cubsfan Posted March 22 Posted March 22 5 minutes ago, Blake Hampton said: Cubs, you would do yourself a great service if you read the WSJ everyday instead of whatever else it is you consume. You said you get your news from "cable news - YouTube sources - podcasters." Dude, on both sides of the aisle, that stuff is extremely biased and full of misinformation. I think Deal is one of the smartest posters on the board. I also think that your news sources are corrupting your worldview. Appreciate the advice Blake -- "Tis but a scratch" Be sure and keep me informed of Iran's impending victory.
dealraker Posted March 22 Posted March 22 (edited) 1 hour ago, cubsfan said: If I told you 100X and you still don't get it Deal, that's ok, cause I know you're a little slow in your old age. Here's what I said: Iran is not winning this war, unlike what your buddy Viking keeps spouting. There is a "cost" to get rid of the world's largest terrorist nation. Keep relying on the NYT & WSJ as "objective" might lead you to a different conclusion. Oh, and don't forget Deal: this campaign by the US & Israel has been a stunning success. OK, I'm in agreement with your first sentence. But... ...is it really Trump's nature or best interest to resolve things or is it in better for multiple issues - the more the better - to be in progress so that the things he's not keen on doing (real economy, budget deficit, over-spending, files of various types, healthcare costs, etc.) are void of having to be dealt with? Iran for longer? Edited March 22 by dealraker
cubsfan Posted March 22 Posted March 22 23 minutes ago, Viking said: I hope you are right. It looks like we have a 1950’s game of chicken going on. Not sure that is the best way to resolve the war in the Persian Gulf… but it appears to be where we are at. The US/Israeli’s are driving the global economy car and Iran is driving the other car. Who wins in the game of chicken? In the classic game of chicken (two cars driving straight at each other), there isn’t a single “winner” in the conventional sense. The outcome depends on credibility, commitment, and psychology, not just courage. The payoff structure (intuition) Best outcome (individual): You keep going, the other swerves → you “win” Worst outcome (mutual): Neither swerves → catastrophic crash Second-best (mutual): Both swerve → no crash, but no dominance Second-worst (individual): You swerve, the other doesn’t → you “lose” Who actually “wins”? The player who convinces the other they won’t swerve. This is the key insight from game theory (Thomas Schelling): The winner is not the bravest — it’s the one who makes their threat most credible. How does someone make that credible? 1. Commitment (burning the steering wheel) If one driver throws their steering wheel out the window, they’ve removed their ability to swerve. Now the other driver faces a binary choice: Swerve → survive Don’t swerve → both die Result: The committed player “wins” almost every time. 2. Reputation If one driver is known historically to never swerve, the other will yield. This is repeated-game logic: Past behavior shapes future expectations Reputation becomes a strategic asset 3. Asymmetric incentives If one player values survival less (or appears irrational), they gain leverage. A rational player must swerve against someone perceived as irrational This is sometimes called the “madman advantage” Equilibrium view (game theory) Chicken has two Nash equilibria: Player A goes straight, Player B swerves Player B goes straight, Player A swerves There is no stable equilibrium where both go straight (crash) or both swerve (unstable—someone is tempted to deviate). Key takeaway (important) The game is not about bravery — it’s about: Credible commitment Signaling Psychological dominance You are sounding more and more like Monty Python's delusional Black Knight that gets his arms chopped off,,, "Tis but a flesh wound"
UK Posted March 22 Posted March 22 25 minutes ago, Viking said: I hope you are right. It looks like we have a 1950’s game of chicken going on. Not sure that is the best way to resolve the war in the Persian Gulf… but it appears to be where we are at. The US/Israeli’s are driving the global economy car and Iran is driving the other car. Who wins in the game of chicken? In the classic game of chicken (two cars driving straight at each other), there isn’t a single “winner” in the conventional sense. The outcome depends on credibility, commitment, and psychology, not just courage. The payoff structure (intuition) Best outcome (individual): You keep going, the other swerves → you “win” Worst outcome (mutual): Neither swerves → catastrophic crash Second-best (mutual): Both swerve → no crash, but no dominance Second-worst (individual): You swerve, the other doesn’t → you “lose” Who actually “wins”? The player who convinces the other they won’t swerve. This is the key insight from game theory (Thomas Schelling): The winner is not the bravest — it’s the one who makes their threat most credible. How does someone make that credible? 