3 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Folks can think all they want, not much they can do

Really. Shutting down 20% of the world's oil supply is not much?

Congratulations. you are clearly leading the field on this thread for the most stupid post.

45 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Congratulations. you are clearly leading the field on this thread for the most stupid post.

Well until yours.

Using the disproven nuclear threat as an argument for Don's Iranian war is very similar to what Bush did in the run-up to the Iraq War with the false claims about WMD's. It has been proven that Cheney deliberately screened out useful information and vetted the information in such a way that only the conclusions that supported his argument were allowed. Trump is doing much the same thing now. Pure deceit is the name of his game. Don the deceiver.

8 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Well until yours.

Put your dentures in if you want your wit to be biting.

22 hours ago, Wingate said:

Not sure how it ends, but along the way we're seeing $115/bbl WTI Crude, up 26% just from Friday.

Nikkei is down 7% so far Monday morning.

US Dow futures are down 1050 in the pre-market.

One way it ends is a massive Blue Wave in November, with Dems retaking the House and Senate, and Trump effectively neutered.......and that is before the body bags start arriving at Dover in bulk. Trump can then, if he lives, go about spending another $71 million per year for his golf, and spend the rest of his time talking to interior decorators about how to deck out his Qatari B747 for his retirement years.

Trump had better make up a definition of "success" and then claim he achieved it and stop the madness, lest the entire world tumble into Depression. There's way too much debt and fallout from the introduction of AI, plus tariffs, plus already falling employment and GDP, to then add $115 oil on top of it.

Oil fell 6%. Stocks went up lol

9 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Really. Shutting down 20% of the world's oil supply is not much?

Congratulations. you are clearly leading the field on this thread for the most stupid post.

Crude oil market was over supplied. 20% is 20%. Why price fell 6% overnight. You guys wrong again.

I am not happy about the US getting involved in this war. It looks like yet another case of Israel going "why don't you and him fight". I am hoping that the US will not try to occupy Iran, but I am okay with the US reducing their offensive capability to next to nothing. I'm not thrilled with it, but targeted strikes on all the missile launchers will reduce the amount of damage they can do to anyone in the area. I think it is unfortunate that the US is the only country involved with the surveillance capability as well as the munitions stockpiles to be able to do it.

The reality is that the only times in the past couple of thousand years that that region has been peaceful was when an external empire took over the entire region. If westerners think that the Middle East is like our countries, they would be very, very wrong.

I hope this is over soon.

17 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Iran pretty much checks them all off ...

... "the regime kills its own people"

... "the regime is a dictatorship

... "the regime oppresses its own people and puts them in concentration camps." (prison)
... "regime" is on the cusp of using weapons of mass destruction."

But it is okay for the US to slaughter Millions as they did in Vietnam, Iraq etc.

I'm not into war, the article is correct but why not go back further and point out what countries in Europe, England did before America was born.

Then let's look at the problem with Iran, blame is put on U.S. yet everyone is standing behind U.S. hoping this time we can end these nuts after if we can't find a solution other countries might want to look in the mirror and face the reality no one else really want to help just want someone else to do the dirty work and bitch later.

I say tough to fight a surgical war a political one at that personal just bomb the hell out of them and take the oil pay everyone back for their efforts!🤣

1 minute ago, Deerculler said:

But it is okay for the US to slaughter Millions as they did in Vietnam, Iraq etc.

Yes, profits over lives ... why have wars if corporations aren't making money.

Good for the economy, provides jobs to restock the war toys, influx of income spending, tax generation. Win win for all ... well, except the dead civilians who decided not to control their govt's stupid policies.

Live or Die with your choices. Just know the super powers under the guise of the UN are happy to keep world peace, at any cost to you & profits to them.

More taxes will solve everything .... and the band played on

It's been the playbook for centuries, and has worked well. Why changed things up now.

Do you pay taxes ? ... thank you for your support of past, present and future misery of innocent woman & children.

Do you protest and or correspond with your govt reps to not engage in wars, sell arms to other countries to slaughter the innocents ?

Or just a hypocrite who states, wars are wrong on forums ?

Same as the other 99.9999% of posters that talk and do nothing.

Me, I don't give a F, as realize, nobody F'ing cares. So I live, don't support the wars or govt of war mongering countries. Actually have gotten all my taxes back that I ever paid, and live a life, not bothering anyone.

Sleep great at night

44 minutes ago, Deerculler said:

But it is okay for the US to slaughter Millions as they did in Vietnam, Iraq etc.

