(03-31-2026 12:03 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-31-2026 12:01 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-31-2026 11:46 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(03-31-2026 09:59 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  The US is currently putting personnel and troops in hotels in the Gulf Arab Countries, and Iran has struck those hotels. Does that mean we were trying to use human shields to protect military targets? Or is Iran the baddie for striking hotels regardless of them having intelligence that US assets were there?

No you idiot... because our troops aren't moving in to Iran (will they? Dunno...)

Israels' been shooting infrastructure targets and military targets
US has been shooting at military targets and anything considered a regime headquarter targets.

Iran's shooting at anything, including but not limited to population centers and low-usage military targets.

Now do you see the difference?

Iran has no other choice but to do that. We would too if our existence was at risk.

No choice but to shoot at population centers? Of course they have a choice.

If your entire existence is at risk you'd do whatever you could to try to impose as much chaos to cause pause on the agressors part (and to get their allies to put pressure on them to stop). That is why they are shooting at major cities in neighboring countries, and why they've shut down the strait. Both were expected before the war.

(03-31-2026 11:46 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(03-31-2026 09:59 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  The US is currently putting personnel and troops in hotels in the Gulf Arab Countries, and Iran has struck those hotels. Does that mean we were trying to use human shields to protect military targets? Or is Iran the baddie for striking hotels regardless of them having intelligence that US assets were there?

No you idiot... because our troops aren't moving in to Iran (will they? Dunno...)

Israels' been shooting infrastructure targets and military targets
US has been shooting at military targets and anything considered a regime headquarter targets.

Iran's shooting at anything, including but not limited to population centers and low-usage military targets.

Now do you see the difference?

You are just very casually describing intentional war crimes being committed by Israel, and Iran is also committing intentional war crimes. Either that matters for both sides or neither side. IMO it should matter for both.

(03-31-2026 10:42 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-31-2026 10:40 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-31-2026 10:25 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-31-2026 08:08 AM)hburg Wrote:  From Trump...https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/116323481956698353

Quote:All of those countries that can’t get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you: Number 1, buy from the U.S., we have plenty, and Number 2, build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT. You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us. Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil! President DJT

NATO is finished and his suggestion will fall on deaf ears because they are all weak.

If Iran is decimated and the hard part is done then why can't we get the strait open? He also keeps talking about "buying oil from the US" but it's a global market and the country of the US doesn't own the oil the companies who own the oil rights do. Unless he is seriously considering nationalizing all US oil even if they did "buy from the U.S" that's just further enriching some US Oil companies not the country.

Simple answer to that, and it's an answer you can derive from science, or economics when it comes to the law of diminishing returns. For each incremental reduction in an undesirable item - say a missle/mine/drone hitting a ship trying to cross the straight - it takes more and more resources. You can have 99 ships transit that straight without any issue. But if that 100th ship gets hit, then odds are exceedingly high that those other 99 ships won't take the risk of being a part of the 1%.

The U.S. majorily reduced Iran's ability to shoot drones, missiles, etc. However, the odds of a ship getting hit is still too high. Just like with pollution, you need ever increasingly amounts of dilutants to reduce residuals to lower and lower levels.

You are obviously correct, and I already knew that answer, which means Trump is lying that the hard part is done, because what you are describing is actually the hard part. Dropping bombs and blowing up stuff is the easy part.

Not only was the first part "not easy"----its not even possible for most nations to even accomplish---simply because no other nation has the ability to project that kind of power over the kind of distances we are talking about. Most nations dont have much of an air force---much less hundreds of stealth aircraft, dedicated electronic warfare planes, multiple aircraft carriers, and a worldwide network of bases that allow them to project the power necessary to do what America just did to Iran's primary air and naval defenses.

On the other hand---whats left to do---just requires normal ships and ground troops that most every NATO nation possesses (especially when backed by the US air assets and intelligence). Rememeber---the US just asked for help----nobody said they had to do it all by themselves.....of course, if they dont want to help----thats their right---but they need to know that the closure of the Strait has only a minimal direct effect on the US. We are largely energy independent---and can be fully western hemisphere independent should we need to be. The US can always just wait out Iran, because the closure of the Strait shuts off the primary Iranian economic lifeblood----oil sales. Meanwhile---the US economy is only indirectly affected. I would also note that the US goal was to end the nuclear threat. We've definitely accomplished that in the short run---when we are done---that threat will be gone permanently. The Strait closure is a side show for us.

(03-31-2026 12:06 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-31-2026 12:03 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-31-2026 12:01 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-31-2026 11:46 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(03-31-2026 09:59 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  The US is currently putting personnel and troops in hotels in the Gulf Arab Countries, and Iran has struck those hotels. Does that mean we were trying to use human shields to protect military targets? Or is Iran the baddie for striking hotels regardless of them having intelligence that US assets were there?