1. Commitment (burning the steering wheel) If one driver throws their steering wheel out the window, they’ve removed their ability to swerve. Now the other driver faces a binary choice: Swerve → survive Don’t swerve → both die Result: The committed player “wins” almost every time. 2. Reputation If one driver is known historically to never swerve, the other will yield. This is repeated-game logic: Past behavior shapes future expectations Reputation becomes a strategic asset 3. Asymmetric incentives If one player values survival less (or appears irrational), they gain leverage. A rational player must swerve against someone perceived as irrational This is sometimes called the “madman advantage” Equilibrium view (game theory) Chicken has two Nash equilibria: Player A goes straight, Player B swerves Player B goes straight, Player A swerves There is no stable equilibrium where both go straight (crash) or both swerve (unstable—someone is tempted to deviate). Key takeaway (important) The game is not about bravery — it’s about: Credible commitment Signaling Psychological dominance Remembered this: I am betting he is gonna swerve first (going against the train):)
UK Posted March 22 Posted March 22 25 minutes ago, Viking said: I hope you are right. It looks like we have a 1950’s game of chicken going on. Not sure that is the best way to resolve the war in the Persian Gulf… but it appears to be where we are at. The US/Israeli’s are driving the global economy car and Iran is driving the other car. Who wins in the game of chicken? In the classic game of chicken (two cars driving straight at each other), there isn’t a single “winner” in the conventional sense. The outcome depends on credibility, commitment, and psychology, not just courage. The payoff structure (intuition) Best outcome (individual): You keep going, the other swerves → you “win” Worst outcome (mutual): Neither swerves → catastrophic crash Second-best (mutual): Both swerve → no crash, but no dominance Second-worst (individual): You swerve, the other doesn’t → you “lose” Who actually “wins”? The player who convinces the other they won’t swerve. This is the key insight from game theory (Thomas Schelling): The winner is not the bravest — it’s the one who makes their threat most credible. How does someone make that credible? 1. Commitment (burning the steering wheel) If one driver throws their steering wheel out the window, they’ve removed their ability to swerve. Now the other driver faces a binary choice: Swerve → survive Don’t swerve → both die Result: The committed player “wins” almost every time. 2. Reputation If one driver is known historically to never swerve, the other will yield. This is repeated-game logic: Past behavior shapes future expectations Reputation becomes a strategic asset 3. Asymmetric incentives If one player values survival less (or appears irrational), they gain leverage. A rational player must swerve against someone perceived as irrational This is sometimes called the “madman advantage” Equilibrium view (game theory) Chicken has two Nash equilibria: Player A goes straight, Player B swerves Player B goes straight, Player A swerves There is no stable equilibrium where both go straight (crash) or both swerve (unstable—someone is tempted to deviate). Key takeaway (important) The game is not about bravery — it’s about: Credible commitment Signaling Psychological dominance Remembered this: I am betting he is gonna swerve first (going against the train):)
Blake Hampton Posted March 22 Posted March 22 Think about like this: Each and every person experiences their own little bubble of reality. Understanding what's going on within that bubble is as simple as existing. On the other hand, understanding things that are either intangible or that exist outside of that bubble rest on what you read and watch. I believe it is of extreme importance to self-curate what it is your actually consuming. The news you select will determine how you view the outside world. The books you choose to read will do something similar. Basically any sort of information that you ingest will have an effect on you, whether you realize it or not. I think the primary problem revolving around information today is directly inverse to the problem that existed a hundred years ago. Today, it's not the lack of information that's the problem, the thing now is that there's far too much information. People's minds are too busy getting bogged down in Facebook slop to realize what actually important. The harm done to attention spans I'm sure has also played a role. The falling off of newspapers was a national tragedy. I still place an enormous amount of faith in the WSJ, FT, and NYT. I especially love The Economist. Cubs, you should start reading The Economist.
