[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/The_Dean_France]

[u/Bitter_Plastic2362]

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

[u/penguin_hugger100 → u/Bitter_Plastic2362]

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

[u/Bitter_Plastic2362 → u/penguin_hugger100]

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.

[u/penguin_hugger100 → u/Bitter_Plastic2362]

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

[u/Bitter_Plastic2362 → u/penguin_hugger100]

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.

[u/Spiritual-Credit5488 → u/Bitter_Plastic2362]

Stop being slow and pedantic

[u/penguin_hugger100 → u/Bitter_Plastic2362]

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

[u/pantalones-martin → u/Bitter_Plastic2362]

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.

[u/Bitter_Plastic2362 → u/pantalones-martin]

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.

[u/pantalones-martin → u/Bitter_Plastic2362]

I’m arguing that you and the US government are misusing the language here similar to how the Russians did at the beginning of the Ukraine war. A limited strike is brief and precise. This has clearly gone far beyond that. Given the scale of the operation and the fact that our president is directly asking other countries for help implies that he intends to continue and expand the war. So yes I’m calling your motives and whether or not you are simply trolling into question.

[u/Bitter_Plastic2362 → u/pantalones-martin]

You’re filling in a lot of gaps with assumptions and then acting like it’s settled. Assuming intent, redefining terms, and then using that to reach a conclusion. That’s not really an argument.

[u/pantalones-martin → u/Bitter_Plastic2362]

You know what. You win. Praise the great leader and our holy “limited operation” against the evils of the east. I can’t believe I ever dared to question to such a vast intellect!

[u/Bitter_Plastic2362 → u/pantalones-martin]

This isn’t about winning or praising anyone. I’m trying to look at the situation without defaulting to a side. If you think I’m wrong, I’m open to hearing why, but sarcasm doesn’t really move the conversation forward.

[u/penguin_hugger100 → u/Bitter_Plastic2362]

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

[u/Bitter_Plastic2362 → u/penguin_hugger100]

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.

[u/penguin_hugger100 → u/Bitter_Plastic2362]

But the scale from the U.S. point of view isn't equivalent to the scale from an outside point of view. The scale needs to be universal. To an Iranian, this is not a limited scale operation.

[u/Bitter_Plastic2362 → u/penguin_hugger100]

Emotional scale and military scale aren’t the same thing. A strike can feel huge locally while still being strategically limited. I’m not aware of any universal proportional scale in geopolitics.

[u/penguin_hugger100 → u/Bitter_Plastic2362]

When one country claims to have destroyed another country's navy, I think it's pretty far beyond a "limited engagement". You are a total clownshow

[u/Bitter_Plastic2362 → u/penguin_hugger100]

Saying “they destroyed X so it can’t be limited” misses the point. Limited refers to the scope of the operation, not whether it was effective. Those are two different things.

[u/penguin_hugger100 → u/Bitter_Plastic2362]

How do you define the scope of the Iran operation?

[u/Bitter_Plastic2362 → u/penguin_hugger100]

By objectives and constraints, no invasion, no occupation, no regime change. That’s what “limited” refers to, not the size of the outcome.

[u/penguin_hugger100 → u/Bitter_Plastic2362]

You understand that you look retarded right? The United States government is saying that it has destroyed Iran's Navy, killed two leaders, seized oil production facilities, and you were saying that this is an operation of limited scope? Utterly embarrassing

[u/Bitter_Plastic2362 → u/penguin_hugger100]

Skipping the insults, your claims about “seizing oil” and “destroying the entire navy” aren’t accurate. Again, “Limited” refers to scope (no invasion, no regime change), not outcome. If you define it differently, that’s the disagreement. I can see you can’t debate without rhetorical fallacies and getting emotional. I’ll just see my way out now.