Search

Notices

Hormuz impacts

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-17-2026 | 08:47 AM
  #241  
Line Holder
Veteran: Navy
5 Years
 
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 340
Default

Originally Posted by sailingfun
Saudi, planning Saudi, Leadership Saudi, funding Saudi. We invaded Iraq, go figure!
But they had WMDs!!

Just like Iran this time, we swear, wink wink
Old 03-17-2026 | 08:54 AM
  #242  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,105
Likes: 155
From: Big ones
Default

Originally Posted by unblestdevotee
I can get behind the big stick policy policy. I just don’t see how allowing help softens the idea of our power there. I mean we’ve been doing this whole event with kid gloves on so far. It seems to me that taking down the whole country why creating issues for two other aggressors while using a minuscule, by our stature, amount of resources.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe we have more money in the first month of Ukraine than what we’re putting into this fight.
props to the recent Posters who got this thread back on track.

The market response both yesterday and today basically suggest to me (imo only) that the conflict is cooling. The strait is still risky to navigate. And Yes there will likely be more sensational drone or missile strikes and I’d expect LOTS of subsequent images and pearl-clutching commentary, but those are secondary weapons to try and shape minds rather than to dictate the options of great powers. As one who lived through the effects of the years of threats and chants and occasional military strikes I’m willing to wait another 2-3 weeks to see how the administration completes its plan. Have there been errors? Sure, welcome to conflict where the enemy gets a vote. But the overall losses are MUCH LESS than I think we’d see if we keep waiting and hoping for the best rather than taking action and influencing the situation.
Old 03-17-2026 | 09:37 AM
  #243  
MeteorA113's Avatar
On Reserve
On Reserve
10 Countries Visited
 
Joined: Sep 2021
Posts: 132
Likes: 33
From: Boeing Necromancer
Default

This thread tumbled.

It's not complicated to figure out. This administration has a history of making wild decisions without considering the ramifications of said decisions. Simply put, they decided to attack thinking this would be a win for them, help their alliance with Israel, mask it under disguise that they are "helping" the people of Iran from a brutal dictator.

Now they are stuck in a situation where they can't back out without looking weak, a more brutal leadership might take over, their supporters and most American citizens don't support this operation, Europe has even less reason to work with us, price of oil reaching all time highs, our military contractors can't produce nearly enough arsenal to keep up with this sudden demand for weaponry because of this poor deployment. All of this was preventable. They didn't have to attack. But emotions drove this admin into this situation and therefore all of us with them.
Old 03-17-2026 | 09:53 AM
  #244  
Schwanker's Avatar
Line Holder
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,324
Likes: 53
Default

Giving Iran pallets of cash, billions in cash, and a path to a nuke hasn’t panned out so great. They were still funding Hamas, Hizballah, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Al-Shabaab, Islamaic Jihad, and killing Americans whenever they can get away with it. Maybe Obama could have ponied up a little more cash then the Mideast would be at peace.

Marco Rubio’s speech in opposition to Obama’s policies is worth watching.
Old 03-17-2026 | 09:56 AM
  #245  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,105
Likes: 155
From: Big ones
Default

Originally Posted by MeteorA113
This thread tumbled.

It's not complicated to figure out. This administration has a history of making wild decisions without considering the ramifications of said decisions. Simply put, they decided to attack thinking this would be a win for them, help their alliance with Israel, mask it under disguise that they are "helping" the people of Iran from a brutal dictator.

Now they are stuck in a situation where they can't back out without looking weak, a more brutal leadership might take over, their supporters and most American citizens don't support this operation, Europe has even less reason to work with us, price of oil reaching all time highs, our military contractors can't produce nearly enough arsenal to keep up with this sudden demand for weaponry because of this poor deployment. All of this was preventable. They didn't have to attack. But emotions drove this admin into this situation and therefore all of us with them.
In your opinion, how many humans were involved in the “wild” decision to push the button that launched a missile or a bomb on the first Iranian target?
Old 03-17-2026 | 10:02 AM
  #246  
MeteorA113's Avatar
On Reserve
On Reserve
10 Countries Visited
 
