Parsad Posted March 28 Posted March 28 5 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. Hey Spek, Americans killing Americans is just patriotic and supports the gun economy! Iran is a foreigner...they have no business killing Americans! Unless they are recruited to work for ICE. Cheers!
dwy000 Posted March 28 Posted March 28 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Gregmal said: 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. That was the rationale for Korea. Then Vietnam. Then Iraq. Has there ever been a point where we have world peace? The idea that we spend 3 months, sacrfice a bunch of soldiers, and suddently theres 10 years of peace is ridiculous. There's always going to be regimes and countries that are our enemies. Are we going to war with everyone we dont agree with or dislikes us? Cuz that is the exact opposite of what Trump campaigned on as someone who would keep us out of wars. Edited March 28 by dwy000
Gregmal Posted March 28 Posted March 28 4 minutes ago, dwy000 said: That was the rationale for Korea. Then Vietnam. Then Iraq. Has there ever been a point where we have world peace? The idea that we spend 3 months, sacrfice a bunch of soldiers, and suddently theres 10 years of peace is ridiculous. There's always going to be regimes and countries that are our enemies. Are we going to war with everyone we dont agree with or dislikes us? Cuz that is the exact opposite of what Trump campaigned on as someone who would keep us out of wars. World peace was just an example.....
Parsad Posted March 28 Posted March 28 45 minutes ago, ourkid8 said: You won’t get through to him. You are basing your discussion on facts which he doesn’t comprehend. I'm not sure you are comprehend either. Iran has funded dozens of state-sponsored terrorist groups over the last 35 years to attack Western countries domestically and internationally. The amount we are talking about is in billions and billions of dollars. The 9/11 commission report also indicated there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iran sponsored Hezbollah. Cheers!
cubsfan Posted March 28 Posted March 28 8 minutes ago, Viking said: 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. Like I said before, everything changed on March 23rd, when the suckers in Europe watched Iran fire off 2 inter ballistic missiles that traveled 4000 kilometers - enough to hit London, Paris, Copenhagen. The fools in Europe believed the Ayatollah when he claimed he possessed no such missiles - just like they swallowed hook, line and sinker the JCPOA trash that Iran's nuclear development included no goal of a nuclear weapon. Fortunately Bibi and Trump are not as incompetent as the leaders in Europe. Europe's strategy for missile defense consists of burying their heads in the sand. Talk about suckers. Israel & the USA strategy is total destruction of the nuclear weapons program.
dealraker Posted March 28 Posted March 28 5 minutes ago, Gregmal said: World peace was just an example..... Hey Greg... ...iffin' Trump keeps 'doing stuff' can I please...pretty please...pretty please with sugar on it... ...can I 'predict' higher inflation, or higher interest rates, or a recession...or hell just predict something about the 'economy'? (I don't predict as you know, I'm just asking if you'll allow it or you'd lower the boom on me (us) like you normally do!) Being silly...as you probably suspect LOL!
Parsad Posted March 28 Posted March 28 22 minutes ago, Viking said: 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. This is true. There was no need for this. This was Bibi whispering in Trump's ear to get what he wants for Israel. I still disagree that this will be as significant as everyone believes. The dynamics of how oil is distributed outside of the Strait is very different today than 45 years ago. Iran's military position and lack of support from others is very different. Saudi's are already up to 7M barrels a day bypassing the Hormuz. Other countries are increasing volumes...sure it will take some time. I think refining capacity if anything could be a constraining factor rather than the increasing supply. So yes, the price shock will linger, it will probably put pressure on businesses, drive up prices and possibly push some of the world into a short-term global recession as the year progresses. But we aren't going to see 18% interest rates or huge jumps like that. I still think a negotiated settlement isn't that far away. The damage is done and will run through economies and businesses, but this is not going to be a multi-year war. I doubt if it will even go past the summer. Hey, I could be wrong! Cheers!
