Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (41) |
Author: albaby1 SILVER
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 84350 
Subject: Re: The US used its own 'Dark Fleet'
Date: 06/11/26 4:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 7
Who claimed the Strait was open? No one did.

You said, "The media and this board declared operation Freedom or whatever it was called a failure before it started. Looks like it wasn't...." But the purpose of Operation Project Freedom was to open the Strait. You claimed it wasn't a failure. But if it wasn't a failure, the Strait would be open - or at least substantially open. But it is not. Which means that you're wrong when you say "Looks like it wasn't." It absolutely was.

I think that remains to be seen. Why not let it play out?

You can let it play out (assuming there's no deal), but that doesn't change your incorrect statement that it looks like Operation Project Freedom wasn't a failure. It certainly has failed so far. If you want to suggest there's a chance it might succeed in the future, even though it has failed for nearly a month, you're of course free to do that. But it doesn't make it correct to say that today it looks like it wasn't a failure.

No kidding. Which is why I've pointed out a half dozen times now that we've never tried to force our way through the strait.

But that's why I keep pointing out to you that forcing our way through the strait isn't the relevant operation. We can't restore commercial traffic by forcing our way through the strait. We have to seize the Iranian coastline with ground troops. Forcing our way through the strait is irrelevant.

Now - it is certainly also correct to say that we've never tried to seize the Iranian coastline with ground troops. But "force our way through the strait" sounds like something we might do. "Seize the Iranian coastline with ground troops" is something that's almost certainly not going to be attempted. You keep saying the former, even though the latter is what would have to happen. By referring to "forcing our way through the strait," that framing makes it seem like the Strait being closed is something we might change with a future action that we might take. That's wrong. Forcing our way through the Strait doesn't open the Strait for merchant commerce. Only seizing the coastline with ground troops does.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to albaby1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (41) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community