Blake Hampton Posted March 22 Posted March 22 7 minutes ago, Blake Hampton said: Cubs, you should start reading The Economist. Here's this week's cover:
Xerxes Posted March 22 Posted March 22 19 hours ago, Red Lion said: There are certain notable exceptions to both sides losing. For example, crushing the nazis was a win:win for the whole world, except the Nazis. The Iran regime is just as bad as the Nazis, just not nearly as formidable (unless they build a nuke). Making comparison to Nazi might be a way to sell ticket to the show, but it doesn’t do anyone any favour. As for Nazi, we were glad to make deals with the worse than Nazi (I.e Stalin) to beat the Nazi, only because the Nazi Germany was dominating Central Europe and USSR was to its east. If USSR was located in Central Europe and Nazi Germany to its east, we would make a deal with Hitler to bring down Stalin. And the trio of FDR, Hitler and Churchill would meeting in Yalta. Later we made a deal with a cult driven despicable Maoist regime, to target a technocratic Soviet Union that arguably was far less revolutionary than the Maoist regime. So there is no morality in all this. Just diverging interest of nation states. Instead of hyperbolic for the sake of hyperbolic, call them what they are: a deeply militarized theocratic out of the date regime, stuck in the revolutionary zeal of the 1980s.
UK Posted March 22 Posted March 22 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Blake Hampton said: I still place an enormous amount of faith in the WSJ, FT, and NYT. I especially love The Economist. Cubs, you should start reading The Economist. I like wsj, ft and economist too, though investments wise, I lost the count how many times economist was wrong, including particular companies (like IBM) or general themes like last years 'tariff armagedon'. Regarding investments, I think COBF beats them all:) Edited March 22 by UK
Viking Posted March 22 Posted March 22 (edited) As the war with Iran continues, we are learning more about how the global economy works. Much of the analysis is focussed on oil and products refined from oil and LNG. There is another really important group of products produced in the Persian Gulf: fertilizers. And of course, fertilizers are a core input to grow food. For those not paying attention, food matters (availability and cost). A lot. What happens if the world runs short of fertilizer? People starve. Yes, not a problem for the US. They can afford to pay much higher prices. But much of the world can't. Bottom line, the longer the Straight of Hormuz remains closed the closer the global economy gets to crisis. On multiple dimensions. Of course the US/Israel knew this was likely how this whole thing was going to play out (Iran would block the Straight of Hormuz). And of course, they have a contingency plan for what to do. I wonder when they are going to let us know? Edited March 22 by Viking
bargainman Posted March 22 Posted March 22 15 hours ago, Viking said: It's a mess. We have a Provincial government that is very ideological. They have an extreme view of what reconciliation means. They are not being honest with British Columbians about what the implications are of their view of reconciliation (and the legislation they have enacted). The Federal government just threw gasoline on the fire (for no apparent reason). Bottom line, the easy fix is the NDP government repeals the parts of the legislation (DRIPA) that is causing all the problems. But they don't want to (it's an ideological thing for them - so who cares what the consequences are). The problem is most British Columbians (voters) are asleep at the wheel. The media has done a poor job of reporting on the issue (ad how important it is). The podcast below discusses what BC Government has done. Go to the 14:20 minute mark to miss all the small talk... The podcast below discusses what the Fed's have done to make matters worse. Go to the 22:45 minute mark to miss all the small talk... Wow, thanks for that. I just got a gemini summary for the video. Sounds like a real sh*t show. If you start taking away property rights you're starting to talk about people defending themselves by any means possible. Could go south real fast? This part sounds scary: "Furthermore, Isaac highlights a 2023 BC Supreme Court ruling (referenced in the text as the Cowichan decision) which suggests that Aboriginal title could be a senior interest that burdens the land, potentially jeopardizing fee simple home ownership " fwiw here's the summary, I'll dig in more later. The panel explores how recent court decisions have created legal uncertainty regarding private property rights and the future of major natural resource projects.Key Discussions: Unsettled Land Claims in BC: (15:39) Isaac explains that roughly 85-90% of BC is subject to assertions of Aboriginal title (unceded territory), creating a 'legal question mark' for landowners and investors. Threat to Private Property: (23:38) A recent court decision in Richmond, BC, suggests that Aboriginal title could supersede fee simple title, meaning the Land Title Act might not apply to claimed lands. This is described as a direct threat to the concept of private property ownership. The Role of DRIPA: (44:37) The discussion covers the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) in BC, with Isaac arguing that it interprets BC laws through a non-binding international document, creating further confusion alongside existing Canadian constitutional protections. Economic Impact: (51:30) The panel highlights the necessity of doubling or tripling the size of the BC economy to afford reconciliation costs and infrastructure development, urging a shift away from an 'anti-development mindset' to ensure future prosperity.Market and Job Updates: (1:21:09) The hosts briefly review Canadian and US labor market statistics, noting that while the unemployment rate is often cited, factors like participation rates, private vs. public sector job growth, and wages are more critical for investors. Revisions to US job numbers showed significantly fewer jobs created last year than originally reported.
