2 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

I bet if you ask Obama, he would probably say he intended to accomplish the same goal by using money. How or where it comes from doesn't make this time different.

It didn't work last time, I bet it won't work this time.

I'm not very optimistic either. However, I do think slowly releasing funds, or as ClearedHot_AI states, "leverage" after conditions are met and continue to be met, is very different than dumping off pallets of hundreds.

If we're gonna do that let's just pay them in pennies, released from high altitude. We're discontuing them anyways...

20 hours ago, Pooter said:

Stock market - up (after the war tanked it)

Oil - down (after the war spiked it)

Straight - open (after the war closed it)

The Dow, oil prices, and commerce in the straight were all humming along just fine before we started this boondoggle and now that we trashed all three and have begun to unf—-k the situation I’m supposed to admit some big win happened? We are slowly progressing to get back to square one.

The mullahs and IRGC still run Iran. They still have nuclear material. They still have ballistic missiles that can hold our bases in the region at risk.

Now we’re lifting sanctions on Iran to get a fragile ceasefire and commitments that they won’t develop a nuke—which is exactly what the JCPOA was the whole time…

Again, this has already been addressed and answered so now we're just replaying the same song. Prices spike during conflict - we know this. The point is that things are trending in the right direction. Not getting worse. You're ignoring that.

They still have ballistic missiles? Ok, why aren't they using them then? Why aren't they fighting with everything they've got to stop us from collapsing their economy and regime? If they're so strong, they'd be striking back - that they're not is the tell. If they thought they had a shot militarily, they'd be taking it. They're calling "uncle" is what it is. But you're ignoring that.

The mullahs rule Iran? Says you. Currently it seems to me that there is a split developing between elements of the IRGC and the foreign ministry - as evidenced by Iranian authorities saying the straight is open, whilst elements of their "military" fire on ships. Seems like some sort of fracture may be presently developing internally. But what do I know? I'm only reading the news. You're ignoring that.

What is the alternative history you'd like to have seen play out? You won't articulate it. You will reference past agreements which weren't working (October 7th anyone?), but point at it as if it were succeeding. You ignore that.

By my calculus, we're knocking down foreign policy dominoes one after another. You clearly believe in the Obama/Jake Sullivan-style approach to foreign policy. I don't. That approach was never feasible and has been fully discredited.

I get it. You don't like this war. Strange considering it's gone quite well given previous estimates as to how "difficult" an Iranian conflict would be. Do you not see them as our adversary? Do you not see the utility and sometimes necessary use of military force? That's what it seems like to me. You strike me as someone who'd rather be a politician than a soldier. What about this: what conflicts in the past, which we have engaged in did you agree or disagree with? You can put a simple +/- if you think our participation was good or bad on the whole. I just don't think you believe in just war.

Bosnia? Desert Storm? Iraq II? Afghanistan? Libya? Korea? Somalia?

You don't even need to do that. Just give a little expository about any modern conflict you think we were justified in our intervention. See, I'm beginning to suspect that you just don't believe in war as a means to an end. You're ignoring too many positives for it to be anything except that. That we have a current one going on is just the latest thing you get to come onto the internet and vent your butt hurt about.