Political Posts

[Red Lion]

5 hours ago, John Hjorth said:

 

This post by me upstream was originally adressed at @Red Lion by my mistake. I hereby apologize to @Red Lion for any inconvenience experienced because of that error.

No worries @John Hjorth

[NotSoWise]

14 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

Yea, so when folks object to the attitude of many in the US towards Europe...this summarizes a good deal why. You would think "big brother" Europe should be leading the way, ahead of, or at the least, on par with the US with respect to this stuff. Instead? What theyve done is become totally reliant on the US, but rather than be appreciative like one would expect, they've take the stance of entitled grifter, with respect to it. You wonder why, they are highly indebted, but then find nothing useful amongst their "Strengths", in the SWOT analysis. Theyve essentially funded their virtue signaling bullshit; their ideology, their climate experiments, their immigration free for alls, etc...under the assumption that the US will do the important things for them. Then, to make matters worse, their ruling class dolts never stop at the opportunity to lecture us, to wag fingers, to preach from their podiums, to write "papers" all signed by these same card carrying academic club members. I mean imagine that? Theyre gonna lecture us on fossil fuels while their citizens go broke trying to pay their energy bills? You reap what you sow...

Sadly what you wrote is mostly true. EU made several mistakes:

- dependency on Russian energy by Germany

- not spending on military enough

- immigration policy

- climate policy, etc.

On top some of the countries are run by fools (there is rotation). In ideal scenario, EU should become federation like US, but I think it is not possible, national interests are too wide apart.

[Spekulatius]

6 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

 

Why do you purposely ignore a cease fire that has been a success for 70 years?

How many US soldiers did Iran kill? I think we are talking about a few hundred troops killed by Iran proxies, mostly in the Iraq war where the US frankly had no business to be in. 
 

If you take out this adventure at Irans borders, the number of Americans killed by Iran is very small. Iran for sure kills less Americans than Americans kill fellow Americans in Chicago alone.

[Spekulatius]

1 minute ago, NotSoWise said:

Sadly what you wrote is mostly true. EU made several mistakes:

- dependency on Russian energy by Germany

- not spending on military enough

- immigration policy

- climate policy, etc.

On top some of the countries are run by fools (there is rotation). In ideal scenario, EU should become federation like US, but I think it is not possible, national interests are too wide apart.

I agree on all parts here. It is what it is. There is no federation of Europe. There are benefits of diversity and disadvantages. Europe played the cards they have poorly so far. They can and need to do better.

[Gregmal]

9 minutes ago, NotSoWise said:

Sadly what you wrote is mostly true. EU made several mistakes:

- dependency on Russian energy by Germany

- not spending on military enough

- immigration policy

- climate policy, etc.

On top some of the countries are run by fools (there is rotation). In ideal scenario, EU should become federation like US, but I think it is not possible, national interests are too wide apart.

History is often amusing. You go back and look at several major wars or conflicts throughout American history, and generally the words "Europe(or more specifically say France/Germany/England) are getting involved" and the first thought was always, "shits about to get real" or "man the ante has just been raised"....now? If you said Europes getting involved....my first thought would probably be along the lines of "oh, are they bringing the food and beverage?"....they should be embarrassed, instead they remain pompous. 

[changegonnacome]

55 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

It’s a good indication that operating to straight of Hormuz with naval forces is quite dangerous. The US navy doesn’t do 2000km of extra flight distance (back and forth) for each sortie for nothing.

 

You bet, the proof as you say is in the pudding. If Iran's offensive capability is currently wrecked, as Trump says, then why so afraid of proximity to SOH? 

 

Then if good near term options exist to solve the SOH energy blockade - why then is he de-sanctioning Russian and of all people IRANIAN oil and allowing Iranian tankers through the strait.

 

Finally two other conundrums. If ground forces are the answer here to end the SOH blockade. There are simply not enough US troops in the region or on ships on the way to the region to secure even a modest tactical mission which would be to secure the vast coastline and the islands from which Iran can cause havoc in the Strait. If you go further and somehow dream about invading Iran to topple the regime we'd be lucky to have enough troops and equipment in the region six months from now to do that (Iran being something like Iraq except much much bigger with more challenging terrain)

 

Houthis Attack Israel for First Time Since Iran War Began

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/iran-war-middle-east-news-updates?mod=WSJ_home_mediumtopper_pos_1

 

And now another conundrum - the Houthis that we're supposedly obliterated have just entered the war. Note if you get the Houthis pro-actively shutting down the shipping around the Red Sea......well thats another 12% of global energy supplies taken out on top of the 20% from SOH so your trending towards 32%!!! of global energy supplies offline.

