|
Originally Posted by Hubcapped
(Post 4015489)
You just completely evaded an answer . Did you watch the deposition of our head of intelligence or not? That is not a bias, its HER direct words. So, what are your thoughts? You wanted to play the game mod or not. The head of our intelligence refuted (subjectively) your claim. Be a stand up flight lead and own the debrief my friend.
|
Originally Posted by FangsF15
(Post 4015480)
Honestly, I don’t know. It’s hard to separate the various biases, which includes media reporting, and know what the real truth is.
|
Originally Posted by AYLflyer
(Post 4015481)
Maybe, just maybe, the greatest nation in the world with the most powerful and advanced military in this history of humanity should really make sure that their assessment is correct before alienating allies and creating a worldwide economic disaster.
|
Originally Posted by AYLflyer
(Post 4015481)
Maybe, just maybe, the greatest nation in the world with the most powerful and advanced military in this history of humanity should really make sure that their assessment is correct before alienating allies and creating a worldwide economic disaster.
|
Originally Posted by Lowslung
(Post 4015505)
Or, even better: Take into account the facts that intelligence assessments are often flawed, incomplete, or flat out wrong, that wars often become messy, unpredictable, and uncontrollable, that the enemy gets a vote, and that there is no greater ask of the American people than that of sending their sons and daughters into battle. This is never an endeavor to be taken lightly.
And yet every single indication so far suggests that the administration has not done any more due diligence than their usual none. In fact, I’m surprised we didn’t see Elon Musk on stage waving a chainsaw around to kick off the party. |
Originally Posted by Buck Rogers
(Post 4015507)
That ^^^^ sounds fairly logical.
And that ^^^^^ sounds totally illogical, and dare I say...partisan? |
|
Originally Posted by Lowslung
(Post 4015513)
Just an observation my friend. I understand there are many reasons for many Americans to like the direction the current admin is going. While I don’t share too many of those reasons, I’d like to think that any objective observer could agree that caution and measure are not strengths generally shared by the current CINC and the people he’s surrounded himself with. Happy to entertain any counter argument you may have with that thought.
It’s a tough job under the best of circumstances. And corporate Washington DC never has liked outsiders. It chewed up Jimmy Carter. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 4015538)
I think that I might agree with that latter opinion. Although I have to wonder if it is innate to his personality or a function of how many people, even in his own party and the Washington establishment, tried to stab him in the back during his first term. The near miss in the public assassination couldn’t have helped either.
It’s a tough job under the best of circumstances. And corporate Washington DC never has liked outsiders. It chewed up Jimmy Carter. |
|
This war, which will likely go on for a long period of time is not yet priced into markets.
Are legacy furloughs a possibility later this year? It will take years to recover economically from this. The economy has just started to bleed. |
Originally Posted by Chimpy
(Post 4015541)
lol, so Trumps a Victim now? He is a horrific leader, his latest Tweet about Mueller says it all. (and I voted for him, so shame on me)
just cause you are paranoid doesn’t mean people aren’t really out to get you. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 4015550)
Didn’t say he was a victim, but in an era of micro aggressions, someone piercing your ear with a 5.56 attempting to kill you would certainly have an effect on anyone’s outlook. Plus FBI insiders lying to the FISA court going after you …
just cause you are paranoid doesn’t mean people aren’t really out to get you. I think CBreezy would agree with your logic..
Originally Posted by CBreezy;
If a country kept bombing me and my neighbors so their oligarchs could keep making money, I'd be in the streets chanting Death to that country too.
IOW.... Things can be justified/rationalized/forgiven due to..."reasons"? At the very least, it might provide insight into someone else's perspective I guess. But then again, Trump is on record in multiple interviews even as far back as 1980 saying Iran can not have a nuclear weapon. According to AI he's on record at least 74 times advocating against Iran and nucs. That's 45 years...not like it's a surprise which way he would lean if there were doubts. I don't think many/any on a certain spectrum even acknowledged the possibility of success of Midnight Hammer. Seems like the mantra then was it wasn't effective as Trump said. Maybe he listened to the opposition party? Wonder where that 460Kg of 60% enriched uranium is?. “These could be easily transported anywhere, in pickup trucks, as they are stored in sealed metal containers,” Levy told The Media Line. “There is enough material there for a bomb.” A 60% enrichment level requires more material to build a bomb than weapons-grade uranium, but the quantity reported by the IAEA—over 400 kg—is far beyond the threshold. According to IAEA data, just 42 kg of uranium enriched to that level is enough to produce a nuclear weapon." https://themedialine.org/top-stories...after-strikes/ |
Well, if Trump follows through on his threat to attack Iranian power plants and the Iranians respond by destroying oil and desalinization infrastructure in the Gulf states as they have threatened, oil at $120/bbl will seem like a wonderful golden memory. Not only will inflation skyrocket, we'll see a significant erasing of wealth as global markets adjust to what will be a very grim reality.
