You asked me what I want and I told you. If you wanted to know something else, like what I think is certain, it would have been a different conversation. That's not the question you asked, don't act like I'm unreasonable for answering the one you actually asked.

we're discussing an actual war and you responded to me multiple times with something that even you think is entirely unrealistic? lol.

i said all along you're in fantasy land, im glad on that we agree.

since we're at this point in the conversation, i want the straight of hormuz to have a massive reconstruction project to move all of the soil to a point about 10 miles off Lebanon and create a nation for Palestinians, then i want each american to receive 1 million inflation proof dollars, plus lets end child cancer.

i think i dog walked you through how unrealistic your wants are, and now all you have is to admit they're unrealistic. do recall this whole conversation started because you asked me how realistic it is to assume the nuclear sites are destroyed. you grounded the conversation in reality, then built into fantasy land. ive been in reality the whole time, because unrealistic hypotheticals arent worth anything in an actual hot war. in fact part of the reason we are even in the war is because of idiotic idealogues that actually think these silly hypotheticals are likely outcomes. trump stated openly he is demanding unconditional surrender, and almost no wars end that way. surrenders, yes, unconditional, no.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Mar 13 2026 11:09am

No. I didn't say I thought it was "entirely unrealistic". I said it's not certain. I think it's quite a realistic aim, but if you want an alternative I'd be happy with bombing their nuclear sites every 2 months, bombing visible construction whenever possible etc. If they refuse terms.

Again, you don't get to just make things up and pretend that's what I said, that's poor behavior.

Some of my thoughts on this so far.

This conflict is deeply unpopular in the US. Unlike Iraq even Afghanistan there isn't one side that's wholesale behind POTUS on this. I voted for Trump but this was a mistake and think his advisors deeply miscalculated the Iranian response. Maybe too much hubris on the back of the Venezuela raid? Most Republicans are against it tbh, beside the neocons and war criminal faggots like Lindsey Graham.

I expect there to be some level of horse trading that happens between Trump-Xi on March 31st that may lead to de-escalation. If this doesn't happen and Hormuz stays close for months, Republicans are going to be fucked for the midterms. Even if war ends this month, there will be probably several months of elevated oil prices and consumer pressure as a result. Voters have recency bias and Trump IMO has a pretty short runway for this not to wipe out Republicans in Nov.

you should have just said you thought what i said was true, thinking its a quite realistic aim just makes you look foolish. you dropped the W and took an L here.

I generally agree with your assertions. Day by day less and less voices speaking up in favor. At least prior admins feigned an attempt to sway public before taking action. Admin is breaking records in losing public trust.

Assuming a conflict with Iran was inevitable - Do you think future state US would be in a better position to combat them than now? Also - as it's early in the conflict. Would a US win (regime change to western alignment) better position US interests against the real foes China/Russia?


The strategy of being unprepared for the Iranian response of targeting and disrupting trade is absolutely a clown show. Western Nations had plenty of time and data to build a contingency after recent main blockages and COVID restrictions. On top of the mountain of alleged top intelligence apparatus.

I don't think it was inevitable. Fundamentally they want to develop nukes because every 2 months Israel basically wipes out a bunch of Iranians at will. A proud country of 90 million at some point will not let this happen to them. I have no love for IRGC but this is a existential fight for them. Either make a stand now or just endlessly get ground down by these strikes. Even if they abandoned the nuke program the strikes would continue because the goal is to completely break them and having the nuke deterrent is the only way.

The only one and true equal to the US is China. Whether we get bogged down in Ukraine or Iran, it diminishes our will and resources for potential war or even deterrence with China. The pace we've used anti-air munitions is not sustainable and with a true heavy weight like China we don't have the industrial base to stop thousands of missiles and tens of thousands of drones.

The blockage of Hormuz disproportionally hurts Asia. It's a two edged sword though, makes China more vulnerable as they need these natural resources but it also sacrifices our allies as well. SK, Japan, GCC countries. These have to be asking themselves, what's the point of having friends like the US when we are the first to be sacrificed economically for geopolitical benefit to the US? The war was a bad gamble for the US. A lot more to lose then to win IMO.

i personally dont see how a new western friendly regime (if we could even pull that off) is a net positive for the USA.

china got very little of it's oil from Iran, but some. so that hurts a bit, but only marginal.

China's greatest interest in Iran is weapon's supply that they can collect data from when they're sparring with Israel or the Saudis, both of which are supplied with US tech. so it was just a good way for them to real world war game gainst US weapons and interceptors. but while they cant do that long term, we're giving them MOUNTAINS of short term data. they now know that it takes 5 interceptors to take down a single missile, they will know our stock pile, they'll know our restock capabilities, they'll know how we coordinate the systems, where we take them from if we have a target we want to truly protect, etc. We're foreshadowing a future conflict and they've given us almost no data in return. soon we'll likely see drones vs drones if the conflict protracts, like in Ukraine, and maybe there we can get some real data for our own interests.

but overall imo its much better for china than the usa. its bad for iran, looks bad for israel, is really bad for other allies in the region, and the other fronts of the Israeli war are getting destroyed while eyes are on Tehran.

Like I said, not about the nukes. Israel wants to break the IRGC, that has always been the point of the war.



https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/2032563873056727298?s=46

I'd rather be wrong than be repeatedly misrepresenting people in some vain attempt to win an argument on the internet.

But the fact that we disagree is not an "L" for me. I guess it's a matter of perspective.