 

The goose is kind of cooked here IMO - the near term military options left for the US are extremely limited here (to be clear limited by the escalatory steps that Iran has available in response which involves sending the Middle East back to being a desert & permanently impairing 20% of the globes energy, fertilizer, food supply). 

 

Good that we've severely wrecked Iran's nuclear and offensive capabilities and set them back a decade but that is the extent of the win on the table now without frankly ridiculous costs required to escalate further. Trump is going to have to do the finest sales job of his life here to dress up a deal with the Iranian's that is going to include ugly concessions. He's been selling turds as diamonds his whole life so he is the man for the job in that respect.

 

[NotSoWise]

EU has almost no army. France has good, but small contingent. UK/ Germany's land armies are big joke. Germany cant for many years build a brigade in the Baltics (they have battalion there). Practically no air defence across EU. To be honest, only Finland has strong conventional army (and reserve system), despite small population numbers. Poland is building, but is still far from where it should be.

 

As for US, there are lots of worrying signs:

- not prepared for drones warfare - most of US bases in Arab countries already destroyed. Soldiers moved to hotels, etc not to get killed.

- no cheap technology for Irans USD 35k drones - US spends millions to shoot down. Small production of Patriots missles, etc it will take several years to build the stocks again.

- US ships are affraid to defend Ormuz due to potential large losses. Aircraft carriers far away

- 70% of population obesee or overweight - army has big problem to recruit as most people do not qualify for medical reasons

- shipbuidling capacity is 200:1 China to USA. One war with China and US will not be able to rebuild military ships on time. China's industrial production 2:1 to USA

- US high debt, limiting military options in the future

- China leading in more and more military technologies, etc

 

I hope US gets over these issues, EU is part of the West and still dependent on US - EU/ US interests are still mostly aligned, but not 100% identical.

 

Edited March 28 by NotSoWise

[Gregmal]

Here's a great opinion piece on the "no plan" propaganda some are brainwashed with

 

https://nypost.com/2026/03/27/opinion/countering-the-media-no-plan-lies-is-another-key-battle-for-team-trump/

 

 

I'll leave the "war general" cosplay for the usuals, but as far as the war goes in terms of making money, issue numero uno I think is pretty simple. I'll ponder it as I go to the beach for the day, maybe give in a half hour of thought.

 

Trump had a great setup heading into midterms, BEFORE the war. He obviously saw a window and gambled. He sought no external advice, rightly or wrong who cares? If you said they had a cure for cancer but had to get bipartisan support before it become public, these scum Democrats would still leak it to the NYT or Atlantic...so I dont blame him for keeping things close to the vest.

 

But the issues that matter are the war has totally changed all the mid term talking points from strengths to weakness.

-Trump did a great job smashing oil prices, now theyre back to peak Biden inflation levels. 

-Trump said the war would be 4-6 weeks/ 50 days/ whatever, dont need to be precisely exact(even thought the usuals will scream "he said 28 days and its been 31!!! He lied!")...the tolerance for this and the side effects IMO are basically another two weeks, at most 3. The timeline also coincides pretty much with where you'd need it to be, in order to alleviate the war caused issues with enough time for folks to forget about them before voting...

-If this extends beyond another 3 weeks, MAX, mid terms render the agenda useless, and the positioning needs to be for 2 years of gridlock and Dem agenda inspired actions.

 

Frankly no one asked for this war, even many that did want nothing to do with the consequences of it, and this falls on top of the fact that the majority of Americans are babies and dont have ANY tolerance for even minor short term pain...so a modest/minor recession induced by a President who sought zero support for an endeavor nobody wanted....probably one of the great political unforced errors Ive ever seen. I'd definitely still short term wager on things gettin settled in this window, that much appears clear. But I also think the flip side really isnt as dramatic as a lot of the "and then the market went down/economy went off a cliff" folks want to portray. 

Edited March 28 by Gregmal

[NotSoWise]

Lets wait few weeks/ months and we will see how it ends.

 

I dont think Trump will do land invasion with 15k troops. The soldiers would be decimated on these islands (casualties in thousands) - plus how he will get them there? Arab states in this scenario would be severely damaged (water plants, refineries, etc). He will also not invade Iran with 0,5m soldiers - no support and does not make any sense (another Vietnam). If desperate, he could consider nukes on Iran... not very popular move, but if cant negotiate on his terms, who knows. Most likely scenario is probably to negotiate - the number of concessions he makes will be the measure of his success, playing weak hand is tough against Iran. 