I believe you are from New Zealand. Which case, I'd like to thank you, and your country's support, helping slaughtering millions in Vietnam, Gulf War, and Afghanistan. Your tax dollars well spent 👍

The Title of this thread should be From Clinton (Lewinsky war on Bosnia) to Trump (Op Epstein Fury)
When American leaders are in deep kimchi, they take you to war.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is a far greater threat to western interests than Iraq, Libya or Afghanistan ever were.

40 minutes ago, connda said:

The Title of this thread should be From Clinton (Lewinsky war on Bosnia) to Trump (Op Epstein Fury)
When American leaders are in deep kimchi, they take you to war.

And there's no doubt that Trump is in very deep doo doo, as the Epstein scandal is not going away despite all his protestations, this war is going to create huge problems for him, and his poll numbers continue to decline, likely leading to a massive Slaughter during the midterms which will make Trump doubly impotent.

Many people here have expressed their concerns about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons despite repeated claims by Iran that they were not building the weapons. The agreement with the UN worked well until trump and his fascists decided to tear up the contract. What I find strange though is why no on ever mentions the number of nuclear weapons Israel has - 80 -90 warheads all undeclared. Some estimates state Israel has close to 400 nuclear warheads. Israel refuses to sign the non-proliferation agreement and refuses to allow UN inspectors in to verify. I'd say we have more to worry about Israel which is being led by Nethyahu and his radical regime than Iran.

20 minutes ago, fdimike said:

I'd say we have more to worry about Israel which is being led by Nethyahu and his radical regime than Iran.

Yes 100% correct.

Just a few short years ago who could have foreseen China becoming the preeminent moral authority for the world, and the US declining into absolute, utter and complete moral bankruptcy, and a total lack of authority on the world stage?

Who do we have to thank for that? The goombah who said foreign adventures were over. The chief circus clown warmongerer, is diminishing American influence day by day.

China has warned against seeking government change in Iran amid the ongoing US-Israeli offensive, saying any such move lacks public support.

“Plotting a ‘colour’ revolution or seeking government change will find no popular support,” China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi said. Wang also called for the sovereignty of Iran and all countries to be respected, and demanded an “immediate stop to military operations” in the Middle East to prevent an escalation and avoid a spillover of the conflict.

“This is a war that should not have happened, and it is a war that does no one any good,” Wang said. “Force provides no solution, and armed conflict will only increase hatred and breed new crises.”

The people of the Middle East are the true masters of this region, and the region’s affairs should be determined by the countries there independently, he said, urging noninterference in internal affairs.

“A strong fist does not mean strong reason. The world cannot return to the law of the jungle,” he told reporters.

According to a classified US National Intelligence Council report, even a large-scale US military offensive would be unlikely to overthrow Iran’s military and clerical power structure.

The report – published on Saturday by The Washington Post, citing three sources familiar with the classified document – undercuts US President Donald Trump’s assertion that he could “clean out” Iran’s leadership and install a preferred successor, indicating that such an outcome would be far from certain.

https://share.google/0LgUQEyo55YIn5FrA

23 hours ago, KhunLA said:

They were developing nukes, and if successful, pretty sure they'd take out Israel with the first one.

... "Death to Israel, Death to America" ... ring any bells

You are aware that the only country that has actually used and detonated nuclear weapons in a war, was a democratic country, right? Your own?

And we go back to 1945.

Why on earth would Iran be the first one to use them since then? Because they have a different religion?

Makes no sense. If Iran would be able to make nuclear weapons, it's for the balance in the region. To stop being bullied by Israel (and the US).

23 minutes ago, thaibreaker said:

You are aware that the only country that has actually used and detonated nuclear weapons in a war, was a democratic country, right? Your own?

And we go back to 1945.

Why on earth would Iran be the first one to use them since then? Because they have a different religion?

Makes no sense. If Iran would be able to make nuclear weapons, it's for the balance in the region. To stop being bullied by Israel (and the US).

Did you read what I posted ? Emphasis on ...

And "bullied by Israel" ... I wouldn't lose any sleep if Israel didn't exist, as not a fan all. Som nam naa

On 3/9/2026 at 12:09 PM, Lacessit said:

Can you imagine the cost of the US Navy escorting each and every oil tanker through there?

It would be especially costly if a slow-moving escort destroyer was sunk by anti-ship missiles.

8 hours ago, khaosokman said:

Crude oil market was over supplied. 20% is 20%. Why price fell 6% overnight. You guys wrong again.

On 3/9/2026 at 2:18 PM, scottiejohn said:

The last frigate was withdrawn last year and the last MCMV arrived back on a sealift vessel this month!

Mines are not the problem. Thousands of anti-ship missiles are a threat to deter shipowners from taking chances, not to mention drones.

8 hours ago, khaosokman said:

Crude oil market was over supplied. 20% is 20%. Why price fell 6% overnight. You guys wrong again.

Before that oil prices were up 25% or more, so 6% is just a gyration. If this war continues a week or ten days with the Strait shut, producers will have to stop production in their fields, and it will take a while to restart, besides which old fields may then have reduced pressure. Looking forward a few years, the shale boom will run down, so US domestic production will decline.

5 hours ago, connda said:

The Title of this thread should be From Clinton (Lewinsky war on Bosnia) to Trump (Op Epstein Fury)
When American leaders are in deep kimchi, they take you to war.

Our own Genghis Khan, or antipresident.

34 minutes ago, placnx said:

Mines are not the problem.

Why do you say that mines are not a problem?

Iran is one of many countries in the world that manufactures mines domestically, although its advanced variants are sourced from Russia, China, and North Korea. From drifting mines to moored and bottom mines, Iran's inventory is both massive and modern. The country also claims to possess nonmagnetic mines, which are more difficult for enemy mine-sweeping operations to detect.

Strait of Hormuz: What are Iran's naval mines and how can they be used in a war with US, Israel?- The Week

Throughout the eight-year-long Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, the Islamic Republic of Iran mined several areas of the Persian Gulf and nearby waters. Its navy primarily used variants of the 1908 Russian-designed contact mine, which was ultimately responsible for the sinking of the USS Samuel B. Roberts (FFG058) in 1988. According to the U.S. Naval Institute, Iraq also indiscriminately deployed over 1,000 mines in the northern Gulf during this period of conflict:

How Iran Uses the Threat of Naval Mines - 19FortyFive

2 hours ago, placnx said:

It would be especially costly if a slow-moving escort destroyer was sunk by anti-ship missiles.

What has the speed of the "escorting" warship got to do with it. I makes no difference to an anti ship missile, Boghammar type of speedboats or a mine

The TSS is a narrow predetermined route which is covered by shore radars both in Oman and Iran. Easy to track and attack!

12 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Put your dentures in if you want your wit to be biting.

I bet you have said that in Pattaya many times

On 3/8/2026 at 6:20 PM, CharlieH said:

A New War Revives an Old Pattern

The latest conflict involving Iran has revived a familiar debate about the long history of American military intervention in the Middle East — and the risks that come with it.

Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has acted as the dominant outside power in the region. Yet time and again, US presidents have promised to reduce involvement there, only to find themselves drawn back in.

The current conflict, driven by military action under Donald Trump against Iran’s leadership, is widely viewed by analysts as the third Gulf war. And many warn it may prove the most dangerous and unpredictable yet.

For decades, attempts to reshape governments across the Middle East have produced consequences far beyond Washington’s expectations. Critics say the pattern is clear: interventions aimed at removing regimes often trigger instability that is harder to control than the governments they replace.

The First Gulf War: A Limited Success

The first major Gulf conflict came in 1990 when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, triggering a US-led coalition response.

Under President George H. W. Bush, coalition forces launched the Gulf War to push Iraqi troops out of Kuwait. The campaign was swift and decisive, with the ground war lasting just 100 hours.

Crucially, Bush chose not to advance on Baghdad or attempt to overthrow Saddam’s government, limiting the war’s objective to restoring Kuwaiti sovereignty. The decision helped preserve international support and maintain a broad coalition of Arab states.

Yet the conflict left important lessons. Kurdish and Shia groups inside Iraq were encouraged to rise up against Saddam but were left exposed when US forces stopped short of intervening directly. Both uprisings were violently crushed by Iraqi forces.

The war also marked a turning point in the region’s military landscape. Hundreds of thousands of US troops deployed to the Gulf, and in the years that followed, American bases spread across the region — forming what analysts later described as the infrastructure of long-term US military dominance.

The Iraq War: Ambition and Miscalculation

More than a decade later, the Iraq War launched by George W. Bush would dramatically reshape the region.

The invasion was justified largely on the claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. But no such weapons were ever found, exposing a major intelligence failure that damaged US credibility internationally.

Supporters of the war believed removing Saddam Hussein would transform the Middle East politically. Advocates argued that a democratic Iraq could inspire reform across the region.

Among those who publicly supported the removal of Saddam was Israeli political leader Benjamin Netanyahu, who predicted the fall of the Iraqi regime would have “positive reverberations” throughout the Middle East.

Instead, the collapse of Saddam’s government unleashed forces that US planners had not anticipated.

Sectarian tensions between Sunni and Shia communities escalated into violence. State institutions weakened or collapsed. Iran’s regional influence expanded significantly, particularly inside Iraq.

Former British intelligence chief John Sawers later described the situation after the invasion as “total chaos,” arguing that little preparation had been made for governing the country once Saddam was removed.

The war’s human and financial costs were enormous. Estimates suggest the conflict may have cost the United States roughly $2 trillion and contributed to the emergence of the extremist group Islamic State.

Analysts say the experience highlighted a deeper flaw in the concept of regime change itself: removing an authoritarian government does not automatically produce a stable political system.

Building the Case for War

Before the Iraq invasion, the US government made extensive efforts to justify military action.

In 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell delivered a dramatic presentation at the United Nations Security Council, using satellite images and intelligence reports to argue that Iraq had biological weapons programs.

The claims later proved inaccurate, but the presentation illustrated the effort to secure international legitimacy for the war.

In contrast, critics say the current confrontation with Iran has unfolded with far less public explanation.

Inside the Trump administration, officials have offered multiple justifications for military action. Some cite Iran’s nuclear ambitions; others point to missile development or the threat posed to US forces and allies.

Key figures including Marco Rubio, JD Vance and Pete Hegseth have each presented different rationales for the campaign.

One argument advanced by Rubio suggested that the United States acted pre-emptively because it expected an Israeli strike on Iran would lead to attacks against American forces.

Critics counter that Washington could instead have attempted to restrain Israel, highlighting the complex political relationship between the two allies.

The Dangers of Regime Collapse

One of the biggest uncertainties surrounding the current conflict is what might happen if Iran’s government collapses.

Iran is a large and diverse country with numerous ethnic minorities, including Kurds, Baloch, Arabs and Azerbaijanis. Analysts warn that weakening central authority could open the door to fragmentation or internal conflict.

Such a scenario would echo fears raised during earlier wars in the region.

After the fall of Saddam Hussein, the collapse of Iraqi state institutions helped create a power vacuum that armed groups quickly filled.

Similar risks now loom over Iran. If the country were to fracture into competing regional authorities, it could become a hub for terrorism, smuggling and organised crime.

An Unanswered Question

The history of US involvement in the Middle East suggests a consistent challenge: military victories do not necessarily translate into political stability.

During the Iraq invasion, US commander David Petraeus famously asked a question that captured the uncertainty surrounding the campaign.

“Tell me how this ends,” he said.

More than two decades later, as conflict with Iran escalates, that same question continues to haunt policymakers in Washington.

Based on original article

Everything is going as planned: WEF, the Great Reset. They are all working together.

On 3/9/2026 at 3:57 PM, Lacessit said:

What on earth is America afraid of?

Iran having intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads something everyone should be afraid of.

Another dumb war started by another dumb Republican president, which will accomplish, like the other dumb wars, only two things. 1. America hated even more, by even more of the worlds's population, while achieving absolutely no real change in the long run. 2. Vast amounts of America's resources squandered uselessly on foreign soil, spent on foreign people, while China uses its resources usefully on its own soil, for the benefit of its own people.

On 3/10/2026 at 4:24 PM, scottiejohn said:

Why do you say that mines are not a problem?

Iran is one of many countries in the world that manufactures mines domestically, although its advanced variants are sourced from Russia, China, and North Korea. From drifting mines to moored and bottom mines, Iran's inventory is both massive and modern. The country also claims to possess nonmagnetic mines, which are more difficult for enemy mine-sweeping operations to detect.

Strait of Hormuz: What are Iran's naval mines and how can they be used in a war with US, Israel?- The Week

Throughout the eight-year-long Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, the Islamic Republic of Iran mined several areas of the Persian Gulf and nearby waters. Its navy primarily used variants of the 1908 Russian-designed contact mine, which was ultimately responsible for the sinking of the USS Samuel B. Roberts (FFG058) in 1988. According to the U.S. Naval Institute, Iraq also indiscriminately deployed over 1,000 mines in the northern Gulf during this period of conflict:

How Iran Uses the Threat of Naval Mines - 19FortyFive

After seeing this BBC Security Brief analysis, I agree with you that mines are a problem, especially based on the currents in the Strait of Hormuz.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJeIosDnhQo

On 3/10/2026 at 5:45 PM, scottiejohn said:

What has the speed of the "escorting" warship got to do with it. I makes no difference to an anti ship missile, Boghammar type of speedboats or a mine

The TSS is a narrow predetermined route which is covered by shore radars both in Oman and Iran. Easy to track and attack!

I was thinking that the naval ships moving at slow speed would lack maneuverability in this case. Also, it would be even easier for the Iranians to concert with multiple simultaneous launches. the above link shows the US escort vessel, but explains that there are on 3 available in the Middle East (out of 28), not encough to escort 60 tankers per day.