- 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
Why Don't, Or Why Can't, We Strike Power Plants?
Posted on 6/27/26 at 10:50 pm
Posted on 6/27/26 at 10:50 pm
Whether it is the Iranian Guard, Hezbollah, Hamas, The Houthis, or all of the above, if we know that missiles were launched from a particular site or area, why don't we strike power plants supplying that area?
If we'd do that a few times, I'd think someone would finally get the message and stop this shite unless they want the entire country to "go dark."
I've heard it suggested that taking out power plants would be considered a war crime. IF this is true, how do we punish the perpetrators to the point that they finally stop?
If we'd do that a few times, I'd think someone would finally get the message and stop this shite unless they want the entire country to "go dark."
I've heard it suggested that taking out power plants would be considered a war crime. IF this is true, how do we punish the perpetrators to the point that they finally stop?
6
Posted on 6/27/26 at 11:20 pm to ronniep1
Power plants are lawful targets in some cases.
The problem is destroying them usually has an outsized impact on civilians in the area. That’s why Trump ultimately decided not to, despite his threats to “end civilization” in Iran.
He makes threats first, then gets facts second. A unique way of wielding power.
The problem is destroying them usually has an outsized impact on civilians in the area. That’s why Trump ultimately decided not to, despite his threats to “end civilization” in Iran.
He makes threats first, then gets facts second. A unique way of wielding power.
Posted on 6/27/26 at 11:25 pm to RFK
quote:
He makes threats first, then gets facts second. A unique way of wielding power.
It isn’t unique whatsoever.
Posted on 6/28/26 at 1:25 am to ronniep1
JFK's policy of having groups like the Green Berets to "win minds and souls" in Vietnam eventually became GWB's "winning hearts and minds" in the Middle East and has continued to be the prevailing policy for conducting warfare to this day even though it hasn't worked nearly as well as the policy of "beat the frick out of them until they beg to surrender" we had with the Axis powers in WW2.
Until we are willing to get out of that mindset and wage war with the goal of forcing the enemy into giving an unconditional surrender because we've brutally beaten them into submission, we are going to see prolonged engagements.
Until we are willing to get out of that mindset and wage war with the goal of forcing the enemy into giving an unconditional surrender because we've brutally beaten them into submission, we are going to see prolonged engagements.
Posted on 6/28/26 at 1:49 am to Bard
because the advent of TV broadcasted scenes from Vietnam to us.
in WW2, you could fire bomb a city, and it wouldnt hit the US news until tomorrow, and even then, it was just photos
and we were in a total war against those countries. We're fighting a specific part of the Iran government, not their entire country.
in WW2, you could fire bomb a city, and it wouldnt hit the US news until tomorrow, and even then, it was just photos
and we were in a total war against those countries. We're fighting a specific part of the Iran government, not their entire country.
Posted on 6/28/26 at 2:06 am to RelicBatches86
quote:
because the advent of TV broadcasted scenes from Vietnam to us.
in WW2, you could fire bomb a city, and it wouldnt hit the US news until tomorrow, and even then, it was just photos
and we were in a total war against those countries. We're fighting a specific part of the Iran government, not their entire country.
I can agree with the media aspect, but the other is a bit of a reach. In every war there are those for the other side who aren't complicit with their government's behaviors. Using that as a factor (regardless of the truth of it) is to limit your options on the battlefield.
If you engage in war, you should either be in with the goal of forcing your enemy into unconditional surrender or you shouldn't be in it.
The "hearts & minds" mantra sounds and feels good, but it's had a very lackluster history of winning wars.
Posted on 6/28/26 at 2:31 am to ronniep1
Is this where a bunch of losers who cant handle no power for a week bitch about not ruining power for 10-12 years for 90 million civilians that dont like the mullahs either?
Posted on 6/28/26 at 3:39 am to Gusoline
If Iran was invading it's neighbors, they would be legit targets. As is, all the trouble they make is through proxies and surrogates. Yes, they do chunk missiles at people but there is no real threat of an invasion.
Posted on 6/28/26 at 6:28 am to dalefla
No threat of invasion?
Why invade when American politicians have the front & back doors wide open and allow you access to food, bed and your very on passkey for money extraction
Why invade when American politicians have the front & back doors wide open and allow you access to food, bed and your very on passkey for money extraction
Posted on 6/28/26 at 6:59 am to ronniep1
quote:
Whether it is the Iranian Guard, Hezbollah, Hamas, The Houthis, or all of the above, if we know that missiles were launched from a particular site or area, why don't we strike power plants supplying that area?
They don’t need power plants to launch missiles. Attacking power plants, in the way you suggest, is an attack on the civilian population - a population that is mostly on our side.
Posted on 6/28/26 at 7:05 am to ronniep1
Because the media will exploit one unintended consequential death, hospital strike, school strike, American soldier death and crucify the Administration. American values and politics cannot stomach the reality of war.
War is ugly, shite happens, get over it, move forward.
War is ugly, shite happens, get over it, move forward.
Posted on 6/28/26 at 7:13 am to Gusoline
quote:
Is this where a bunch of losers who cant handle no power for a week bitch about not ruining power for 10-12 years for 90 million civilians that dont like the mullahs either?
My opinion exactly, but I could not word it so well.
Posted on 6/28/26 at 7:28 am to ronniep1
It seems we are too concerned with winning the peace (which is very important) at the expense of destroying CoGs that destroys the will of the enemy to fight.
Posted on 6/28/26 at 8:06 am to RelicBatches86
We're fighting a specific part of the Iran government, not their entire country.
Horse pucky
This is the mind set of losing.
Horse pucky
This is the mind set of losing.
Posted on 6/28/26 at 8:09 am to zuluboudreaux
American values and politics cannot stomach the reality of war.
Have you seen the values and politics in this country for the last forty years?
Our people would rather kill each other than help straighten out society.
And no sir. People are not out there killing leftist peoople they are killing right leaning people and our society debates who is better to die.
Have you seen the values and politics in this country for the last forty years?
Our people would rather kill each other than help straighten out society.
And no sir. People are not out there killing leftist peoople they are killing right leaning people and our society debates who is better to die.
Posted on 6/28/26 at 8:12 am to RFK
quote:
He makes threats first, then gets facts second.
He is an orange baboon really
Posted on 6/28/26 at 8:13 am to themunch
quote:
American values and politics cannot stomach the reality of war.
This and definitely not MAGAts.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News