ViperMan

Re-read what I wrote: "The LEFT has engaged in RACIAL gerrymanderring for decades." Do you not agree with ceasing the practice broadly? Or should there be racial voting blocks in this country?

First, great response. I wasn't expecting it. I don't dispute anything you put forward here. I am, however, very concerned with much of how Europe is allowed to bankroll their social utopias on the backs of American defense. That is real. When you look at what NATO can bring to the fight, much of what entire countries contribute amounts to a single fighter squadron - not nothing - but at the same time, we give them undue credit for what they are able to add to our collective defense. Holding them accountable for the level of insurance they get from us has been a proper political angle that Trump is correct to pressure. Inferior was harsh, but vassal is correct. Europe/Japan and much of the modern world is not what it is without pax americana. Trump is reasserting that, correctly. I do think the economy is shit. And structural forces are the only thing that matters. It's because of how the Federal reserve is intended to function as a central bank. It lends to the US government at below market rates enabling inflation as a means to an end to devalue government debt at the expense of W-2 employees. So yes, the economy sucks. I personally think it's going to suck for a very, very long time. We have a larger generation that is owed out-sized benefits from a smaller generation and working class. That is going to be painful for a very long time as productivity will be unable to match outlays. Tariffs? Eh. They're the flavor of the month and miniscule relative to the larger, structural issue inherent in the system. This could be a subject in its own right. I think we probably do agree a good deal. That said, the functioning of our academic system has become completely divorced from its original intent. Universities used to produce lots of science. Now, the government disallows research that would be fruitful whilst looking to fund programs and research that it thinks will serve as means to justify future spending that they likely already have earmarked, but just need some "study" to allow it to go forward. Don't miss the point I was making by latching onto the social science crisis example - the crisis is everywhere, but most pronounced in the social sciences. Broadly speaking, the government has corrupted what was once a good system. The fix is to remove nearly all funding from these entities and allow them to generate science that is actually profitable - i.e. solves real problems. On the subject of government science more broadly, I don't think I disagree with you; maybe we were talking about different things and I grabbed onto what I thought you were trying to say. That said, science is not stopped dead in its tracks...please. Fine then change how it works! The SAVE act is part of a much broader conversation in the country to address issues with voting. Which are numerous. Vote gathering, non-citizen voting, voting month, mail-in voting, and so on. I don't know what to tell you about this other than to say I could easily vote for numerous family members who once upon a time lived in the same state I live in, but no longer do. I still receive ballots for them and just tear them up. You don't see the issue. I do. The bottom line is if you can't be bothered to make even the slightest personal efforts to participate in democracy, then you shouldn't vote. If you need "help" voting, then someone else cares about your vote more than you do, and it shouldn't be counted, because it's really just serving someone else's ends at that point. I have no issue eliminating gerrymandering at large from the country. The court recently struck down Louisiana's racially gerrymandered map, and they'll be forced to redraw. So will others hopefully. To be clear, that podcast also makes the point that there is no sacred right to partisan gerrymandering, either. That's the Federalist saying that. A conservative powerhouse. Never said that republicans didn't do it, but theirs is generally partisan, rather than racial. Either way, its a ridiculous practice that needs to come to an end, no matter what the intent.

Bro... Who cares what emotional response our inferiors have? Seriously? WGAF. The people you reference laughing are our dependents. Our vassals. Groups of people who have forgotten who actually makes the sausage on this planet. And you care about some chump lauging from the sidelines? Okay. Yeah the economy sucks. But why? It goes well beyond any political party or who is the president. Science stopped dead in it's tracks? By this president? Dude you're hysterical. There has been a replication crisis in science for decades. Science (TM) went off the rails ages ago due to the government inextricably grafting itself into the university system by tying funding and grants to it. Check out how much "social science" replicates...almost none. Any that does (IQ) is verboten from actually being studied for real. Climate change? Yeah. Ok. We're changing the climate. Guess what. That's all baked in. You know what is going to fix it though? Not a new tax. Not decreasing everyone's quality of life. Nope. It's going to be technology. You know who is dead-set against that though? The Left. We can't implement an actual solution because some poor people might get left behind. Or might not be able to buy Cheetos with the tax money they take from me to give to them...so they can have dignity or something. Instead, we'll get initiatives that seek to re-fortify poor people's homes against noise pollution because they tend to live in noisier areas. Under the guise of "climate justice." So don't confuse not believing in climate change with not buying into the Left's BS way of "fixing" it. They are different and separate. Voting rights? Dude, GTFO. The Left has gerrymandered the political maps in the country for decades prior to this recent spat specifically to create racial voting blocks in this country. Thankfully, that is coming to end. I know you don't believe me though. But it's true. Just look at New England. 40% republican. Not one republican representative. Doubt you would listen to something by the Federalist, but this episode provides the historical context and the solution. Bottom line: groups of people living together were supposed to be represented together. How to fix that is forcing redistricting boundaries to follow a simple mathematical relationship - the perimeter of a congressional district divided by its area must remain below a certain ratio. Fair. Color blind. Aligned with the intent of our founding. Check it out. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/why-virginias-twisted-gerrymander-wont-survive-judicial/id983782306?i=1000762441668 And in any case, no one has yet to make a cogent argument as to why you shouldn't need to prove citizenship to be able to vote. It's unimaginable anyone could come down on a different side of this issue, but then again, these are crazy times, and we are a divided people.

