- 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: WSJ-Possibly more troops to the Middle East.
Posted on 3/27/26 at 7:08 am to Willie Stroker
Posted on 3/27/26 at 7:08 am to Willie Stroker
quote:Beck interviewed an Iranian yesterday, that said that theyve been getting trained on the "DL" and Iranians are ready to be the "boots on the ground". He wouldn't go into details, but imo sounds like militias are getting prepped and supported there.
If we end up sending troops on the ground, surely it’s to give confidence to an Iranian rebellion that we won’t let another 30,000 get massacred.
1
Posted on 3/27/26 at 7:09 am to BluegrassCardinal
We’ve been hearing this for a while now. Has anyone considered that the threat of ground troops is a negotiating tactic by the Great Negotiator? TDS’ers are being flushed out of every corner due to a lack of understanding.
Posted on 3/27/26 at 7:12 am to uaslick
quote:
Has anyone considered that the threat of ground troops is a negotiating tactic
Never fails
Posted on 3/27/26 at 7:20 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Never fails
Like my previous examples, there is no incorrect move for Trump! If he achieves the goals and deadlines, he's succeeded. If he moves them and declares something else to be the goal, it's because he has masterfully negotiated that outcome. If Donald Trump makes a decision, it MUST be correct, because otherwise he wouldn't make that decision.
Of course, because this update comes from the WSJ, it's fake news. Until it's officially announced by the Pentagon. Then you're a TDS lib if you don't support our troops. Why are you siding with terrorists?
This post was edited on 3/27/26 at 7:26 am
Posted on 3/27/26 at 7:29 am to Ingeniero
quote:
Like my previous examples, there is no incorrect move for Trump! If he achieves the goals and deadlines, he's succeeded. If he moves them and declares something else to be the goal, it's because he has masterfully negotiated that outcome. If Donald Trump makes a decision, it MUST be correct, because otherwise he wouldn't make that decision.
This is why they never communicate a clear, definitive goal.
They flood the space with multiple goals so that they can always claim to accomplish the goal. And even in the rare moment where they fail at all of them, then yeah, it's spun as "negotiating" and the goals were never serious in the first place and were only a ruse to get the REAL goal.
Posted on 3/27/26 at 7:32 am to Ingeniero
quote:
Of course, because this update comes from the WSJ, it's fake news
NO, it is bullshite because "it COULD happen".
You wasted all that energy to whine about Trump supporters.
Posted on 3/27/26 at 7:35 am to RohanGonzales
quote:
NO, it is bullshite because "it COULD happen".
You wasted all that energy to whine about Trump supporters.
Do you have an individual/personal opinion on the issue or will you just default/pivot to whatever Trump ends up doing?
If you have individual/personal opinions on troops on the ground in Iran, can you share them? Get on the record so we can revisit when this is all done to see how you feel about it then in comparison with what Trump/the admin actually does?
This post was edited on 3/27/26 at 7:36 am
Posted on 3/27/26 at 8:04 am to RohanGonzales
quote:
NO, it is bullshite because "it COULD happen".
Conveniently, this was the same response when WSJ announced that deploying the first 3,000 was "considered."
Then when it happened the responses were a grab bag of:
-I guess we should dissolve the military if we can never deploy them
-This changes everything, I should've voted for Kamala
-TDS
-3000 doesn't count as boots on the ground
-And if it does, boots on the ground was always the plan
-Support our troops, lib!
Posted on 3/27/26 at 10:46 am to HagaDaga
quote:The Bay of I Can't Eat Pigs.
Beck interviewed an Iranian yesterday, that said that theyve been getting trained on the "DL" and Iranians are ready to be the "boots on the ground".
Posted on 3/27/26 at 11:18 am to SlowFlowPro
What's the alternative? Should we tie our own hands during negotiations and assure the IRGC that we're not going to put troops on the ground? What kind of result do you think that would net us?
Less than a month in, and you've already convinced yourself this is Iraq 2.0.
Less than a month in, and you've already convinced yourself this is Iraq 2.0.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News