Spekulatius Posted March 22 Posted March 22 I think part of why we are where we are because the US has outsourced intelligence and strategy to Israel. It‘s pretty clear now ˋ- it was Israel who killed Khamenei and the other leaders. The intelligence from Israel says that Iran is close to a nuclear weapon while our own intelligence seem to contradict this. Trump is know to mistrust his own intelligence sometime in favor of what Putin says (if what he says fits his views). It was Israel who bombed the Iranian South Pars gas field with the goal to take down Iran‘s power grid and now Trump comes up with the escalation to bomb Iran‘s power plants which is the same attack vector. US intelligence is either bad and/or Trump doesn’t trust it. Doesn‘t really matter what is the case, as Israel is driving the bus here and whatever they decide next Trump likely will follow. Funny how MAGA works, should rename it in MIGA (Make Israel great again), the country that never sent a single soldier to US led wars (for various reasons). Funny how this works. https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/84113/why-hasnt-israel-fought-alongside-america-in-any-of-its-wars-in-the-middle-east
bargainman Posted March 22 Posted March 22 3 hours ago, Parsad said: The people whose land the Cowichan ruling in the Richmond area directly affected are very worried. Even banks are putting in caveats in mortgage renewals, appraisers are putting valuation qualifications in their reports, etc, on those pieces of private property. BC is one of the few, if not only province, that never put treaties into place decades ago. Ontario, Quebec, etc don't have this problem. These land claims should have been settled under treaties a long time ago. Instead the aboriginal nations have rightful claims against lands in BC. At the same time, they also know that will never work. They cannot go after private property in city/populated regions. They are going to go after other large open land seeking extensive fishing, mineral, property rights to control that land with minimal provincial influence. They will probably also get ownership of some city/populated land controlled/owned by the province. At the end of the day, they will get a nice fat settlement/land/rights to help their nations, while doing the least damage possible on private property rights. This has how previous BC settlements have been made. That being said, the ruling is powerful. It could remain in court for decades again if the province decides to fight it. But this current provincial administration is very aboriginal friendly, and will probably put amendments in any settlement agreement into place to protect private property rights, while giving an overall really fat settlement in other areas. Overall, most people other than the immediately affected and the political parties aren't panicking over it. But with nothing settled yet, real estate involved (banks, mortgages, appraisers, legal) are making some changes in behavior/documentation. The aboriginal nations in BC are very well-organized and well=funded now. They have the means to fight through the legal system, have access to both large amounts of private/public capital for projects, development, etc and have powerful resource rights. No teepee on reservations any longer...aboriginal groups have learned very well about capitalism, public/private partnerships, private equity, etc. They want what is coming to them, settle this and move forward...that is the same thing non-aboriginals want as well, protecting their homes, businesses, cottages, etc. It would make sense to come to a reasonable compromise, settle these things and get them out of everyone's hands where if the wrong person decides to make hay, it could get ugly in the future. Better everyone walks away happy and a little bit unhappy in a nice negotiated settlement. Cheers! Feels like it doesn't matter if "they also know that will never work. They cannot go after private property in city/populated regions." The fear and uncertainty it creates seems to be having serious side effects from a financial perspective no? Isn't the land off of Burrard bridge aboriginal now? I heard they were developing some large property? What is the high level of why the current government is so idealogical and favorable towards the Indigenous? Are they not worried about the effects on their own Canadian citizens? I was hearing from someone that they are paying the tribes up north 3x(?) for their lumber than they would normally, and the tribes are just hiring Canadians to do the work at a regular rate and just pocketing the difference. I also wonder, what kind of gov do they have? I've read comments about the chiefs basically being autocrats is that true? I'm also curious about this: "have access to both large amounts of private/public capital for projects" Are they listing companies on public markets, or how do they get investments?