Joined: Sep 2021
Posts: 132
Likes: 33
From: Boeing Necromancer
Default

Originally Posted by tripled
In your opinion, how many humans were involved in the “wild” decision to push the button that launched a missile or a bomb on the first Iranian target?
Too many and not enough saying "well hold on". Even a US Intelligence Officer (who was appointed by Trump) resigned. This operation is not going anywhere near close to well and it shows.
Old 03-17-2026 | 11:13 AM
  #247  
Excargodog's Avatar
Perennial Reserve
 
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 14,261
Likes: 259
Default

Originally Posted by MeteorA113
Too many and not enough saying "well hold on". Even a US Intelligence Officer (who was appointed by Trump) resigned. This operation is not going anywhere near close to well and it shows.
As opposed to the expertly managed withdrawal from Afghanistan?

Wars are chaos. If ‘orderly’ is your thing, avoid them. They make putting your 401k in penny stocks look like a sure thing.
Old 03-17-2026 | 11:26 AM
  #248  
Beef Chicken or Pasta
 
Joined: May 2021
Posts: 207
Likes: 286
Default

Originally Posted by MeteorA113
This thread tumbled.

It's not complicated to figure out. This administration has a history of making wild decisions without considering the ramifications of said decisions. Simply put, they decided to attack thinking this would be a win for them, help their alliance with Israel, mask it under disguise that they are "helping" the people of Iran from a brutal dictator.

Now they are stuck in a situation where they can't back out without looking weak, a more brutal leadership might take over, their supporters and most American citizens don't support this operation, Europe has even less reason to work with us, price of oil reaching all time highs, our military contractors can't produce nearly enough arsenal to keep up with this sudden demand for weaponry because of this poor deployment. All of this was preventable. They didn't have to attack. But emotions drove this admin into this situation and therefore all of us with them.
This operation started 18 days ago.

Get a grip.
Old 03-17-2026 | 11:29 AM
  #249  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Oct 2025
Posts: 259
Likes: 157
Default

Originally Posted by Schwanker
Giving Iran pallets of cash, billions in cash, and a path to a nuke hasn’t panned out so great. They were still funding Hamas, Hizballah, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Al-Shabaab, Islamaic Jihad, and killing Americans whenever they can get away with it. Maybe Obama could have ponied up a little more cash then the Mideast would be at peace.

Marco Rubio’s speech in opposition to Obama’s policies is worth watching.
Do you understand what the "pallets of cash" were about?
Old 03-17-2026 | 11:39 AM
  #250  
Line Holder
 
Joined: May 2024
Posts: 200
Likes: 115
Default

Originally Posted by FangsF15

Honestly, there are a lot of people and media who seem to be genuinely rooting against the USA. They want to see this fail, because they see this as path to finally pin The President to the ground. Their hatred of him knows no bounds. Not saying that’s you, but that is scary regardless of support, septicism, or anti-war feelings.


With all due respect Fangs, your use of the word "scary" is frankly scary.

I by all means understand that every administration distorts the truth. That is simply human nature, call it propaganda, manipulation or whatever. Thay all do it.

There is no such thing as an unbiased news source. Unintentional but mostly intentional, everything has a slant and I think most of us understand that. To counter that, my news sources include moderate, ultra conservative, ultra liberal as well as international news agencies. I want to see the facts and alternate facts from various perspectives. That said, I absolutely detest the talking heads that try and tell me how to think. That goes for all of them....Maddow, Cooper, Bannon, Carlson, Rogan to name a few. Their words and perspectives are utterly worthless, in my opinion. I want simple facts or alternate facts and I'll decide how to interpret those.

Freedom of the press is the only way guarantee accountably. It's imperative to understand which information the administration releases is accurate, semi-accurate or complete BS. We can't do that without the press. Regardless of your opinion of a particular administration, criticism is an absolute necessity. Scary would be anything but that.
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Pilot1001
Pilot Health
60
04-06-2024 07:02 AM
preflight
Endeavor Air
175
10-19-2021 12:03 PM
preflight
Endeavor Air
53
01-26-2019 10:51 PM
FlyingJman
United
26
04-06-2016 03:26 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices