|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 11 2026 03:57 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2026 22:25 Jankisa wrote:
At this point, the responsible thing for China, as the new world hegemon would be to leak everything they have on Trump and his cronies, if that doesn't work do a special military operation in the same style as Maduro raid and fly the orange fucker to a prison in China. I'm sure no one would expect a helicopter raid on Mara Lago.
According to the Trump regime interpretation of international law, that would be perfectly legal. If Trump were half the fascist you promote him to be, that would literally be the only way to do it, and you would support it. Announce war -> he nukes you first. Have the communist party congress vote on war and then declare war -> he nukes you. Have the international community approve very internationally legal mechanisms to remove him (in a hypothetical world where you could authorize a war against someone in the UN Security Council which is the only current "international" framework) -> everybody nuked. Now imagine that, but for real, and in Iran, and thankfully without the nukes yet. You have a dictator who sponsors terror and believes his own death would be a victory. International community's response? Crickets. An international community that "prohibits" war but otherwise can't stop states from doing and supporting terrorism and each other, it's pathetic. It's like the school that suspends the guy who punches the bully back. The first problem was the bullying and if you can't address that, the beautiful orderly international authority is a meaningless paper moon. "International law" which the West invented exists to help stop countries like Iran and Iraq from having 10 year wars with each other. Not to stop the USA from making sure Iran never attacks anyone again when international law repeatedly fails.
I like how you quoted up to a point in my post where I talk about why I think Trump is so dangerous now, makes it seem like you might sympathize with this opinion (especially since it's coming from a fellow traveler of yours Nick Fuentes), on top of all the rest of what he represents and is. And yes, I would support it as an answer to a belligerent head of a superpower who is very obviously a fascist.
As Yourie said, yup, we had that, under JCPOE, under international law, things were going pretty well until Trump came in, nuked the deal, hellfired Soleimani and started this spiral.
|
On March 11 2026 03:11 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2026 01:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2026 01:24 Jankisa wrote:
The rise of "prediction markets", so Polymarket and Kalshi has been enabled by 2 things, first was Trump legalizing gambling in 2018 and Crypto becoming a regulated and recognized "industry".
I don't think things like this would have been possible because the "gameification" of everything wasn't a big thing back then, with these 2 things I mentioned the ability for people to become corrupt has been supercharged. Betting has had a horrible effect on sports, prediction markets are now actively having a horrible effect on the world.
Of course, stock trading, insider trading and information "shadow broker" economy has been a thing forever, as evidenced by UK actually arresting some people who engaged in this kind of shit with Epstein, who, by the way, had a lot to say about gamefication, crypto and all of this, giving advice to Bobby Kotick on loot boxes, being fascinated and helping Bannon and Brock Pierce with the "wow gold farms" etc.
Now, the prediction markets and crypto "businesses" like World liberty financial, which shuffled insane amounts of money between Binance, Saudis, Witkoffs and Trumps to the tune of enriching Trump and trippling his net worth, but no one cares because they are much more focused on locking up and throwing out brown people at home and engaging in the age old American tradition of blowing up brown people in the Middle East. Ironically, Trump is helping unmask the subtle corruption that's been long-standing by being so much more blatant. It's not like Deutsche Bank is a secret organization, but there's hardly a significant international financial crime (including Epstein) they aren't linked to. At some point Europe is going to have to confront its complicity in what Trump's doing and decide if they are going to let him and their politicians lead them into their own demise. What do you expect Europe to do? At what point do you just concede your advocacy for accelerationism has just roundly failed and wasn’t a great idea?
As an European, I don't think he's wrong. I've seen it everywhere, I've even quit a job because they were selling data to scammers (their most profitable customer, couldn't afford to cut the deal. go figure) .
Literally last week found a reputable news article peddling a scam website - they were paid for an ad piece after all...
We all have to go on with our lives. I'm not plotting to overthrow my government.
but the fire in me keeps burning hotter and hotter.
So yeah - we've all become too comfortable with allowing it to happen and turning a blind eye to the small things. And the small things keep getting bigger and more frequent. When is enough is enough.
At some point, the people that represent us should say enough is enough. Take the bank down and arrest the managers responsible for this.
|
On March 11 2026 04:59 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2026 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2026 03:11 WombaT wrote:On March 11 2026 01:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2026 01:24 Jankisa wrote:
The rise of "prediction markets", so Polymarket and Kalshi has been enabled by 2 things, first was Trump legalizing gambling in 2018 and Crypto becoming a regulated and recognized "industry".
I don't think things like this would have been possible because the "gameification" of everything wasn't a big thing back then, with these 2 things I mentioned the ability for people to become corrupt has been supercharged. Betting has had a horrible effect on sports, prediction markets are now actively having a horrible effect on the world.
Of course, stock trading, insider trading and information "shadow broker" economy has been a thing forever, as evidenced by UK actually arresting some people who engaged in this kind of shit with Epstein, who, by the way, had a lot to say about gamefication, crypto and all of this, giving advice to Bobby Kotick on loot boxes, being fascinated and helping Bannon and Brock Pierce with the "wow gold farms" etc.
Now, the prediction markets and crypto "businesses" like World liberty financial, which shuffled insane amounts of money between Binance, Saudis, Witkoffs and Trumps to the tune of enriching Trump and trippling his net worth, but no one cares because they are much more focused on locking up and throwing out brown people at home and engaging in the age old American tradition of blowing up brown people in the Middle East. Ironically, Trump is helping unmask the subtle corruption that's been long-standing by being so much more blatant. It's not like Deutsche Bank is a secret organization, but there's hardly a significant international financial crime (including Epstein) they aren't linked to. At some point Europe is going to have to confront its complicity in what Trump's doing and decide if they are going to let him and their politicians lead them into their own demise. What do you expect Europe to do? At what point do you just concede your advocacy for accelerationism has just roundly failed and wasn’t a great idea? You guys are ostensibly the last bastion of democracy where the people have the ability to choose not to continue appeasing/aiding and abetting a fascist US that's illegally at war bombing and kidnapping world leaders while talking about invading/conquering/installing puppet governments in various countries. But you know, so long as they've got "pretty tolerable lives" this will just be the new "background corruption". At least Niemöller could honestly say he didn't know better. I didn't/don't advocate accelerationism. We're not, Europe is on the same trajectory as the US just a little behind the curve. Give it several more years of brain-cooking algorithms and we'll be there. In the meantime, while the liberals are still in charge, no serious action will be taken. The EU system is set up in such a way that decisive controversial action can never pass all the checks. The only plan right now is to hope the US fascists allow relatively unrigged voting and that the % of votes they block/steal is a little lower than the % of voters that learned something in the past year. Other than that, the EU will attempt to slowly become less dependent on US tech services and military hardware, but that's going to take a lot more time than we have. We still need a few more years to be fully rid of Russian energy, if you're thinking sanctions on the US it's not happening. Not even if they take Greenland by force. Maybe Canda. Don't look at Europe for answers or help, you'll be disappointed. Only China has the necessary set-up for any courageous action, as we saw during the tariff soap opera.
Are these the conclusions other Europeans here are reaching?
|
On March 11 2026 07:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2026 04:59 Dan HH wrote:On March 11 2026 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2026 03:11 WombaT wrote:On March 11 2026 01:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2026 01:24 Jankisa wrote:
The rise of "prediction markets", so Polymarket and Kalshi has been enabled by 2 things, first was Trump legalizing gambling in 2018 and Crypto becoming a regulated and recognized "industry".
I don't think things like this would have been possible because the "gameification" of everything wasn't a big thing back then, with these 2 things I mentioned the ability for people to become corrupt has been supercharged. Betting has had a horrible effect on sports, prediction markets are now actively having a horrible effect on the world.
Of course, stock trading, insider trading and information "shadow broker" economy has been a thing forever, as evidenced by UK actually arresting some people who engaged in this kind of shit with Epstein, who, by the way, had a lot to say about gamefication, crypto and all of this, giving advice to Bobby Kotick on loot boxes, being fascinated and helping Bannon and Brock Pierce with the "wow gold farms" etc.