Gregmal Posted March 22 Posted March 22 4 minutes ago, Spekulatius said: The intelligence from Israel says that Iran is close to a nuclear weapon while our own intelligence seem to contradict this Iran and many US media people also said there were no missiles capable of going beyond 1200 miles. We just learned those people were either ignorant or lying.
Spekulatius Posted March 22 Posted March 22 4 minutes ago, Gregmal said: Iran and many US media people also said there were no missiles capable of going beyond 1200 miles. We just learned those people were either ignorant or lying. I don’t think the press claimed that. As far I know, Trump claimed a while ago that Iran cannot reach the US with ballistic missiles which is likely correct. Note that IRGC sent a satellite into space years ago which is technically for more demanding than a 2000 mile ballistic missile. So it must have been clear that they able to cook up something.
Spekulatius Posted March 22 Posted March 22 Trump endorses Putin-phile Orban. This POS has run the Hungarian economy into the ground for more than a decade but I guess Trump has a affinity to strongmen’s and grifters. I don’t think Orban survives the next election but stringer things have happened.
Parsad Posted March 22 Posted March 22 1 hour ago, bargainman said: Feels like it doesn't matter if "they also know that will never work. They cannot go after private property in city/populated regions." The fear and uncertainty it creates seems to be having serious side effects from a financial perspective no? Yes, that is the main concern right now...the uncertainty until settlements. Many want the government to amend/repeal the current DRIPA (Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People) that was adopted by this current Premier when he was Attorney General. That may create other lawsuits by the aboriginal and more problems. 1 hour ago, bargainman said: Isn't the land off of Burrard bridge aboriginal now? I heard they were developing some large property? Yes, that is happening...the first three towers are nearly complete. But it was a aboriginal/private enterprise. The original developer ran into financial difficulties and a pension fund came in and bought them out. It's no different than any other public/private or private/private project. Just aboriginal groups are involved as one of the main partners. 1 hour ago, bargainman said: What is the high level of why the current government is so idealogical and favorable towards the Indigenous? Are they not worried about the effects on their own Canadian citizens? I was hearing from someone that they are paying the tribes up north 3x(?) for their lumber than they would normally, and the tribes are just hiring Canadians to do the work at a regular rate and just pocketing the difference. I also wonder, what kind of gov do they have? I've read comments about the chiefs basically being autocrats is that true? I can't speak about the price for soft-wood lumber...nothing has been disclosed like that, nor have I seen any investigative articles suggesting that. You hear about private businesses doing stupid things, I wouldn't be surprised if some aboriginal groups are doing the same. In terms of the current government...depends on which party is in power. The NDP are hard-core, left-wing liberals...they have power. If the Liberals (not really) or Conservatives get power, the government moves centre-right or hard-right and policies/agendas change. Right now, it doesn't look good at all for the NDP...this Premier is polling as low as Trump! Problem is he just got elected a year ago and the next Provincial election isn't until October 2028! He's also running massive spending deficits which are devastating for the province. The only way to remove him would be a non-confidence vote by the BC Parliament or his own NDP members. Highly unlikely to happen! 1 hour ago, bargainman said: I'm also curious about this: "have access to both large amounts of private/public capital for projects" Are they listing companies on public markets, or how do they get investments? They have stakes in public mineral/resource companies that are listed...but haven't listed anything solely by themselves yet that I have noticed. I might not just be aware of it, since I don't invest in the resource space much. Most of their projects are aboriginal/private or aboriginal/public projects...primarily housing related, pipeline/resource, etc. Lately though, different aboriginal groups have taken a page from their American brethren and bought up 8 large casinos around British Columbia from Great Canadian Casinos. All in rapid succession! Collectively, they may be the largest casino operators in Canada now! Cheers!