Aside from the obvious OPSEC issues, I'd be more concerned if he bet on a loss...that he was that confident, I'm impressed.

Again, this has already been addressed and answered so now we're just replaying the same song. Prices spike during conflict - we know this. The point is that things are trending in the right direction. Not getting worse. You're ignoring that. They still have ballistic missiles? Ok, why aren't they using them then? Why aren't they fighting with everything they've got to stop us from collapsing their economy and regime? If they're so strong, they'd be striking back - that they're not is the tell. If they thought they had a shot militarily, they'd be taking it. They're calling "uncle" is what it is. But you're ignoring that. The mullahs rule Iran? Says you. Currently it seems to me that there is a split developing between elements of the IRGC and the foreign ministry - as evidenced by Iranian authorities saying the straight is open, whilst elements of their "military" fire on ships. Seems like some sort of fracture may be presently developing internally. But what do I know? I'm only reading the news. You're ignoring that. What is the alternative history you'd like to have seen play out? You won't articulate it. You will reference past agreements which weren't working (October 7th anyone?), but point at it as if it were succeeding. You ignore that. By my calculus, we're knocking down foreign policy dominoes one after another. You clearly believe in the Obama/Jake Sullivan-style approach to foreign policy. I don't. That approach was never feasible and has been fully discredited. I get it. You don't like this war. Strange considering it's gone quite well given previous estimates as to how "difficult" an Iranian conflict would be. Do you not see them as our adversary? Do you not see the utility and sometimes necessary use of military force? That's what it seems like to me. You strike me as someone who'd rather be a politician than a soldier. What about this: what conflicts in the past, which we have engaged in did you agree or disagree with? You can put a simple +/- if you think our participation was good or bad on the whole. I just don't think you believe in just war. Bosnia? Desert Storm? Iraq II? Afghanistan? Libya? Korea? Somalia? You don't even need to do that. Just give a little expository about any modern conflict you think we were justified in our intervention. See, I'm beginning to suspect that you just don't believe in war as a means to an end. You're ignoring too many positives for it to be anything except that. That we have a current one going on is just the latest thing you get to come onto the internet and vent your butt hurt about.

A trinket to help them recover from the nearly $300B dollar loss they've suffered over the last 6 weeks of fighting? Not an attempt to buy them off. Encouragement to adhere to the dollar system? Who knows. Now, I'm not fully on board with handing them cash at this juncture, but it's a far cry from allowing them to hold us ransom while they thumb their nose at the previous "deal." Anyway. I get the gimmick being employed: point at something that looks the same (money going to Iran). Call it the same. Declare hypocrisy. Proceed to mock. Shallow, but fun I guess?

The irony of you ignoring the signals all around you to pin this on...me? Is not lost. I can only imagine the tune you'd be singing if the stock market was crashing, if shipping was still halted, and if oil were approaching $200. But you can't point to any of those things, so you make up some thing in your head that "I" speak for the world? LOL, no. I'm just looking at the signals the world is sending. Every one this morning is positive (for us). Merely pointing out that you're (still) ignoring them. Leaving that aside, you claim to know things that are unknowable. Iran has had an internet blackout for the entire conflict, yet you state that they're more aligned with the regime than ever? M'kay. But whatever. You're impermeable to facts and unable to even observe, it seems. Your mind is made up, and that's fine. I just don't understand the point of coming on here and attempting to argue a position without bringing any facts, novel interpretations, or even re-interpretations of things that other posters may say, but which you disagree with because <reasons>. You've got none of that. You're not arguing, you're just trolling.

