when they don't join you in the war. It is in fact a master class in stupidity.
Posted on 4/4/26 at 11:40 pm to Powerman
quote:
NATO nations have an agreement to help other nations when they are attacked.
You can’t be so stupid as to be on both sides of this.
NATO either exists for a reason or it doesn’t. It doesn’t exist only when the countries who agreed to it like everything else about the countries they agreed to it with.
You really need to take a step back from your TDS.
If you are now right and because you don’t like the Orange Man and how he’s dealing with other countries on trade then NATO wasn’t a legit organization in the first place.
So NATO was rock solid for decades until the Orange Man proposed trade term changes to level certain playing fields and now other NATO countries are so butt hurt that you think they won’t step up when what you said above occurs?
If you’re right then the US have been the biggest saps in the world for decades.
This post was edited on 4/4/26 at 11:41 pm
Posted on 4/4/26 at 11:42 pm to jammajin
We aren't under attack. Why would NATO nations be compelled to help us in a conflict we initiated?
We bombed Nigeria last year. Were NATO nations compelled to get involved there as well?
We bombed Nigeria last year. Were NATO nations compelled to get involved there as well?
Posted on 4/4/26 at 11:47 pm to Powerman
quote:
NATO nations have an agreement to help other nations when they are attacked. We started the war. We were not under attack.
A few helped us during GWOT and were never attacked. There’s no reason why they shouldn’t be helping us when we are fighting a war, that’s what allies are supposed to do.
Posted on 4/4/26 at 11:47 pm to Powerman
quote:
I understand that. And don’t give a rats arse if they respond or not. I just wanted to make sure the horse shite you were flinging about trade agreements and Greenland didn’t go unspoken to relative to what the purpose of NATO is
You keep talking about two different things
I understand you started with a guy who said NATO needs to step up
You and I are in agreement that NATO doesn’t need to “step up”
But don’t try to pretend the reasons they don’t need to “step up” is because they don’t like our trade terms
Posted on 4/4/26 at 11:51 pm to Powerman
quote:
We aren't under attack. Why would NATO nations be compelled to help us in a conflict we initiated?
I never said they were. I said your bullshite about being pissed of over trade has nothing to,do with whether they are compelled to help us or not.
If they choose not to help us fine
If we are attacked they are COMPELLED by agreement to step in whether they like our trade agreements or what we say about Greenland or not. None of that shite has nothing to do with the NATO organization or agreements
You trying to convolude the two is stupid.
Posted on 4/5/26 at 12:04 am to greygoose
quote:
It took two atomic bombs to get Japan to come to grips with who they were dealing with. The first one was just not enough. Seems like Iran wants to learn the hard lesson.
Lmfao and what explicit reason would we be nuking Iran for you fricking psychopath ?
Posted on 4/5/26 at 12:05 am to beaux duke
quote:
again?
I literally thought this was a thread from 2 weeks ago that had been bumped to the top. But no, now we're triple-dog daring them.
Posted on 4/5/26 at 12:53 am to hubertcumberdale
quote:
Lmfao and what explicit reason would we be nuking Iran for you fricking psychopath ?
Inability to end the war
I don't think we go that route but on the very low probably chance that we do it would be because we couldn't end the war on our terms
Posted on 4/5/26 at 2:12 am to Powerman
I am not a fan of this war. However, the US and their assets/interests have been under attack by Iranian funded proxies for years. If you don’t believe that you are a fricking idiot and it’s pointless to discuss further.
Posted on 4/5/26 at 5:16 am to TigerIron
quote:
again?
I literally thought this was a thread from 2 weeks ago that had been bumped to the top. But no, now we're triple-dog daring them.
It's not an extension. It's a reminder that the 10-day deadline has 48-hrs remaining. Basically an outlook reminder that you have a big meeting in 2 days that you are presenting at, so you better get your shite together.
Posted on 4/5/26 at 5:28 am to NoEmpathy
quote:
I am not a fan of this war. However, the US and their assets/interests have been under attack by Iranian funded proxies for years. If you don’t believe that you are a fricking idiot and it’s pointless to discuss further.
Maybe other US assets in the Middle East but when have Americans on US soil ever been at risk from Iran ?
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News