Regarding the F-15, we dont know yet if it was shot down or simply suffered mechanical failure inside Iran. Mechanical failures do happen. That said, if they were flying low, the risk of shoulder fired manpads or lucky anti-air cannon fire does exist.

On another note, Iranian oil is flowing out of the Gulf. We could interdict it, but its not on Iranian ships---so we would be interdicting flags of other nations---some friendly---some not. Such an action could potentially widen the war in a way we probably dont want. It means Iran is actually seeing an increase in oil exports and oil revenue during the war.

https://www.palestinechronicle.com/iran-...ts-shaken/

This might be why seizing Kharg Island makes more sense than bombing it or stopping Iranian oil deliveries with a blockade. This is where they export the oil and load it on tankers. If the facility is occupied and taken off line, it stops revenue from rolling into the Iranian regime while avoiding doing the kind of damage bombing attacks would require (which might keep the facility off line for months after hostilities end). It also avoids the problem of seizing vessels from outside nations that could widen the war.

Is $4 gas and US troops getting shot down over Iran what
Trump meant when he told me I'd get sick of winning?

(04-03-2026 12:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-01-2026 07:02 PM)Todor Wrote:  This whole operation is the opposite of draining the swamp.

The deep state interests that demand our intervention in the Middle East again are the same interests we voted to get rid of.

We can never free ourselves of deep state interests no matter who we elect I guess.

lol. Trump is about as far from the Deep State as you can get. A country that has vowed to wipe us off the map and believes they get 72 virgins if they die trying to kill us was getting close to the ability to lob a nuke at the US. Its not complex---and its absolutely something the man ran on during his campaign. How many times did Trump openly state Iran could never have a nuke during his campaign speeches? Well according to the article below---Trump publicly stated Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuke at least 40 times during the 2024 campaign. This is not some new deep state speak position being forced on president Trump. Its the same position he ran on and its the same position he has always had (including his first term). The Iranian regime's current conduct in the war tells me Trump was absolute correct in his assessment that Iran's leadership is not the kind of folks you want to have a big red button at their disposal.

Meanwhile, during campaign trails, Trump said this no less than 40 times, showing his great obsession or we can call a pledge to restrain Iran from having a nuclear weapon.

(11/3/24): “Iran can’t have a nuclear weapon. Nuclear weapons are the greatest single threat to our country, but to the entire world.”
(10/29/24): “I would have been very good to Iran. They — I had to have one thing, no nuclear weapons. You can’t have nuclear weapon. Nuclear weapons are the greatest danger to our country going forward, to the world going forward.”

(10/28/24): “And all I wanted was Iran can’t have a nuclear weapon … That’s all I wanted. Very simple. You can’t have a nuclear weapon.”

(10/23/24): “We don’t want Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

(10/16/24): “I didn’t want much. I wanted Iran to be very successful. I just don’t want them to have a nuclear weapon.”

(10/14/24): “You can’t let them have a nuclear weapon.”

(10/10/24): “I just don’t want them to have a nuclear weapon. It’s very simple.”

(10/7/24): “I only wanted one thing. You can’t have a nuclear weapon. You cannot let them have a nuclear weapon.”

(10/7/24): “No, they can’t have nukes. No, they can’t have nukes.”

(10/1/24): "They can’t have a nuclear weapon — and now they’re very close to having one and it’s very dangerous for the world, very dangerous for the world … The biggest problem today, in my opinion, the biggest risk is the nuclear weapons.”

(9/30/24): “All I want them to do is not have a nuclear weapon. They can’t have a nuclear weapon.”

(9/26/24): “The only thing is [Iran] cannot have nuclear weapons.”

(9/19/24): “I wanted one thing from Iran — no nuclear weapon. I didn’t want much — no nuclear weapon. And now they’re very close to getting it, and you can’t let that happen.”

(9/17/24): “All we want is we don’t want them to have a nuclear weapon. Very simple. That’s all we want. We don’t want you to have a nuclear weapon.”

(8/27/24): “They can’t have a nuclear weapon. We just can’t let them have a nuclear weapon. I’ll say this. If they do have a nuclear weapon, Israel is gone. It’ll be gone.”

(8/23/24): “I don’t want them to have a nuclear weapon.”

(8/23/24): “I just wanted to have a deal with Iran, very simple deal — can’t have a nuclear weapon. That’s it.”

(8/15/24): “They can’t have a nuclear weapon. They can’t have a nuclear weapon. And we were all set to make sure that they don’t have a nuclear weapon. Because once they do, it’s a whole different world, it’s a whole different negotiation.”

(8/8/24): “Iran can’t have a nuclear weapon — it’s very simple.”