Now, the prediction markets and crypto "businesses" like World liberty financial, which shuffled insane amounts of money between Binance, Saudis, Witkoffs and Trumps to the tune of enriching Trump and trippling his net worth, but no one cares because they are much more focused on locking up and throwing out brown people at home and engaging in the age old American tradition of blowing up brown people in the Middle East. Ironically, Trump is helping unmask the subtle corruption that's been long-standing by being so much more blatant. It's not like Deutsche Bank is a secret organization, but there's hardly a significant international financial crime (including Epstein) they aren't linked to. At some point Europe is going to have to confront its complicity in what Trump's doing and decide if they are going to let him and their politicians lead them into their own demise. What do you expect Europe to do? At what point do you just concede your advocacy for accelerationism has just roundly failed and wasn’t a great idea? You guys are ostensibly the last bastion of democracy where the people have the ability to choose not to continue appeasing/aiding and abetting a fascist US that's illegally at war bombing and kidnapping world leaders while talking about invading/conquering/installing puppet governments in various countries. But you know, so long as they've got "pretty tolerable lives" this will just be the new "background corruption". At least Niemöller could honestly say he didn't know better. I didn't/don't advocate accelerationism. We're not, Europe is on the same trajectory as the US just a little behind the curve. Give it several more years of brain-cooking algorithms and we'll be there. In the meantime, while the liberals are still in charge, no serious action will be taken. The EU system is set up in such a way that decisive controversial action can never pass all the checks. The only plan right now is to hope the US fascists allow relatively unrigged voting and that the % of votes they block/steal is a little lower than the % of voters that learned something in the past year. Other than that, the EU will attempt to slowly become less dependent on US tech services and military hardware, but that's going to take a lot more time than we have. We still need a few more years to be fully rid of Russian energy, if you're thinking sanctions on the US it's not happening. Not even if they take Greenland by force. Maybe Canda. Don't look at Europe for answers or help, you'll be disappointed. Only China has the necessary set-up for any courageous action, as we saw during the tariff soap opera. Are these the conclusions other Europeans here are reaching?
Yes, unfortunately. For example, take the Spain denying the US the use of the bases for Iran war. No way the EU would allow all countries to do that. I wish Portugal would've done the same with Lajes but ofc it didn't happen
|
On March 11 2026 07:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2026 04:59 Dan HH wrote:On March 11 2026 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2026 03:11 WombaT wrote:On March 11 2026 01:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2026 01:24 Jankisa wrote:
The rise of "prediction markets", so Polymarket and Kalshi has been enabled by 2 things, first was Trump legalizing gambling in 2018 and Crypto becoming a regulated and recognized "industry".
I don't think things like this would have been possible because the "gameification" of everything wasn't a big thing back then, with these 2 things I mentioned the ability for people to become corrupt has been supercharged. Betting has had a horrible effect on sports, prediction markets are now actively having a horrible effect on the world.
Of course, stock trading, insider trading and information "shadow broker" economy has been a thing forever, as evidenced by UK actually arresting some people who engaged in this kind of shit with Epstein, who, by the way, had a lot to say about gamefication, crypto and all of this, giving advice to Bobby Kotick on loot boxes, being fascinated and helping Bannon and Brock Pierce with the "wow gold farms" etc.
Now, the prediction markets and crypto "businesses" like World liberty financial, which shuffled insane amounts of money between Binance, Saudis, Witkoffs and Trumps to the tune of enriching Trump and trippling his net worth, but no one cares because they are much more focused on locking up and throwing out brown people at home and engaging in the age old American tradition of blowing up brown people in the Middle East. Ironically, Trump is helping unmask the subtle corruption that's been long-standing by being so much more blatant. It's not like Deutsche Bank is a secret organization, but there's hardly a significant international financial crime (including Epstein) they aren't linked to. At some point Europe is going to have to confront its complicity in what Trump's doing and decide if they are going to let him and their politicians lead them into their own demise. What do you expect Europe to do? At what point do you just concede your advocacy for accelerationism has just roundly failed and wasn’t a great idea? You guys are ostensibly the last bastion of democracy where the people have the ability to choose not to continue appeasing/aiding and abetting a fascist US that's illegally at war bombing and kidnapping world leaders while talking about invading/conquering/installing puppet governments in various countries. But you know, so long as they've got "pretty tolerable lives" this will just be the new "background corruption". At least Niemöller could honestly say he didn't know better. I didn't/don't advocate accelerationism. We're not, Europe is on the same trajectory as the US just a little behind the curve. Give it several more years of brain-cooking algorithms and we'll be there. In the meantime, while the liberals are still in charge, no serious action will be taken. The EU system is set up in such a way that decisive controversial action can never pass all the checks. The only plan right now is to hope the US fascists allow relatively unrigged voting and that the % of votes they block/steal is a little lower than the % of voters that learned something in the past year. Other than that, the EU will attempt to slowly become less dependent on US tech services and military hardware, but that's going to take a lot more time than we have. We still need a few more years to be fully rid of Russian energy, if you're thinking sanctions on the US it's not happening. Not even if they take Greenland by force. Maybe Canda. Don't look at Europe for answers or help, you'll be disappointed. Only China has the necessary set-up for any courageous action, as we saw during the tariff soap opera. Are these the conclusions other Europeans here are reaching?