No you idiot... because our troops aren't moving in to Iran (will they? Dunno...)

Israels' been shooting infrastructure targets and military targets
US has been shooting at military targets and anything considered a regime headquarter targets.

Iran's shooting at anything, including but not limited to population centers and low-usage military targets.

Now do you see the difference?

Iran has no other choice but to do that. We would too if our existence was at risk.

No choice but to shoot at population centers? Of course they have a choice.

If your entire existence is at risk you'd do whatever you could to try to impose as much chaos to cause pause on the agressors part (and to get their allies to put pressure on them to stop). That is why they are shooting at major cities in neighboring countries, and why they've shut down the strait. Both were expected before the war.

I said they have a choice. They still do. Their poor choices in the past are why they are in this predicament.

(03-31-2026 12:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-31-2026 10:42 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-31-2026 10:40 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-31-2026 10:25 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-31-2026 08:08 AM)hburg Wrote:  From Trump...https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/116323481956698353


NATO is finished and his suggestion will fall on deaf ears because they are all weak.

If Iran is decimated and the hard part is done then why can't we get the strait open? He also keeps talking about "buying oil from the US" but it's a global market and the country of the US doesn't own the oil the companies who own the oil rights do. Unless he is seriously considering nationalizing all US oil even if they did "buy from the U.S" that's just further enriching some US Oil companies not the country.

Simple answer to that, and it's an answer you can derive from science, or economics when it comes to the law of diminishing returns. For each incremental reduction in an undesirable item - say a missle/mine/drone hitting a ship trying to cross the straight - it takes more and more resources. You can have 99 ships transit that straight without any issue. But if that 100th ship gets hit, then odds are exceedingly high that those other 99 ships won't take the risk of being a part of the 1%.

The U.S. majorily reduced Iran's ability to shoot drones, missiles, etc. However, the odds of a ship getting hit is still too high. Just like with pollution, you need ever increasingly amounts of dilutants to reduce residuals to lower and lower levels.

You are obviously correct, and I already knew that answer, which means Trump is lying that the hard part is done, because what you are describing is actually the hard part. Dropping bombs and blowing up stuff is the easy part.

Not only was the first part "not easy"----its not even possible for most nations to even accomplish---simply because no other nation has the ability to project that kind of power over the kind of distances we are talking about. Most nations dont have much of an air force---much less hundreds of stealth aircraft, dedicated electronic warfare planes, multiple aircraft carriers, and a worldwide network of bases that allow them to project the power necessary to do what America just did to Iran's primary air and naval defenses.

On the other hand---whats left to do---just requires normal ground troops that every nation possesses (especially when backed by the US air assets and intelligence). Rememeber---the US just asked for help----nobody said they had to do it all by themselves.....of course, if they dont want to help----thats their right---but they need to know that the closure of the Strait has only a minimal direct effect on the US. We are largely energy independent---and can be fully western hemisphere independent should we need to be. The US can always just wait out Iran, because the closure of the Strait shuts off the primary Iranian economic lifeblood----oil sales. Meanwhile---the US economy is only indirectly affected.

This entire second paragraph has to be parody right? Every part of it is comically wrong.

(03-31-2026 12:54 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-31-2026 12:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-31-2026 10:42 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-31-2026 10:40 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-31-2026 10:25 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  If Iran is decimated and the hard part is done then why can't we get the strait open? He also keeps talking about "buying oil from the US" but it's a global market and the country of the US doesn't own the oil the companies who own the oil rights do. Unless he is seriously considering nationalizing all US oil even if they did "buy from the U.S" that's just further enriching some US Oil companies not the country.

Simple answer to that, and it's an answer you can derive from science, or economics when it comes to the law of diminishing returns. For each incremental reduction in an undesirable item - say a missle/mine/drone hitting a ship trying to cross the straight - it takes more and more resources. You can have 99 ships transit that straight without any issue. But if that 100th ship gets hit, then odds are exceedingly high that those other 99 ships won't take the risk of being a part of the 1%.

The U.S. majorily reduced Iran's ability to shoot drones, missiles, etc. However, the odds of a ship getting hit is still too high. Just like with pollution, you need ever increasingly amounts of dilutants to reduce residuals to lower and lower levels.

You are obviously correct, and I already knew that answer, which means Trump is lying that the hard part is done, because what you are describing is actually the hard part. Dropping bombs and blowing up stuff is the easy part.