Collectively, the world thinks we're winning.

DOW up. SP 500 up. Oil plunging. Straight open. Iran says it's open. The war is arguing its own merits. All that info is public and on every major outlet. No clearance required.

Please quote me where I stated that prices wouldn't be affected. I'll wait. In any case, what this really does is put the US squarely in the driver's seat as to who is the main supplier of oil in the world. That is a great position to be in. I'm not sure, but this is a good question and an avenue to explore. Maybe there's something there to be had? I bet China's ambitions WRT Taiwan have been cut down to size. They would struggle mightily if they attempted to conduct large scale military operations while the US has a stranglehold on the global oil supply. A few well-placed cruise missiles into pipelines connecting Russia and China and they're in the hurt locker. Risk is the nature of military operations. I'm not aware they're being ranged by anything Iranian, however. I'm also confident that the Navy knows what it's doing here. Again, do you think we're going about this like we did in Desert Storm or Iraq? I don't think that's our strategy. I never said anything about hearts and minds or democracy. Like I've stated numerous other times, I think it's best we allow time to work on the culture and see what happens organically. Iraq and Afghanistan have shown we don't know what we're doing with regard to nation-building. Best we stick to destroying governments. I will note though, that you continue to sidestep or otherwise avoid the relevant facts I've pointed out, namely that Iran is far more dependent on the straight than we are. Do you not want to address the implications of that? Too much to wrestle with? Doesn't fit into the mental model you've constructed? Anyway, everything you addressed above is either misattributed to something you 'think' I would say, or perhaps something you think someone like me would say. In other words, it was all projection. So here is what I think: It doesn't matter what happens in the short term to Iran's government. In the end it will be changed for better or worse. I don't care which way it goes. I only care that their military capability has been diminished and their ability to project power going forward declines. Both of those things have happened and will continue to happen. The fact that Iran no longer has the initiative to sell oil to illicit customers puts the ball squarely back in their court as to the next move. I'll note that almost immediately after we closed the straight, suggestions of 'talks' between the two parties began again. Thus, even though you constructed your own strawman to beat up, I at least give you an 'e' for effort for posting without reference to something Trump said. That, alone, is a move in the right direction.

To the extent things have gone quiet, it's largely due to you libs going on and on about personality issues. Yeah, we get it, he says stuff that's in poor taste. All of us wish, and have stated, our desire for a president with classier chops, but this is where we're at. You all pin that on us. I'm fine with it because I understand the choice that had to be made: elect a jerk, or elect complete ineptitude. The one part about Trump's manner I do appreciate: it drives you guys nuts. I will admit that's a bonus I'll miss when he's gone. The ranting and raving about it on this forum, however, is just tiresome when we should be exchanging ideas about strategic happenings instead. Apparently they did get the memo. And I distinctly remember predicting, right here on this message board, barely three days ago, that there was a lot more at play to "opening" or "closing" the straight than met the eye - you responded with this mess. Now, here we are, and lo and behold, what's happened? We closed the straight. It's almost like I can see a larger play at work. You'd call it 4D chess. I just understand that we're the ones with all the strategic leverage. I promise you I can't predict the future, it was just the obvious play. So yes, while Iran has played their very last card by closing the straight, we played a card I saw in the deck that trumps it: we closed it harder. Others here didn't really get it. They can close it, but we can up the ante and beat them at their own game. Or did you actually think we were just going to let them control that waterway on their own terms? Like seriously? Did you think Iranian and Chinese oil tankers would be doing business as usual all the while the lights went out on our allies and we flounder in the channel? Get real dude. We're a superpower. That's not chest-beating. It's looking objectively at who's who in this conflict. Of course we want it open. But it's going to be open on our terms, not theirs. So give it time. I'll spell out the next part for you again: Iran depends on the straight for 90% of their exports, 85% of their government revenue, and additionally import HALF of the gasoline they use to generate power. They need it open far, far more than we do, as they hemorrhage $3 billion dollars a week and risk massive long-term (self inflicted) damage to their oil infrastructure. As I said before, we can play the waiting game while they waterboard themselves. That's the strategic leverage. Can you see it? Or are you queuing up yet another anti-Trump tirade? This is effectively the sequel to my last post, with the added benefit of hindsight including events which I suggested would take place, actually having taken place. You didn't respond thoughtfully when it was prognostication. You didn't address how Iran is far more dependent on the straight that we are. Maybe now you will since it's actually happening?

