Our ships near the Strait of Hormuz are now resupplying from support bases that are closer than DIego Garcia? Which ones?
I don’t know. You tell me, answer grape. I really don’t care.
Drumpf
B
Long deployments are nothing new.
No US Navy ship has ever gone without a port call for as long as the Lincoln. The crew hadn't set food on solid ground in 2026. Still haven't if they haven't reached Thailand yet.
Compare their living conditions to someone living on a carrier
Soft generation of Seamen. Or is it Semen? Lol
B
Our ships near the Strait of Hormuz are now resupplying from support bases that are closer than DIego Garcia? Which ones?
I don’t know. You tell me, answer grape. I really don’t care.
There ya go.
No US Navy ship has ever gone without a port call for as long as the Lincoln. The crew hadn't set food on solid ground in 2026. Still haven't if they haven't reached Thailand yet.
Awwww. That’s why they took the oath. So suck it up, buttercup
I’m not saying it’s more convenient, only that we have alternatives. The men on the ships are crybabies
Yeah, I'm not gonna take shots at anyone who's deployed.
But when your war hardships are crappy food instead of getting blown to shreds, you're probably on the winning side.
(Still not a supporter of the war. Just. Not buying the Iranian bullshit either.)
B
when your war hardships are crappy food instead of getting blown to shreds, you're probably on the winning side.
Seems like a pretty low bar for a sailor to believe he's on the winning side.
Seems like a pretty low bar for a sailor to believe he's on the winning side.
The Iranians had their fleet turned into one time use submarines.
Yes, the USA is winning.
No, I don't think it's probably worth the time, cost, and lives, but that's an entirely different issue.
B
No US Navy ship has ever gone without a port call for as long as the Lincoln. The crew hadn't set food on solid ground in 2026. Still haven't if they haven't reached Thailand yet.
Awwww. That’s why they took the oath. So suck it up, buttercup
Maybe they took the oath believing in Trump's no new wars campaign promise. I know, a lot of MAGA thinks the war with Iran has been ongoing for nearly half a century so it's not a new war to them.
Or maybe they took the oath believing that the Trump Administration wouldn't act like retards if there was a war. That they'd actually consider things like the Iran shutting down the strait, and our regional naval supply bases being sitting ducks.
B
The Iranians had their fleet turned into one time use submarines.
Yes, the USA is winning.
No, I don't think it's probably worth the time, cost, and lives, but that's an entirely different issue.
Because we've still lost strategically. The war hasn't accomplished any of its original goals. And the Strait of Hormuz was open before the war. Regular unleaded in my area is still nearly $4 a gallon.
Because we've still lost strategically. The war hasn't accomplished any of its original goals. And the Strait of Hormuz was open before the war. Regular unleaded in my area is still nearly $4 a gallon.
B
B
The Iranians had their fleet turned into one time use submarines.
Yes, the USA is winning.
No, I don't think it's probably worth the time, cost, and lives, but that's an entirely different issue.
Because we've still lost strategically. The war hasn't accomplished any of its original goals. And the Strait of Hormuz was open before the war. Regular unleaded in my area is still nearly $4 a gallon.
I'm not moving goalposts. I just think we've got different definitions of winning. You're defining it as the Iranian fleet being destroyed and I'm defining it by overall strategic success, which I think is far more important.
I'm not moving goalposts. I just think we've got different definitions of winning. You're defining it as the Iranian fleet being destroyed and I'm defining it by overall strategic success, which I think is far more important.
Your first argument was about military combatants, and then you shifted to economics.
You went from sailors conditions to the price of gas.
That's a bit of a shift.
B
Your first argument was about military combatants, and then you shifted to economics.
You went from sailors conditions to the price of gas.That's a bit of a shift.
Our nearest naval supply base now being 2,000 miles away from the area of operations is part of our strategic loss. And yes, Iran did inflict that part of it militarily.
High gas prices are also part of our strategic loss. The Iranian naval fleet now being submarines doesn't matter. They've still got plenty of missiles and drones.
B
But when your war hardships are crappy food instead of getting blown to shreds, you're probably on the winning side.
What do you need to see for the situation with Iran to go from "We're winning" to "We've won"?
Seems like a pretty low bar for a sailor to believe he's on the winning side.
Maybe if they were getting blown up, you’d feel better.
Because we've still lost strategically. The war hasn't accomplished any of its original goals. And the Strait of Hormuz was open before the war. Regular unleaded in my area is still nearly $4 a gallon.
Settle down chicken little
Log in to reply.