Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
Economic Impacts of Iran War >

Economic Impacts of Iran War

Search

Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

Economic Impacts of Iran War

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-20-2026 | 03:10 PM
  #301  
Banned
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 140
Default

Originally Posted by Excargodog
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?
Old 03-20-2026 | 03:15 PM
  #302  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,488
Likes: 137
Default

Originally Posted by Judge Smails
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.
Yo, judge, winning without strength of purpose is possible. Comes a lot sooner with it of course. Hoot & holler at tailgate parties. Place bets on the odds line. Life is unforgiving to mistakes. We demand payment for this job. No excuses.
https://youtu.be/O31rBYqYkuQ?si=5qnwvvj7OBpPT4gp
Reply
Old 03-20-2026 | 03:50 PM
  #303  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 560
Likes: 136
Default

Originally Posted by Excargodog
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.
Oh so he lied then…what?
Reply
Old 03-20-2026 | 04:13 PM
  #304  
Turbosina's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 2,630
Likes: 570
From: Guppy Gear Slinger
Default

Originally Posted by Excargodog
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.
It wouldn't hurt us all that much? ROFLMAO that's 🤣
Reply
Old 03-20-2026 | 04:14 PM
  #305  
Chimpy's Avatar
Line Holder
 
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,877
Likes: 199
Default

Welp, just got a message from our CEO saying they are expecting Oil to hit $175/ Barrel. Thats a wee bit concerning.
Reply
Old 03-20-2026 | 04:25 PM
  #306  
Turbosina's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 2,630
Likes: 570
From: Guppy Gear Slinger
Default

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!

Last edited by Turbosina; 03-20-2026 at 04:39 PM.
Reply
Old 03-20-2026 | 04:27 PM
  #307  
Turbosina's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 2,630
Likes: 570
From: Guppy Gear Slinger
Default

Originally Posted by Chimpy
Welp, just got a message from our CEO saying they are expecting Oil to hit $175/ Barrel. Thats a wee bit concerning.
Yup I saw yesterday the Saudis are forecasting $180/barrel.

$150/bbl is generally considered the level at which the American economy will tip into a severe recession.
Reply
Old 03-20-2026 | 04:35 PM
  #308  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 9,460
Likes: 473
Default

Originally Posted by flyprdu


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!
Reply
Old 03-20-2026 | 04:51 PM
  #309  
Excargodog's Avatar
Perennial Reserve
 
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 14,236
Likes: 254
Default

Originally Posted by flyprdu


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.
Reply
Old 03-20-2026 | 05:15 PM
  #310  
Judge Smails's Avatar
Line Holder
 
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 941
Likes: 250
From: A320
Default

Originally Posted by Excargodog
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:
Yeah, the only difference is this administration was very obviously full of [mod edit] from the get go. Unless you are neck deep into the cult, anyone with multiple brain cells knew there was no way of knowing their nuclear program was "obliterated." Questioning that was not "fake news."

Last edited by FangsF15; 03-21-2026 at 07:30 AM. Reason: Profanity
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
jungle
Money Talk
3
01-12-2009 07:31 AM
ryan1234
Money Talk
0
12-05-2008 08:27 PM
jungle
Money Talk
1
11-25-2008 03:28 PM
vagabond
Money Talk
0
10-26-2008 08:48 PM
robthree
Regional
13
09-01-2007 03:23 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