Elections do indeed have consequences. |
Originally Posted by Buck Rogers
(Post 4015571)
I think CBreezy would agree with your logic..
IOW.... Things can be justified/rationalized/forgiven due to..."reasons"? At the very least, it might provide insight into someone else's perspective I guess. But then again, Trump is on record in multiple interviews even as far back as 1980 saying Iran can not have a nuclear weapon. According to AI he's on record at least 74 times advocating against Iran and nucs. That's 45 years...not like it's a surprise which way he would lean if there were doubts. I don't think many/any on a certain spectrum even acknowledged the possibility of success of Midnight Hammer. Seems like the mantra then was it wasn't effective as Trump said. Maybe he listened to the opposition party? Wonder where that 460Kg of 60% enriched uranium is?. “These could be easily transported anywhere, in pickup trucks, as they are stored in sealed metal containers,” Levy told The Media Line. “There is enough material there for a bomb.” A 60% enrichment level requires more material to build a bomb than weapons-grade uranium, but the quantity reported by the IAEA—over 400 kg—is far beyond the threshold. According to IAEA data, just 42 kg of uranium enriched to that level is enough to produce a nuclear weapon." https://themedialine.org/top-stories...after-strikes/ One needn’t “justify or forgive” someone to explain logical reasons why they may be paranoid. Nor is Trump the only world leader who’s been saying that Iran must never get a nuclear weapon. Most of European leaders and former Presidents since Reagan considered it a red line they couldn’t be allowed to cross. Even Obama wanted them to give him ten years so it would be someone else’s problem. Trump is simply the first one to convert talk into action and without Israel’s decapitation strikes I think even he might have hesitated. But when the [mod edit] is going to hit the fan anyway there is a temptation to say “in for a penny, in for a pound” and cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war… |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 4015538)
I think that I might agree with that latter opinion. Although I have to wonder if it is innate to his personality or a function of how many people, even in his own party and the Washington establishment, tried to stab him in the back during his first term. The near miss in the public assassination couldn’t have helped either.
It’s a tough job under the best of circumstances. And corporate Washington DC never has liked outsiders. It chewed up Jimmy Carter. |
Originally Posted by Merequetengue
(Post 4015580)
lol after all this years, this guy is evolving into a troll.
Laugh, and the world laughs with you; Weep, and you weep alone; For the sad old earth must borrow its mirth, But has trouble enough of its own. Sing, and the hills will answer; Sigh, it is lost on the air; The echoes bound to a joyful sound, But shrink from voicing care. Rejoice, and men will seek you; Grieve, and they turn and go; They want full measure of all your pleasure, But they do not need your woe. Be glad, and your friends are many; Be sad, and you lose them all,— There are none to decline your nectared wine, But alone you must drink life’s gall. |
Originally Posted by Hubcapped
(Post 4015542)
OK, as much as I despise you, give credit or credit is due. This was top notch. Made me laugh
|
If I had to put $1000 down on us nuking Tehran or them nuking Tel Aviv first. Not sure what I'd honestly say is more likely.
|
Originally Posted by dmeg13021
(Post 4015595)
If I had to put $1000 down on us nuking Tehran or them nuking Tel Aviv first. Not sure what I'd honestly say is more likely.
|
Originally Posted by dmeg13021
(Post 4015595)
If I had to put $1000 down on us nuking Tehran or them nuking Tel Aviv first. Not sure what I'd honestly say is more likely.
alt=""https://i.ibb.co/S7KtZQxr/IMG-7965.jpg But perhaps if you queried them they could give you some odds… |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 4015579)
One needn’t “justify or forgive” someone to explain logical reasons why they may be paranoid.
Nor is Trump the only world leader who’s been saying that Iran must never get a nuclear weapon. Most of European leaders and former Presidents since Reagan considered it a red line they couldn’t be allowed to cross. Even Obama wanted them to give him ten years so it would be someone else’s problem. Trump is simply the first one to convert talk into action and without Israel’s decapitation strikes I think even he might have hesitated. But when the $hit is going to hit the fan anyway there is a temptation to say “in for a penny, in for a pound” and cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war… |
Have any of the ME 3 announced any capacity reductions?
|
Originally Posted by 11atsomto
(Post 4015630)
Have any of the ME 3 announced any capacity reductions?
Qatar is at 13 percent. |
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 4015573)
Well, if Trump follows through on his threat to attack Iranian power plants and the Iranians respond by destroying oil and desalinization infrastructure in the Gulf states as they have threatened, oil at $120/bbl will seem like a wonderful golden memory. Not only will inflation skyrocket, we'll see a significant erasing of wealth as global markets adjust to what will be a very grim reality.