Not only was the first part "not easy"----its not even possible for most nations to even accomplish---simply because no other nation has the ability to project that kind of power over the kind of distances we are talking about. Most nations dont have much of an air force---much less hundreds of stealth aircraft, dedicated electronic warfare planes, multiple aircraft carriers, and a worldwide network of bases that allow them to project the power necessary to do what America just did to Iran's primary air and naval defenses.

On the other hand---whats left to do---just requires normal ground troops that every nation possesses (especially when backed by the US air assets and intelligence). Rememeber---the US just asked for help----nobody said they had to do it all by themselves.....of course, if they dont want to help----thats their right---but they need to know that the closure of the Strait has only a minimal direct effect on the US. We are largely energy independent---and can be fully western hemisphere independent should we need to be. The US can always just wait out Iran, because the closure of the Strait shuts off the primary Iranian economic lifeblood----oil sales. Meanwhile---the US economy is only indirectly affected.

This entire second paragraph has to be parody right? Every part of it is comically wrong.

Parody is allegedly being a grown assed man who can't be expected to get an Id to vote because his mommy lives an hour away and has his birth certificate.

(03-31-2026 12:54 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-31-2026 12:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-31-2026 10:42 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-31-2026 10:40 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-31-2026 10:25 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  If Iran is decimated and the hard part is done then why can't we get the strait open? He also keeps talking about "buying oil from the US" but it's a global market and the country of the US doesn't own the oil the companies who own the oil rights do. Unless he is seriously considering nationalizing all US oil even if they did "buy from the U.S" that's just further enriching some US Oil companies not the country.

Simple answer to that, and it's an answer you can derive from science, or economics when it comes to the law of diminishing returns. For each incremental reduction in an undesirable item - say a missle/mine/drone hitting a ship trying to cross the straight - it takes more and more resources. You can have 99 ships transit that straight without any issue. But if that 100th ship gets hit, then odds are exceedingly high that those other 99 ships won't take the risk of being a part of the 1%.

The U.S. majorily reduced Iran's ability to shoot drones, missiles, etc. However, the odds of a ship getting hit is still too high. Just like with pollution, you need ever increasingly amounts of dilutants to reduce residuals to lower and lower levels.

You are obviously correct, and I already knew that answer, which means Trump is lying that the hard part is done, because what you are describing is actually the hard part. Dropping bombs and blowing up stuff is the easy part.

Not only was the first part "not easy"----its not even possible for most nations to even accomplish---simply because no other nation has the ability to project that kind of power over the kind of distances we are talking about. Most nations dont have much of an air force---much less hundreds of stealth aircraft, dedicated electronic warfare planes, multiple aircraft carriers, and a worldwide network of bases that allow them to project the power necessary to do what America just did to Iran's primary air and naval defenses.

On the other hand---whats left to do---just requires normal ground troops that every nation possesses (especially when backed by the US air assets and intelligence). Rememeber---the US just asked for help----nobody said they had to do it all by themselves.....of course, if they dont want to help----thats their right---but they need to know that the closure of the Strait has only a minimal direct effect on the US. We are largely energy independent---and can be fully western hemisphere independent should we need to be. The US can always just wait out Iran, because the closure of the Strait shuts off the primary Iranian economic lifeblood----oil sales. Meanwhile---the US economy is only indirectly affected.

This entire second paragraph has to be parody right? Every part of it is comically wrong.

Once the US air campaign was completed, during the ground war phase of the iraqi war, the US and its allies took out Iraq's army in three weeks. Iraq had 1.3 million men under arms and was far better trained, armed, and battle tested than Irans army. I would note, the entire US coalition army was less than half the size of Iraq's army. Setting the table for a ground war with a proper air campaign and complete air supremacy matters. Again, the ground war lasted a whopping 3 weeks before the entire country fell.

Furthermore, any coalition of allies would not be looking to conquer the entire nation of Iran---as far as I can tell the only goal would be to just reopen the Strait and force an end to hostilities once the nuclear threat is eradicated. I would also point out that when the goal was simply to drive Iraq from Kuwait in 1991, the entire ground war led by US coalition forces required just 100 hours. Is this an easy task---I would not say that---but its also not correct to pretend this is some virtually impossible task that would require a forever war.

(03-31-2026 12:58 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(03-31-2026 12:54 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-31-2026 12:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-31-2026 10:42 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-31-2026 10:40 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Simple answer to that, and it's an answer you can derive from science, or economics when it comes to the law of diminishing returns. For each incremental reduction in an undesirable item - say a missle/mine/drone hitting a ship trying to cross the straight - it takes more and more resources. You can have 99 ships transit that straight without any issue. But if that 100th ship gets hit, then odds are exceedingly high that those other 99 ships won't take the risk of being a part of the 1%.

