Political fallout and arguments regarding the US-Israeli action against Iran 022824

69,248 Views | 869 Replies | Last: 55 min ago by MattAg84
AgBQ-00
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Tard_85 said:

TRM said:



This is beyond stupid for our reserves to be so low. Just think how awful Biden and the democrats were/are.
-Rule by auto pen
-Then opening up the strategic oil reserves just to buy votes

Oh and the democrat bosses appointing their candidate, Harris, in 2024 because the primary leader, Biden, got his ass kicked in a debate.

And they accuse Trump of being power hungry or corrupt ? What a world. The dems will be the death of this country and this whole strategic oil reserve BS is simply one example among many.

And once this conflict is over Trump needs to refill it and strengthen the laws to protect its primary function.

You cant despise the dems enough

That would be the innocent public facing reasoning. They depleted the reserves to make us less secure
God loves you so much He'll meet you where you are. He also loves you too much to allow to stay where you are.

We sing Hallelujah! The Lamb has overcome!
Who?mikejones!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Of course, a major difference between us and a lot of that list- we're sitting on top of some of the richest reserves in the world, we have the capacity and willingness to get it out of the ground (lol uk), and we can refine it.
If push comes to shove, we will be okay. Others, might be a rough time
AlaskanAg99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Who?mikejones! said:

Of course, a major difference between us and a lot of that list- we're sitting on top of some of the richest reserves in the world, we have the capacity and willingness to get it out of the ground (lol uk), and we can refine it.
If push comes to shove, we will be okay. Others, might be a rough time


Agree, unlike much of SE Asia and Europe, we have the ability to expand production. There will be pain points along the way.

The other options we have is to sharply reduce exports in order to insure domestic prices aren't hammered.
aTm '99
Tard_85
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Who?mikejones! said:

Of course, a major difference between us and a lot of that list- we're sitting on top of some of the richest reserves in the world, we have the capacity and willingness to get it out of the ground (lol uk), and we can refine it.
If push comes to shove, we will be okay. Others, might be a rough time

Yes we are but as you pointed out there is an extraction and refining time lag. A big fast moving war in the
Pacific will require that reserve.
Who?mikejones!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No doubt. Just pointing out we have more options and flexibility than most our peers
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Tard_85 said:

Who?mikejones! said:

Of course, a major difference between us and a lot of that list- we're sitting on top of some of the richest reserves in the world, we have the capacity and willingness to get it out of the ground (lol uk), and we can refine it.
If push comes to shove, we will be okay. Others, might be a rough time

Yes we are but as you pointed out there is an extraction and refining time lag. A big fast moving war in the
Pacific will require that reserve.



While true, that graphic is a direct reflection of who can produce their own oil and who can't. Most of those countries should naturally have more reserve than us because they can't produce their own oil and/or have to source it from very far away. I'm not sure what our absolute reserve number should be but it's certainly true that Biden depleting it for politics was stupid.

Even Obama's economic advisors told him it was a stupid, meaningless thing to do back when he was talking about doing it. There is no ROI to deplete our strategic reserve to try and drop gas prices by 1-2c.
OldArmy71
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I find it highly likely that Blinken is right, that Trump will not like the poll results and the oil crunch and simply declare victory.

Hope I'm wrong.

I just don't understand how an unarmed population is going to do anything against the entrenched lunatics who run Iran.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dungeon Crawler Carl said:




Awesome.

The $ will depreciate against the renminbi, and it will make selling their crappy products into the US that much more difficult for them.
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
OldArmy71 said:

I find it highly likely that Blinken is right, that Trump will not like the poll results and the oil crunch and simply declare victory.

Hope I'm wrong.

I just don't understand how an unarmed population is going to do anything against the entrenched lunatics who run Iran.


Which is why the Kurds are being drafted.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ag87H2O said:

JFABNRGR said:



Outstanding. Sadly, the TDS crowd will never get it.

Such obvious AI.

