US to deploy additional troops to the Middle East, officials say (opens in new tab)

A $15.66/hour, part-time, on-call job that requires extreme emotional composure? You've gotta be kidding me.

Sorry, but the hospital ship is in Greenland, providing free health care to people who already have public healthcare.

https://apnews.com/article/greenland-trump-denmark-us-b2624b...

Holy shit… what a poignant and succinct modern reminder of the tragedy of war.

Trump's always admired Putin, and now just like Putin, he's also entered his own quagmire... Retreating isn't even a viable option, as far as I understand, an angry Iranian regime will keep disrupting the region, so now Trump's only option is to escalate.

Too bad the whole world has to sit and watch itself get fucked...

Congress lack of action kind of makes it authorized.

It will go down in history as one of the most monumental avoidable disasters of all time.

It is a bit similar to Vietnam in that it is a step-wise increase of committed troops. Whoever is really planning this war, is now pushing for more and more "boots on the ground". It is almost as if Trump does not even have any other choice now. Reminds people of Putin - Putin is also stuck in the war against Ukraine.

They're probably going to do an aerial insertion via helicopter (Ospreys technically), which doesn't require transiting Hormuz. These big amphibious assault ships are built for both maritime and aerial insertions.

Well, marines are usually delivered to a target area by ship. You can get the marines to the coast of the Persian Gulf by air or by car or whatever, but how do you get them to Kharg Island? It has to be either air or ship. And if it's going to be ship, you have to get the landing ship there. If it's not already in the Gulf, then it has to come through Hormuz.

Well, I think going to some small island is easier than organising land-based movement. If you look at the area in the last 25 years or so, ambushing a truck carrying cargo is much easier compared to, say, intercepting para-troopers if prior air raids leveled the ground. But I think this "invading Kharg" is a red herring; it seems primarily to try to persuade the US population that boots on the ground must happen. Or it is a probe for minimal involvement, but then the question is ... why would they only want to occupy a small island? Even assuming Iran would not do anything, what does that actually achieve? The USA withdrew from Afghanistan too, so everyone now knows one can try to wait it out. Meanwhile the energy prices will go up in many countries. It is not clear to me why I should have to pay more money due to Trump and his superrich buddies.

America already proved 20 years back chasing WMDs that they dont need a Donald Trump to pull mindless shit. Its like a Leeroy Jenkins society.

> The interesting thing is that Trump is now stuck in the war, just like Putin is in Ukraine.

Trump still has a small bit of time to take an off-ramp. US casualties have been in the single digits; there's not much national pride lost in walking away.

There may be lots of Trump's pride lost in pulling back, though, so yeah, he may be stuck in this war. The US is still better off than Russia, though, because we can get rid of Trump easier than they can get rid of Putin.

> So WHO is really doing the policy in the USA?

Events have their own momentum. Once you start the snowball rolling downhill, it's really hard to stop. Trump may not want to go to troops on the ground, but he's going to have to do that, or stop and pull back and eat his pride with Iran still unconquered (and angry). Since he will do almost anything rather than lose pride, he's trapped by the need to make this a win. In the same way, Iran is also trapped in the need to make this a win. (Not "need to win" - both sides need to make it appear to their people as a win, which is not quite the same thing.)