4 hours ago, Negat0ry said:

You’re just reiterating talking points that mean nothing.

pK miss. I gave the succinct, accurate answer that can be written on an Internet forum. You have no clue what’s actually going on, but by all means, continue to run your mouth and make an ass out of yourself.

21 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

All good now>

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.riffsy.FBMGIFApp

26 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

All good now>

Updated

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

They would. I would consider it materially the same as parking a bunch of warships around Iran. At a certain point you have to accept the semantic limitations, and get to the point. And for me, the point is we should not take over Iran and attempt to transform it in the way we did Afghanistan or Iraq. Taking Kharg Island is about taking resources with strategic geopolitical consequences and applying pressure. Kind of like taking Maduro. Outside of starving the regime of money, it does nothing to give the Iranian people a better future, something that I consider their obligation, not ours.

And what happens when a few thousand marines are on Kharg island and then Iran, having now lost access to their own fossil fuel infrastructure, just says fuck it and starts lobbing TBMs at the place? Missiles are already getting through in PSAB and Tel Aviv, how do you think this is gonna go when we have ground troops on Iran’s doorstep as sitting ducks holding some shithole oil depot? God forbid a bunch of marines are injured or killed holding this stupid island, and then what happens? We just take our ball and go home? LOL you and I both know that’ll just be the excuse for the next incremental boots on the ground good idea fairy.

Do you guys not see the escalation ladder clearly laid out in front of us?

You guys keep saying you won’t support a 20 year nation building boondoggles. Great, thanks for that. Super easy to say in hindsight. But you all seem completely blind to (or supportive of) the incremental escalations sitting right in front of us, that are leading us down this path.

@FourFans and @Negat0ry , you guys are going after the "illegal orders" straw man pretty hard. You can let it go. 17D is questioning the legality of the entire operation based on a court-established timeline precedent which has been repeatedly used to side-step and violate the constitution for decades before you, me, or anyone else ever considered joining the military. Vietnam, Korea, Iraq 1, Iraq 2, Afghanistan, and so on. In precisely zero of these 'operations' did Congress ever declare war. Again, you can spare me the refrain to article 8. We can all read. Someone else did a good job drawing out the distinction for you: yes, you have a basis and duty to question the legality of orders like "drop a bomb on this mosque." That's not what 17D was doing. As a line officer, you're on pretty shaky ground the second you start engaging in constitutional lawyership and pontificating about who does or doesn't have the authority to deploy me.

My intent was to underscore the hypocrisy of asking questions on this basis now, after swearing an oath rooted in the very precedent he now seems to be trying to overturn. You (we) all looked at the rules of the game before we started playing, decided they were satisfactory, and now that we're on the field, some of us have started questioning the rule book because a few are upset that there's a new head coach. That's what I'm calling out. That's the opposite of the officership I'm talking about. It's rooted in self-service, not service to the country. It points either at the lack of introspection someone had when they swore the oath, or a newly found distaste for the flavor of the month. Neither are very officer-like. Feel free to misread this yet again and continue white knighting for the constitution.