7 hours ago, Pooter said:

Also with a baseops accounts dating back to 2005 and 2003 respectively there’s a very low likelihood either of you are even still in the military or have a clearance at this point

Been in since '94 bud and still have all the clearances.........careful w/ your assumptions on here

44 minutes ago, slc said:

Been in since '94 bud and still have all the clearances.........careful w/ your assumptions on here

slc when the waitress asks if he wants the senior discount

You know it!! Lol

1 hour ago, slc said:

Been in since '94 bud and still have all the clearances.........careful w/ your assumptions on here

Truly one of the dumbest posts he's ever made...Started in 90 and have had a clearance ever since.

1 hour ago, Pooter said:

I will say it’s a solid rhetorical pivot from you guys though..

Can’t argue the war on its own merits? Just invoke “secret” info that no one can confirm or refute in an open forum to prove the whole thing is justified and a super good idea. I guess that’s checkmate because I honestly can’t do much with that

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.

Potentially $20+ billion to Iran as part of the deal...

22 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

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.

Regime - intact

Ballistic missile threat - intact

Nuclear material - at large

Population - more rallied behind their government than before

Regime - pinky promising they won’t make a nuke which you wouldn’t believe last time but will now for some reason

Yeah dude so much progress has been made

6 minutes ago, Pooter said:

Regime - intact

Ballistic missile threat - intact

Nuclear material - at large

Population - more rallied behind their government than before

Regime - pinky promising they won’t make a nuke which you wouldn’t believe last time but will now for some reason

Yeah dude so much progress has been made

Collectively, the world thinks we're winning.

4 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Collectively, the world thinks we're winning.

😂 my mistake I didn’t realize you speak for.. the world

25 minutes ago, Pooter said:

Regime - intact

Ballistic missile threat - intact

Nuclear material - at large

Population - more rallied behind their government than before

Regime - pinky promising they won’t make a nuke which you wouldn’t believe last time but will now for some reason

Yeah dude so much progress has been made

Are you suggesting that Iran has basically been unaffected by this war?

Where do they make the drones? What about the ballistic missiles? How do they enrich uranium? Is a regime defined by the name, or by the leadership? Which leaders are "intact?" What is Iran's control of the Straits currently accomplishing for them?

Would you say that Iran (the Islamo-fascist regime, not the abstract country) is going to be better off, the same, or worse off in 10-20 years as a result of this war? Will they represent more or less of a regional threat?

And where is your claim about the population support coming from? I asked this before (with no answer), but why is Iran blocking the Internet still if the population is rallying behind them?

You just say things, eh?

Edited 20 hours ago20 hr by Lord Ratner

7 minutes ago, Pooter said:

😂 my mistake I didn’t realize you speak for.. the world

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.

46 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

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.

Stock market - up (after the war tanked it)

Oil - down (after the war spiked it)

Straight - open (after the war closed it)

The Dow, oil prices, and commerce in the straight were all humming along just fine before we started this boondoggle and now that we trashed all three and have begun to unf—-k the situation I’m supposed to admit some big win happened? We are slowly progressing to get back to square one.

The mullahs and IRGC still run Iran. They still have nuclear material. They still have ballistic missiles that can hold our bases in the region at risk.

Now we’re lifting sanctions on Iran to get a fragile ceasefire and commitments that they won’t develop a nuke—which is exactly what the JCPOA was the whole time…

4 hours ago, StoleIt said:

Potentially $20+ billion to Iran as part of the deal...

Wasn't there some here that objected to Obama giving Iran money and how that didn't solve anything?

Any of those care to opine on this? Same? Different? Nany Nany boo boo?

13 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Wasn't there some here that objected to Obama giving Iran money and how that didn't solve anything?

Any of those care to opine on this? Same? Different? Nany Nany boo boo?

There are literally 30 different stories floating out there on every main sticking point of this war closing out.
Strait is open/Strait is closed

Money unfrozen/No money involved

Peace in Middle East/No peace

Take your pick right now.

Too early to tell. IF money is transferred/released and if those figures are accurate, than it's not as bad as last time as last time was $50 billion. Still not good though. Also, they will likely need to spend a fair amount of that rebuilding all the stuff we blew up. Not trying to make it sound like it's good because it's not. But, in the big picture, it isn't as bad as last time. Hopefully the release of those funds would be contingent on the transfer of the uranium. If that were the case, that would be far better.

1 hour ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Wasn't there some here that objected to Obama giving Iran money and how that didn't solve anything?

Any of those care to opine on this? Same? Different? Nany Nany boo boo?

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?

They have to have some money to feed the populace. If (and that's a big IF right now), we get the nuclear material that is IMHO a huge win. Navy = gone, AF = Gone, ability in the near-term to produce TBM's = gone, nuclear material = gone...in the aggregate it is a big win. Potentially a harder line government in place is not good, but it is not over yet.

BTW - Oil is dropping like a rock. Time will tell.

On 2/15/2021 at 9:45 AM, ClearedHot said:

Who fucking cares? 

We flew a plane full of cash to a country designated as a state sponsor of terrorism.

We flew a plane full of cash to a country that was supplying our enemies with EFPs that were used to kill and maim American Soldiers. 

We flew a plane full of cash to a country that supported various Iraqi Shia terrorist groups, including Kata’ib Hizballah (KH), Harakat al-Nujaba, and Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq.  KH was responsible for a series of rocket attacks against American interests in Iraq, which culminated in the death of an American citizen following a 30 plus rocket barrage in December 2019.