Youd could watch von der Leyen response to understand a little better what's going on. Dissappointment probably falls short. Spain doing the right thing is "electoralism".
|
On March 09 2026 23:51 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2026 10:37 baal wrote:On March 08 2026 22:35 LightSpectra wrote:
Afghanistan is a country of est. 40 million and the NATO mission committed no more than 18,000 troops at a time to holding it. The total U. S. armed forces plus reserves is over 2,000,000 people, so the security force in Afghanistan is about 0.009% of what you're calling "the full force of the US military". there werent 40 million taliban combatants and the RoE would be very differnt, the US military can't just carpet bomb Los Angeles to kill armed citizens, the more the military escalates aggression the more internal turnmoil within it ranks happen, soldiers aren't going to blow up their own families, thats how civil war factions are formed. What Afghanistan proved is that no matter how many planes and tanks you have to control a population you need boots on the ground and people to surrender, unless you are willing to obliterate them which isn't an option in a civil war. What Afghanistan proved is that 18,000 troops being supplied from the other hemisphere can't hold a mountainous country of 40 million. It in no way proves that no government on Earth is capable of winning a civil war against insurgents using guerilla tactics, especially the richest government with the most well-funded military in human history.
A perfectly loyal army, willing to kill their own friends and neighbors, to level its own infrastructure, that is not a realistic scenario in a civil war, however against an unarmed populous you only need a few bullets to seed enough fear to drive ppl into submission.
Trump can't even get states to comply with ICE do you think that if he declared himself eternal dictator and ordered the military to bomb New York they would do it? of course not, the military fractures generals rebel, factions are created and that is how civil war are formed.
If civilians in Venezuela and Cuba were armed they would have staged an armed resistance that would likely develop into toppling the regime, maybe some external actors fund one side or the other, but the thing is, if the population is armed its much more difficult for dictators to take root.
|
How hard would it be for Iran to shut down the straight of Hormuz? I know its like 40km wide at the narrowest.
I can't imagine they have a navy that would be able to just sit there waiting. Does shutting down the straight of hormuz just mean scare the hell out of people they stay the hell away because they have hidden rockets/seamines somewhere?
|
On March 11 2026 16:33 lestye wrote:
How hard would it be for Iran to shut down the straight of Hormuz? I know its like 40km wide at the narrowest.
I can't imagine they have a navy that would be able to just sit there waiting. Does shutting down the straight of hormuz just mean scare the hell out of people they stay the hell away because they have hidden rockets/seamines somewhere? Not hard, considering they have done it from the start of this war.
You don't have to physically block it. You just fire a missile/drone at one ship and then announce you will do it to the next that tries. And they have done that.
|
They don't have to "close it down". Iran just needs to create enough risk that insurers won't indemnify against damage to shippers. Given Trump's track record in trade deals and foreign policy how can any one trust the US government insurance Trump proposed?
A sunk oil tanker costs about $5B to clean up. Due to its depth and small size the strait of Hormuz is one of the hardest places on earth to clean up a sunken oil tanker.
Why isn't the US Navy in the Persian Gulf patrolling things right now any way? 
On March 11 2026 16:33 lestye wrote:
How hard would it be for Iran to shut down the straight of Hormuz? I know its like 40km wide at the narrowest.
Sorry to nitpick here but the Strait is 33 km wide at its narrowest point. 33.
|
The US is theoretically providing a huge amount of reinsurance to restart trade. London insurers are also making out like bandits by cancelling and offering replacement exorbitant policies.
I can agree one of the major problems right now is an insurance problem but that’s solvable with enough cash thrown at the problem, which the US is basically trying to do right now with a $20 billion backstop. What you can’t do is make sailors do what they don’t want to do. Sailors aren’t signing on to get shot at with projectiles, people are going to be very reluctant to sail through the strait if they know they’re going to get shot at.