So funny that someone thinks that a stock AI video somehow has any amount of gravitas. This type of thing will be considered to be super-tacky before we even get to Thanksgiving this year.

On a side note, I do like the analogy. I'm pretty sure that a Rocky meme would be better, though.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zachary Klement said:



Matt does have a good point.

I think that the real story here is that we did this in response to Iran buying and building thousands of missiles that they could use to overwhelm our anti-missile defense systems. We don't want to come out and say that directly, because it would just encourage other rogue countries to do the same. We could spend a ton of money quintupling our antimissile defense system, but just systematically ending Ayatollah's is a lot cheaper.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dungeon Crawler Carl said:



Judge a man by his actions, not his words......




This was before Iran started building over 1,000 missiles a month to try and overwhelm our anti-missile systems.

Is the fact that Iran is gearing up to overwhelm our anti-missile systems of any importance to you?
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dungeon Crawler Carl said:



Judge a man by his actions, not his words......




You might should edit your post so that you do not look like you are condoning the lie in that tweet which misquotes Trump.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hullabaloonatic said:

Sid Farkas said:

Zachary Klement said:




Iran's proxies are on their heels (after decades of killing Americans and other friendlies): Good
The Islamic state remains without nukes and prospects of getting them are as dim as ever: Good
Trump's doing a solid for #1 ally Israel: Good
Golden opportunity for Iran to join in the prosperity of the ME, thus supporting our own: Good
Part of the Trump Doctrine to (along with Venezuela opportunity) deny China and Russia ability to harass America and the West: Good

It's insincere or stupid or both to refuse to even acknowledge the Trump admin's assertion that the game of flawless, precise decapitation of a regime is hitting a new golden age - and things are really different this time. He can push that button again and again until Iran gets it. It is different this time.

Supporting an ally isn't just about backing them, it's about reducing the chance they're pulled into wider war. Destabilizing Iran without a diplomatic framework increases the risk of regional war involving Israel, which is not necessarily in Israel's long-term security interest.

"Decapitation" doesn't end regimes cleanly; it often creates instability, power vacuums, and escalation (see Iraq, Libya for historical parallels). You assume there's a straight line between intent and outcome. But in practice:
  • Withdrawing from agreements --> reduced U.S. leverage
  • Maximum pressure --> more Iranian hardline behavior
  • Military escalation --> greater regional instability
  • Isolation strategy --> closer Iran-China-Russia ties
So the critique isn't that the goals are inherently wrong, it's that many of Trump's actual policies worked against those goals, sometimes directly.

Do you have some examples from recent history that we could analyze to see if your unfounded opinion has any merit at all?
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

Stupid take from a redditor.



Even a stupid commie can see that this attack was about who sells oil to China, not about Israel.

I'm glad that Israel was kind enough to do most of the dirty work for us.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Kansas Kid said:



Oxford Definition
"A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state."

By the definition of the word, I would love to hear how this isn't armed conflict between multiple nations.


So, can we apply that same standard to all the wars that Obama was fighting during his term?
HoustonAggie11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rapier108 said:

aggiehawg said:

Rapier108 said:

If the midterms were held next month, Trump and the Republicans would get creamed on "affordability" with as quickly as gas prices have gone vertical.

3-1, gas prices in B/CS were $2.29-$2.59.
3-2, almost every single station went to $2.69 with some 10-20 cents higher.
3-4, now almost all are $2.79 to $2.89 with a few at $3.

With gas and diesel going up this fast, expect to see prices on everything else, especially food to follow in short order. I expect to see FedEx and UPS jack their fuel surcharge by several percentage points in the coming weeks.

Won't be long before we are hearing about "Trumpflation" and it won't be an accusation without merit.

Just like your prognostications about 2024 were spectacularly off base, this is also off base. Trump owns what is happening in Iran. If that somehow goes south, then maybe.

We'll see how it looks in a few months.

And if all you're going to do is make digs at me, then don't respond to me anymore.