The U.S. majorily reduced Iran's ability to shoot drones, missiles, etc. However, the odds of a ship getting hit is still too high. Just like with pollution, you need ever increasingly amounts of dilutants to reduce residuals to lower and lower levels.

You are obviously correct, and I already knew that answer, which means Trump is lying that the hard part is done, because what you are describing is actually the hard part. Dropping bombs and blowing up stuff is the easy part.

Not only was the first part "not easy"----its not even possible for most nations to even accomplish---simply because no other nation has the ability to project that kind of power over the kind of distances we are talking about. Most nations dont have much of an air force---much less hundreds of stealth aircraft, dedicated electronic warfare planes, multiple aircraft carriers, and a worldwide network of bases that allow them to project the power necessary to do what America just did to Iran's primary air and naval defenses.

On the other hand---whats left to do---just requires normal ground troops that every nation possesses (especially when backed by the US air assets and intelligence). Rememeber---the US just asked for help----nobody said they had to do it all by themselves.....of course, if they dont want to help----thats their right---but they need to know that the closure of the Strait has only a minimal direct effect on the US. We are largely energy independent---and can be fully western hemisphere independent should we need to be. The US can always just wait out Iran, because the closure of the Strait shuts off the primary Iranian economic lifeblood----oil sales. Meanwhile---the US economy is only indirectly affected.

This entire second paragraph has to be parody right? Every part of it is comically wrong.

Parody is allegedly being a grown assed man who can't be expected to get an Id to vote because his mommy lives an hour away and has his birth certificate.

Enjoy. Trump and Iran parody.





https://youtube.com/shorts/z0vNPbCVRlM?s...Km7N1P3sPw

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

(04-01-2026 07:55 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Not sure the accuracy, but it always boils down to economics. I support the war effort against Iran, but gas prices are going to be a big difference maker come mid-terms. This is why Trump will take oil island and other islands in the straight. Iran is too stubborn and too much into bringing the end of the world by bring in their Mahdi to rule the world.

(04-01-2026 08:02 AM)hburg Wrote:  

(04-01-2026 07:55 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Not sure the accuracy, but it always boils down to economics. I support the war effort against Iran, but gas prices are going to be a big difference maker come mid-terms. This is why Trump will take oil island and other islands in the straight [sic]. Iran is too stubborn and too much into bringing the end of the world by bring in their Mahdi to rule the world.

Sounds nice and all, but that's not really going to do a damned thing to lower gas prices or "fix" our economy.

Why not walk away? OUR oil doesn't go through there. As long as Iran doesn't have nuke capability and quits attacking people, leave.

(04-01-2026 09:55 AM)Claw Wrote:  Why not walk away? OUR oil doesn't go through there. As long as Iran doesn't have nuke capability and quits attacking people, leave.

Here's the question, why do oil prices continue to rise if our oil isn't impacted by that particular area?

(04-01-2026 09:57 AM)hburg Wrote:  

(04-01-2026 09:55 AM)Claw Wrote:  Why not walk away? OUR oil doesn't go through there. As long as Iran doesn't have nuke capability and quits attacking people, leave.

Here's the question, why do oil prices continue to rise if our oil isn't impacted by that particular area?

b/c the market is global.

In 2025 we imported 256 million barrels of oil and exported 354 million barrels of oil. Figure it out and give them the middle finger.

(04-01-2026 10:06 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  In 2025 we imported 256 million barrels of oil and exported 354 million barrels of oil. Figure it out and give them the middle finger.

Exactly. Not our problem. We fixed the big issue, their march toward nukes.

If they want the Strait open, go take it, you sissies. Damn, 35 countries can't muster enough firepower to stop Iran from dominating what is supposed to be international waters?

(04-01-2026 09:57 AM)hburg Wrote:  

(04-01-2026 09:55 AM)Claw Wrote:  Why not walk away? OUR oil doesn't go through there. As long as Iran doesn't have nuke capability and quits attacking people, leave.

Here's the question, why do oil prices continue to rise if our oil isn't impacted by that particular area?

The oil market is a world market, and subject to world prices.

If Texas Joe can sell his barrel to Korea for 120 bucks a barrel, Texas Joe will only sell to the US market at that price minus a few bucks for shipping costs.

(04-01-2026 10:06 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  In 2025 we imported 256 million barrels of oil and exported 354 million barrels of oil. Figure it out and give them the middle finger.

Our refineries for the vast most part cannot refine the present US mixture. Havent been able to since the late 80s.

So we sell our stuff to the places that can use and refine it, and in return we buy the grade that our refineries are 'tuned' for.