Xerxes Posted March 22 Posted March 22 2 hours ago, Gregmal said: Iran and many US media people also said there were no missiles capable of going beyond 1200 miles. We just learned those people were either ignorant or lying. In the 1980s, Saddam modified Scud missiles, by removing some warhead, for more range. Essentially the same weapon with a trade-off. Those could reach Tehran. I was at the receiving end of it. The ones launched in the Indian Ocean, from what I understand are essentially Khoramshahr-4 with warhead removed/reduced for range. https://www.iranwatch.org/our-publications/weapon-program-background-report/table-irans-missile-arsenal#:~:text=[15] Iran has displayed at,powered by small rocket thrusters. [15] Iran has displayed at least three different variants of the Khorramshahr missile (Khorramshahr-1, -2, and -4), each potentially with its own specifications in terms of range, warhead size, and accuracy. Iran has consistently claimed that the missile has a 2,000 km maximum range and a warhead with a mass of 1,500 kg or greater. France, Germany, and the United Kingdom claimed in 2019, however, that one variant of the missile has a nose cone whose size would limit the warhead mass to about 750 kg. They further claimed that the modelling of such a missile puts its range at approximately 3,000 km, which would classify it as an intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM). See, “Letter dated 25 March 2019 from the Permanent Representatives of France, Germany and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General," United Nations Security Council, S/2019/270, March 27, 2019, available at https://www.undocs.org/S/2019/270.
Marco Van Basten Posted March 22 Posted March 22 2 hours ago, Spekulatius said: I think part of why we are where we are because the US has outsourced intelligence and strategy to Israel. It‘s pretty clear now ˋ- it was Israel who killed Khamenei and the other leaders. The intelligence from Israel says that Iran is close to a nuclear weapon while our own intelligence seem to contradict this. Trump is know to mistrust his own intelligence sometime in favor of what Putin says (if what he says fits his views). It was Israel who bombed the Iranian South Pars gas field with the goal to take down Iran‘s power grid and now Trump comes up with the escalation to bomb Iran‘s power plants which is the same attack vector. US intelligence is either bad and/or Trump doesn’t trust it. Doesn‘t really matter what is the case, as Israel is driving the bus here and whatever they decide next Trump likely will follow. Funny how MAGA works, should rename it in MIGA (Make Israel great again), the country that never sent a single soldier to US led wars (for various reasons). Funny how this works. https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/84113/why-hasnt-israel-fought-alongside-america-in-any-of-its-wars-in-the-middle-east Actually, not true, Israel did send troops to Korea. If I recall correctly, US specifically asked Israel not to get involved in both Gulf wars.
RichardGibbons Posted March 22 Posted March 22 1 hour ago, Parsad said: Yes, that is happening...the first three towers are nearly complete. But it was a aboriginal/private enterprise. The original developer ran into financial difficulties and a pension fund came in and bought them out. It's no different than any other public/private or private/private project. Just aboriginal groups are involved as one of the main partners. It's different than other public/private partnerships in that it avoids all the municipal red-tape: As the project is being built on reserve, the First Nation is technically not required to follow City regulations, policies, and standards, nor does it need to follow the City’s development application process and seek the City’s approval. However, the agreement stipulates the First Nation has offered to provide “direct public contributions or commitments to practices aligned with City policies.” At one point, I had some hope that this could actually fix Vancouver's housing crises. Essentially, I thought they should be able to get a flywheel going: Build housing cheaper than everyone else because they don't have to deal with massive municipal costs Make extraordinarily large profits Buy more land with profits Go to 1. It doesn't quite work, though because reserves are actually owned by the Crown, not tribes, so they can't just integrate a bunch of newly-purchased land into their reserves.