LMAO

/shes right you know
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BMX Bandit said:



No mention of a preemptive hit by Iran in this clip. Anyone see the full video?

Need more of this. Get out there and tell the people what's going on. No more "sources say"


Wow.

I love Rubio more and more every day.

Why did we go to war?

Israel saw that Iran was stockpiling missiles to attack the region, especially Israel. They were getting enough missiles that they would be able to penetrate their anti-missile defense systems. So, they let us know that they were going to destroy Iran's leadership.

We decided that, if they were going to do that, Iran was going to fire rockets at all of our assets and our alllies' assets in the region. So, we decided to start taking out their capabilities to destroy our assets at the same time that Israel launched their attack on the Iranian leadership.

And, that has how the operation has proceeded. We are destroying Iran's offensive capabilities; Israel is destroying Iran's leadership.

It's such easy logic to follow. Everyone is acting in their own best interest, even if the Ayatollah's miscalculated how feckless their last breath death rasping offensive was going to be, and their trust that their immortal war prophet was going to come save them.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

Dumb question here: Is maritime insurance issued only per voyage? Or for a set period of time such as six months to a year? Can the insurers just cancel anytime they want?

Maritime insurance is typically priced on a per voyage basis. Pretty sure the policies are written based on what is the most advantageous to the insured, because the insurance company can charge the most that way.

Lloyds will insure almost anything. If you want a policy that covers all your shipping over a 6 month term, you can probably get it, you just have to commit to certain terms, which likely include calling off voyages near ongoing wars. If you want the insurance to cover you even in times of war, you MIGHT be able to get that, but you probably can't afford it.

If you are really worried about a war making you go under, you can get business interruption insurance to pay you if you have to call off your shipping. So, Iran starts firing missiles, you have to stop your ship because it is no longer insured, and Lloyds hands you a check on your separate business interruption policy because the war broke out. I would imagine very few people would actually buy business interruption insurance against a war from Iran because, again, you probably can't afford it.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
nortex97 said:

Most maritime insurance policies are subject to cancellation at any time, in general with 72 hours notice.

Note, I'm not an expert on this at all, just my understanding.


In the insurance market, there is a difference between something being available and something being affordable.

It is likely now just economically impossible to go close to Iran in a big ship.

Insurance is supposed to cover unexpected risks. Iran sinking commercial tankers would not be in that category at this time.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Would you have rather let Iran's missiles take out all of our embassies in the ME before we shot back?

Because, you know, that would have been an option.

Or maybe you would rather us have zero embassies in the ME?

What would your preferred path be here, knowing for sure that Iran was going to fire thousands of rockets at us?
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dan Scott said:



Yeah that's not a good look. The world superpower got dragged into a war

Would you rather have waited for Iran to destroy all of our embassies in the region before we responded? Because that was going to happen.

Or, maybe your preference would have been for us just to nuke Israel so that they wouldn't attack Iran?


What would your plan of action be here?
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dan Scott said:

That's where the United States then tells Israel that because you're going to make your problem, my problem, let's examine if this move and all the uncertainty that will come is worth it.

Per Netanyahu, the regime is the weakest it's ever been, per Trump we destroyed their nuclear unless they were able to rebuilt everything in 8 months, all their proxies pretty much destroyed, Iran has huge internal issues to deal with and about to have financial catastrophe.

Now we're paying higher energy prices, Americans are at risk, billions paid, and no clue what's to come. As the superpower in the world that wants stability, we tell Israel to chill.

What about the 1,000 of missiles that Iran was stockpiling per month, at a rate where Iron Dome would be completely overwhelmed in a manner of months.

Was that at all concerning to you?
TRM
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Anyone who remembers the Gulf War when CNN struck some kind of deal with Saddam to be the only foreign press allowed, knows this ain't good.

Who?mikejones!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Just filled up for 140 dollars. Gross
TRM
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
India promised they wouldn't do this as part of the tariff agreement. There's going to be some fallout from it.
AgGrad99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dungeon Crawler Carl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusterAg said:

Dungeon Crawler Carl said:



Judge a man by his actions, not his words......