And I didn't say anything about opening it up. See, everyone is only thinking about one side of this. Iran can close it down and cause the world pain. Us? We'll be fine. We're energy independent. If Iran keeps it closed much longer, they risk alienating themselves further and strangling their partners. So from their perspective, it's not a scalpel which can cause localized pain to the United States. It's a tool of indiscriminate destruction which they can use, but only by causing mass collateral damage to everyone else they hope to win to their side or currently do illicit business with. Or do you think we're going to allow Iran to only "tax" imports to the West? Hmmm. Time is on our side, not Irans. We can easily sit back and let Iran run whatever scheme they want to where it concerns the 40 mile choke point. In turn, we can easily run ours from further afield. Iran can close it. Cool. They can likewise only open it under terms which suit us. That's the bigger picture. I mean even the simplest google search reveals that Iran depends on the straight for more than 90% of their oil exports and import 400,000 barrels (per day) of gasoline - fully half of what they use. So yeah, they're strangling themselves while we can sit back and watch their economy turn to dust.

This conflict is about more than just Iran being able to shut things down. If you think for one second that we can't choke off oil in the straight you're high.

It has to do with the perpetual emphasis (by the left) on things that don't matter in juxtaposition with things that do. You all look at the price of oil - which is not even close to historic highs - and cry the sky is falling. Meanwhile, we destroyed a 1/3rd of our wealth because of "feels" and it's no big deal to you all. Just pointing at the hypocrisy is all. On the notion of Iran being in a stronger position. We'll just have to agree to disagree. And I'll have to laugh. We just made them our bitch in dramatic fashion. They have no long-term ability to project power. And they will be unable (for years) to be a serious maker / supplier of weapons in the middle east or anywhere else. They cannot be the petro supplier-of-last-resort to China. As much as you think Iran controls the straight of Hormuz, we control it more. And as much as China depends on oil flowing through the straight of Malacca, well, let's just say we're in control of that one too. We're 100% in the driver's seat. That you can't see that speaks to how blinkered your worldview is.

And the sky is blue. My point is that you, and others, are doom posting. The price of oil goes up during warfare. This is not a surprise. You can post truisms from where you sit, but they're not making an argument. Yeah there are negative effects from this war. There are also massive positive ones. You have to weigh the margins. "Biden" (his confederacy of dunces) dropped $2T of unnecessary spending on an economy that didn't need it. COVID was largely over by the time that bill hit. But yay, we still pay for it. Total inflation for that boondoggle has been like 30-40%, so in other words, you have about 2/3 of the wealth you had before COVID, thanks in large part due to horrific government policies. Don't get me started on Bitcoin. I hope they do charge tolls for everything in Bitcoin. Joke will be on them. It's going to zero someday. Iran in a stronger geopolitical position? Ha. Did you tell them that?

LOL at the libs on this site lamenting the increase in gas prices as if it means literally anything. What's your position? That we can't go to war because the price of a commodity might increase? Mmmmkaaay. And furthermore that somehow the degree of success in the conflict will be measured by the price of said commodity not rising above an arbitrary threshold that is determined by numerous other factors? LOL. Bottom line: we're crushing it in the foreign policy department. Venezuela? Done. Russia? Completely hemmed in. Cuba? Teetering. Iran? Nearly completely decimated - from the air alone. Numerous other terrorist proxies? On their back feet, at best. Is the world fixed? Nope. But it has been made a lot better than it was - by a TV show host - let that sink in and consider what it says about the rest of our political class. You all are upset about words. You need to look at the state of the world.

If true, and I was a strike eagle pilot (eww), no way I'd let that missile sponge in my back seat (sts)! 😂

As he well should be. Flight discipline is the bedrock of everything we do.

In a word, no. That EO, and the whole series it's part of, don't restrict the DOD. They restrict the intelligence community. Nothing stops the military from targeting a head of state - or literally anyone else - if they are declared a legal target / combatant. Not sure where this whole "the military can't kill certain people" idea has come from. Probably news organizations like CNN, NBC, ABC, et al who just clip one-liners from EOs and use them to promote narratives which support their own motives.