 

To start, Trump lifted oil sanctions on Iran, so Iran has more money to buy more Russian/ Chinese drons/ rockets to kill more Americans and Israelis... The game is on so too early to judge the outcome, but I think his choices are down to chosing the lesser evil.

[changegonnacome]

1 hour ago, Gregmal said:

probably one of the great political unforced errors Ive ever seen

I’ll say one thing in his defense here - all reporting suggests that Mossad was telling Bibi who in turn was telling Trump that internal forces in Iran were such that the regime was on the precipice & the population ready to come out on to the streets to overthrow them…..all that was required was a ‘nudge’. It was potentially a momentous opportunity to do something historic.
 

I can get behind the idea that it was worth a shot for that ultimate prize….we are in the process of getting the 2nd prize now which is a substantially degraded Iran via strategic bombing….to seek much more from this position would truly be one of the great unforced errors.....the story of US President's in the region is that when things aren't working out they tend to double down with an almost perfect record of failure.

 

Edited March 28 by changegonnacome

[dwy000]

1 hour ago, Gregmal said:

Here's a great opinion piece on the "no plan" propaganda some are brainwashed with

 

https://nypost.com/2026/03/27/opinion/countering-the-media-no-plan-lies-is-another-key-battle-for-team-trump/

 

 

I'll leave the "war general" cosplay for the usuals, but as far as the war goes in terms of making money, issue numero uno I think is pretty simple. I'll ponder it as I go to the beach for the day, maybe give in a half hour of thought.

 

Trump had a great setup heading into midterms, BEFORE the war. He obviously saw a window and gambled. He sought no external advice, rightly or wrong who cares? If you said they had a cure for cancer but had to get bipartisan support before it become public, these scum Democrats would still leak it to the NYT or Atlantic...so I dont blame him for keeping things close to the vest.

 

But the issues that matter are the war has totally changed all the mid term talking points from strengths to weakness.

-Trump did a great job smashing oil prices, now theyre back to peak Biden inflation levels. 

-Trump said the war would be 4-6 weeks/ 50 days/ whatever, dont need to be precisely exact(even thought the usuals will scream "he said 28 days and its been 31!!! He lied!")...the tolerance for this and the side effects IMO are basically another two weeks, at most 3. The timeline also coincides pretty much with where you'd need it to be, in order to alleviate the war caused issues with enough time for folks to forget about them before voting...

-If this extends beyond another 3 weeks, MAX, mid terms render the agenda useless, and the positioning needs to be for 2 years of gridlock and Dem agenda inspired actions.

 

Frankly no one asked for this war, even many that did want nothing to do with the consequences of it, and this falls on top of the fact that the majority of Americans are babies and dont have ANY tolerance for even minor short term pain...so a modest/minor recession induced by a President who sought zero support for an endeavor nobody wanted....probably one of the great political unforced errors Ive ever seen. I'd definitely still short term wager on things gettin settled in this window, that much appears clear. But I also think the flip side really isnt as dramatic as a lot of the "and then the market went down/economy went off a cliff" folks want to portray. 

This article is premised on the idea that the entire goal is eliminating Iran's nuclear capabilities. In 4-6 weeks (we are now on week 4).  These are these nuclear capabilities that were completely obliterated 8 months ago.  

 

I haven't heard anyone claim that it is possible to eliminate the nuclear threat without boots on the ground and regime change.  At least for longer than another 8 months. 

[changegonnacome]

4 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

I haven't heard anyone claim that it is possible to eliminate the nuclear threat without boots on the ground and regime change.  At least for longer than another 8 months. 

 

Its like this - you cant bomb enrichment and ballistic missile knowhow out of peoples heads with bombs...and to achieve regime change option with boots on the ground requires literally hundreds of thousands of soldiers.....I do wonder at what point will anybody who advocated for this attack have the humility to admit that the JCPOA maybe wasn't such a terrible solution (not to be confused with a perfect solution but rather the least worst option to keep Iran on 'ice' while hopefully the Islamic revolution died of natural causes).

[Spekulatius]

Nukes are a Pandora’s box. You don’t know what is happening after you open it.  There is no way that Trump goes there unless Iran uses Nukes first (which they are not likely to have at this point).

 

For investment  purposes, I think the thing to keep in mind is the the war is going to go longer - at least until the end of April. Straight of Hormuz remains closed. 
 

Next escalation is Marines occupying Kharg island. I don’t think threats work with Iran, he will need to actually sent them in. Then the question is what the Iranians are going to do. It should  take about 4 weeks to get to the point where this next deck of cards is a going to be played.

