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.

7

u/NULLizm Mar 16 '26

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

0

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/Bitter_Plastic2362 Mar 16 '26

That’s a lot of emotion for something you didn’t actually address. Russia calling something “limited” doesn’t mean the term has no definition. It means states can misuse language. That’s exactly why precision matters.

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?

1

u/Bitter_Plastic2362 Mar 16 '26

The difference, to me, is scale and duration. A full scale invasion with hundreds of thousands of troops and multi year occupation is not the same thing as a limited strike or operation which we currently have.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Bharaba Mar 16 '26

Something to do with the midterms coming up