For those on the left rooting for Iran, here is a question

Jarod said:
I am not an expert in the Hormuz Stright but I have heard several very reputable experts explain it in a way that makes sense to me. Much like how the US could not stop Iraqi militias from placing Bombs on roadsides that blew up our people and trucks.
Click to expand...
Who are these reputable experts you speak of? Name names.
 
apzstc.jpg
 
Teflon Don said:
As you twist yourselves in knots over every Trump utterance or this ship passing or that ship passing, ask yourself this question. Absent us just pulling out and leaving, what choice does Iran have but to surrender? What cards do they have to play?

According to you, they have no nuclear weapons to deploy? Their armies and navy have effectively been defeated. Their leadership decapitated.

While you complain about Trump "backing down", he is actually showing restraint. While he may say the words, he doesn't want to completely obliterate the country.

But, the reality is that the regime doesn't have many cards to play. How long do you think they can realistically hold out before reality dawns on them? Sure they don't want to do it. Just like the Japanese and Germans didn't want to surrender. But sooner or later reality comes knocking and as I said as long as we don't prematurely squander our advance, then it isn't a matter of if they will surrender it is a matter of when.

Now how many JPP marxists are up to the task of actually debating this without descending to "Trump said this or Trump said that" or "TACO this and TACO that"?

I don't think many, but I am open to being surprised
Click to expand...
I predict this will turn into a mini-China proxy war, we will fuck all their stuff they give the IRGC up, they will be cutting off their own oil supply like derp, and hopefully the remnants of ISIS that are in Iran right now get blasted to kingdom come.
 
Matt Dillon said:
I predict this will turn into a mini-China proxy war, we will fuck all their stuff they give the IRGC up, they will be cutting off their own oil supply like derp, and hopefully the remnants of ISIS that are in Iran right now get blasted to kingdom come.
Click to expand...
ISIS is funded and run by the West.
 
Teflon Don said:
As you twist yourselves in knots over every Trump utterance or this ship passing or that ship passing, ask yourself this question. Absent us just pulling out and leaving, what choice does Iran have but to surrender? What cards do they have to play?

According to you, they have no nuclear weapons to deploy? Their armies and navy have effectively been defeated. Their leadership decapitated.

While you complain about Trump "backing down", he is actually showing restraint. While he may say the words, he doesn't want to completely obliterate the country.

But, the reality is that the regime doesn't have many cards to play. How long do you think they can realistically hold out before reality dawns on them? Sure they don't want to do it. Just like the Japanese and Germans didn't want to surrender. But sooner or later reality comes knocking and as I said as long as we don't prematurely squander our advance, then it isn't a matter of if they will surrender it is a matter of when.

Now how many JPP marxists are up to the task of actually debating this without descending to "Trump said this or Trump said that" or "TACO this and TACO that"?

I don't think many, but I am open to being surprised
Click to expand...

1. Fact-checking key claims​

❌ “Their armies and navy have effectively been defeated”​

  • Not supported by public evidence.
  • Iran’s military has not been defeated in any conventional sense.
  • While Iran has faced sanctions, proxy conflicts, and targeted strikes on affiliated groups, its armed forces remain intact and operational.

❌ “Their leadership decapitated”​

  • False or at least unsubstantiated as stated.
  • There has been no verified “decapitation” of Iran’s national leadership (e.g., Supreme Leader, IRGC top command as a whole, or state governance structure).
  • Some individual commanders in regional conflicts have been killed over time, but that is not equivalent to “leadership decapitation.”

⚠️ “What choice does Iran have but to surrender?”​

  • This is not a factual claim but a rhetorical assertion.
  • Iran continues to have multiple strategic options (military deterrence, asymmetric warfare, proxy activity, diplomacy, escalation management, etc.).
  • Whether any actor “must surrender” is speculative and depends on political and military dynamics that are not fixed or inevitable.

✔️ “They have no nuclear weapons”​

  • Accurate in the narrow sense.
  • Iran is not confirmed to possess nuclear weapons.
  • However, it does have a significant nuclear program and enrichment capability, which is often part of deterrence discussions.

⚠️ “Like the Japanese and Germans didn’t want to surrender”​

  • Historically simplistic analogy.
  • Both WWII surrenders were driven by overwhelming military defeat, occupation, and collapse of capacity to continue war.
  • Iran today is not in a comparable total-war situation (no invasion, no unconditional surrender demand, no total collapse scenario).

⚠️ “Trump is showing restraint”​

  • Interpretive/subjective claim.
  • Whether a political figure is “showing restraint” depends on interpretation of actions, intent, and policy context.
  • This is not objectively verifiable.

2. Bias and rhetorical analysis​

Strong ideological framing​

  • The comment uses highly adversarial language:
    • “regime” (pejorative framing of Iran’s government)
    • “marxists” (dismissive label for critics)
    • “twist yourselves in knots” (mocking opponents)
  • This indicates low neutrality and persuasive intent rather than analysis.

Straw man argument​

  • It caricatures critics as only reacting to “Trump said this or that,” without engaging actual arguments about policy, escalation risk, or international law concerns.

False dilemma​

  • “What choice does Iran have but to surrender?” assumes only two options:
    • surrender
    • collapse/annihilation
      This ignores intermediate outcomes (negotiation, deterrence stability, proxy escalation, de-escalation).

War inevitability framing​

  • The logic suggests inevitability (“not if, but when”), which is deterministic and unsupported in international relations.
  • State behavior is contingent, not predetermined.

Emotional and comparative rhetoric​

  • WWII comparisons (Japan/Germany) are used to imply inevitability of surrender, which is a common rhetorical shortcut but often misleading due to very different geopolitical contexts.

3. Overall assessment​

  • Factual reliability: Mixed to low
    • Some accurate basics (Iran not confirmed nuclear-armed)
    • Several major unsupported or exaggerated claims (military defeat, leadership “decapitation,” inevitability of surrender)
  • Analytical quality: Low
    • Heavy on assertion, low on evidence or nuance
  • Bias level: High
    • Strong pro-confrontation framing
    • Dismissive of opposing viewpoints
    • Loaded terminology and rhetorical framing
    • Simplifies complex geopolitical dynamics into binary outcomes

Bottom line​

This is not a neutral analysis. It is a politically charged argument that blends a few factual points with significant exaggeration, false dilemmas, and rhetorical framing designed to support a predetermined conclusion (Iran inevitably must surrender).
 
Jarod said:
I don’t feel like it right now, you can find runs of them on yourube
Click to expand...
So that means you have nothing. I figured as much.

LOL I don’t feel like it you say.

What exactly do you want me to look up on YouTube? Hormuz expert?

I m thinking all you have is a Hormel chili expert
 
Jarod said:
I don’t feel like it right now, you can find runs of them on yourube
Click to expand...
Do you feel like it now? When are you goin to feel like it? I mean if you have any hope of changing hearts and minds surely you should share these so called experts that have you swayed.

You want to send me on some random YouTube goose chase. As much as you have been posting on this topic, these experts should just flow off the tip of your fingertips. You shouldn't even have to think about it or look it up.

What are you hiding?
 
Supporting the troops is not wanting them to fight needless wars for resources. I want them to serve safely and not fight wars of choice. Wanting them to fight in the Middle East is not backing them, but accepting their lives should be risked at Trump's whims,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top