cubsfan Posted March 22 Posted March 22 5 hours ago, dealraker said: OK, I'm in agreement with your first sentence. But... ...is it really Trump's nature or best interest to resolve things or is it in better for multiple issues - the more the better - to be in progress so that the things he's not keen on doing (real economy, budget deficit, over-spending, files of various types, healthcare costs, etc.) are void of having to be dealt with? Iran for longer? I don't see how this helps Trump short term at all. It helps the Middle East, Europe and Israel a lot - but doesn't do all that much for the USA except get rid of a longstanding headache. If this were all about the mid-terms, Trump would have been far better to concentrate on the economy and Western Hemisphere.
cubsfan Posted March 22 Posted March 22 4 hours ago, Blake Hampton said: I still place an enormous amount of faith in the WSJ, FT, and NYT. I especially love The Economist. Cubs, you should start reading The Economist. You might as well put your faith in the Climate Change scam, DEI and the Immigration disaster, since all of your favorite publications did as well. Take in all the information you like from all your sources - but learn to think for yourself rather than have them do your thinking for you. The latest Economist featured article "Operation Blind Fury" is about as delusional as you can get. Perhaps, next time, the publication will just let the Mullahs write it for them. I never realized that it was "reckless" to liberate Iran from a theocratic death cult. "Courageous" would be a far better word. I graduated college in 1977 - and vividly remember the photos in Time Magazine and Newsweek - which featured hundreds of Iranians being hung from construction cranes by these monsters. Nothing has changed since that time. But you go right ahead and side with The Economist.
cubsfan Posted March 22 Posted March 22 4 hours ago, Viking said: As the war with Iran continues, we are learning more about how the global economy works. Much of the analysis is focussed on oil and products refined from oil and LNG. There is another really important group of products produced in the Persian Gulf: fertilizers. And of course, fertilizers are a core input to grow food. For those not paying attention, food matters (availability and cost). A lot. What happens if the world runs short of fertilizer? People starve. Yes, not a problem for the US. They can afford to pay much higher prices. But much of the world can't. Bottom line, the longer the Straight of Hormuz remains closed the closer the global economy gets to crisis. On multiple dimensions. Of course the US/Israel knew this was likely how this whole thing was going to play out (Iran would block the Straight of Hormuz). And of course, they have a contingency plan for what to do. I wonder when they are going to let us know? Nice - now Trump is out to starve the world. I'll add that to the "Trump is a war criminal", "Iran is winning" and "Russia and China to the rescue" videos.
Maverick47 Posted March 22 Posted March 22 53 minutes ago, cubsfan said: I don't see how this helps Trump short term at all. It helps the Middle East, Europe and Israel a lot - but doesn't do all that much for the USA except get rid of a longstanding headache. If this were all about the mid-terms, Trump would have been far better to concentrate on the economy and Western Hemisphere. Agreed. However, I don’t think Trump takes advice from anyone except himself on how best to win the midterms: Key Aspects of Trump’s Comments on Obama and Iran: Re-election Strategy: In November 2011, Trump tweeted, "Our president will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate. He's weak and he's ineffective. So the only way he figures that he's going to get re-elected... is to start a war with Iran". Predicting Attacks: Trump claimed in August 2012, "I always said Barack Obama will attack Iran, in some form, prior to the election". "Saving Face": In 2013, he stated, "I predict that President Obama will at some point start a war with Iran in order to save face!". Accusations of Weakness: He frequently stated that Obama's negotiating skills were poor and that he would use military action to "show how tough he is". To a man with a hammer (the US military) every problem looks like a nail.
Spekulatius Posted March 22 Posted March 22 56 minutes ago, cubsfan said: I graduated college in 1977 - and vividly remember the photos in Time Magazine and Newsweek - which featured hundreds of Iranians being hung from construction cranes by these monsters. Are you sure you have the timeline right? In 1977 and 1978 Reza Pahlavi was still in charge and his secret service and the army killed hundred of protesters. The revolutionaries did not get into power until 1979.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now