Clavicular
5d ago
Agreed. The US could potentially cause the Middle East to go into even more chaos and that could have consequences all over Eurasia. Best case scenario to me is we go back to the pre-war situation, and that obviously won’t be worth the cost of the war.
Clavicular
5d ago
The best case scenario is for everything to go back to essentially to the pre-war status quo. I think what’s pretty obvious is that the most likely scenario is something significantly worse. There’s really no point in us talking any more, we will just see how this plays out.
Clavicular
5d ago
If the Republicans get absolutely hammered because of Trump, non-MAGA Republicans will eventually go against him. Trump keeping America unilaterally in an unpopular war with no end in sight will be a disaster for Republicans and they will turn on him eventually and on the war. The media will absolutely run with this too to help Democrats. They have the power of the purse still too. I just don’t see this lasting 2 more years unless Iran wants it to last 2 more years. I hope I’m wrong and the regime collapses but I just don’t see that happening.
Clavicular
5d ago
The have a lot more options than that.
And when the Democrats win the midterms and invoke War Powers Resolution law because Americans don’t want this to go on indefinitely… what then? This is an unpopular war and nobody wants this to go on for years. Trump is on the clock. He doesn’t have unlimited time.
Clavicular
5d ago
If we’re using the standards of WW2 for victory, then your arguments above are irrelevant. You didn’t have to argue that the US won because it was obvious since they occupied their countries and toppled their regimes.
Clavicular
5d ago
What will you say if they don’t surrender and don’t give up their nuclear material?
Clavicular
5d ago
This is essentially the argument I made last week, so I agree 100%. The concessions I was talking about were ones that are a non-starter that would be so humiliating that the US would never accept them. But you are probably right that even if they got those, they will push for even more eventually. Thats why I made the argument last week to OP that the war isn’t over and the US can only win if the Iranian regime collapses.
Clavicular
5d ago
So just so we are on the same page: the war is over and Iran has lost. The US has effectively a 100% chance of accomplishing all its goals. So it’s not winning, it has won.
Clavicular
5d ago
I agree 100%. I actually had a similar comment last week saying basically the same thing you said in your second paragraph. As long as the US military can’t and the area isn’t the same as it was pre-war, the war is far from over. I don’t see any easy solutions for this other than giving Iran concessions that are not acceptable, so this war will continue for the foreseeable future in my opinion.
I also listed Trump’s pre-war aims noting that only one (destruction of their Navy) had been completed so the war is not over by Trump’s own standards. OP said they all had been accomplished, but I just don’t see that being anywhere close to reality.
Clavicular
5d ago
You said Trump had won in your previous posts and the war was over. So is America winning or has it won? Have you accepted the war isn’t over yet? It’s also hilarious to me that you count going back to pre-war levels as winning. Congratulations on getting back to the exact same place we were before the war I guess.
Clavicular
12d ago
Trump is incredibly disrespectful so it’s not very shocking that people are disrespectful back. You would have to be a total cuck not to return it in kind. And yes, you clearly don’t understand what good faith negotiations are or just have changed it to fit your needs. But this is par for the course for you as you are in the habit of changing the definition of words so Trump can never do anything but win.
Clavicular
12d ago
He went to them for a deal and they said no. Then he threatened violence. If I go to you to negotiate purchasing your home and you say no, I don’t get to threaten to violently invade your home and take it from you for disrespecting me when I won’t take no for an answer. What you are not describing is a good faith negotiation. I don’t think you understand what a “deal” is. Or negotiations.
Clavicular
12d ago
Calling what Trump did “mean” is not a good faith argument. He declined to rule out using military force. He essentially threatened to invade them. Just like saying he was mean to Canada wouldn’t be good faith. He talked about them being the 51 state. Threatening to annex territory of your allies is insane behavior and a massive escalation. Doing that because you got offended over another country’s response to your “deal” is not a proportional response. I don’t see how you can’t see this from their point of view.
Clavicular
21d ago
The Strait was open before the war.[https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-war-hormuz-trump-yemen-houthis-2b126da67b09de2f328846eb656abe0e](It is not now). That is backwards progress. But I don't even care about this because even if it was open, it wasn't in the defined objectives before the war. At best its a return to the status quo and not a victory.
If victory requires the United States to keep bombing Iran indefinitely so Iran cannot rebuild, then Iran's nuclear/missile capability hasn't actually been permanently eliminated. This is tautological. What has been established is U.S. suppression of those programs, but nothing permanent.
Plus, you are repeatedly contradicting yourself and speaking out of both sides of your mouth. If Iran literally cannot build a weapon, there should be no need for repeated future bombing. Your argument concedes the point. The United States may be able to prevent Iran from completing a weapon through continuing military intervention, but that's very different from having destroyed Iran's ability to obtain one. The US military itself admits this hasn't been accomplished yet by the way.
You simultaneously says Iran is “totally impotent” and “cannot retaliate,” while acknowledging that Iran continues launching missiles and is attacking third parties. Again, you concede the point. Those attacks have happened in the past week. Clearly this is not a completed objective, even if they have been weakened. Plus you carve out an exception (admitting you are wrong) when you say, “The only exception here are the Houthis in Yemen." By your own admission, it is not accomplished yet.
Your argument is the classically motte and bailey. What you are arguing is that Iran is badly weakened, America enjoys escalation dominance, and Iran isn't currently capable of reversing the military balance. I don't agree that is true, but it is a defensible argument. But what you are doing is claiming Trump won, then retreating to the motte of America is winning when called out. Maybe we're in a new postmodern war when you can just say you've won and you won, but by traditional metrics (and those defined by the admin) the war is so clearly not over that it isn't even a debate.
You never replied to me. Instead you ignored it and then said I didn’t have an argument which is a cute trick. I’ll post it again for you so you can reply. Or don’t, but don’t pretend you replied to me.
The Strait was open before the war.[https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-war-hormuz-trump-yemen-houthis-2b126da67b09de2f328846eb656abe0e](It is not now). That is backwards progress. But I don't even care about this because even if it was open, it wasn't in the defined objectives before the war. At best it’s a return to the status quo and not a victory.
If victory requires the United States to keep bombing Iran indefinitely so Iran cannot rebuild, then Iran's nuclear/missile capability hasn't actually been permanently eliminated. This is tautological. What has been established is U.S. suppression of those programs, but nothing permanent.
Plus, you are repeatedly contradicting yourself and speaking out of both sides of your mouth. If Iran literally cannot build a weapon, there should be no need for repeated future bombing. Your argument concedes the point. The United States may be able to prevent Iran from completing a weapon through continuing military intervention, but that's very different from having destroyed Iran's ability to obtain one. The US military itself admits this hasn't been accomplished yet by the way.
You simultaneously says Iran is “totally impotent” and “cannot retaliate,” while acknowledging that Iran continues launching missiles and is attacking third parties. Again, you concede the point. Those attacks have happened in the past week. Clearly this is not a completed objective, even if they have been weakened. Plus you carve out an exception (admitting you are wrong) when you say, “The only exception here are the Houthis in Yemen." By your own admission, it is not accomplished yet.
Your argument is the classically motte and bailey. What you are arguing is that Iran is badly weakened, America enjoys escalation dominance, and Iran isn't currently capable of reversing the military balance. I don't agree that is true, but it is a defensible argument. But what you are doing is claiming Trump won, then retreating to the motte of America is winning when called out. Maybe we're in a new postmodern war when you can just say you've won and you won, but by traditional metrics (and those defined by the admin) the war is so clearly not over that it isn't even a debate.
Clavicular
21d ago
Answer my questions:
The Strait was open before the war.[https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-war-hormuz-trump-yemen-houthis-2b126da67b09de2f328846eb656abe0e](It is not now). That is backwards progress. But I don't even care about this because even if it was open, it wasn't in the defined objectives before the war. At best its a return to the status quo and not a victory.
If victory requires the United States to keep bombing Iran indefinitely so Iran cannot rebuild, then Iran's nuclear/missile capability hasn't actually been permanently eliminated. This is tautological. What has been established is U.S. suppression of those programs, but nothing permanent.
Plus, you are repeatedly contradicting yourself and speaking out of both sides of your mouth. If Iran literally cannot build a weapon, there should be no need for repeated future bombing. Your argument concedes the point. The United States may be able to prevent Iran from completing a weapon through continuing military intervention, but that's very different from having destroyed Iran's ability to obtain one. The US military itself admits this hasn't been accomplished yet by the way.
You simultaneously says Iran is “totally impotent” and “cannot retaliate,” while acknowledging that Iran continues launching missiles and is attacking third parties. Again, you concede the point. Those attacks have happened in the past week. Clearly this is not a completed objective, even if they have been weakened. Plus you carve out an exception (admitting you are wrong) when you say, “The only exception here are the Houthis in Yemen." By your own admission, it is not accomplished yet.
Your argument is the classically motte and bailey. What you are arguing is that Iran is badly weakened, America enjoys escalation dominance, and Iran isn't currently capable of reversing the military balance. I don't agree that is true, but it is a defensible argument. But what you are doing is claiming Trump won, then retreating to the motte of America is winning when called out. Maybe we're in a new postmodern war when you can just say you've won and you won, but by traditional metrics (and those defined by the admin) the war is so clearly not over that it isn't even a debate.
Clavicular
21d ago
The Strait was open before the war.[https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-war-hormuz-trump-yemen-houthis-2b126da67b09de2f328846eb656abe0e](It is not now). That is backwards progress. But I don't even care about this because even if it was open, it wasn't in the defined objectives before the war. At best its a return to the status quo and not a victory.
If victory requires the United States to keep bombing Iran indefinitely so Iran cannot rebuild, then Iran's nuclear/missile capability hasn't actually been permanently eliminated. This is tautological. What has been established is U.S. suppression of those programs, but nothing permanent.
Plus, you are repeatedly contradicting yourself and speaking out of both sides of your mouth. If Iran literally cannot build a weapon, there should be no need for repeated future bombing. Your argument concedes the point. The United States may be able to prevent Iran from completing a weapon through continuing military intervention, but that's very different from having destroyed Iran's ability to obtain one. The US military itself admits this hasn't been accomplished yet by the way.
You simultaneously says Iran is “totally impotent” and “cannot retaliate,” while acknowledging that Iran continues launching missiles and is attacking third parties. Again, you concede the point. Those attacks have happened in the past week. Clearly this is not a completed objective, even if they have been weakened. Plus you carve out an exception (admitting you are wrong) when you say, “The only exception here are the Houthis in Yemen." By your own admission, it is not accomplished yet.
Your argument is the classically motte and bailey. What you are arguing is that Iran is badly weakened, America enjoys escalation dominance, and Iran isn't currently capable of reversing the military balance. I don't agree that is true, but it is a defensible argument. But what you are doing is claiming Trump won, then retreating to the motte of America is winning when called out. Maybe we're in a new postmodern war when you can just say you've won and you won, but by traditional metrics (and those defined by the admin) the war is so clearly not over that it isn't even a debate.
Clavicular
21d ago
The Strait was open before the war.[https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-war-hormuz-trump-yemen-houthis-2b126da67b09de2f328846eb656abe0e](It is not now). That is backwards progress. But I don't even care about this because even if it was open, it wasn't in the defined objectives before the war. At best its a return to the status quo and not a victory.
If victory requires the United States to keep bombing Iran indefinitely so Iran cannot rebuild, then Iran's nuclear/missile capability hasn't actually been permanently eliminated. This is tautological. What has been established is U.S. suppression of those programs, but nothing permanent.
Plus, you are repeatedly contradicting yourself and speaking out of both sides of your mouth. If Iran literally cannot build a weapon, there should be no need for repeated future bombing. Your argument concedes the point. The United States may be able to prevent Iran from completing a weapon through continuing military intervention, but that's very different from having destroyed Iran's ability to obtain one. The US military itself admits this hasn't been accomplished yet by the way.
You simultaneously says Iran is “totally impotent” and “cannot retaliate,” while acknowledging that Iran continues launching missiles and is attacking third parties. Again, you concede the point. Those attacks have happened in the past week. Clearly this is not a completed objective, even if they have been weakened. Plus you carve out an exception (admitting you are wrong) when you say, “The only exception here are the Houthis in Yemen." By your own admission, it is not accomplished yet.
Your argument is the classically motte and bailey. What you are arguing is that Iran is badly weakened, America enjoys escalation dominance, and Iran isn't currently capable of reversing the military balance. I don't agree that is true, but it is a defensible argument. But what you are doing is claiming Trump won, then retreating to the motte of America is winning when called out. Maybe we're in a new postmodern war when you can just say you've won and you won, but by traditional metrics (and those defined by the admin) the war is so clearly not over that it isn't even a debate.
Clavicular
21d ago
The Strait was open before the war.[https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-war-hormuz-trump-yemen-houthis-2b126da67b09de2f328846eb656abe0e](It is not now). That is backwards progress. But I don't even care about this because even if it was open, it wasn't in the defined objectives before the war. At best its a return to the status quo and not a victory.
If victory requires the United States to keep bombing Iran indefinitely so Iran cannot rebuild, then Iran's nuclear/missile capability hasn't actually been permanently eliminated. This is tautological. What has been established is U.S. suppression of those programs, but nothing permanent.
Plus, you are repeatedly contradicting yourself and speaking out of both sides of your mouth. If Iran literally cannot build a weapon, there should be no need for repeated future bombing. Your argument concedes the point. The United States may be able to prevent Iran from completing a weapon through continuing military intervention, but that's very different from having destroyed Iran's ability to obtain one. The US military itself admits this hasn't been accomplished yet by the way.