From memory, that’s basically Lloyd’s stance on the issue - we’ll cover anything for the right fee but insurance doesn’t actually provide crew a forcefield against lethal projectiles. Solve that issue first if you want trade to go back to normal.
|
United States44242 Posts
In addition to truck launched drones they could also have things like mines already on the sea floor ready to be remotely deployed. Drone subs have also been very effectively used in the Black Sea over distances 20x further than would be needed in the Gulf. There’s a reason the US Navy hasn’t tried sailing next to a hostile coastline so far this war. Their planners have considered a shot exchange between the boats and people hiding in the mountains and concluded that the boat is more likely to sink than the mountain.
|
On March 11 2026 18:35 Hat Trick of Today wrote:The US is theoretically providing a huge amount of reinsurance to restart trade. London insurers are also making out like bandits by cancelling and offering replacement exorbitant policies. I can agree one of the major problems right now is an insurance problem but that’s solvable with enough cash thrown at the problem, which the US is basically trying to do right now with a $20 billion backstop. What you can’t do is make sailors do what they don’t want to do. Sailors aren’t signing on to get shot at with projectiles, people are going to be very reluctant to sail through the strait if they know they’re going to get shot at.From memory, that’s basically Lloyd’s stance on the issue - we’ll cover anything for the right fee but insurance doesn’t actually provide crew a forcefield against lethal projectiles. Solve that issue first if you want trade to go back to normal. Aside from sailors not having a death wish, I don't think anyone trusts Trump is actually pay up.
The consequence of destroying all trust.
|
On March 11 2026 18:02 JimmyJRaynor wrote:They don't have to "close it down". Iran just needs to create enough risk that insurers won't indemnify against damage to shippers. Given Trump's track record in trade deals and foreign policy how can any one trust the US government insurance Trump proposed? A sunk oil tanker costs about $5B to clean up. Due to its depth and small size the strait of Hormuz is one of the hardest places on earth to clean up a sunken oil tanker. Why isn't the US Navy in the Persian Gulf patrolling things right now any way? Show nested quote +On March 11 2026 16:33 lestye wrote:
How hard would it be for Iran to shut down the straight of Hormuz? I know its like 40km wide at the narrowest.
Sorry to nitpick here but the Strait is 33 km wide at its narrowest point. 33.
So it would take only 1 modern artilery platform with modern ammunition to engage into turkey shoting (no puns intended, Turks!)
|
There was some back and forth on here about GCC states running low on interceptors. Well, we'll prolly never know the answer to that question because Iran's drones and missiles launches are down sharply.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-09/iran-s-attacks-on-uae-ease-with-fewest-drones-since-war-began
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-estimates-iran-now-firing-just-20-missiles-a-day-at-israel-down-from-90-last-saturday
On March 11 2026 18:35 Hat Trick of Today wrote:The US is theoretically providing a huge amount of reinsurance to restart trade. London insurers are also making out like bandits by cancelling and offering replacement exorbitant policies. I can agree one of the major problems right now is an insurance problem but that’s solvable with enough cash thrown at the problem, which the US is basically trying to do right now with a $20 billion backstop. What you can’t do is make sailors do what they don’t want to do. Sailors aren’t signing on to get shot at with projectiles, people are going to be very reluctant to sail through the strait if they know they’re going to get shot at.From memory, that’s basically Lloyd’s stance on the issue - we’ll cover anything for the right fee but insurance doesn’t actually provide crew a forcefield against lethal projectiles. Solve that issue first if you want trade to go back to normal.
it is $20B on a rolling basis. there is easily well over $100B+ in liability sitting in the Persian Gulf right now.
If this were merely a $20B liability issue Trump would use mechanisms identical to what was used in the Iraq thing in 2003. He does not want to be on the hook for $200B. Just roughly speaking there was $15B to $25B in liability being covered during the Iraq conflict/police action/non-war. The mechanisms put in place worked "ok" during the Iraq thing.
$20B "on a rolling basis" is not " a huge amount of reinsurance to restart trade"
Also, this re-insurance covers casualty insurance, not Life. Do you think igp&i will pay off the life insurance claim for dozens of dead crew members when Iran sinks a tanker? nah, they'll just be one of dozens of fingers pointing in all directions blaming everyone else because the terms were not properly reset. Has anyone said they'll waive the war risk on life insurance claims?
