| ▲ | jazzypants 2 hours ago |
| If we have military hegemony, then why can't we open the strait of Hormuz? |
|
| ▲ | jimbob45 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| After all has been said about the ages of Biden and Trump, it’s ironic that having presidents with experience living through Vietnam and the Soviet-Afghan war has been so useful for their two terms. |
|
| ▲ | krapp 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| We did, at least a dozen times, in fact it was never even closed. What even is a "strait of Hormuz," I've never heard of such a thing. |
| |
| ▲ | hattmall an hour ago | parent [-] | | This maybe a bit of sarcasm, but it's actually accurate. The information was so contrived that multiple firms sent physical analysis to observe the strait in person. They all have said that the strait remains active with decreased but consistent transit. Regardless of who claimed the strait was open or closed. It's the reason oil markets are so hesitant to bid up futures contracts. |
|
|
| ▲ | mothballed 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The US could/can, they're just not willing to undergo the mass casualties it would take to put boots on the ground and put those boots up the ass of the people controlling Hormuz. Which absolutely cannot be achieved purely by air. |
| |
| ▲ | helsinkiandrew 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The US could/can, they're just not willing to undergo the mass casualties it would take to put boots on the ground It doesn’t matter what the reason, if you can’t do something you can’t do it. | | |
| ▲ | mothballed 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm not interested in a lengthy semantic debate about what "can" means but I'd hope we could agree at least one possible interpretation includes things you're unwilling but able to do. | | |
| ▲ | runako an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Generously, what difference does it make to any person if you technically achieve some result but in practice are not able to realize that end state? | | |
| ▲ | urams an hour ago | parent [-] | | Is it the case that if someone doesn't do something some time then they can't do that thing? Like, if you were playing basketball and Lebron James walked by and you threw the ball to him and said "dunk this!' and Lebron said "no, I'm not willing to" does this mean Lebron can't dunk? Because personally, I'd still take Lebron on a basketball team even if he wasn't willing to dunk the ball that one time. | | |
| ▲ | runako 37 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > if you were playing basketball and Lebron James walked by and you threw the ball to him Yes, this is a terrible analogy for the war in Iran. Hugely unpopular, costing Americans vast sums of money daily, headed for possible catastrophe. Very much not a low-stakes "Lebron walks by" situation. Better analogy with Lebron would be: championship game with a title on the line. He gets possession as time runs down and the team needs him to score or make a play that scores. It's not okay for him to then say he's fully capable of scoring but doesn't want to at just that moment for reasons. NB: this is not to say the US military couldn't cause untold damage on the region. This is obvious, anybody can look at recent history to see that the US military is more than capable of destroying a country in the region. Rather, this is an object lesson that war is politics by other means, and here we tried to do war without any politics and it has not gone well for us. |
|
| |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
| |
| ▲ | hattmall an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The US doesn't even need boots on the ground to open the strait. Forget US casualties. The US is concerned with minimizing Iranian casualties. The goal isn't to just open up Hormuz, it's to replace the last major source of instability in the region. The IRGC has like 10% popular support in their strongholds. The US just needs to hit them when they stick their head up as often as possible while not overly galvanizing the local populations. | | |
| ▲ | MrVandemar an hour ago | parent [-] | | > last major source of instability in the region. Are you forgetting the bad neighbor that keeps attacking most of its other neighbors, even while under ceasefire agreements? And then moving onto the land and saying "this is ours, time to redraw the border again.". Because that, to me, screams instability. | | |
| ▲ | digi59404 25 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | You mean the bad neighbor whom Iran has constantly funded attacks on from those other neighbors? The bad neighbor who has IRGC Funded terrorist and militant cells along its very border? You mean the bad neighbor whom comes under rocket fire on a routine basis? Are we forgetting that Iran is the one who has funded Hamas and Hezbollah and provided them safe haven? Maybe that bad neighbor wouldn’t be a bad neighbor and be attacking the other neighbors. If the other neighbors did not provide shelter for those who wish to burn down the bad neighbors house? Point is - Iran plays a SIGNIFICANT role in the destabilization of the region. That bad neighbor might be a good neighbor if Iran wasn’t attacking it via proxies. But I suspect we’re not ready to have that nuanced conversation yet. | |
| ▲ | hattmall an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I get it, but no, that's not leading to regional instability that actual hostile nations and leadership have been responsible for creating in the region. |
|
| |
| ▲ | _dark_matter_ 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is just a different way if saying that we can't. |
|
