|
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 4015012)
Do you really think bomb damage assessment Intel is 100% accurate? On deep underground bunkers?
More fool you then. If you don’t get secondary explosions (which with 60% enhanced Uranium you won’t) BDA likely doesn’t mean squat. I used to work in an underground bunker with a rubble field over it and it was ALLEGEDLY good to withstand tactical nukes. Fortunately, I never had occasion to test that though. https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/...are-fake-news/ So tell me, were they lying then or are they lying now? |
Originally Posted by Judge Smails
(Post 4015015)
Iranian oil still keeps the global price of oil down, take that away and guess what happens.
Case in point....our brilliant Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, on Fox News just floated the idea of lifting sanctions on some Iranian oil. Try to wrap your head around that one. That's how fu*ked up this war is. So. Much. Winning. https://youtu.be/O31rBYqYkuQ?si=5qnwvvj7OBpPT4gp |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 4015012)
Do you really think bomb damage assessment Intel is 100% accurate? On deep underground bunkers?
More fool you then. If you don’t get secondary explosions (which with 60% enhanced Uranium you won’t) BDA likely doesn’t mean squat. I used to work in an underground bunker with a rubble field over it and it was ALLEGEDLY good to withstand tactical nukes. Fortunately, I never had occasion to test that though. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 4015011)
It clearly would be cheaper to just destroy their oil and gas infrastructure and just leave. Be ripough on Europe and Asia but woukdn’t hurt us all that much.
|
Welp, just got a message from our CEO saying they are expecting Oil to hit $175/ Barrel. Thats a wee bit concerning.
|
So let's summarize for the moment, the current economic effects of the war and ask: who is benefiting?
Crude oil has nearly doubled in cost, thereby pumping significantly more revenue into the coffers of .. Russia and Iran. Some of the added dollars you pay at the pump, are directly funding those regimes. And now that we're lifting sanctions on Russian oil (with SecTreas contemplating doing the same to Iranian oil), we're helping our enemies earn even more money, with which to buy more weapons and strengthen their own military capabilities. American oil companies will also see their profits increase significantly. None of that, however, will be returned to consumers. Chevron execs will do very well from this whole quagmire. Weapons manufacturers will all do quite well. The American taxpayer, meanwhile, is now being asked to pony up an additional $200 BN , which will of course be rolled into the already catastrophic national debt. Overall inflation will absolutely increase (there is no way it can't, considering that the cost of oil directly affects so many of the goods that we buy.) Yet at the same time you'll see economic growth slow or reverse, because when gas goes to $10/gallon (as it might well do), consumer spending will absolutely take a hit. For those of you who remember the late 70s, that's what stagflation was. Rising prices coupled with a shrinking economy and rising unemployment. The last time stagflation happened, it was triggered by an oil shock created by OPEC. This time -- it'll be entirely our own doing. A rather stunning "own goal." Bravo!! So just to review: Essentially what we're accomplishing is a wealth transfer from American consumers (and consumers in allied countries) to a couple of pretty terrible regimes, plus the execs and shareholders of a few very large companies (oil and defense, mostly). That flow of wealth will directly strengthen our adversaries. So much winning! |
Originally Posted by Chimpy
(Post 4015036)
Welp, just got a message from our CEO saying they are expecting Oil to hit $175/ Barrel. Thats a wee bit concerning.
$150/bbl is generally considered the level at which the American economy will tip into a severe recession. |
Originally Posted by flyprdu
(Post 4015016)
https://i.imgur.com/wLGmtpd.png
https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/...are-fake-news/ So tell me, were they lying then or are they lying now? Please tell me that’s fake or the Onion. Did the WH press really put that out there? Wow! |
Originally Posted by flyprdu
(Post 4015016)
https://i.imgur.com/wLGmtpd.png
https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/...are-fake-news/ So tell me, were they lying then or are they lying now? Generally, in a war, BOTH SIDES LIE, if only by omission. After the Battle of Savo, the US didn’t admit it had lost 1000 personnel and three heavy cruisers in a 21 minute night engagement delaying even the notices of death for almost three months. https://www.history.navy.mil/about-u...09/h009-1.html An excerpt: The disaster at Savo Island was a profound shock all the way up the chain of command to President Roosevelt, and a huge embarrassment to Navy leadership. With the loss of over 1,000 Sailors, it is considered the worst wartime defeat in U.S. naval history, since technically the U.S. was not formally at war for Pearl Harbor. CNO King directed that details of the battle be withheld from the public, casualty notification substantially delayed, and wartime censorship enabled him to do so. Many of the details remained wrapped in secrecy even many years after the war. The board of inquiry found lots of blame to go around, but no one in particular to pin it on. The only officer to receive formal censure was Captain Bode of Chicago, and he killed himself before it was officially delivered. Captain Riefkol, commander of Vincennes and the Northern Group of cruisers, was not censured, but never held command at sea again. In his commentary to the inquiry, Admiral Turner ascribed the defeat to a “fatal lethargy of mind” and to over-confidence. The officers and men of the U.S. Navy were convinced of their superiority to the Japanese. Pearl Harbor was not considered a fair fight, and no one expected the outnumbered and mostly antiquated U.S. Asiatic Fleet to last for long. However, Midway seemed to have shown that even outnumbered, but absent Japanese perfidy, the U.S. Navy would triumph, and in any even fight U.S. victory would be inevitable. Savo Island proved otherwise and it was a bitter lesson for the U.S. Navy to swallow. An exhaustive post-war analysis of the battle by the U.S. Naval War College listed 26 enduring lessons-learned, most of which still resonate today and are worth a read. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 4015053)
Generally, in a war, BOTH SIDES LIE, if only by omission. After the Battle of Savo, the US didn’t admit it had lost 1000 personnel and three heavy cruisers in a 21 minute night engagement delaying even the notices of death for almost three months.
https://www.history.navy.mil/about-u...09/h009-1.html An excerpt: |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:58 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands