The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
No bio...
User ID: 174
Them and what army?
No, never; I'm afraid that phrase is around in the civilian world as well.
Now that makes no sense at all. Ukraine doesn't need American drone interceptors for Shaheds. Even if they did, forcing the other side to spend one interceptor for one drone in Iran is no better for Russia than the same happening in Ukraine.
Please explain why it benefits Putin to supply Iran with infinite Shaheds to keep oil from flowing through the Strait.
They wouldn't even do that. Shaheds from the mountains would be shot down before they reached the strait.
The chance of Putin supplying some hardened remnant of the IRGC in the mountains of Iran with Shaheds is zero. Why would he? What would they have to offer him, compared with using the drones against Ukraine? They couldn't even pay for them.
Meanwhile, here in the real world, not only did the US win the Iraq War, it successfully managed the nation-building part as well. Iraq was not Afghanistan.
The problem with the navy escorting a tanker is that it'll be a far better target than a tanker going through alone with AIS turned off. (The Mayuree Naree, the empty bulk carrier that was hit, went in fat dumb and happy with the transponder on)
Probably the navy ought to just send in RPVs displaying tanker transponders until all the Iranian launch sites are wrecked.
Surely it prevents export from Saudi Arabia’s western ports?
Only if you hit enough of it.
Iran has done some of that recently: what did the Azeris do to them? At best they are either flailing around --- it'd be hilarious if Israel, Ukraine, or US intelligence caused them to inadvertently strike Chechnya --- or trying to appeal to the negative sum game of a more regional war.
Iran evidently warned their neighbors that in the event of a US attack they'd be hit (as part of a strategy to convince them to pressure the US into leaving them alone, though this may have backfired all by itself), and they also had a doctrine of devolving control to local commanders if the leadership was hit. So I suspect what happened is the leadership was hit, the local commanders followed their last orders (which may have been a bluff that was never intended to be followed, but there was no one to countermand them) and attacked everyone. Or maybe the Iranian leaders actually would have thought attacking everyone was a good strategy; we'll never know because they are dead. I guess the moral is if you have a deadman switch, don't make it stupid.
I mean, I can think of at least two trolls with the US military at their beck and call (Trump and Hegseth), so, yeah.
I don't know about "two weeks", but the only way to move them backwards significantly is to take or destroy the uranium they've already enriched.
The Supreme Leader is a dead man walking, but he also has access to 1000 lbs of 60%-enriched uranium.
Supposedly they're busy digging that uranium out. If I were a troll with the US military at my beck and call, I might just wait for them to do all the hard work of digging it out, then bomb all the nearby roads and send in special forces to take it.
Jask is low capacity as well as vulnerable. Even if the US doesn't take it out, it doesn't provide Iran much of a lifeline. Iran could fire Shaheds at oilfields, but Shaheds aren't exactly unstoppable, and anyway if the Straits are mined, destroying some oil infrastructure doesn't add much additional pain. They could go all out on Gulf desalination plants, but realistically that hurts the war effort not one bit. Note most of Saudi Arabia's desalination plants are on the west coast.
Iran can mine the straits, keep shipping oil from the Gulf of Oman, and dare the US to do something.
Ah, yes, daring Trump to do something will totally make him back down.
Previous bombings may have stopped Iran's progress, but they didn't move it backwards -- not as long as Iran still has the enriched nuclear material.
I really don't understand why, if Trump was considering attacking, he didn't do so when the protests were closer to their peak and he threatened intervention if people got shot.
Because carriers don't move fast enough. I don't think it matters. Against a sufficiently ruthless regime, unarmed protestors are just bullet sponges, and that holds true even if the regime is being bombed. I think some Iranians in the west have gotten this idea that "you protest, things change" is actually cause-and-effect from watching western leftists appear to pull it off; they don't realize that's kayfabe, either a way for the government to do what it wants to do anyway, or at least a faction of the government.
According to various sources, more than 80-90% of Iranian mine laying speedboats and other platforms are still operational. These are very hard to target from the air, they’re small, easily hidden, widely dispersed along the coast.
The information environment in this war is worse than in Ukraine. "Various sources" may well be full of shit. In any case, the US has the ability to target speedboats from the air.... what, you think blowing up Venezuelan drug boats was just about stopping drugs?
The US has a lot more than two escalations open. The one I have been expecting is a limited invasion to occupy Qeshm and the smaller Iran-controlled islands in the Straits. This would disrupt the ability of Iran to attack ships, and directly threaten their own shipping.
As for mining, if Iran mines the straits while their oil production is still active, they've cut themselves off from oil sales. Mines have no IFF, and the Iranians have only one filling terminal outside the straits, which the US could easily destroy from the air.
I am fairly sure Gaius Julius Caesar (gai-us or ga-i-us, yoo-li-us, kai-sar) never spoke ecclesiastical Latin.
Yep. Gemini AI amusingly positively compares the "mud" from the original Woodstock with the "mud" from Woodstock '99, claiming the latter was contaminated with port-a-potty overflow. Well, I'm sure it was, but not only did the original Woodstock have the same problem, even without that the "mud" was probably 40% cowshit.
Listening to a hot chick talk about her dating life when you haven’t banged her feels like a humiliation ritual.
Especially when interjecting sarcastic remarks which make her cry ("and after all that you slept with him anyway") makes YOU the bad guy.
As @VoxelVexillologist notes, Upstate NY isn't a desert; it was famously a mudpit in the original and 1994 and 1999.
Because yes, in order to use age estimation, AgeGo will need a short video clip of my face, which will then be deleted once the verification is complete.
Sure it will.
Yep. All this handwringing over screen time when the possible alternatives are likely unavailable, unlawful, uninsurable, require an adult's constant participation, and/or would raise eyebrows with the Karens/curtain-twitchers and get the authorities called in.
So far we've seen no attempt at any action against the regime. I think the IRGC has successfully neutered all the opposition; there's no armed rival to take control. And the hard-line regime may be deep enough that you simply can't kill enough of them to find anyone willing to make a deal; if you keep killing you may just reduce the nation to ungoverned chaos.
Gotta love that passive voice "has drawn scrutiny".
My father had a copy of Mein Kampf also. I tried to read it at one point, found it unreadable, didn't get very far. But how could you not mention the headline calling him an "An Apparent Neo-Nazi"?
Fortunately for Herrera, I'd guess approximately zero of his potential voters read "Rolling Stone".
- Prev
- Next

This is about a prince's relation with his subjects, not enemy princes or their subjects.
More options
Context Copy link