Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Surly Horns

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Featured Replies

11 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

That isn't our interest. We'll just fly Pahlavi back over there and reinstall the monarchy that everyone hated so this whole cycle can just repeat itself. 

Control over energy resources, or falling that, control over those who control it, is the point here.

If you are one of the posters here (and I'm using the Royal You here, not picking on you Armybrat) that is clamoring for war, at least be honest with yourself and the rest of us about why.

I lean conservative but I in no way want war other than negating Iran's nuclear capability. For reasons stated upthread, they are a jihadist govt and I dont think we need to explain why them having nukes is unsettling. If we bomb their nuclear bunkers and then say peace out I am ok with that. If we are in anyway sending troops over there I am against that. I guess the question is what does everyone define as war? Is a brief aerial campaign targeting just their bunkers war? I am 36 and work with people between 25-40 and i think privately everyone is pretty tired of Israel, of their interreference in our politics, etc.

  • Replies 9.3k
  • Views 670.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • BlueGreySky
    BlueGreySky

    My friend from Nazareth (works as a tour guide and I hang out with her and her family every time I'm there)... digital silence.  Can't get her by phone.  Hasn't posted anything on FB or Insta since Th

  • WineGuy69
    WineGuy69

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

  • I'm continually amazed at the ability of Americans to pick a side in this ongoing fiasco. I know people who are very pro-Israel and others who are very pro-Palestine. All I see is two bad gu

Posted Images

2 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

He was on Real World vs. Road Rules when I was in high school and he is dogshit. He may be right or wrong on lone items but for anyone with more than a lone BB rattling around their dome, it’s usually a safe bet to take the opposite of his stance absent Independent knowledge and reasoning. 

Usually I'd agree, but despite Theo Von being a known dumbass, it's not like a guy with a huge audience putting out an anti war message is some kind of negative. I've seen you take the "worst person you know making a good point" stance before when it suits you, so I know you understand the concept.

If it helps put more people on the side of "let's not go spend trillions on another Middle East war, especially not at the behest of a little Nazi bitch trying to ignite said war to keep his own ass out of jail" camp, I'll allow it.

9 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

That isn't our interest. We'll just fly Pahlavi back over there and reinstall the monarchy that everyone hated so this whole cycle can just repeat itself. 

Control over energy resources, or falling that, control over those who control it, is the point here.

If you are one of the posters here (and I'm using the Royal You here, not picking on you Armybrat) that is clamoring for war, at least be honest with yourself and the rest of us about why.

The 2003 playbook has been dusted off. Scary guy in a black turban!!! He wants to nuke you!

The thing is this time around you have jaded Millennials who spent time in Iraq or Afghanistan, which means anti-war has fairly broad bipartisan support at least in that generation. You also have social media that changes how Americans discuss issues (memes and emojis) and they can select where they get their news from much more than they could back in 2003. Back then we were looking for someone to pulverize in retaliation for 9/11, and we just don't have the same appetite for war today.

4 minutes ago, WineGuy69 said:

I lean conservative but I in no way want war other than negating Iran's nuclear capability. For reasons stated upthread, they are a jihadist govt and I dont think we need to explain why them having nukes is unsettling. If we bomb their nuclear bunkers and then say peace out I am ok with that. If we are in anyway sending troops over there I am against that. I guess the question is what does everyone define as war? Is a brief aerial campaign targeting just their bunkers war? I am 36 and work with people between 25-40 and i think privately everyone is pretty tired of Israel, of their interreference in our politics, etc.

Ok, but if we do all that, do we believe that Iran is just going to sit there and take it? Obviously that would be an escalation and there would likely be some kind of response, and it seems likely to me that the escalations would continue until we find ourselves in a war.

At this point, I'd rather us facilitate regime change than get drawn into Bibi's little jihad (funny that...we call Iran jihadist but what is Israel?). If we're going to follow through with that, just reinstall Pahlavi and reinstate the JCPOA and make sure they keep in compliance. Trump can even take credit, I don't give a shit. 

  • Author
That isn't our interest. We'll just fly Pahlavi back over there and reinstall the monarchy that everyone hated so this whole cycle can just repeat itself. 
Control over energy resources, or falling that, control over those who control it, is the point here.
If you are one of the posters here (and I'm using the Royal You here, not picking on you Armybrat) that is clamoring for war, at least be honest with yourself and the rest of us about why.

