195
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2026
195 points (98.5% liked)
politics
28921 readers
1990 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I’ve become more critical of the way I’m reading headlines lately and this one stuck out to me. The implication is that a sitting leader of one sovereign nation should have control of another sovereign nation or that the latter nation should be “subservient” to them. It’s really interesting how the build the intended power dynamic with that one sentence.
I read it as control of the situation, particularly his self perceived control of the war. Weird for a headline to play to that. Your critique is valid, the headline is poorly written.
Yeah, pretty sure it's meant to mean [The war in] Iran...
I read it differently. That sentence makes it sound like the “President” is actually a competent leader whose plans are falling apart, rather than the dangerously stupid puppet that he is. All media outlets keep sane-washing him like he has plans to begin with, is capable of strategic thought, and is somehow actually trying to do any kind of good for anyone but himself and his handlers.
America is rat-fucked until the people can establish at least one media outlet that isn’t indifferent to all the evil being perpetrated against them.
I particularly liked the underlying assumption throughout the article that Trump absolutely has to have Iran capitulate and therefore the only thing they can do is to continue to escalate. That "declare victory and leave" isn't something they've even considered.
The problem with the 'declare victory and leave' is that the enemy gets a vote. Even if shitler pulled forces back, Iran ain't got no reason to stop shooting tankers now.
Also... Do we just have two carrier groups trapped in the Gulf now? Guess our navy is just gonna have to 'man up' like he told the tankers to? That could get real spicy REAL quick.
Also, fun fact! We decommissioned our minesweeper fleet in the Gulf, the last of them were shipped out from Bahrain in January. You know, just weeks before we started a damn naval war. All we got now is some equipment bolted onto repurposed LCS...
This is normal US media implication since 1940s. Supreme right. The control reference in article seems to be that there may have been some minor miscalculations about whether "allies" would be made to die to impose US authority on Iran, and to obtain certain glory, we'll just start a mandatory draft, and shoot any protestors. It's the only way, and we are not allowed any other ideas.