You might should edit your post so that you do not look like you are condoning the lie in that tweet which misquotes Trump.


You know he lied to justify the attack on Iran, right? Let's see if you can spot it......

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/read-trumps-full-statement-on-iran-attack


"A short time ago, the United States military began major combat operations in Iran. Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime. A vicious group of very hard, terrible people. Its menacing activities directly endanger the United States, our troops, our bases overseas, and our allies throughout the world.

For 47 years, the Iranian regime has chanted Death to America and waged an unending campaign of bloodshed and mass murder, targeting the United States, our troops and the innocent people in many, many countries. Among the regime's very first acts was to back a violent takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, holding dozens of American hostages for 444 days. In 1983, Iran's proxies carried out the marine barracks bombing in Beirut that killed 241 American military personnel.

In 2000, they knew and were probably involved with the attack on the USS Cole. Many died. Iranian forces killed and maimed hundreds of American service members in Iraq. The regime's proxies have continued to launch countless attacks against American forces stationed in the Middle East in recent years, as well as U.S. naval and commercial vessels and international shipping lines. It's been mass terror, and we're not going to put up with it any longer.

From Lebanon to Yemen and Syria to Iraq, the regime has armed, trained and funded terrorist militias that have soaked the earth with blood and guts. And it was Iran's proxy, Hamas, that launched the monstrous Oct. 7 attacks on Israel, slaughtering more than 1,000 innocent people, including 46 Americans, while taking 12 of our citizens hostage. It was brutal, something like the world has never seen before.

Iran is the world's number one state sponsor of terror, and just recently killed tens of thousands of its own citizens on the street as they protested. It has always been the policy of the United States, in particular my administration, that this terrorist regime can never have a nuclear weapon. I'll say it again, they can never have a nuclear weapon. That is why in Operation Midnight Hammer last June, we obliterated the regime's nuclear program at Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan. After that attack, we warned them never to resume their malicious pursuit of nuclear weapons, and we sought repeatedly to make a deal. We tried. They wanted to do it. They didn't want to do it. Again they wanted to do it. They didn't want to do it. They didn't know what was happening. They just wanted to practice evil. But Iran refused, just as it has for decades and decades....."
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TRM said:

India promised they wouldn't do this as part of the tariff agreement. There's going to be some fallout from it.



Did they ever stop? They've been playing all sides for several years now.
Dungeon Crawler Carl
How long do you want to ignore this user?


LEGEND

AgBQ-00
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'll worry about mission creep when we start seeing troop formations moving. There would be no hiding that and IF that comes up I'll be there standing against that sort of action.
God loves you so much He'll meet you where you are. He also loves you too much to allow to stay where you are.

We sing Hallelujah! The Lamb has overcome!
Queso1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Oil over $81 now. This is in our best interests. I can already feel the benefits. Right?
Dan Scott
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BusterAg said:

Dan Scott said:

That's where the United States then tells Israel that because you're going to make your problem, my problem, let's examine if this move and all the uncertainty that will come is worth it.

Per Netanyahu, the regime is the weakest it's ever been, per Trump we destroyed their nuclear unless they were able to rebuilt everything in 8 months, all their proxies pretty much destroyed, Iran has huge internal issues to deal with and about to have financial catastrophe.

Now we're paying higher energy prices, Americans are at risk, billions paid, and no clue what's to come. As the superpower in the world that wants stability, we tell Israel to chill.

What about the 1,000 of missiles that Iran was stockpiling per month, at a rate where Iron Dome would be completely overwhelmed in a manner of months.

Was that at all concerning to you?
That's concerning. Just as concerning as Americans are about to pay indirectly to protect foreign land like we did in 2022. They did the risk assessment and said this was worth it. I don't believe it based on history
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Let's go! I'd leave Portugal too for now. Maybe italy.

 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.