Yes and no. Oversimplification is your enemy, whether it be “they are bad guys who want a nuke and actively support terrorism” or “this is all about oil.”
Both things can be true. Take oil out of the equation, and the world would still be better off if Iran wasn’t a violently hostile chaos agent. There’s no need for Persia to be so bellicose, particularly as to a nation they don’t even share a border with. The ramped-up Shiite hate against Israel and Jews is and always has been a transparent “let’s manufacture a perpetual enemy to keep our authoritarian government in power” move (FFS, we’re running the same play here in the US against Mexicans). It’s fucking pointless and has been almost 50 years of violence and bloodshed and exported terror. The world would indeed be much better off if Iran was governed by a regime that wasn’t singularly focused on authoritarianism and a pointless hatred and warfare against “Israel and the west.”
But Iran of course would be much less important, and much less able to foment and support such assholery, if it did not have massive petroleum resources. And the history of western control and scheming for such control over those resources is a real thing. That said, there’s no real reason for “the west” to try to functionally capture Iran’s reserves. It’s a global commodity, China buys a bunch, etc. This isn’t the post WWII, Cold War, scramble for oil that set the table for the precious shenanigans in Iran.

I don’t support US involvement in Iran in this conflict. I think this particular conflict is 90% driven by Bibi trying to save his ass and stay out of prison. I also think that Iran way fucking overplayed its hand, and got their ass handed to them in Syria and with Hezzbollah, and I shed no tears for either of those strategic losses. Iran is a bad actor, fucked around and found out, etc. I also think that the current conflict is unnecessary and is being fought for the wrong reasons by a bad actor.
8 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Ok, but if we do all that, do we believe that Iran is just going to sit there and take it? Obviously that would be an escalation and there would likely be some kind of response, and it seems likely to me that the escalations would continue until we find ourselves in a war.

At this point, I'd rather us facilitate regime change than get drawn into Bibi's little jihad (funny that...we call Iran jihadist but what is Israel?). If we're going to follow through with that, just reinstall Pahlavi and reinstate the JCPOA and make sure they keep in compliance. Trump can even take credit, I don't give a shit. 

I get the question, but how would they retaliate. We have taken out so much of their leadership and what is their military capability? We tell the ayatollah we know where he is and if he retaliates the next missile will be one through his window. The entire world is against them. They have few allies. 

Edited by WineGuy69

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Just moving those bombers can be signaling. I don’t think there’s been a final decision yet but there is the intent of showing that one can be made anytime. 

Absolutely. They are moving the pieces in place for if/when the decision is made to apply maximum pressure. I’m glad Trump is taking his time and exhausting every option for a deal, even though he’s put that hapless boob Witkoff in charge of it.  Still, I don’t see how we agree to any terms short of a Libya-style dismantling of the nuclear program and Khamenei in his bunker seems utterly defiant on any concessions so I doubt we even get back to the table. 

2 minutes ago, WineGuy69 said:

I get the question, but how would they retaliate. We have taken out so much of their leadership and what is their military capability? We tell the ayatollah we know where he is and if he retaliates the next missile will be one through his window. The entire world is against them. They have few allies. 

If that's true then it sounds like we don't need to go to war.

Sesame Street Idk GIF

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Yes and no. Oversimplification is your enemy, whether it be “they are bad guys who want a nuke and actively support terrorism” or “this is all about oil.”
Both things can be true. Take oil out of the equation, and the world would still be better off if Iran wasn’t a violently hostile chaos agent. There’s no need for Persia to be so bellicose, particularly as to a nation they don’t even share a border with. The ramped-up Shiite hate against Israel and Jews is and always has been a transparent “let’s manufacture a perpetual enemy to keep our authoritarian government in power” move (FFS, we’re running the same play here in the US against Mexicans). It’s fucking pointless and has been almost 50 years of violence and bloodshed and exported terror. The world would indeed be much better off if Iran was governed by a regime that wasn’t singularly focused on authoritarianism and a pointless hatred and warfare against “Israel and the west.”
But Iran of course would be much less important, and much less able to foment and support such assholery, if it did not have massive petroleum resources. And the history of western control and scheming for such control over those resources is a real thing. That said, there’s no real reason for “the west” to try to functionally capture Iran’s reserves. It’s a global commodity, China buys a bunch, etc. This isn’t the post WWII, Cold War, scramble for oil that set the table for the precious shenanigans in Iran.

