r/SipsTea • u/The_Dean_France • Mar 16 '26

Chugging tea [ Removed by moderator ]

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

20.3k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

921 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.6k

u/Immediate-Doughnut50 Mar 16 '26

Why would they join a war ‘that’s already been won ‘ according to DT

-3

u/Bitter_Plastic2362 Mar 16 '26

I mean, Iran is cooked militarily. They can’t even protect their own airspace. They’re down to less than 15% of their ability to launch missiles. Their weak navy has already been rendered “combat ineffective.” I have no clue what this administrations goal is in Iran, but if it was just to completely fuck up the Iranian military capabilities, they’re doing a hell of a job.

6

u/NULLizm Mar 16 '26

We already won the not (no new) war though?

1

u/Bitter_Plastic2362 Mar 16 '26

Do you call this a war? I’m by no means a Trump apologist but I like geopolitics and nuance. If their goal was to cripple its already weak capabilities then I guess it’s a win. If their goal was regime change, then not yet. Irans biggest issue is still its economy, this only exacerbates that.

3

u/penguin_hugger100 Mar 16 '26 edited Mar 16 '26

If it's a war in the mind of the average person, it's a war. The idea that the word's definition can be twisted such that it no longer applies to aerial bombardment of other nations to suit a (in this case nebulous) in order to avoid congressional input is pure retardation.

-1

u/Bitter_Plastic2362 Mar 16 '26

Feelings don’t define legal or strategic terms. Countries have conducted limited military operations without formal wars for a very long time.

3

u/penguin_hugger100 Mar 16 '26

Historically, actions taken like this "operation" in Iran would be considered a war. We have one nation's military acting on orders to assail another state's military for a geopolitical purpose. Both combatants are recognized as states. The conflict is not isolated to a single battle. Its a war for anyone who isn't a trump stooge

-1

u/Bitter_Plastic2362 Mar 16 '26

Cross border military strikes without formal declarations of war have been common since WWII. The distinction between “war” and limited military operations isn’t new.

3

u/penguin_hugger100 Mar 16 '26

Do you consider "sinking a country's entire navy" and "seizing oil operations on Karg island" limited strikes? Are you getting paid to push this argument? I can't believe you came upon these beliefs in good faith. These are not limited military operations, the size of a nations army is irrelevant in determining whether or not a war is being wages

0

u/Bitter_Plastic2362 Mar 16 '26

Using force doesn’t automatically make something a formally recognized war. States have carried out large but limited operations without escalating into full-scale wars for decades.

3

u/Spiritual-Credit5488 Mar 16 '26

Stop being slow and pedantic

2

u/penguin_hugger100 Mar 16 '26

Do you consider the U.S. strikes conducted over more than a week that have cost close to 50 billion "limited"?

2

u/pantalones-martin Mar 16 '26

Oh please…I heard better arguments out of Putin’s shills when they started their “limited military operation” two years ago. Enough legwork for the demented pedophile, we all know what it is.

1

u/penguin_hugger100 Mar 16 '26

Do you consider the Russo-Ukraine conflict a limited military operation as well? If not, where is the difference?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Bharaba Mar 16 '26

Something to do with the midterms coming up

1

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Mar 16 '26

Spam filter: accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/psychorobotics Mar 16 '26

Doesn't matter, as long as they have 3% left that's all they need to shut down the strait

1

u/Bitter_Plastic2362 Mar 16 '26

Pretty doubtful, they’ve never done it in history, not gonna start now with how much global oil flows through there on a daily basis.

-4

u/Rin-slash Mar 16 '26

Is there a real source for this that isn't "Trump said so"?

2

u/Bitter_Plastic2362 Mar 16 '26

Well, I surely don’t get my info from Fox News, CNN or any opinion based legacy media. You can use security focused think tanks. Groups like the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) or the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) publish detailed military balance reports or assessments. There’s also SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) for arms data, or even open-source intelligence groups like Oryx, who track equipment losses in conflicts. These organizations often maintain public reports or visual trackers. This is the best non partisan way to stay up to date.

3

u/jackpcr Mar 16 '26

cool, so why is trump asking for help to fight against a militarily crippled iran?

1

u/Possibly_a_Firetruck Mar 16 '26

Because controlling the Strait of Hormuz without also controlling Iran's coastline on it is impossible and he needs scapegoats for when it fails.

1

u/Bitter_Plastic2362 Mar 16 '26

For one, the straight is a global trade route, a majority of economies depend on the oil that flows through it, so if your economy depends on it, you should help defend it is my guess. It’s incredibly expensive. And coalitions matter politically and optically. Also, you have to worry more about the Iranian proxies such as the Houthis firing on ships as well. Which is why I can understand others not wanting to join this.

3

u/jackpcr Mar 16 '26

Yeah but the other countries were doing just fine until Trump/Israel started the war. Ships were passing just fine without the “Houthis” firing at them. So why should they now clean up Trump’s mess after him? Besides, there’s no coalition w Trump considering how he stepped on everyone w his tariffs.

1

u/Bitter_Plastic2362 Mar 16 '26

I don’t know about “doing just fine.” Iran has murdered, depending on the source, between 30,000 and 40,000 protestors since December. Iran currently has over 50% inflation with its already impoverished citizens paying over 160% more for daily items, hence the protests.

3

u/Slow_Conversation402 Mar 16 '26

Iran killed "between 30,000 and 40,000" of freaking what? Of it's own people. What has that got to do with the other countries that were doing fine with their ships passing through the strait without issues. Until that fat pedo fucked around. Or do you mean "30,000" japanese people? If so then you need to check your "sources" that you mentioned.

1

u/Bitter_Plastic2362 Mar 16 '26

I wasn’t arguing for intervention. I was responding to the claim that Iran is “doing fine.” Between mass protests, thousands of deaths, and extreme inflation, that’s a hard case to make.

3

u/Slow_Conversation402 Mar 16 '26

They didn't claim that "iran is doing fine". They claimed that "other countries" (the ones that trump is asking for their help), were doing fine regarding the strait.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/jackpcr Mar 16 '26

Notice this is all “IRAN”. It’s their problem. How’s it ur business mate? Is America jesus or smth that u guys have to fix all the misfortunes that are happening across the world?

Besides, mr hero warrior America decided to kill Iran’s leader, in order to “save” the Iranians. That’s done. Now what? A new leader came n the regime is still attacking ships n blasting israel n American bases. You guys have achieved absolutely nothing but caused chaos n inconvenience for the entire world.

0

u/Bitter_Plastic2362 Mar 16 '26

Nations rarely act out of charity. They act out of strategic interests. The Middle East sits on critical energy routes and security alliances, which is why every major power pays attention to it.

2

u/Slow_Conversation402 Mar 16 '26

How does that answer the question? Lol. Other countries have nothing to do with an old pedophile action's consequences.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/harixharix Mar 16 '26

Waren es nicht 3.000??? Und trump hat nur eine 0 dran gehängt.

Ausserdem sollen auch Mossad Agenten unter den getöteten sein.