Respect. I have no issue with people asking questions as Americans or whatever. Nor do I have a problem with contrarian opinions so long as they're defended in good faith. If I had my way, Ron Paul would be the President and a lot of other things about the way we conduct ourselves in the world would be different. So as a philosophical matter I agree that in the best of all possible worlds, Congress would not have abdicated its war-making responsibility, and we'd have a functioning government. At some point in my career, though, I looked at the way things actually worked, and began to come to terms with the imperfect way things work. That doesn't make it right, but it does make it above my pay grade. What I would put to you or anyone else out there is the question you seemed to be asking was an important one, but one we as officers don't get to deal with. It's the distinction between jus in bello vs jus ad bellum. We have every right and responsibility to question jus in bello. Questioning jus ad bellum is outside our lane as military officers. We benefit from being and having critical thinkers in the military. I pointed out what I thought was an inconsistency in the approach to the argument and what my thoughts are. Cheers.

@FourFans and @Negat0ry , you guys are going after the "illegal orders" straw man pretty hard. You can let it go. 17D is questioning the legality of the entire operation based on a court-established timeline precedent which has been repeatedly used to side-step and violate the constitution for decades before you, me, or anyone else ever considered joining the military. Vietnam, Korea, Iraq 1, Iraq 2, Afghanistan, and so on. In precisely zero of these 'operations' did Congress ever declare war. Again, you can spare me the refrain to article 8. We can all read. Someone else did a good job drawing out the distinction for you: yes, you have a basis and duty to question the legality of orders like "drop a bomb on this mosque." That's not what 17D was doing. As a line officer, you're on pretty shaky ground the second you start engaging in constitutional lawyership and pontificating about who does or doesn't have the authority to deploy me. My intent was to underscore the hypocrisy of asking questions on this basis now, after swearing an oath rooted in the very precedent he now seems to be trying to overturn. You (we) all looked at the rules of the game before we started playing, decided they were satisfactory, and now that we're on the field, some of us have started questioning the rule book because a few are upset that there's a new head coach. That's what I'm calling out. That's the opposite of the officership I'm talking about. It's rooted in self-service, not service to the country. It points either at the lack of introspection someone had when they swore the oath, or a newly found distaste for the flavor of the month. Neither are very officer-like. Feel free to misread this yet again and continue white knighting for the constitution.

Yeah @FourFans , no one is saying follow illegal orders, but thanks for the re-iteration of the oath. @17D_guy specifically cast this in light of this war being illegal because Congress hasn't authorized it. In other words, he has implied that the operation is de facto illegal since Congress hasn't, what, voted on it? That's what I'm dismissing out of hand. And in any case, if that's the approach he's going to take to this conflict, then my logical follow-up question for him is why didn't he resign at any other point in the last 20 years of wars this country has been fighting which congress didn't authorize? We've all had plenty of time to adjust to the new modern way of war, and if we didn't like it, we could have put our money where our mouth was and quit. Only now we're getting the constitutional scaries??? Put differently, it's the furthest thing from officership I can think of. He stated clearly that he doesn't think this is legal because Congress hasn't authorized it. In no way shape or form does Congress have to authorize military action. That is fully in the President's lane.

Aside from the college-essay-esqe nature of your question and the interesting philosophical debate it could engender: why do you feel you have any legitimacy in questioning the legality of this conflict as an officer? I mean I get the rules of war and not violating clearly illegal bounds ala My Lai massacre, but in sooooooo, soo many cases in the modern era, this is how "war" is fought. WTF is "congressional approval" for anyway? Funding, right? Congress gets to declare war - which they don't do - so you and I know that in the real, modern world, the President has full and complete executive authority to launch whatever type of operation he deems serves our national security, Congress be damned. That's it. ROE is determined by government / military lawyers - not Congress. So, why do you think you have any legitimate basis upon which to question this operation vs any of the others you've been fine carrying out? Congress doesn't get any say whatsoever in what the scope of an operation is, whatever the label is you want to apply to it, be it 'limited,' 'temporary,' no 'boots on ground,' etc. So your question is inherently a red-herring. If you have (or had) a serious personal issue with how military operations have been conducted since WWII and Congress' (lack of) authorization, then you should have resigned your commission and stopped collecting retirement pay a long time ago.

Now do Iran...

You can absolutely be critical of Israel without being an anti-semite. That's not what anyone is saying. But, to your point. October 7th gave Israel (not the Jews) the right to displace every single Palestinian from Gaza forever. That action, supported and enabled by Iran, and undertaken by Hamas foreclosed a two-state solution permanently. And I said as much shortly after October 7th. It also gives them the right to overthrow the government of Iran.