I don’t support US involvement in Iran in this conflict. I think this particular conflict is 90% driven by Bibi trying to save his ass and stay out of prison. I also think that Iran way fucking overplayed its hand, and got their ass handed to them in Syria and with Hezzbollah, and I shed no tears for either of those strategic losses. Iran is a bad actor, fucked around and found out, etc. I also think that the current conflict is unnecessary and is being fought for the wrong reasons by a bad actor.

There's always a reason. Capturing control of their natural resources is a strategically +EV play for the US and it would make a bunch of shitty rich assholes even richer. That's the point, that's always been the point of our Middle East policy and Israel serves its purpose as our attack dog to that point.

I don't disagree with the points about Iran and I'd love to see the mullahs fuck off and die, like I've said many times, but we all know how it will end up in the end if the West facilitates regime change. Maybe it'll buy us another decade or two of relative stability before history inevitably repeats itself.

Regime change has to come organically from the people of Iran. We and Israel should not play any part in it. 
 

End Iran’s nuclear program, degrade their ballistic missile capability, then stop the offensive, declare victory, and let nature take its course inside Iran. 

2 hours ago, Duane Moore said:

Last post said B-2’s headed to Diego Garcia, others now saying Guam. Not sure if Guam could be a stopover on the way to DG, which is the closest launch point for a mission to Iran. Also, this:

 

There are already B-2’s at Diego Garcia, moving these to Guam makes sense in a “hey China don’t think we are distracted by the ME and are still watching Taiwan” kinda way. 

  • Popular Post

Let's be clear on this fact:
The war Israel is waging on Iran is likely an illegal one. Israel states that this is preemptive self-defense, but there's no indication that any attack by Iran on Israel was "imminent," meaning an immediate and unavoidable threat as defined by the well-established "Caroline test." In addition, their actions are a violation of the UN Charter without a Security Council resolution justifying it. This was a unilateral attack by one nation on another, with civilians (media and scientists) as targets, also a violation of international law.

Let's also be clear on another fact:
Israel's attack on Iran scuttled ongoing negotiations between the United States and Iran. While it can be debated that those talks might not have gone anywhere, it cannot be debated that Israeli interference disrupted discussions between the two countries. Their interference ensured that the negotiations ended. I don't know about y'all, but I'm not real keen on allowing a third party to fuck with our international affairs. It makes us look weak when Israel can get away with ending our negotiations before we have a chance to say we're done talking.

Let's also be clear on yet another fact:
This past Thursday, Netanyahu said that Israel has the power to take out all of Iran's nuclear facilities by itself, even without US involvement. Fine, do it your fucking selves.

 

Given those three facts, I really would prefer the US not get involved in another illegal war in the Middle East, especially one that we're getting dragged into and in which "regime change" is a goal without a clear plan of succession, with the risk of destabilizing an already teetering region and the recent history of our nation building efforts in two of Iran's neighbors. That's folly.

36 minutes ago, WineGuy69 said:

I get the question, but how would they retaliate. We have taken out so much of their leadership and what is their military capability? We tell the ayatollah we know where he is and if he retaliates the next missile will be one through his window. The entire world is against them. They have few allies. 

There will be several terrorist incidents in the US, and this administration is too incompetent to do anything about it, that’s more of the issue imo than direct retaliation from Irans military. I don’t believe for a second that after 30 years of saying it they’re totally for real this time super duper close to getting the nuke. It’s Bibi causing shit to avoid his trial. Nothing magically changed last week or the US would have made it a bigger issue, instead we were just farting around fucking with brown people and deploying the marines to mild protests. Then Bibi does shit and it’s super real this time? Fuck off with that shit. 

Edited by 'stache

26 minutes ago, hornbri said:

There are already B-2’s at Diego Garcia, moving these to Guam makes sense in a “hey China don’t think we are distracted by the ME and are still watching Taiwan” kinda way. 

The B-2’s were at DG in March or April but left sometime before 6/13. That original OSINT post let has since corrected himself to say it looks like they’re going to Guam. 

59 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

There's always a reason. Capturing control of their natural resources is a strategically +EV play for the US and it would make a bunch of shitty rich assholes even richer. That's the point, that's always been the point of our Middle East policy and Israel serves its purpose as our attack dog to that point.

I don't disagree with the points about Iran and I'd love to see the mullahs fuck off and die, like I've said many times, but we all know how it will end up in the end if the West facilitates regime change. Maybe it'll buy us another decade or two of relative stability before history inevitably repeats itself.