[Gregmal]

46 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

These are these nuclear capabilities that were completely obliterated 8 months ago.  

I don’t think most rationale people are still seething with gotcha syndrome over….the use of an adjective….it is pretty clear the first run was a test run, and then for whatever reason they went back to, in their minds, finish the job. 
 

You can again find the derangement syndrome folks by following the complete obsession with disproving….a single word in its absolute sense of definition….

[ICUMD]

War = expansionism.

Israel is expanding into Lebanon and Iran.  Next -  Turkey? Syria? Jordan?

 

There is no off ramp or negociation, since there was no justification for the war in the first place.

 

The only way to maybe stop it is for US citizens to protest en masse. 

[changegonnacome]

58 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

Next escalation is Marines occupying Kharg island.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/world/iran/trump-may-eyeing-irans-kharg-island-risk-rcna264875

 

"He has had designs on it since at least 1988, when he told The Guardian newspaper that “I’d do a number on Kharg Island; I’d go in and take it” if Iran fired at American troops or ships. Trump said in the interview that taking the island would be a way to pressure Iran."

 

Trump is running on operating system and database that hasn't been updated much since 1988......much of what we've seen in 2025/2026 are really implementations of his forty year old ideas from when he was an armchair politician....simplistic solutions to complex problems from a man who by all accounts doesn't even read the briefing documents prepared for him by experts in the Federal Government. Why would he? He figured out the solutions to America's problems way back in 1988 while in a cab going over to spitball on TV with Oprah or Larry King.

 

 

Edited March 28 by changegonnacome

[John Hjorth]

4 minutes ago, changegonnacome said:

... Trump is running on operating system and database that hasn't been updated much since 1988......much of what we've seen in 2025/2026 are really implementations of his forty year old ideas from when he was an armchair politician....simplistic solutions to complex problems from a man who by all accounts doesn't even read the briefing documents prepared for him by experts in the Federal Government. Why would he? He figured out the solutions to America's problems way back in 1988 while in a cab going over to spitball on TV with Oprah or Larry King.

 

Great!, @changegonnacome,

 

HaHa!   - This is really entertaining!

[ourkid8]

5 hours ago, NotSoWise said:

No not kidding. 

In the past 75 years or so, North Korea and China killed more Americans than Iran since the begining of the world.

You won’t get through to him. You are basing your discussion on facts which he doesn’t comprehend.

Edited March 28 by ourkid8

[dwy000]

1 hour ago, Gregmal said:

I don’t think most rationale people are still seething with gotcha syndrome over….the use of an adjective….it is pretty clear the first run was a test run, and then for whatever reason they went back to, in their minds, finish the job. 
 

You can again find the derangement syndrome folks by following the complete obsession with disproving….a single word in its absolute sense of definition….

There's no gotcha here.  Its the fact that nothing Trump says can or should be trusted - either as rationale for an action or outcome of an action.  So whatever rational is now being used for the current war in Iran, as well as the claimed outcome when that comes is obviously just another headline with no substance. 

[cubsfan]

4 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

How many US soldiers did Iran kill? I think we are talking about a few hundred troops killed by Iran proxies, mostly in the Iraq war where the US frankly had no business to be in. 
 

If you take out this adventure at Irans borders, the number of Americans killed by Iran is very small. Iran for sure kills less Americans than Americans kill fellow Americans in Chicago alone.

 

You sound like Iran is not a grave danger to the world.  Iran has killed 1000+ Americans and countless others across the Middle East. 

[Viking]

1 hour ago, Spekulatius said:

Nukes are a Pandora’s box. You don’t know what is happening after you open it.  There is no way that Trump goes there unless Iran uses Nukes first (which they are not likely to have at this point).

 

For investment  purposes, I think the thing to keep in mind is the the war is going to go longer - at least until the end of April. Straight of Hormuz remains closed. 
 

Next escalation is Marines occupying Kharg island. I don’t think threats work with Iran, he will need to actually sent them in. Then the question is what the Iranians are going to do. It should  take about 4 weeks to get to the point where this next deck of cards is a going to be played.

 

To get the Straight of Hormuz working again, one of the two main participants in this war needs to capitulate. As the US administration keeps reminding everyone, the straight of Hormuz being closed is not (really) a US problem. 

 

It is looking to me like the solution will need to come from the rest of the world. The US wants (and needs) to exit. The rest of the world needs to pony up/appeal to Iran (it is not the ROW that is Iran's enemy. So why should Iran want to punish it?).

 

But that brings us back to Iran - will they be reasonable with what they ask?