We flew a plane full of cash to a country that supplied Hizballah with thousands of rockets, missiles, and small arms in direct violation of UNSCR 1701.  Hizballah has since rained those rockets on Israel killing many civilians.

We flew  plane full of cash to a country that provided support to Hamas and other designated Palestinian terrorist groups, including Palestine Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command.

We flew a plane full of cash to a country that continued supporting terrorist plots to attack Iranian dissidents in several countries in continental Europe.  In recent years, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Albania have all either arrested or expelled Iranian government officials implicated in various terrorist plots in their respective territories.

We flew a plane full of cash to a country that has used sponsored cyber attacks against foreign governments and private sector entities.

Come on Man.

17 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

They have to have some money to feed the populace.

interesting change of tune here 🍿

I made a comment about giving Iran money last time in relation to our letting them sell their sanctiined oil this time. I'm still against both of those actions

At face value, I'm completely against allowing them access to $20 billion in frozen assets.

However, if they agree to allow the IAEA come in and remove all of their nuclear material, and oversee the dismantling of their nuclear program, I think there's a case to be made for allowing them access to some or all of these funds.

The release of funds wouldn't start until those actions occurred, and would be spread out over a period of say 10 years upon continued IAEA inspection access and "good behavior".

I unfortunately doubt this will happen.

9 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

I made a comment about giving Iran money last time in relation to our letting them sell their sanctiined oil this time. I'm still against both of those actions

At face value, I'm completely against allowing them access to $20 billion in frozen assets.

However, if they agree to allow the IAEA come in and remove all of their nuclear material, and oversee the dismantling of their nuclear program, I think there's a case to be made for allowing them access to some or all of these funds.

The release of funds wouldn't start until those actions occurred, and would be spread out over a period of say 10 years upon continued IAEA inspection access and "good behavior".

I unfortunately doubt this will happen.

Despite the sniping from the trolls I think there’s a difference between writing a check and unlocking leverage—and too many people are blurring that line when it comes to Iran.

In 2016, the Barack Obama administration transferred roughly $1.7B to Iran. That wasn’t foreign aid—it was the settlement of a decades-old legal dispute over pre-1979 funds, including $400M that was literally delivered in cash because sanctions had cut Iran off from the global banking system.

It looked bad. Optically, strategically it handed the regime a win with minimal immediate pressure tied to behavior.

What’s being discussed now is fundamentally different.

We’re not talking about pallets of cash showing up overnight. We’re talking about controlled, conditional access to Iranian funds—money that is already theirs, but frozen—and releasing it in phases tied to compliance, outcomes, and leverage.

That distinction matters.

I am not in favor of flooding Iran with cash they can redirect to proxy groups or destabilizing activities. That’s reckless.

Economic power isn’t just about denial, it’s about calibration.

If you only ever tighten the vise, eventually you lose the ability to trade relief for behavior. And then your only remaining tools are escalation or stalemate.

The goal isn’t to “help Iran.”
The goal is to shape outcomes in a way that serves U.S. interests and regional stability.

As someone with a TS (who retired 6 years ago) and used to have some fun upper clearances: open source usually had around 80% of what we had total Intel for. I do not buy the Intel is completely different from open source game.

Also strait is closed again 😅

I recommended a slight change to the deal since some in Iran want to fuck around some more.

Subtract our expenses so far from the $20B.

Edit: I say the families of those killed by Iran get a nice fat check. Iran's gonna need a bigger pile of money.

Edited 49 minutes ago49 min by disgruntledemployee
Grams

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

......

The goal isn’t to “help Iran.”
The goal is to shape outcomes in a way that serves U.S. interests and regional stability.

I bet if you ask Obama, he would probably say he intended to accomplish the same goal by using money. How or where it comes from doesn't make this time different.

It didn't work last time, I bet it won't work this time.

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by disgruntledemployee
grammar

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Despite the sniping from the trolls I think there’s a difference between writing a check and unlocking leverage—and too many people are blurring that line when it comes to Iran.

In 2016, the Barack Obama administration transferred roughly $1.7B to Iran. That wasn’t foreign aid—it was the settlement of a decades-old legal dispute over pre-1979 funds, including $400M that was literally delivered in cash because sanctions had cut Iran off from the global banking system.

It looked bad. Optically, strategically it handed the regime a win with minimal immediate pressure tied to behavior.

What’s being discussed now is fundamentally different.

We’re not talking about pallets of cash showing up overnight. We’re talking about controlled, conditional access to Iranian funds—money that is already theirs, but frozen—and releasing it in phases tied to compliance, outcomes, and leverage.

That distinction matters.

I am not in favor of flooding Iran with cash they can redirect to proxy groups or destabilizing activities. That’s reckless.

Economic power isn’t just about denial, it’s about calibration.

If you only ever tighten the vise, eventually you lose the ability to trade relief for behavior. And then your only remaining tools are escalation or stalemate.

The goal isn’t to “help Iran.”
The goal is to shape outcomes in a way that serves U.S. interests and regional stability.

If you’re gonna use AI, at least remove the Em-Dashes 😂

Have the robots taken over the old guy accounts?

28 minutes ago, Negat0ry said:

If you’re gonna use AI, at least remove the Em-Dashes 😂

Have the robots taken over the old guy accounts?

I use AI to clean up my spelling errors...YMMV