 

This logic is as wrong as it is facile.

Whoa. First time I’ve heard of this guy but he’s apparently the current CEO of (cue ominous music) Cambridge Analytica. He’s reading the tea leaves that the B-2’s are on non-stop mission:

 

2 minutes ago, Duane Moore said:

Whoa. First time I’ve heard of this guy but he’s apparently the current CEO of (cue ominous music) Cambridge Analytica. He’s reading the tea leaves that the B-2’s are on non-stop mission:

 

 

Could you copy/paste the text, please? I won't click on a website owned by someone who supports an antisemitic party in Germany and who also willfully reinstated several antisemitic accounts on his website. Thank you.

1 minute ago, bolverk said:

 

Could you copy/paste the text, please? I won't click on a website owned by someone who supports an antisemitic party in Germany and who also willfully reinstated several antisemitic accounts on his website. Thank you.

image.png.33913f3fd687fb95224c00e0765c919c.png

2 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Just moving those bombers can be signaling. I don’t think there’s been a final decision yet but there is the intent of showing that one can be made anytime. 

I am guessing they are moved to within a 8-12 hr strike window, maybe closer. 

Then the reading of the current winds by US leadership of internal and international, follwed by conversations with ME OG and Israel. 

B-2 bombers moving to Guam amid Middle East tensions, US officials say

Spoiler

WASHINGTON - The United States is moving B-2 bombers to the Pacific island of Guam, two U.S. officials told Reuters on Saturday, as President Donald Trump weighs whether the United States should take part in Israel's strikes against Iran.

It was unclear whether the bomber deployment is tied to Middle East tensions.

The B-2 can be equipped to carry America's 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, designed to destroy targets deep underground. That is the weapon that experts say could be used to strike Iran's nuclear program, including Fordow.

The officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, declined to disclose any further details. One official said no forward orders had been given yet to move the bombers beyond Guam. They did not say how many B-2 bombers are being moved.

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Reuters Link

  • Popular Post

Spoke to a former Herc driver and JTAC about why the B2 has to drop the MOP, and why they couldn’t just load it in the back of an Israeli C-130. 
 

It’s an energy question. The C-130 can only haul a load that heavy into the mid 20’s and would have to slow to roughly 130 knots to dump it out of the back. This robs the weapon of speed and altitude to convert into the energy required to penetrate deeply as a bunker buster before it explodes after coming to a stop. The B2 can drop it from much higher and at 3 times the speed. 
 

Also, the control surfaces on the bomb deflect in an all or nothing manner. No small corrections from the fins. Therefore, the higher speed means less energy is robbed from the bomb as it course corrects on the way to its target.  

 

1 hour ago, Duane Moore said:

Regime change has to come organically from the people of Iran. We and Israel should not play any part in it. 
 

End Iran’s nuclear program, degrade their ballistic missile capability, then stop the offensive, declare victory, and let nature take its course inside Iran. 

Mostly agree. Internally yes keep all parties out of government formation. However, use US and European logistics a via non-involved intermediary purely for supporting new regime in their nation building plans. Things like infrastructure good for damage, food, supplies and any non-military items.

3 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

 

image.png.f145ede43ccf043be648c25bd0d570cc.png

Will Ferrell Lol GIF

The speculation masquerading as insight in this thread just screams 995er

TxState to PAC is a done deal, according to the big cigars who leak everything to me

2 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

Ok, but if we do all that, do we believe that Iran is just going to sit there and take it? Obviously that would be an escalation and there would likely be some kind of response, and it seems likely to me that the escalations would continue until we find ourselves in a war.

At this point, I'd rather us facilitate regime change than get drawn into Bibi's little jihad (funny that...we call Iran jihadist but what is Israel?). If we're going to follow through with that, just reinstall Pahlavi and reinstate the JCPOA and make sure they keep in compliance. Trump can even take credit, I don't give a shit. 

2 hours ago, WineGuy69 said:

I get the question, but how would they retaliate. We have taken out so much of their leadership and what is their military capability? We tell the ayatollah we know where he is and if he retaliates the next missile will be one through his window. The entire world is against them. They have few allies. 

If we attack in a large-scale way, we, and Israel (already) will potentially (depending on civilian damage) be helping to create more young men who will be all in on strapping explosives to themselves (or at the least the strikes will be providing the propaganda material to recruit such men) or helping in other ways to kill Americans, Israelis, etc..  It could be that we kill their friends or family members, or just that we are attacking their country. Either way, we are feeding into what the Mullahs are selling.  

But there is also some irony at play - if Iran had nukes on missiles or at sea or whatever, Israel wouldn’t be doing this, just like if Ukraine had nukes, Russia wouldn’t have invaded.  Israel and Russia are literally reinforcing the message that if you can get nukes, you don’t have to worry as much about being attacked by other countries. North Korea is living proof of this.  And Israel going to such lengths against Iran, a country with 10x their population, makes it clear they are scared of a country like Iran getting nukes and that they wouldn’t attack if Iran had nukes.

Well, the nuclear stuff is the “official” reason, but we all know Netanyahu only survived a recent vote of confidence because he promised the Orthodox Jews he wouldn’t draft their kids.  Without the Orthodox, his government collapses and we aren’t talking about war with Iran.  But it doesn’t matter now, Israel has a tiger by the tail and is asking us for help in how to let it go without being bitten.

36 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

The speculation masquerading as insight in this thread just screams 995er

TxState to PAC is a done deal, according to the big cigars who leak everything to me

I mean we’ve got the flight trackers going already, it may as well be a coaching search thread. 
 

And btw, I’ve done some analysis of the curtains on Khamenei’s latest video and he’s totally at the hotel in Horseshoe Bay. 

1 hour ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

He argues around it but never quite gets there: Iran is unlikely to use a nuclear weapon against Israel, which would guarantee likely nuclear response. 
 

But, a nuclear-armed Iran would absolutely seek to rebuild its Shia militias and proxies in the region to pursue its revisionist aims.  And with its own nuclear shield, it would be basically immune from direct retaliation and adversaries dealing with its hybrid and proxy tactics would be restrained to countering those entities and responding within the gray zone. Iran would also have a free hand to intervene conventionally in the region. 
 

Basically, the Kremlin playbook. And that also explains why other Muslim states are willing to sit this out with some quiet support to Israel.  With Iran’s proxies aside from the Houthis basically defanged, this is the window to make them an un-problem for a while. 

  • Author
There's always a reason. Capturing control of their natural resources is a strategically +EV play for the US and it would make a bunch of shitty rich assholes even richer. That's the point, that's always been the point of our Middle East policy and Israel serves its purpose as our attack dog to that point.
I don't disagree with the points about Iran and I'd love to see the mullahs fuck off and die, like I've said many times, but we all know how it will end up in the end if the West facilitates regime change. Maybe it'll buy us another decade or two of relative stability before history inevitably repeats itself.

I love that you seem to agree with my “it’s not just a simplistic ‘one thing’ as motive” observation….then immediately run back to “it’s nothing but a play to take their oil.” That play as the sole or even heavily weighted top motive doesn’t even make sense in the context of the modern/current energy economy. Sure, there’s wealth that can be exploited, and I’m CONFIDENT that the usual suspects will find a way to do so in the event of regime change, but there are multiple other compelling reasons to want regime change in Iran; shit, the other petro-states want it. Because Iran is a fucking cockroach that has destabilized the entire region for decades for no good reason. Chaos is bad for business.
3 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

image.png.33913f3fd687fb95224c00e0765c919c.png

if they've been in the air since midnight 14+ hours ago on a non-stop round-the-world mission, and they're around guam right now, with about 12,700 km down and 13,500 to go, they'd be over target somewhere around 7:00 am ET sunday. 

Edited by elfenix

That thread on the B2 positioning analysis makes me think the bombers are loaded and in the air as a literal Sword of Damocles over Iran's head. The splash and record setting nature of the first circumnavigation bombing mission being a Trump™ order is a heck of a lot of gravity that he just can't resist

32 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


I love that you seem to agree with my “it’s not just a simplistic ‘one thing’ as motive” observation….then immediately run back to “it’s nothing but a play to take their oil.” That play as the sole or even heavily weighted top motive doesn’t even make sense in the context of the modern/current energy economy. Sure, there’s wealth that can be exploited, and I’m CONFIDENT that the usual suspects will find a way to do so in the event of regime change, but there are multiple other compelling reasons to want regime change in Iran; shit, the other petro-states want it. Because Iran is a fucking cockroach that has destabilized the entire region for decades for no good reason. Chaos is bad for business.

You said there was no reason for the west to functionally capture Iran's natural resources, that's all I was pushing back on. Of course there are reasons.

  • Author
You said there was no reason for the west to functionally capture Iran's natural resources, that's all I was pushing back on. Of course there are reasons.

I said there’s no real reason, perhaps a better term would have been “no compelling reason.” It’s just not a particularly necessary economic or geopolitical play, not like it was post-war. The US is doing fine without Iranian oil.
29 minutes ago, elfenix said:

if they've been in the air since midnight 14+ hours ago on a non-stop round-the-world mission, and they're around guam right now, with about 12,700 km down and 13,500 to go, they'd be over target somewhere around 7:00 am ET sunday. 

I think this is right, it should be about 30 hours and if they took off at 1am ET that makes sense. I guess we will find out soon if they actually land in Guam.

28 minutes ago, elfenix said:

if they've been in the air since midnight 14+ hours ago on a non-stop round-the-world mission, and they're around guam right now, with about 12,700 km down and 13,500 to go, they'd be over target somewhere around 7:00 am ET sunday. 

That’s not going to get good viewership numbers though.  SAD!

28 minutes ago, Captainant said:

That thread on the B2 positioning analysis makes me think the bombers are loaded and in the air as a literal Sword of Damocles over Iran's head. The splash and record setting nature of the first circumnavigation bombing mission being a Trump™ order is a heck of a lot of gravity that he just can't resist

If they don’t use that ordnance, they may have to dump it in the ocean rather than trying to land with it and putting the wear and tear on the airframe, which is a lot of expensive toys wasted.

My guess is they are either going to use it, or the aircraft are empty and they are putting misinformation/disinformation out there making it look like we will bomb.

1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

that's too clever for our current idiocratic leadership

So then we are bombing tomorrow morning.

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


I said there’s no real reason, perhaps a better term would have been “no compelling reason.” It’s just not a particularly necessary economic or geopolitical play, not like it was post-war. The US is doing fine without Iranian oil.

Agree that this is more far complex than US wanting access to their oil. There are obviously potential downside issues with the down fall of Iran's current regime. However, @956 Worldwide spelled out really well what could happen if they got nukes. Beyond that, while many disagree with it occurring, I firmly believe in the potential for the people of Iran to produce a functional, modern country with far more individual freedoms. Is it likely, maybe not, but possible which is positive. Next, it definitely pulls an ally out of the Russian rolladex which is good for Ukraine and bad for Russia. I'm absolutely in favor of that part. Who knows maybe it is a dominoe that aids in Putin's demise, we can only hope. Finally, the people of Iran may hopefully have some autonomy over their oil, I don't care if it comes to the US, but I hope they price gouge China for being quiet supporters for the current Iranian regime. Because fuck China.

  • Author
Yeah I mean I'm not saying it's an intelligent or compelling reason, but we have Trump running the show, being primarily advised on Middle East policy by a drunk religious zealot SecDef and a YouTube conspiracy theorist. Nothing makes sense anymore.
Also, be careful about using the term cockroach to describe a population. I suspect you know the historic connotations of that.

The “historic connotation” in which I was using the term was in connection with noted diplomat Darrell K Royal.
10 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

That’s not going to get good viewership numbers though.  SAD!

If they don’t use that ordnance, they may have to dump it in the ocean rather than trying to land with it and putting the wear and tear on the airframe, which is a lot of expensive toys wasted.

My guess is they are either going to use it, or the aircraft are empty and they are putting misinformation/disinformation out there making it look like we will bomb.

I would be shocked at this point if they didn't move forward. Despite the protestations of big parts of the Maga empire, if no US troops are involved (which I TRULY hope is the case) and only air/sea, it can be spun by Surly's favorite leader as "Bring Peace to the middle east (dispite being Persia)", "Stamping out terrorist" and "Saving the world from Nukes" all while he gets to flex the US military. Ego and Legacy would both be well served.

But... it is Trump "blind dart choices" are still in play.

Edited by BurntEyes

1 minute ago, BurntEyes said:

if no US troops are involved (which I TRULY hope is the case) and only air/sea, it can be spun

This won't happen because once the US attacks on Iranian soil, Iran will have the right to retaliate and strike US interests which will escalate things. The chances of any diplomatic offramp will be too small. But even if there were no retaliation by Iran, the US will insist on regime change, which cannot happen without our boots on the ground as "peacekeepers" (just like we did in the Iraq War) who will be at risk. No matter what happens, we will be in for the long haul and it will cost us trillions.

