[runako]

> I will remember from now on that you can compare war to Lebron playing in a championship game but not to him playing in a pickup game.

The stakes of a given situation matter to the disposition of the participants. Is this not obvious?

I'm really confused as to what your larger point is. Nobody disagrees that the US military can kill untold numbers of people and cause untold damage in Iran and the wider region. Was this the point you wanted to make? Yes, the US military is capable of killing everyone in the region, which would make the Strait "open" again.

> If war is politics by other means, then doing war is always done with politics.

The problem is doing so has not/does not appear to be on a path to achieve the stated political aims of the administration, inasmuch as they have been willing to articulate aims.

Anyway, you're being insulting and not making coherent points. Good evening/morning/afternoon.

[tekknik]

> Anyway, you're being insulting and not making coherent points. Good evening/morning/afternoon.

And you have an anti-US motive. who exactly disagrees with the conflict/war/whatever you want to call it? how come nobody is talking about it?

[runako]

> And you have an anti-US motive

Wanting the US to be successful in worthy endeavors was considered pro-US when I was born. Call me a conservative if you want because I think we should still support that way of thinking. But I don't see myself changing to support failure just because the US is doing it.

> how come nobody is talking about it?

Nobody is talking about the war? I suggest you revise your media diet.

[jazzypants]

Literally, every single person I know is against the Iran War except for two. They're also the only Trump supporters left in my social circle. The cult of personality is getting pretty sad.