(8/5/24): “They can’t have a nuclear weapon. It’s very simple. They can’t have a nuclear weapon. You cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon.”

(7/10/24): “Iran should not have a nuclear weapon … Iran should never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.”

(6/20/24): “The main thing is Iran can’t have a nuclear weapon. That was my main thing. The deal was a simple deal. Iran can’t have a nuclear. You know, it can’t have a missile, it can’t have a nuclear missile. It cannot have that nuclear capability.”

(5/15/24): “We have a very hostile country that wants nuclear weapons. You can’t let that happen.” (6/15/24)
“Iran should not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. They would never have had even close to a nuclear weapon. They are very close to getting a nuclear weapon. You cannot let that happen.”

(5/1/24): “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon — very simple. They cannot have a nuclear weapon.”

(4/30/24): “You can’t let Iran have nuclear weapons.”

(3/25/24): “Iran wanted to make a deal, and what the deal — 90% of the deal that I want to make is no nuclear weapon. That’s 90% — almost 100%. It might be 100%. That’s all I want. No nuclear weapon for Iran”

(2/23/24): “I want everybody to be happy. They just can’t have a nuclear weapon.”

(1/20/24): “I just didn’t want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I said, ‘You know, we’re going to make a great deal. Everybody’s going to be happy. You’re going to be rich as hell again. Everything’s going to be great, but you cannot have a nuclear weapon.’”

(1/5/24): “They cannot have a nuclear weapon. That was the only thing — the one thing I said, ‘You cannot have.’”

(1/5/24): “I just don’t want them to have a nuclear weapon.”

(12/30/23): “They will have, within a short period of time, nuclear weapons — and that is never something that can be allowed to happen.”

“No nuclear weapons. You can’t have nuclear weapons. (11/9/23): Nuclear weapons are the single greatest threat to this world.”

(10/29/23): “They can’t have a nuclear weapon. That’s all. They can’t have nuclear weapons. It’s too destructive, too powerful. They can’t have it.”

(10/16/23): “Don’t let Iran have nuclear weapons. That’s my only thing I have to tell you today. Don’t let them have it.”

(7/15/23): “No nuclear weapons. You can’t give [Iran] nuclear weapons.”

(6/24/23): “You cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. You cannot let it happen because bad things will happen if that happens.”

(1/6/20): “IRAN WILL NEVER HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON!”

(6/22/19): “Iran cannot have Nuclear Weapons!”

(1/24/15): “We can’t let Iran get a nuclear weapon. We can’t do it. Can’t do it. We cannot let that happen.”

(11/4/11): “We can’t allow Iran to go nuclear.”

https://www.wionews.com/world/-15-times-...g_rewarded

Trump also told us last year that they had decimiated Iran's ability to produce nuclear weapons. So was he wrong then?

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/middle-ea...ld-end-war

Its impossible to reason with people who say these things and expect to be taken seriously. And there are a lot of them. Now this guy is Iranian, but a lot of Americans and Europeans repeat the same nonsense:


"Iran did not start its war with the United States and Israel. But more than a month in, the Islamic Republic is clearly winning it. American and Israeli forces have spent weeks incessantly bombing Iranian territory, killing thousands of people and damaging hundreds of buildings, all in hopes of toppling the country’s government. Yet Iran has held the line and successfully defended its interests. It has maintained continuity of leadership even as its top officials have been assassinated, and it has repeatedly hit back at its aggressors even as they strike at its military, civilian, and industrial facilities. The Americans and the Israelis who started the conflict with delusions of forcing capitulation thus find themselves in a quagmire without an exit strategy. The Iranians, by contrast, have pulled off a historic feat of resistance...."

What a crock of sh!t.

(04-02-2026 10:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-01-2026 07:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-01-2026 03:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  If the police go to arrest a child molester and he starts firing a gun all around, is it the fault of the police that he might have become violent?

If the police know a guy has wired the block to blow up, they dont go in shooting as a very first step. Imagine that.

Controlling Hormuz is the same level of seriousness.

Look the Iranians are cheap ass thugs. Im not losing sleep over them in this case. The issue is that it is more than obvious what Iran would do in the case of an all out war. Which is what they have done.

It was pretty fing stupid of us to not think that. It is pretty fing stupid of us not to acknowledge that we pressed the button for them to do that.

Apparently that is quite the leap for the Trump religious around here.

So just let Iran have a nuke. Let Iran continue developing longer and longer range ballistic missiles. Let Iran develop an ICBM. Let Iran run the Strait. Let Iran collect a toll for safe passage at the Strait. Let Iran export terror. Let Iran do anything they want---cuz they might close the Strait---and thats too scary. Got it. Next you'll agree to Iranian cleric appointing US presidents---cuz they might close the Strait---and that of course would be our fault if it got closed cuz we wouldnt let the Ayatolla appoint our president.....