5 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Beyond that, while many disagree with it occurring, I firmly believe in the potential for the people of Iran to produce a functional, modern country with far more individual freedoms. Is it likely, maybe not, but possible which is positive

Of course they could do this, they've had it before. The problem is that this happening organically would have almost no chance of resulting in a pro-Western government, which we would find completely unacceptable. Natural resources entirely aside, the idea is to have a government in place that can be controlled, which is why I suspect we want to give the country back to the Pahlavis. 

The people of Iran are protesting in the streets, but they are not protesting the Ayatollah, they're protesting against Israel and the US. They're not going to embrace US munitions falling from the sky as liberators. That's the pipe dream of all pipe dreams. They think we want to kill them all.

20 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

If they don’t use that ordnance, they may have to dump it in the ocean rather than trying to land with it and putting the wear and tear on the airframe, which is a lot of expensive toys wasted.

My guess is they are either going to use it, or the aircraft are empty and they are putting misinformation/disinformation out there making it look like we will bomb.

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. 

4 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

They think we want to kill them all.

We are the reason it was destabilized and de-secularized in the first place! They will want us to fuck right off and respect their sovereignty.

20 hours ago, utee94 said:

Remember when Charlie Strong proclaimed twitter would be the downfall of society?

Is it too late to admit he was right and apologize?

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

1 hour ago, hornbri said:

I think this is right, it should be about 30 hours and if they took off at 1am ET that makes sense. I guess we will find out soon if they actually land in Guam.

So I'm definitely no expert on any of this, but I'm assuming at some point the Stealth Bombers actually become "Stealthy" to the point jackasses on Surly or anyone else for that matter can't track them or no?

 

1 hour ago, Brian Fantana said:

The people of Iran are protesting in the streets, but they are not protesting the Ayatollah, they're protesting against Israel and the US. They're not going to embrace US munitions falling from the sky as liberators. That's the pipe dream of all pipe dreams. They think we want to kill them all.

Story isn't that simple and I think you know it. 

So this happened about 30 days ago in Iran:

Today’s protests across more than 20 cities showed a people no longer pleading but demanding. Retirees robbed of their futures, farmers robbed of water, and workers robbed of dignity all cried out with one voice. The slogans ringing through the streets— “Only in the streets will we win our rights,” “Death to this injustice,” “Enough is enough”—made it clear: this was not just economic unrest. This was a call for liberation

Spoiler

On Sunday, May 19, 2025, protests erupted across Iran as retirees, farmers, bakers, and everyday citizens flooded the streets in a coordinated cry against poverty, corruption, and systematic plunder by the clerical regime. Demonstrations spread from Tehran in the north to Shiraz in the south, Isfahan in the center, and Kermanshah in the west, shaking the regime’s already fragile grip with slogans demanding justice, dignity, and economic survival.

 

In Tehran, northern Iran, retired telecom workers assembled in front of the central headquarters of the Telecommunications Company on Sardar Jangal Street, denouncing the regime’s refusal to implement the 1389 welfare and employment bylaws. Protesters chanted “Company full of profit—what happened to your promise?” and “Not the parliament, not the government—none care for the people!” They condemned the state-linked shareholders, including Setad-e Ejra’i (EIKO) and Bonyad-e Ta’avon-e Sepah (IRGC’s economic arm), for stealing their pensions, health coverage, and decades of accumulated rights.

 

In Shiraz, southern Iran, retirees from the long-abandoned Iran Telecommunications Manufacturing Company (ITI) gathered in front of the Fars Provincial Governorate, demanding the payment of back wages, some owed for over 18 years. Their chants—“Worker’s demands must be paid!” and “One less embezzlement and our problems are solved!”—reflected years of betrayal and neglect by regime institutions.

 

 

 

 

 

In Isfahan, central Iran, protesters spoke out against years of systemic theft by institutions tied to the regime’s economic mafia. With no health coverage, no retirement security, and no response to their pleas, they called for justice and the immediate enforcement of their rights. “We served this system for a lifetime. Now all we get is false promises and silence,” one demonstrator said.

