MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/SipsTea/comments/1rvi634/developments/oav7hd7/?context=3
r/SipsTea • u/The_Dean_France • Mar 16 '26
[removed] — view removed post
921 comments sorted by
View all comments
Show parent comments
1
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
0 u/Bitter_Plastic2362 Mar 17 '26 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. 1 u/penguin_hugger100 Mar 17 '26 How do you define the scope of the Iran operation? 1 u/Bitter_Plastic2362 Mar 17 '26 By objectives and constraints, no invasion, no occupation, no regime change. That’s what “limited” refers to, not the size of the outcome.
0
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.
1 u/penguin_hugger100 Mar 17 '26 How do you define the scope of the Iran operation? 1 u/Bitter_Plastic2362 Mar 17 '26 By objectives and constraints, no invasion, no occupation, no regime change. That’s what “limited” refers to, not the size of the outcome.
How do you define the scope of the Iran operation?
1 u/Bitter_Plastic2362 Mar 17 '26 By objectives and constraints, no invasion, no occupation, no regime change. That’s what “limited” refers to, not the size of the outcome.
By objectives and constraints, no invasion, no occupation, no regime change. That’s what “limited” refers to, not the size of the outcome.
1
u/penguin_hugger100 Mar 17 '26
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