Im sure we gamed the possibility they might do that. What we realized was it doesnt really affect us. The assumption was that allies would aid in reopening the Strait since it greatly affected them---and if they didnt----then we'd reopen it if we could without significant risk---but otherwise we'd leave it closed until hostilities ended because---

A) we didnt close it

B) it doesnt affect us

C) the people it does effect arent interested enough in getting it open to aid in the effort

D) We didnt close it

E) We didnt close it

We absolutely set in motion the closure. And made that decision knowing to a great probability that it would occur. No matter how many times you decide to parrot that ‘we didn’t close it’.

As to the ‘it doesn’t affect us’ —- hate to tell you the 50% jump in world oil prices and the already (with more built in) 40% rise in gasoline prices *absolutely* has affected us.

Or, if you claim not, tell our entire shipping industry where they can secure prices for gas and diesel comparable to Feb 27. Or better yet, tell our entire petrochemical industry where to secure the feedstock at less than current prices. Or better yet, tell me where to find fertilizer at Feb 27th prices……

(04-03-2026 01:16 PM)TripleA Wrote:  What a crock of sh!t.

Please point out the falsehoods.

(04-03-2026 01:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-03-2026 01:16 PM)TripleA Wrote:  What a crock of sh!t.

Please point out the falsehoods.

Hey Clarence, this is an opinion message board, not a court of law, and you sure as hell aren't in charge.

(04-03-2026 01:38 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-03-2026 01:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-03-2026 01:16 PM)TripleA Wrote:  What a crock of sh!t.

Please point out the falsehoods.

Hey Clarence, this is an opinion message board, not a court of law, and you sure as hell aren't in charge.

Sorry to corner your empty opinion with asking you to say what is false. Cool cool.

Let’s restate — your opinion is that it is a crock of ****, and when asked, can’t be bothered to state what is incorrect about it, then throw a temper tantrum about being asked why it is a crock of ****. Good look, pardner. Lolz.

Hmm...

(04-03-2026 01:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-03-2026 01:16 PM)TripleA Wrote:  What a crock of sh!t.

Please point out the falsehoods.

lol---which one first? "Toppling the government" was a preference---but never a requirement for success. Remember--the US was perfectly willing to cut a deal with the existing regime prior to the war provided it completely ended Iran's nuclear threat. We still are---and that has been stated multiple times.

The war aims were to prevent Iran from developing a nuke, destroy its ability to project military power outside of the borders (eliminate the navy, eliminate the air force, and eliminate or at least severely degrade its ballistic missile capabilities). Navy gone. Air Force gone. Ballistic forces while not eliminated---have been severely degraded and the missile production facilities have been destroyed.

As always, military actions are simply an extension of diplomacy. There will eventually be an agreement that does all or most of the above permanently---but for now---the the US diplomatic goals have been accomplished via the military. The choice of Iran to close the Strait is not our problem (its simply not enough of an issue for the US to offset the cost of militarily reopening the Gulf). My guess is we will do something to make closing the gulf more painful for Iran than the world and wait for Iran to come to the negotiating table).

As I said, I'd covertly mine the portion of the Straight Iran is using as a toll lane right now---but thats me. Another option is occupying Kharg Island and taking away Iran's ability to export oil. Not a bad idea---but I like my idea better because the risk to our people is more limited.

(04-03-2026 01:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-03-2026 01:38 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-03-2026 01:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-03-2026 01:16 PM)TripleA Wrote:  What a crock of sh!t.

Please point out the falsehoods.

Hey Clarence, this is an opinion message board, not a court of law, and you sure as hell aren't in charge.

Sorry to corner your empty opinion with asking you to say what is false. Cool cool.

Let’s restate — your opinion is that it is a crock of ****, and when asked, can’t be bothered to state what is incorrect about it, then throw a temper tantrum about being asked why it is a crock of ****. Good look, pardner. Lolz.

It takes one of the dumbest SOB's on earth to believe Iran is "winning it"


I'll let you decide if that's you....

(04-03-2026 02:42 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(04-03-2026 01:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-03-2026 01:38 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-03-2026 01:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-03-2026 01:16 PM)TripleA Wrote:  What a crock of sh!t.

Please point out the falsehoods.

Hey Clarence, this is an opinion message board, not a court of law, and you sure as hell aren't in charge.

Sorry to corner your empty opinion with asking you to say what is false. Cool cool.

