- 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
0
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:45 am to Pettifogger
The best case scenario is in several months (years?) we get back to where we were a few weeks ago. Unless you believe Iran was actually a nuclear threat, I guess. I just don’t get it
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:46 am to JiminyCricket
quote:
Obviously, no one wants innocent people to die but it's such a nirvana fallacy to think that a war can be fought with a 100% limit of collateral damage. One can do everything in their power but it's just not realistic. There has not been a single war in the history of mankind where no civilians have been killed.
This is a particularly major issue with radical Islamic enemies.
Killing civilians creates new enemies immediately and sews the seeds for our next generation of enemies. This prevents any real reform and often leads to net societal degression.
Especially if we're attempting real regime change.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:46 am to Ingeniero
Let's convince the Jihadist around the world, who have no problem with suicide bombing themselves, we aren't the Great Satan by blowing up a bunch of kids and shite!
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:46 am to Ingeniero
Yes.
"We fight with the power of America, they fight with the power of Allah."
We are going to have to convince them otherwise.
It's going to take a lot.
quote:
what would be seen as acceptable to force the IRGC to the table.
"We fight with the power of America, they fight with the power of Allah."
We are going to have to convince them otherwise.
It's going to take a lot.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:47 am to JiminyCricket
quote:
There is no current way to avoid civilian casualties in war nor has there ever been a war in the history of mankind that has eliminated the loss of innocent life. War is hell. It's a gritty, dirty business and even when the best efforts are utilized to prevent innocent loss of life, it's just unavoidable.
That is why it should always be the last resort. This war is not that. War is hell and innocent people suffer the most.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:48 am to SallysHuman
quote:
That's at the hands of their leaders.
The same leaders that have been slaughtering them anyway for dissenting.
Based on the history of our incursions in the ME, why would you ever think they won't blame us? We have a LONG history of engaging in these acts that kill civilians and the survivors and the family of the dead blame us and become our enemies.
quote:
It is war. People will die.
We started this war. We are killing these people.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:48 am to Ingeniero
quote:
Would you be in favor of destroying infrastructure even if it leads to civilian deaths?
Yes.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:48 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
We started this war. We are killing these people
Some people can't handle the truth
Sally is one of them
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:49 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This is a particularly major issue with radical Islamic enemies.
Most of the Iranian population isn’t particularly radical about Islam. 2/3rds of the mosques closed due to lack of attendance.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:49 am to GreatLakesTiger24
quote:
The best case scenario is in several months (years?) we get back to where we were a few weeks ago. Unless you believe Iran was actually a nuclear threat, I guess. I just don’t get it
The best case scenario is a popular uprising that causes IRGC and Basij moderates to see the writing on the wall and faction, resulting in some sort of post-regime oligarchal state that is mostly uninterested in fomenting constant battles with the Abraham Accord states.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:50 am to GreatLakesTiger24
quote:
The best case scenario is in several months (years?) we get back to where we were a few weeks ago. Unless you believe Iran was actually a nuclear threat, I guess. I just don’t get it
The worst part is all the people who saw these exact moves leading to failure in the GWOT, many of whom declared they were against similar actions to the GWOT because of this failure, who are now doing a 2nd 180 back to the neocon Bush era "we just need to do it right this time" rhetoric.
That wasn't real regime change
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:50 am to aubie101
quote:
This war is not that.
Could you elaborate on your position here?
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:50 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This is a particularly major issue with radical Islamic enemies.
Killing civilians creates new enemies immediately and sews the seeds for our next generation of enemies. This prevents any real reform and often leads to net societal degression.
Especially if we're attempting real regime change.
Homeland touched on this 10 years ago, but people still seem to miss it. We aren't dealing with a rational actor, so trying to game theory them doesn't work.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:50 am to Dawgfanman
quote:
Most of the Iranian population isn’t particularly radical about Islam.
These actions/deaths will change that.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:51 am to Ingeniero
War is hell. War can be dumb. War should be engaged in cautiously, and only with clear justification and a clear public will to do so and support it.
Once one is committed to waging war, it should be done so in totality. Anything in service of victory that serves the aims of the war is likely justified. Atrocities tend to work against would-be occupiers long term, however.
A great example is Ukraine during World War II. The Ukranians had been genocided by the Soviets and initially greeted the Germans as liberators. However, the Germans were such brutal occupiers who routinely committed atrocities against the Ukrainians that they went from collaborators to partisans fighting the Nazis really quick.
Once one is committed to waging war, it should be done so in totality. Anything in service of victory that serves the aims of the war is likely justified. Atrocities tend to work against would-be occupiers long term, however.
A great example is Ukraine during World War II. The Ukranians had been genocided by the Soviets and initially greeted the Germans as liberators. However, the Germans were such brutal occupiers who routinely committed atrocities against the Ukrainians that they went from collaborators to partisans fighting the Nazis really quick.
This post was edited on 4/7/26 at 10:57 am
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:52 am to BeeFense5
quote:
There is definitely a difference in targeting civilians vs collateral damage of civilians and the president is outwardly threatening killing their entire "civilization".
To the civilians who lose family members, is there really a difference?
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:54 am to Powerman
quote:
Some people can't handle the truth
Sally is one of them
.png)
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:55 am to Ingeniero
quote:
Would you be in favor of destroying infrastructure even if it leads to civilian deaths?
Destroying Iran’s infrastructure will indubitably lead to civilian deaths. There’s no “even if,” and no.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:57 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Based on the history of our incursions in the ME, why would you ever think they won't blame us? We have a LONG history of engaging in these acts that kill civilians and the survivors and the family of the dead blame us and become our enemies.
I was nodding at this part...
Then ya lost me with...
quote:
We started this war. We are killing these people.
You are aware of the 7-20k+ citizens the IRGC killed BEFORE we officially entered the chat, are you not?
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News