Elections do indeed have consequences. SOH has nothing to do with nukes. Riddle me this, is it a war crime to attack civilian infrastructure simply due to a commerce reason (oil flow)?????? |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 4015586)
How long would you tolerate $200 a barrel to avoid the prospect of an apocalyptic cult of “hidden imam” worshipping Shiite Muslim fanatics having ICBMs and nukes? I’d trade a couple years of expensive oil for that readily. It’s unfortunate, shoukd have been handled better by previous administrations and for damn sure by the feckless Europeans, but it is what it is.
What do you know about “Shiite Muslims?” The people in power last year said that Iran’s nuke capability was obliterated and any suggestions otherwise is fake news. Literally word for word what they said. Only 8 months, telling Americans that we are under “imminent threat” from Iran and we had to attack. So. Were they lying last year in June, or are they lying now? Only one of those statements can be true. Which is it? Let alone thousands dead so far in this crap war, the families of 13 service men/women should be told the truth. Along with the rest of the Americans. |
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 4015669)
SOH has nothing to do with nukes.
Riddle me this, is it a war crime to attack civilian infrastructure simply due to a commerce reason (oil flow)?????? |
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 4015669)
SOH has nothing to do with nukes.
Riddle me this, is it a war crime to attack civilian infrastructure simply due to a commerce reason (oil flow)?????? |
I learned very quickly in high school that it was “eer-on” not “Eye-Ran”…although it’s never bothered me if someone calls it that.
The language : Farsi, the ethnicity: Persian……..I’ve noticed a lot of broadcasters including many who aren’t American calling the nationality “Irani” like rhyming with Chobani (yogurt)……. I aaa aaaa don’t think that’s right. |
Originally Posted by checkgear
(Post 4015622)
How’s that boot taste?
too bad Hillary didn’t win… she said Iran needed to be stopped also. We could have already had this done 10 yrs ago. Or did you miss that video? |
Originally Posted by Name User
(Post 4015674)
You're not seeing the big picture, if we bomb their power plants we can sell them new ones, I hear Bill Gates has a new company investing in self contained nuke reactors that would be perfect for Iran!
Originally Posted by 11atsomto
(Post 4015676)
I learned very quickly in high school that it was “eer-on” not “Eye-Ran”…although it’s never bothered me if someone calls it that.
https://youtu.be/xcjLEwZqcQI?si=SMCEJVwhPAQkawcR |
Originally Posted by John Carr
(Post 4015688)
|
Originally Posted by vaxedtothemax
(Post 4015686)
.
too bad Hillary didn’t win… she said Iran needed to be stopped also. We could have already had this done 10 yrs ago. Or did you miss that video? |
Originally Posted by John Carr
(Post 4015688)
If they French don’t do it, again…
Watch till the end, CLASSIC https://youtu.be/xcjLEwZqcQI?si=SMCEJVwhPAQkawcR |
Originally Posted by Chimpy
(Post 4015705)
ok but the issue here is the execution . You have Day 1 starting off with killing 180 kids, then every day since you have Trump spewing absolute incoherent, nutbag comments with outrageous ultimatums. He says we Won, then he says he needs help (from NATO, yanno after spending years bashing them), then he says it was a test and doesn’t need them anyway. Then he says it's winding down, then he says it wont be over until he feels it in his bones. He was “shocked” they fought back, also shocked they closed the strait. Are you kidding me? This is who we have leading us into WW3?
That's all we can hang our hats on, brother. |
Originally Posted by Name User
(Post 4015716)
I don't have any answers for you but I will say that Bill Maher, whose opinion I trust, said "a crazy person does not live in the White House. Someone who plays a crazy person on TV does".
That's all we can hang our hats on, brother. |
Just because some people chant "death to America" in the streets does not mean we HAVE to fight them. How would you like it if other countries took military action based on our protests?
Have you ever stopped and asked yourself why they chant "death to America?" Could it that for the last 70 years we have dictated their borders, directly interfered with their politics, and treated the entire region as a bomb testing ground? And let's not clutch our pearls at "death to America" chants. Iranians' can also play a 30 second highlight reel of us doing the same thing. We even have a presidential candidate singing "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." I know it is a wild thought, but maybe we can allow one generation in the middle east to grow up without starring down the barrel of the U.S. military. "The drones will continue bombing you until moral improves" |
Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine
(Post 4015729)
Just because some people chant "death to America" in the streets does not mean we HAVE to fight them. How would you like it if other countries took military action based on our protests?[/i]
We only burn the American flag, burning any other flag BUT the American flag would be called a Hate Crime……but chanting Death to America on our own shores is called Free Speech. We actually had a vigil in NYC for the slain Ayatollah https://gothamist.com/news/nypd-make...ollah-khamenei I didn’t think this military action was necessary but I do feel our democracy is better than a tyrannical theocracy but not everyone in our country agrees with me. |
Originally Posted by 11atsomto
(Post 4015734)
and which protests would those be?
|
Originally Posted by 11atsomto
(Post 4015734)
I didn’t think this military action was necessary but I do feel our democracy is better than a tyrannical theocracy but not everyone in our country agrees with me.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:00 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands