Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Yes but right now (not 30 days ago), they are being forced by the tyrannical regime to protest against Israel and the US. We're seemingly providing the regime a nice reason to crack that whip.

Fixed for you.

Edited by BurntEyes
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Deej said:

It was Charlie Strong. He probably meant something else and accidentally called it Twitter.

Being Chuckles he may well have intend Bristlr or Feeld, incorrectly assuming all dating apps are the same and therefor bad.

Posted
1 hour ago, statsman said:

I have to interject. 
 
On aerospace design projects, there are several different teams of structural analysts. One team is called “The Loads Group”. This is the team that determines the flight loads to design to, based on flight cases. 
 
Example: the vertical tail front spar for a twin engine airliner is typically sized by this load case- “one engine goes out when the airplane is 50 feet off the tarmac, requiring full thrust from the other engine, and full rudder to compensate, while the airplane ascends enough to return to land”. The spar must have a positive Margin of Safety (MS) for that load case. 
 
I can assure you, there is a load case for the STRATEGIC NUCLEAR BOMBER to land with a full complement of undelivered weapons. They will dump fuel. They will not dump weapons. 
 
Back to your scheduled programming. 

strategic bombers got nothing on @South Austin's mom's load case.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Israel needs a strategic bomber. Surely we have something in mothballs we can sell them. But we did the heavy lifting here. Should make for cool TV for a couple days. 

And that's what foreign policy is all about! Can't wait for a couple days of cool TV to carry us closer to football season! 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

And this is how we get another extended, expensive conflict that we definitely cannot currently afford.

Nah dude. Now is the time for peace!

  • Haha 4
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Posted

So much for tracking the B-2’s heading to Guam. At least the OPSEC was tight. 
 

If you’re the praying type, now would be a good time to say some for our service men and women in the region. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
9 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

 

bafkreiggflb4tlujfpiuoxbzbuiny2xgmat4dcyjf6mul657fkivftu2ym@jpeg

There is some diplomatic signaling to this. It’s glaring that he did not announce a sustained campaign (like Israel did), nor did he announce this was a one and done (although this could serve as such an announcement).  The ambiguity is almost for sure deliberate to allow other options and to give Iran an exit.  
 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

  • Haha 7
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Duane Moore said:

So much for tracking the B-2’s heading to Guam. At least the OPSEC was tight. 
 

If you’re the praying type, now would be a good time to say some for our service men and women in the region. 

I’m guessing the B2’s flew out of Diego Garcia. 

Edited by billfromlaketravis
Posted
2 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

There is some diplomatic signaling to this. It’s glaring that he did not announce a sustained campaign (like Israel did), nor did he announce this was a one and done (although this could serve as such an announcement).  The ambiguity is almost for sure deliberate to allow other options and to give Iran an exit.  
 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

Agreed, I hope they take the exit but I'm beyond skeptical.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, elfenix said:

the F-14A couldn't land on a carrier with a full complement of phoenix missiles. so, while probably correct that B-2s wouldn't dump weapons, the US military has certainly had platforms that would if they were fully loaded up to start.

Username correlation: high

Posted
2 minutes ago, WineGuy69 said:

I love watching liberals lose their shit when shit that is better for the world happens.

Us in a war with Iran is good for no one, you blind moron.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
14 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

And this is how we get another extended, expensive conflict that we definitely cannot currently afford.

We aren’t putting troops on the ground.  Ideally we find an organized opposition group to fund or we just watch mass chaos develop under this administration and do nothing.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Hook1997 said:

We aren’t putting troops on the ground.  Ideally we find an organized opposition group to fund or we just watch mass chaos develop under this administration and do nothing.  

You're not thinking far enough ahead. Americans are going to die because of this. It's going to get worse. It's gotten worse every single day since Israel launched their pre-emptive strike.

Posted
4 minutes ago, dieucla98 said:

Us in a war with Iran is good for no one, you blind moron.

Why do people keep saying war?  Iran may say that but assuming the bombings destroyed the nuclear facilities we are done.  We are not putting boots on the ground.  Will they try to strike out through terrorists or their proxies, yes if they can.  But Hamas and Hezbollah  are severely weakened and that leaves Houthis and maybe attacking US bases in Iraq or the area.   But any immediate direct Iranian attack will likely be a show of force for perception purposes.  Worst thing they can do is directly cause some real damage because that would invite more US attacks.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Relevant article from yesterday outlining where our troops stationed in the Middle East are the most vulnerable:

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5361526-us-troops-iran-middle-east/

Quote

More than 40,000 American service members and civilians — as well as billions of dollars in military equipment — are in the Middle East, spread out across bases in Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.  

Those working in countries closest to Iran, including Iraq and Kuwait, would conceivably have only minutes to prepare for an incoming Iranian strike, a likely outcome should Trump order the U.S. military to join Israel’s bombing campaign, experts say.

“If [Iran] had the ballistic missiles ready to go, those strikes could happen in under 15 minutes. Launched to target,” retired Col. Seth Krummrich, vice president at security consultancy firm Global Guardian, told The Hill. “They move very quickly.”

 

Posted
4 minutes ago, Hook1997 said:

We aren’t putting troops on the ground.  Ideally we find an organized opposition group to fund or we just watch mass chaos develop under this administration and do nothing.  

I agree at this point, the preparations needed for a ground operation in Iran would be unmistakable and obvious and the initial strikes would be very different.  Right now, it’s not even being contemplated.

This was much less extensive than Clinton’s 1998 bombing of Iraq that did not result in chaos or regime change. Neither did the bombings of Belgrade. Regimes are more resilient that they seem and not even the named targets make sense if that is the goal. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted

Barack Obama - August 5th, 2015


“Among U.S. policymakers, there’s never been disagreement on the danger posed by an Iranian nuclear bomb. Democrats and Republicans alike have recognized that it would spark an arms race in the world’s most unstable region, and turn every crisis into a potential nuclear showdown. It would embolden terrorist groups, like Hezbollah, and pose an unacceptable risk to Israel, which Iranian leaders have repeatedly threatened to destroy. More broadly, it could unravel the global commitment to non-proliferation that the world has done so much to defend.

The question, then, is not whether to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but how. Even before taking office, I made clear that Iran would not be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon on my watch, and it’s been my policy throughout my presidency to keep all options -- including possible military options -- on the table to achieve that objective. But I have also made clear my preference for a peaceful, diplomatic resolution of the issue -- not just because of the costs of war, but also because a negotiated agreement offered a more effective, verifiable and durable resolution.

And so, in 2009, we let the Iranians know that a diplomatic path was available. Iran failed to take that path, and our intelligence community exposed the existence of a covert nuclear facility at Fordow.”




Well, perhaps Fordow now ceases to exist. I think this is a good thing.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

 

On 6/19/2025 at 1:10 PM, atomheartbevo said:

Told you all - as I said, if we are evacuating Americans out of Israel, if multiple Republican Senators extremely loyal to Trump are making the rounds with the talking heads to sell us on war, and if Fox News is selling its viewers on war, we are going to war.

Morgan Freeman Reaction GIF by MOODMAN

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
29 minutes ago, ABSR said:

.  We are not putting boots on the ground.

You're sure about that?

Why?

What exactly makes you think that he won't find a reason to send troops somewhere for no particular reason?

Vibes? 

We got lied into going to Iraq. What makes it different this time?

  • Hook 'Em 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...