So not only will these sailors die... their life insurance won't be paid. just brutal.
|
On March 11 2026 15:31 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2026 23:51 LightSpectra wrote:On March 09 2026 10:37 baal wrote:On March 08 2026 22:35 LightSpectra wrote:
Afghanistan is a country of est. 40 million and the NATO mission committed no more than 18,000 troops at a time to holding it. The total U. S. armed forces plus reserves is over 2,000,000 people, so the security force in Afghanistan is about 0.009% of what you're calling "the full force of the US military". there werent 40 million taliban combatants and the RoE would be very differnt, the US military can't just carpet bomb Los Angeles to kill armed citizens, the more the military escalates aggression the more internal turnmoil within it ranks happen, soldiers aren't going to blow up their own families, thats how civil war factions are formed. What Afghanistan proved is that no matter how many planes and tanks you have to control a population you need boots on the ground and people to surrender, unless you are willing to obliterate them which isn't an option in a civil war. What Afghanistan proved is that 18,000 troops being supplied from the other hemisphere can't hold a mountainous country of 40 million. It in no way proves that no government on Earth is capable of winning a civil war against insurgents using guerilla tactics, especially the richest government with the most well-funded military in human history. A perfectly loyal army, willing to kill their own friends and neighbors, to level its own infrastructure, that is not a realistic scenario in a civil war, however against an unarmed populous you only need a few bullets to seed enough fear to drive ppl into submission.
You are again ignoring that many governments have indeed won civil wars/defeated insurgents throughout history. You can't just throw out platitudes and then cherrypick evidence for it.
If civilians in Venezuela and Cuba were armed they would have staged an armed resistance that would likely develop into toppling the regime, maybe some external actors fund one side or the other, but the thing is, if the population is armed its much more difficult for dictators to take root.
Hilariously uninformed. There are numerous militias in Venezuela. It's lawful to own personal weapons in Cuba.
|
Actual ships have now been hit in the straight, some people died on a Thai transport. (I believe three). So it’s not longer a theory to those who doubted.
Also, whoever believed Iran was going to stop firing at other gulf states, ya no. Might be time to stop believing governments like Trumps, Irans and Russias. Likely others as well. Same with the “alternative “ media you are gobbling down.
|
Who said Iran would 'stop firing'? Do you read my posts? Iran's own apology contained the caveat that if a GCC nation attacked then Iran would fire back. So even Iran's apology contains an all purpose excuse for firing off missiles and sending drones.
Regarding ship insurance, the deductible for an oil tanker ranges from 0.25M to 1M. Iran only has to do minor damage to create a nuisance and another reason to not ship through the Strait. Also, if say $2M in damages occurs and they make a claim insurance rates will rise. That will get passed on in the form of higher oil prices.
Is Trump going to pay the deductible?
The booming Casualty insurance industry is once again the big winner here. With California wildfires and the threat of oil tankers being sunk the industry is on a massive winning streak.
On March 11 2026 23:24 Billyboy wrote:
Actual ships have now been hit in the straight
I only spell it this way when I am trolling. So I am not sure if this is a serious post.
|
Good thing that Trump solved climate change, otherwise all these oil fires and potential oil spills and general destruction would really be worrisome.
Also, good thing that, as oBlade said Iran has no capacity to stop the traffic through the strait since ships can simply do this one weird trick no one ever thought of, so now we can all breathe a sigh of relief because the oil shock is not going to happen!
Interestingly, it seems like we got the answer why most of the new Ayatollah's family was killed while he survived, the news came out that he is in a hospital somewhere and has been injured in the strike.
This kind of goes against Jimmy's "old guy intentionally martyred himself and it was always the plan for the younger one to replace him" since if that was the case the younger Khamenei would have been somewhere 30 meters underground, and it seems he was more likely somewhere in the vicinity of his father and family.
|
On March 11 2026 23:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Who said Iran would 'stop firing'? Do you read my posts? Iran's own apology contained the caveat that if a GCC nation attacked then Iran would fire back. So even Iran's apology contains an all purpose excuse for firing off missiles and sending drones. Regarding ship insurance, the deductible for an oil tanker ranges from 0.25M to 1M. Iran only has to do minor damage to create a nuisance and another reason to not ship through the Strait. Also, if say $2M in damages occurs and they make a claim insurance rates will rise. That will get passed on in the form of higher oil prices. Is Trump going to pay the deductible? The booming Casualty insurance industry is once again the big winner here. With California wildfires and the threat of oil tankers being sunk the industry is on a massive winning streak. Show nested quote +On March 11 2026 23:24 Billyboy wrote:
Actual ships have now been hit in the straight I only spell it this way when I am trolling. So I am not sure if this is a serious post.