----------

Of course, there is another parallel universe where there is the opportunity to get regime change with Iran. Again, in the fog of war it is impossible to know anything with certainty. 

Edited March 28 by Viking

[cubsfan]

4 hours ago, Gregmal said:

Here's a great opinion piece on the "no plan" propaganda some are brainwashed with

 

https://nypost.com/2026/03/27/opinion/countering-the-media-no-plan-lies-is-another-key-battle-for-team-trump/

 

 

I'll leave the "war general" cosplay for the usuals, but as far as the war goes in terms of making money, issue numero uno I think is pretty simple. I'll ponder it as I go to the beach for the day, maybe give in a half hour of thought.

 

Trump had a great setup heading into midterms, BEFORE the war. He obviously saw a window and gambled. He sought no external advice, rightly or wrong who cares? If you said they had a cure for cancer but had to get bipartisan support before it become public, these scum Democrats would still leak it to the NYT or Atlantic...so I dont blame him for keeping things close to the vest.

 

But the issues that matter are the war has totally changed all the mid term talking points from strengths to weakness.

-Trump did a great job smashing oil prices, now theyre back to peak Biden inflation levels. 

-Trump said the war would be 4-6 weeks/ 50 days/ whatever, dont need to be precisely exact(even thought the usuals will scream "he said 28 days and its been 31!!! He lied!")...the tolerance for this and the side effects IMO are basically another two weeks, at most 3. The timeline also coincides pretty much with where you'd need it to be, in order to alleviate the war caused issues with enough time for folks to forget about them before voting...

-If this extends beyond another 3 weeks, MAX, mid terms render the agenda useless, and the positioning needs to be for 2 years of gridlock and Dem agenda inspired actions.

 

Frankly no one asked for this war, even many that did want nothing to do with the consequences of it, and this falls on top of the fact that the majority of Americans are babies and dont have ANY tolerance for even minor short term pain...so a modest/minor recession induced by a President who sought zero support for an endeavor nobody wanted....probably one of the great political unforced errors Ive ever seen. I'd definitely still short term wager on things gettin settled in this window, that much appears clear. But I also think the flip side really isnt as dramatic as a lot of the "and then the market went down/economy went off a cliff" folks want to portray. 

 

Yeah, that's the perfect article really.

 

No plan, no objectives, no success - in the face of the most flawless and dominate military campaign on record.  

 

It's a big risk to the mid-terms. We all know it.

But public support is surprisingly strong. 

 

Hopefully, we pivot back to the economy, since voters don't care about foreign policy.

[cubsfan]

1 hour ago, ICUMD said:

War = expansionism.

Israel is expanding into Lebanon and Iran.  Next -  Turkey? Syria? Jordan?

 

There is no off ramp or negociation, since there was no justification for the war in the first place.

 

The only way to maybe stop it is for US citizens to protest en masse. 

 

Lebanon is a failed state, just like Mexico. You have a right to protect yourself from a failed state, just as we have with Mexico.  Cuba will be next.

 

You won't see any protests except from the Ivy League and Soros crowd.

[Viking]

20 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

 

You sound like Iran is not a grave danger to the world.  Iran has killed 1000+ Americans and countless others across the Middle East. 

 

Was the IRGC a grave danger to the world 4 weeks ago? My read was their influence (economic and military) was at a historic 39-year low. Internally within Iran, they were hated. 

 

I watched a podcast the other day and the Iran expert said the IRGC fears peace, not war. In important respects this war is the shot in the arm the IRGC needed - and that is a hard thing for Western commentators to comprehend.

 

It looks to me like the US/Israel badly miscalculated with their attack 4 weeks ago. The IRGC has changed tactics - and this appears to have caught everyone by surprise.

 

Of course, it is much too early to say anything definitively. Let's hope there is more to this than we see/know today - that makes sense of it all.   

Edited March 28 by Viking

[Gregmal]

9 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

Hopefully, we pivot back to the economy, since voters don't care about foreign policy.

Yea this is honestly the thing sooooo many elitists and even higher level pragmatists just do not get. If you put one issue on the ballot, lets say "would you sacrifice higher prices(pick something arbitrary, say 15%) for 3 months of time, in exchange for a decade of world peace", you'd be shocked by how many folks would say no. Or "yes but not now"....same with the stock market crowd...."would you trade xyz world/country benefit, if it cost a 15% drawdown"....NOPE! It's disgraceful but this is what drives people. So when you get to the current situation, any sort of recession is a non starter for the voting crowd, as is much stock market response if its in a negative direction...with this being "understood", would you EVER expect any sort of "real" issues to get addressed LOL? NOPE.