 

In Kermanshah, western Iran, retirees rallied outside the provincial telecom office, shouting “This much injustice, no nation has seen!” and “Poverty, corruption, inflation—the people’s ruin!” Demonstrators warned, “As long as it stays like this, Mondays will stay like this too!” referring to the regularity of their protests in recent months.

 

In Sanandaj, Kurdistan Province, retirees carried signs that read “Rise up to end discrimination!” and called for immediate implementation of their legal entitlements. In Ilam, also in western Iran, chants of “Neither government nor parliament cares for the people!” echoed outside the local telecom office. In Hamedan, Bijar, Marivan, Tabriz, and Karaj, retirees joined the national wave, repeating demands for justice and fair pensions.

 

 

 

 

 

In Gorgan, northern Iran, retired teachers and telecom workers protested in front of the Provincial Department of Education over deteriorating living conditions and unpaid salaries. In Ahvaz, southwestern Iran, retirees from the Social Security Organization rallied under banners that read “Free Social Security from state control!” and “Death to this injustice!” They were joined by steel workers and pensioners from Shoush, Sari, Rasht, and Tehran, who chanted “Cry out, cry out, from all this oppression!” and “Workers and retirees—unite, unite!”

 

Simultaneously, public outrage surged over blackouts and water shortages. In Kermanshah, power was cut as early as 5:30 a.m., leaving workers stranded. A crane operator shouted into his phone: “No power, no warning. You’ve broken our lives!” In Yasuj, a baker slammed officials for pushing him into bankruptcy with rising costs and arbitrary demands. “They fined me 16 million for not insuring four workers. What are we supposed to do?”

 

In Yazd, central Iran, small-scale farmers protested outside the governorate as power was cut to 377 of 2,100 agricultural wells, destroying irrigation and threatening livelihoods. “We won’t let our lives be buried in dust!” shouted one protester. In Gonabad, northeastern Iran, residents decried water cuts that left entire villages dry. “Two hours in 40-degree heat without water—this is cruelty!” a woman cried out. “There are 2,000 of us. No one listens.”

 

 

 

 

 

In Bandar Abbas, southern Iran, heavy truck drivers protested diesel fuel rationing. “With this fuel allocation, we can’t move. We’re finished,” read a protest banner.

 

The regime’s own officials admitted growing fear. MP Mohsen Zangeneh warned of increasing protests by bakers, whom he called one of the most hardworking classes in Iran. “Rising costs, subsidy cuts, and indecision are pushing them to the brink,” he said. In Lordegan, MP Mousavi described unemployment levels as explosive, with families destroyed and youth dying far from home in pursuit of work. “There’s not a single job opportunity in our vast region,” he said. “Where should the people go?”

 

Today’s protests across more than 20 cities showed a people no longer pleading but demanding. Retirees robbed of their futures, farmers robbed of water, and workers robbed of dignity all cried out with one voice. The slogans ringing through the streets— “Only in the streets will we win our rights,” “Death to this injustice,” “Enough is enough”—made it clear: this was not just economic unrest. This was a call for liberation.

Iranian People Riot

But today they are in the streets with signs that are pics of the Ayatollah in full support of him?!?! 

NTY Protest Coverage

Doesn't that seem a like a massive sudden shift? Couldn't be that at least a part of it is a totalitarian regime "encouraged" such protests right after all their military leaders were taken out and US is flying bombers could it? 

Spoiler

Tens of thousands of demonstrators poured into the streets across Iran, Iraq and Lebanon on Friday after midday prayers, in a sweeping display of fury toward Israel amid a rapidly widening regional conflict.

 

In Tehran, the Iranian capital, crowds surged from mosques into central squares, trampling and burning Israeli and American flags while holding aloft portraits of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Chants of “Death to Israel” and “Death to America” rang out from the sea of demonstrators as they marched in what Iranian state media called protests of “rage and victory.” Similar demonstrations in support of the country’s military were also reported in at least half a dozen other Iranian cities, including Tabriz and Mashhad.

Here is a more complex discussion about the issues:

Iran's divided opposition senses its moment but activists remain wary of protests - https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/irans-divided-opposition-senses-its-moment-activists-remain-wary-protests-2025-06-19/

 

 

Edited by BurntEyes

32 minutes ago, Grande Mart said:

So I'm definitely no expert on any of this, but I'm assuming at some point the Stealth Bombers actually become "Stealthy" to the point jackasses on Surly or anyone else for that matter can't track them or no?

 

Well, other than everyone on Hegseth's Signal chat...

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...

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.