dealraker Posted March 28 Posted March 28 3 minutes ago, dealraker said: Hey Greg... ...iffin' Trump keeps 'doing stuff' can I please...pretty please...pretty please with sugar on it... ...can I 'predict' higher inflation, or higher interest rates, or a recession...or hell just predict something about the 'economy'? (I don't predict as you know, I'm just asking if you'll allow it or you'd lower the boom on me (us) like you normally do!) Being silly...as you probably suspect LOL! I wrote that after reading some scrambled eggs, Roaring 20's or 1970's, from Yardeni. I guess he actually gets paid for these 'forecasts'? YARDENI RESEARCH CHART OF THE DAY (March 26, 2026) We've been betting on the productivity-led Roaring 2020s. That's still our 60% base case. So far, this scenario has been on the money. However, the war has increased the risks of a replay of the stagflationary 1970s (chart). What do you think?
Parsad Posted March 28 Posted March 28 4 minutes ago, dealraker said: I wrote that after reading some scrambled eggs, Roaring 20's or 1970's, from Yardeni. I guess he actually gets paid for these 'forecasts'? YARDENI RESEARCH CHART OF THE DAY (March 26, 2026) We've been betting on the productivity-led Roaring 2020s. That's still our 60% base case. So far, this scenario has been on the money. However, the war has increased the risks of a replay of the stagflationary 1970s (chart). What do you think? You aren't going to see that peak 140M out. That red line will be far lower unless there is a dramatic change in Fed policy since their goal is to maintain a 2-2.5% inflation target. That didn't exist in the 1970's. Matching charts is more akin to reading tea leaves than anything else. Remember, even Fairfax was matching charts on what would happen after 2009...they were wrong because of government intervention and we had a booming stock market for a decade. Theoretically, Fairfax would have been correct without any intervention...but guess what? Cheers!
Gregmal Posted March 28 Posted March 28 2 minutes ago, dealraker said: I wrote that after reading some scrambled eggs, Roaring 20's or 1970's, from Yardeni. I guess he actually gets paid for these 'forecasts'? YARDENI RESEARCH CHART OF THE DAY (March 26, 2026) We've been betting on the productivity-led Roaring 2020s. That's still our 60% base case. So far, this scenario has been on the money. However, the war has increased the risks of a replay of the stagflationary 1970s (chart). What do you think? One of the drivers in the 70s was this “wage-price” spiral that everyone falsely compared yesterday’s inflation to. There’s were lines to get gas. Things were different, you lived through them. Today? There’s no gas shortage, it’s just “expensive” in a definitely not prohibitive way. And wage growth? Lmfao….Powell killed all chances of that in 2022. I think it’s fair to say that Trumps head is on the chopping block and we ll see with some pretty clear direction what’s happening in April. The effects of this “war” though, pretty much irrespective of that, should be short lived as pretty much all the “consequences” are self inflicted and correctable.
Parsad Posted March 28 Posted March 28 2 minutes ago, Gregmal said: One of the drivers in the 70s was this “wage-price” spiral that everyone falsely compared yesterday’s inflation to. There’s were lines to get gas. Things were different, you lived through them. Today? There’s no gas shortage, it’s just “expensive” in a definitely not prohibitive way. And wage growth? Lmfao….Powell killed all chances of that in 2022. I think it’s fair to say that Trumps head is on the chopping block and we ll see with some pretty clear direction what’s happening in April. The effects of this “war” though, pretty much irrespective of that, should be short lived as pretty much all the “consequences” are self inflicted and correctable. Yup...fully agree. I think you might see shortages in toilet paper again, before you see shortages in gas! Especially in North America. Cheers!
Parsad Posted March 28 Posted March 28 The funny thing is, my expense for gasoline is actually far lower this month than any other month in the last 5 years! Why? Because I've worked from my home office almost every day this month! I haven't even used a full tank of gas in the entire month because I'm not traveling an hour back and forth each way to the office. A lot of people that used to work in the city are working from home still. I think as the year continues, clearly higher input costs will hit businesses and prices will rise. I wouldn't be surprised to see a short-term recession before/after Christmas. Many consumers are still struggling and stretched from the Pandemic period and thereafter, and those that were better off and carrying the economy are probably finally starting to feel some pinch. But yes, gas is just much more expensive...no shortage! Cheers!