I try to read as little as possible because they all make such little sense, your tact of taking a false premise and then building an illogical conclusion is not any sort of fun discussion.
Here is you totally not believing that Iran was going to stop attacking its neighbours. And also not hinting at a conspiracy.
On March 08 2026 03:54 JimmyJRaynor wrote:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/arab-states-running-low-interceptors-iranian-fired-missiles/?intcid=CNR-02-0623Show nested quote +
Arab states in the Persian Gulf are running dangerously low on interceptors to take down Iranian-fired missiles, two regional officials told CBS News.
Arab states running low on interceptors just as Iran promises to stop sending missiles that require intercepting. Tellin' ya guys, what a COINCIDENCE! ! ! Anyhow this is prolly a back channel negotiated scaling back of conflict on all sides. This is also an "isolation raise". Iran does not want a multiway pot. Iran wants a 1-on-1 showdown. The USA and its defensive missiles will have to defend the GCC bases that launch attacks on Iran.
Hard to remember 4 days ago when your influencers are changing their bs every day I guess.
|
On March 11 2026 05:27 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2026 03:57 oBlade wrote:On March 10 2026 22:25 Jankisa wrote:
At this point, the responsible thing for China, as the new world hegemon would be to leak everything they have on Trump and his cronies, if that doesn't work do a special military operation in the same style as Maduro raid and fly the orange fucker to a prison in China. I'm sure no one would expect a helicopter raid on Mara Lago.
According to the Trump regime interpretation of international law, that would be perfectly legal. If Trump were half the fascist you promote him to be, that would literally be the only way to do it, and you would support it. Announce war -> he nukes you first. Have the communist party congress vote on war and then declare war -> he nukes you. Have the international community approve very internationally legal mechanisms to remove him (in a hypothetical world where you could authorize a war against someone in the UN Security Council which is the only current "international" framework) -> everybody nuked. Now imagine that, but for real, and in Iran, and thankfully without the nukes yet. You have a dictator who sponsors terror and believes his own death would be a victory. International community's response? Crickets. An international community that "prohibits" war but otherwise can't stop states from doing and supporting terrorism and each other, it's pathetic. It's like the school that suspends the guy who punches the bully back. The first problem was the bullying and if you can't address that, the beautiful orderly international authority is a meaningless paper moon. "International law" which the West invented exists to help stop countries like Iran and Iraq from having 10 year wars with each other. Not to stop the USA from making sure Iran never attacks anyone again when international law repeatedly fails. I like how you quoted up to a point in my post where I talk about why I think Trump is so dangerous now, makes it seem like you might sympathize with this opinion (especially since it's coming from a fellow traveler of yours Nick Fuentes), on top of all the rest of what he represents and is.
I don't know or care about Nick Fuentes. I've yet to sympathize with anything you've ever pretended to believe.
On March 11 2026 05:27 Jankisa wrote:
And yes, I would support it as an answer to a belligerent head of a superpower who is very obviously a fascist.
Got it - Taking out fascist head of superpower - OK - taking out fascist head of regional power - beyond the pale. Thanks for thinking that one through.
On March 11 2026 18:38 KwarK wrote:
In addition to truck launched drones they could also have things like mines already on the sea floor ready to be remotely deployed.
Any other countries that you suspect of having possibly pre-mined international waters or just Iran? Sounds like a bad precedent to allow.
On March 11 2026 18:38 KwarK wrote:
Drone subs have also been very effectively used in the Black Sea over distances 20x further than would be needed in the Gulf.
The size of the Black Sea dwarfs the distances involved here and ships gathered on both sides of the straight are well within 20x the distance you think is needed. What's Iran's drone sub capability? Did it come from the generous pro-international law country of Russia? Where is it and why haven't they used that capability to massacre the sitting duck ships?
On March 11 2026 18:38 KwarK wrote:
There’s a reason the US Navy hasn’t tried sailing next to a hostile coastline so far this war. Their planners have considered a shot exchange between the boats and people hiding in the mountains and concluded that the boat is more likely to sink than the mountain.
They also haven't landed an airborne division, a marine brigade, or a bunch of Rangers, SEALs, and Green Berets. Not because they would all die, which they wouldn't. They haven't "tried sailing" next to the coast also because there's just no littoral combat to be done now for the objectives at stake. The coast of Iran is not 1944 Normandy. This isn't a movie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