Let’s restate — your opinion is that it is a crock of ****, and when asked, can’t be bothered to state what is incorrect about it, then throw a temper tantrum about being asked why it is a crock of ****. Good look, pardner. Lolz.

It takes one of the dumbest SOB's on earth to believe Iran is "winning it"


I'll let you decide if that's you....

Yup---if Iran is "winning it" then by that standard Ukraine is kicking the every loving dog crap out of Russia. I mean, the Ukrainian regime is still in place, the Russians havent been able to capture all of Donbas entering the 5th year of the war, the Russians have actually lost ground the last two months in Ukraine, and over the last couple of years more and more important infrastructure deep inside the actual borders of Russia is exploding under the impact of Ukrainian drones and missiles.

Among those with normal functioning IQ's, I dont think anyone believes either Iran or Ukraine is "winning". That said, I think we can all acknowledge sometimes just surviving is a "win" of sorts.

(04-03-2026 08:45 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(04-03-2026 07:13 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(04-01-2026 07:02 PM)Todor Wrote:  This whole operation is the opposite of draining the swamp.

The deep state interests that demand our intervention in the Middle East again are the same interests we voted to get rid of.

We can never free ourselves of deep state interests no matter who we elect I guess.

Did you cast your vote for Putin?

I’m sure folks in Russia can speak so critically about the government in Russia as you freely do here

You match Progrssive Leftist Hypocrisy perfectly

I notice you can't address what he actually said.

Hard to address anything he says when you know beyond a shadow of a doubt he has a hidden agenda and it includes your demise

(04-03-2026 01:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-03-2026 01:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-03-2026 01:16 PM)TripleA Wrote:  What a crock of sh!t.

Please point out the falsehoods.

lol---which one first? "Toppling the government" was a preference---but never a requirement for success. Remember--the US was perfectly willing to cut a deal with the existing regime prior to the war provided it completely ended Iran's nuclear threat. We still are---and that has been stated multiple times.

The war aims were to prevent Iran from developing a nuke, destroy its ability to project military power outside of the borders (eliminate the navy, eliminate the air force, and eliminate or at least severely degrade its ballistic missile capabilities). Navy gone. Air Force gone. Ballistic forces while not eliminated---have been severely degraded and the missile production facilities have been destroyed.

As always, military actions are simply an extension of diplomacy. There will eventually be an agreement that does all or most of the above permanently---but for now---the the US diplomatic goals have been accomplished via the military. The choice of Iran to close the Strait is not our problem (its simply not enough of an issue for the US to offset the cost of militarily reopening the Gulf). My guess is we will do something to make closing the gulf more painful for Iran than the world and wait for Iran to come to the negotiating table).

As I said, I'd covertly mine the portion of the Straight Iran is using as a toll lane right now---but thats me. Another option is occupying Kharg Island and taking away Iran's ability to export oil. Not a bad idea---but I like my idea better because the risk to our people is more limited.

while you're right about both, I like the latter b/c it offers more visibility and permanence moving forward...

(04-03-2026 01:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-03-2026 01:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-03-2026 01:16 PM)TripleA Wrote:  What a crock of sh!t.

Please point out the falsehoods.

lol---which one first? "Toppling the government" was a preference---but never a requirement for success. Remember--the US was perfectly willing to cut a deal with the existing regime prior to the war provided it completely ended Iran's nuclear threat. We still are---and that has been stated multiple times.

The war aims were to prevent Iran from developing a nuke, destroy its ability to project military power outside of the borders (eliminate the navy, eliminate the air force, and eliminate or at least severely degrade its ballistic missile capabilities). Navy gone. Air Force gone. Ballistic forces while not eliminated---have been severely degraded and the missile production facilities have been destroyed.

As always, military actions are simply an extension of diplomacy. There will eventually be an agreement that does all or most of the above permanently---but for now---the the US diplomatic goals have been accomplished via the military. The choice of Iran to close the Strait is not our problem (its simply not enough of an issue for the US to offset the cost of militarily reopening the Gulf). My guess is we will do something to make closing the gulf more painful for Iran than the world and wait for Iran to come to the negotiating table).

As I said, I'd covertly mine the portion of the Straight Iran is using as a toll lane right now---but thats me. Another option is occupying Kharg Island and taking away Iran's ability to export oil. Not a bad idea---but I like my idea better because the risk to our people is more limited.

Good stuff, AC. I just don't think it's worth the trouble to type all that, just b/c he demands it. I couldn't care less what he thinks, much less what he asks someone else here to do.

If they are ever going to pull off something like that, this is perhaps the right place for it to be.

Appears the 2nd F15E pilot has been rescued.