politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Nukes are defensive, this seems to work for both defence and offence
Meh. States in the Arabian peninsula just need to enlarge the already existing pipelines that run north to Turkey, the Mediterranean, and the Caucuses and south to the Arabian Sea. Bypass the straight entirely. Existing pipelines demonstrate that someone has already had this idea long ago, but for whatever reason (logical efficiency..) existing infrastructure is sea based and passes through the straight. This is very easily corrected, and the states involved have the cash to do it, and demand for their product exists- strongly. Iran has played their very weak hand very well- for now. This round, they win. Next round, maybe not so likely. The Sunni states on the Arabian peninsula have no love for the Shia or for Iran. It'll take a few years to reconfigure, but the days of Iran's advantage here are numbered and finite.
It only works when the US navy doesn't engage the way it can. Trump lost there because he pulled out the navy but left it limp, just sitting on the front yard. If it went hard and actually did something substantial, the picture would have been very different.
How could the navy had gone harder? Should they move closer so air refueling is not necessary? This would probably get them hit.
Trump ran into the same problem Dubya and his daddy did in Iraq & Afghanistan- sure we can topple the government and defeat their military. That's easy-peasy. But after we do that, who's gonna run the country? In all cases, the answer is "nobody who is acceptable to the US", so the US ends up having to step in and run the place for a time so that it doesn't immediately devolve into "new boss, same old bullshit". Leave a political vacuum in that part of the world and it gets filled by Al Quaida, ISIS, Taliban, or other radical groups that battle it out among themselves for decades, creating another Lebanon. Or Iraq. Or Afghanistan.
The government has been trying this weird half-assed interventionism since actual interventionism is such a hard sell post-Iraq and Afghanistan. Some bombing here, an attempt to arm rebel groups there... and if it fails, that's for the locals to clean up. I'd argue this goes back to Obama and Trump continued it, but in a room temp IQ way that only Trump can manage.
If by different you mean the loss of american war ships and the same result, sure.
Not saying those are not capable ships, just that that is not the environment they where made to operate in. A nightmare theater for any navy, let alone one with almost no small escort ships (an issue they are well aware of). To make it worse there is nothing for them to do, nothing to really fight there, just risk, mines, minisubs, and land based death. I can see an destroyer in that strait intercepting missiles and drones all day, but to what end? No civilian tanker was going to join them.
It sounds like cope but... yeah pretty much this. Trump was too scared of dead soldiers, a sunk boat or downed planes to allow any commitment of assets in a way that would have accomplished any of his goals, and as a result the US military was stuck with strategies proved useless by HERMANN FUCKING GORING. It was such a fucking ridiculous loss of life because seventy years of military history have shown that it could never have accomplished anything and was entirely just trump being a pissbaby, but this time with a couple thousand dead people as a backdrop.
FUCK this fucking administration.