Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Oldbear83 said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:boognish_bear said:.@RepThomasMassie is ratio-ing ALL of the FoxHeads today. Check your neck. pic.twitter.com/jy9QMN8GZ9
— Lance 'Doc' Pearson 🅙 (@DocLanceP) May 31, 2026
Always found the isolationist mindset fascinating in today's global world.
It's almost as if these guys believe that the rest of the world has weapons incapable of hitting us.
Always found the interventionist mindset fascinating in today's global world.
It's almost as if these guys believe the rest of the world has weapons incapable of hitting us.
This is what you would call a false binary. In reality there's a broad middle ground of strategic alliances, deterrence, and selective involvement that is somewhere in the middle of intervention and isolationism.
Of course, the isolationists seem to assume that hostile actors will behave peacefully if left alone and that disengagement won't create power vacuums for other countries to fill, both of which history suggests are risky assumptions. The truth is modern capabilities make distance largely irrelevant, and the void WILL be filled, often times by bad actors (see China).
The real question isn't whether to engage at all, but how to balance involvement and restraint in a world where threats and influence don't stay contained. Nobody's suggested a return to neocon policies, but isolationism also isn't the answer.
This interventionist mindset is what you would call a false binary. In reality there's a broad middle ground of strategic alliances, deterrence, and selective involvement that is somewhere in the middle of intervention and isolationism.
Of course, the interventionists seem to assume that hostile actors will behave peacefully if we constantly attack them and that interventionist engagement won't create power vacuums for other countries or different hostile actors within attacked countries to fill, both of which history suggests are risky assumptions. The truth is modern capabilities make distance largely irrelevant and we shouldn't go intervening around the world as if these guys won't ever be able to hit us, especially with the assistance, bad actors (see China).
The real question isn't whether to engage at all, but how to balance involvement and restraint in a world where threats and influence don't stay contained. Nobody's suggested a return to pure isolationism policies, but neocon America as world police style intervention also isn't the answer.
While I think you might need to check the definition of "false binary," I don't disagree with your strawman argument. As I said, I've never advocated for interventionism.
On the other hand, you have advocated for pretty strict isolationism on these boards. Glad to see your mindset has changed. Is providing military support or financial support for, say, a Taiwan or Ukraine, a good idea, or still beyond the pale for you? Still believe trying to check Iranian nuclear ambitions to be a bad idea?
Beyond the pale for me if it involves American troops (especially general infantry) in overseas battles.
Deterrence and (perhaps) arms sales to build up regional actors/alliances for things outside of the western hemisphere. Strong intervention in anything involving the western hemisphere.
I think the current stalemate in Iran demonstrates the folly there. You were adamant that I was wrong about Iran and that we could control Iran/prevent nuclear armament without boots on the ground. My position, that Iran would absolutely require boots on the ground to achieve our strategic objectives, and thus my opposition to involvement there, is becoming more right by the day. Unless Trump is willing to deploy troops, Iran is going to come out of this in a strategically stronger position.
We are in agreement on your first two paragraphs. What's interesting, is that has always been my position. And to think I thought I was talking to a strict isolationist and you thought you were talking with a neocon.
As for Iran, while I agreed with taking out nuclear sites through surgical strikes (and still do), I've never argued this current conflict was a good course of action.
Taking out nuclear sites is whack-a-mole game that will eventually be lost. To win that game we have to get lucky every time. For our side to lose, they have to get lucky once....
Permanent nuclear prevention requires regime change. Which requires boots on the ground. Otherwise, it looks exactly like it looks right now.
While there are no good options, the option of doing nothing is a worse option, IMO. Relying on the good will of a regime that wants us destroyed is not a viable option.
What it looks like right now is a seriously weakened regime without much in the way of nuclear capabilities. I'll take that over what you propose - doing nothing.
Unless we put boots on the ground, Iran is going to come out of this in a stronger position for the short to medium term. They'll either get nukes (least likely option) or explicit control over the Strait of Hormuz.
Disagree, in part because there are things unknown to the public which drive the outcomes. Problem is, the truth of the matter depends on who you listen to.
I'm not arguing with you right now. Just for posterity, I want to go on the record:
There will be no internally driven regime change in Iran.
They are going to keep the Strait blockaded until they come out of this in a materially better position. It will look something like the following for Iran:
A. A regional defense bloc along the lines of NATO involving the Gulf states.
B. Right to procure or develop nukes (least likely).
C. Economic control over the Strait. It won't be a toll as that would be illegal under international law, but it'll be something like a navigation fee. This will be useful for the medium term, but new pipelines will be built to get around the Strait.
Unless we put boots on the ground, the above is how this will end.
To toot my own horn, I was on record that Israel was heading into Lebanon weeks before it happened. And I still believe Lebanon was what the most recent attacks on Iran were really about.
Didn't you also predict that the US could not touch Iran's nuclear facilities?
Yes, and the best analysis I have seen said we spent upwards of $500 million plus to bury their facility entrances under rubble and it'll take them a few bulldozers and under $100k to open them back up.
Where did this "best" analysis come from? I've read a number of articles on this. It ranges from their nuclear program has been set back for years to minimal damage being done. It's hard to know what the truth is. But I suspect it's quite a bit worse than the analysis you believe. Likely somewhere in the middle.
Bottom line is that prediction wasn't accurate.
Proprietary, so I can't share it.
I will add: We supposedly attacked and seriously degraded their nuclear capabilities in June 2025, but now we are attacking those sites again.
Closure to the Strait of H is doing serious damage to the global economy by the day. In 1973, it took 6 months for the oil embargo damage to show up in the S&P500. Something similar will happen here in the late summer or early fall, just in time for midterms. Trump, and Bessent in particular, know this. If there was no threat here, they would gladly declare victory and bring the Navy home.
And one of Trump's key sticking points on negotiations right now is that Iran agrees not to pursue nuclear materials.
Does that sound like we've degraded their nuclear capabilities materially?
Read into the tea leaves as you will.