Gregmal Posted March 28 Posted March 28 1 minute ago, Parsad said: The funny thing is, my expense for gasoline is actually far lower this month than any other month in the last 5 years! Same. I’ve taken a liking to using the golf cart to get around!
ourkid8 Posted March 28 Posted March 28 58 minutes ago, Parsad said: I'm not sure you are comprehend either. Iran has funded dozens of state-sponsored terrorist groups over the last 35 years to attack Western countries domestically and internationally. The amount we are talking about is in billions and billions of dollars. The 9/11 commission report also indicated there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iran sponsored Hezbollah. Cheers! Anyone who understands the people, region and players knows that’s fake news and will never happen. Israel /US are on record working with ISIS and al-Qaeda aka Syria. “Hezbollah, a Shiite Islamist group based in Lebanon, and Salafi jihadist organizations like ISIS and al-Qaeda, have fundamentally opposing ideologies and objectives, leading to no known cooperation between them. Al-Qaeda and ISIS view Shiite Muslims as apostates, and their leaders have expressed hostility towards Hezbollah.”
Parsad Posted March 28 Posted March 28 7 minutes ago, ourkid8 said: Anyone who understands the people, region and players knows that’s fake news and will never happen. Israel /US are on record working with ISIS and al-Qaeda aka Syria. “Hezbollah, a Shiite Islamist group based in Lebanon, and Salafi jihadist organizations like ISIS and al-Qaeda, have fundamentally opposing ideologies and objectives, leading to no known cooperation between them. Al-Qaeda and ISIS view Shiite Muslims as apostates, and their leaders have expressed hostility towards Hezbollah.” They have different ideologies but it was a marriage of convenience at times and they worked together. Look it up! We all know about U.S. involvement with different organizations...at times they've created many of their own future messes. But to exonerate Iran as some innocent bystander...that's just ridiculously naive and ignorant! Cheers!
NotSoWise Posted March 28 Posted March 28 1 hour ago, cubsfan said: 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. Agree, the bombing campaign went fantastic (US Airforce did great job, no doubt) and it was a great tactical success - BUT SO WHAT? - Ormuz is closed to Iran's enemies and US cant open it for over 4 weeks now - US Navy cant come closer due to Iran's anti-ship rockets (why they still have rockets?), not to mention to sail into the Ormuz - Iran is continuously and daily shooting its neighbours and US bases in the region - with some success - Israels anti rockes will last about three more weeks and then what? - oil is at USD 100+ - LNG in Katar damaged, hellium production damaged, aluminium plant in Saudi damaged, with the rest at risk - no regime change - they kept uranium - they are being supplied by China/ Russia without any issues - US lifted Iran's and Russia's oil sanctions - why? so they can buy more rockets and run the war longer? - ....and Trump is left with only two bad options: escalate further or negotiate with pants down US won all the battles in Vietnam, but lost the war in the end... Successful bombing campaign is not enough to win the war/ reach all the initial objectives.
Spekulatius Posted March 28 Posted March 28 (edited) 2 hours ago, Parsad said: Hey Spek, Americans killing Americans is just patriotic and supports the gun economy! Iran is a foreigner...they have no business killing Americans! Unless they are recruited to work for ICE. Cheers! Yes, but I would like to know how many Americans were killed by Iranians. Even if you count Hezbollah as Iranian the largest casualty was the no Ning of the Us embassy which was 23 people. That was more than 40 years ago and Reagan didn’t go to war for that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_US_embassy_bombing_in_Beirut Edited March 28 by Spekulatius
Parsad Posted March 28 Posted March 28 Just now, Spekulatius said: Yes, but I would like to know how many Americans were killed by Iranians. Even if you count Hezbollah as Iranian the largest casualty was the Bomb track on the Us embassy which was 23 people. That was more than 40 years ago and Reagan didn’t go to war for that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_US_embassy_bombing_in_Beirut Directly attributed...the number is small. Indirectly attributed through funding of state-sponsored terrorist groups...the number is large. Here you go. Cheers! https://china.usembassy-china.org.cn/the-iranian-regimes-decades-of-terrorism-against-american-citizens/
cubsfan Posted March 28 Posted March 28 7 minutes ago, NotSoWise said: Agree, the bombing campaign went fantastic (US Airforce did great job, no doubt) and it was a great tactical success - BUT SO WHAT? - Ormuz is closed to Iran's enemies and US cant open it for over 4 weeks now - US Navy cant come closer due to Iran's anti-ship rockets (why they still have rockets?), not to mention to sail into the Ormuz - Iran is continuously and daily shooting its neighbours and US bases in the region - with some success - Israels anti rockes will last about three more weeks and then what? - oil is at USD 100+ - LNG in Katar damaged, hellium production damaged, aluminium plant in Saudi damaged, with the rest at risk - no regime change - they kept uranium - they are being supplied by China/ Russia without any issues - US lifted Iran's and Russia's oil sanctions - why? so they can buy more rockets and run the war longer? - ....and Trump is left with only two bad options: escalate further or negotiate with pants down US won all the battles in Vietnam, but lost the war in the end... Successful bombing campaign is not enough to win the war/ reach all the initial objectives. Why do you want to micromanage the Pentagon's battle campaign? You have A-10's and Apaches deployed now. Why don't you let the commanders worry about how we don't get a bunch of people killed while the price of oil goes up a few bucks. If you are Trump and Hegseth - you don't WANT any Americans killed if you can prevent it. If it takes a few more weeks - big deal. They have a flexible plan - and they will execute on it. So far - it's been spectacular. I just love all the armchair generals on TV - that want to micromanage every move. Even these so called retired legends, who are so jealous of this little upstart, junior officer, Pete Hegseth - that make them all look like fools with his campaigns in Venezuela and Iran. The envy is astounding. Dumb asses like Mark Milley and Lloyd Austin that totally botched the Afghan withdrawal. Hegseth makes them look like idiots. They are all out of the loop can't even admit what a spectacular campaign this has been. It's a joke.
NotSoWise Posted March 28 Posted March 28 I wish US all the best, I hope they will achieve their goals and it ends well without thousands of US soldiers dead and Iran not a threat to anyone. Agree, we are in the middle of it and despite mostly bad scenarios in front, there could be a miracle or some super genius outcome nobody foresaw - so lets wait few more weeks, even months to see how it ends. We dont have to agree today on the most likely outcome.
cubsfan Posted March 28 Posted March 28 28 minutes ago, NotSoWise said: I wish US all the best, I hope they will achieve their goals and it ends well without thousands of US soldiers dead and Iran not a threat to anyone. Agree, we are in the middle of it and despite mostly bad scenarios in front, there could be a miracle or some super genius outcome nobody foresaw - so lets wait few more weeks, even months to see how it ends. We dont have to agree today on the most likely outcome. It just needs more time. There are many pitfalls that the military has already dodged. Iran looks like a paper tiger that can only fight with terrorism and not conventional means. Let's see what happens.
Red Lion Posted March 28 Posted March 28 Is it possible that we get inflationary growth, with the advent of AI?
Spekulatius Posted March 28 Posted March 28 14 minutes ago, Red Lion said: Is it possible that we get inflationary growth, with the advent of AI? Why don’t you ask AI:
cubsfan Posted March 29 Posted March 29 Israelis hit the leader of the Iranian Parliament Ghalibaf tonight. Death is unconfirmed as of yet, but also took out a couple more generals. This is what winning looks like in Iran.
Marco Van Basten Posted March 29 Posted March 29 3 hours ago, Spekulatius said: Yes, but I would like to know how many Americans were killed by Iranians. Even if you count Hezbollah as Iranian the largest casualty was the no Ning of the Us embassy which was 23 people. That was more than 40 years ago and Reagan didn’t go to war for that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_US_embassy_bombing_in_Beirut Spek, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon and the deaths of Americans in Iraq don't count? Aside from that, I don't know about you, but the nuclear bomb in the hands of the current Iranian regime would be enough for me.
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