You simultaneously says Iran is “totally impotent” and “cannot retaliate,” while acknowledging that Iran continues launching missiles and is attacking third parties. Again, you concede the point. Those attacks have happened in the past week. Clearly this is not a completed objective, even if they have been weakened. Plus you carve out an exception (admitting you are wrong) when you say, “The only exception here are the Houthis in Yemen." By your own admission, it is not accomplished yet.
Your argument is the classically motte and bailey. What you are arguing is that Iran is badly weakened, America enjoys escalation dominance, and Iran isn't currently capable of reversing the military balance. I don't agree that is true, but it is a defensible argument. But what you are doing is claiming Trump won, then retreating to the motte of America is winning when called out. Maybe we're in a new postmodern war when you can just say you've won and you won, but by traditional metrics (and those defined by the admin) the war is so clearly not over that it isn't even a debate.
Clavicular
21d ago
The Strait was open before the war.[https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-war-hormuz-trump-yemen-houthis-2b126da67b09de2f328846eb656abe0e](It is not now). That is backwards progress. But I don't even care about this because even if it was open, it wasn't in the defined objectives before the war. At best its a return to the status quo and not a victory.
If victory requires the United States to keep bombing Iran indefinitely so Iran cannot rebuild, then Iran's nuclear/missile capability hasn't actually been permanently eliminated. This is tautological. What has been established is U.S. suppression of those programs, but nothing permanent.
Plus, you are repeatedly contradicting yourself and speaking out of both sides of your mouth. If Iran literally cannot build a weapon, there should be no need for repeated future bombing. Your argument concedes the point. The United States may be able to prevent Iran from completing a weapon through continuing military intervention, but that's very different from having destroyed Iran's ability to obtain one. The US military itself admits this hasn't been accomplished yet by the way.
You simultaneously says Iran is “totally impotent” and “cannot retaliate,” while acknowledging that Iran continues launching missiles and is attacking third parties. Again, you concede the point. Those attacks have happened in the past week. Clearly this is not a completed objective, even if they have been weakened. Plus you carve out an exception (admitting you are wrong) when you say, “The only exception here are the Houthis in Yemen." By your own admission, it is not accomplished yet.
Your argument is the classically motte and bailey. What you are arguing is that Iran is badly weakened, America enjoys escalation dominance, and Iran isn't currently capable of reversing the military balance. I don't agree that is true, but it is a defensible argument. But what you are doing is claiming Trump won, then retreating to the motte of America is winning when called out. Maybe we're in a new postmodern war when you can just say you've won and you won, but by traditional metrics (and those defined by the admin) the war is so clearly not over that it isn't even a debate.
Clavicular
21d ago
The Strait was open before the war.[https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-war-hormuz-trump-yemen-houthis-2b126da67b09de2f328846eb656abe0e](It is not now). That is backwards progress. But I don't even care about this because even if it was open, it wasn't in the defined objectives before the war. At best its a return to the status quo and not a victory.
If victory requires the United States to keep bombing Iran indefinitely so Iran cannot rebuild, then Iran's nuclear/missile capability hasn't actually been permanently eliminated. This is tautological. What has been established is U.S. suppression of those programs, but nothing permanent.
Plus, you are repeatedly contradicting yourself and speaking out of both sides of your mouth. If Iran literally cannot build a weapon, there should be no need for repeated future bombing. Your argument concedes the point. The United States may be able to prevent Iran from completing a weapon through continuing military intervention, but that's very different from having destroyed Iran's ability to obtain one. The US military itself admits this hasn't been accomplished yet by the way.
You simultaneously says Iran is “totally impotent” and “cannot retaliate,” while acknowledging that Iran continues launching missiles and is attacking third parties. Again, you concede the point. Those attacks have happened in the past week. Clearly this is not a completed objective, even if they have been weakened. Plus you carve out an exception (admitting you are wrong) when you say, “The only exception here are the Houthis in Yemen." By your own admission, it is not accomplished yet.
Your argument is the classically motte and bailey. What you are arguing is that Iran is badly weakened, America enjoys escalation dominance, and Iran isn't currently capable of reversing the military balance. I don't agree that is true, but it is a defensible argument. But what you are doing is claiming Trump won, then retreating to the motte of America is winning when called out. Maybe we're in a new postmodern war when you can just say you've won and you won, but by traditional metrics (and those defined by the admin) the war is so clearly not over that it isn't even a debate.
Clavicular
21d ago
It was so interesting last time you just made a troll response and ignored it.
Clavicular
21d ago
Go back and reply to my arguments I tagged you in it again.
OP is making the mistake too of thinking the Iranians are negotiating in good faith.
More options
Context Copy link