Recent posts

#1

Off the Record / Re: Iran War?

Last post by The Brain - Today at 02:30:15 AM

He's saying unconditional surrender because he has a vague recollection of someone saying that when he watched Victory at Sea and it sounded badass. A couple of days from now he will forget it about like he forgot where his own father was born.  He'll deny ever saying it. At this point, it's pointless to talk about things he says as though he is concerned about being consistent or maintaining credibility.

He speaks for the US, so what he says is very important for anyone dealing with the US in the present or in the future. Trump may (effectively) say "j/k lol", but the US cannot.

#2

Off the Record / Re: Iran War?

Last post by Richard Hakluyt - Today at 01:58:12 AM

Right now a large proportion of Iran's population support the attacks by the USA...

Is that really so? Honest question. Obviously there are Iranians that support it, but "a large proportion"?

Yes, "large" proportion may well be an exaggeration. Such a faction does exist though, but I expect it will decrease as less sophisticated armaments are used and the inevitable "collateral damage" occurs.

#3

Off the Record / Re: Facebook Follies of Friend...

Last post by Jacob - Today at 12:28:36 AM

Got a link?

#4

Off the Record / Re: Iran War?

Last post by Zanza - March 06, 2026, 11:49:07 PM

I'm seeing reports the US has used more than 800 Patriot missile interceptors in the war. Any verification on this?

Read that too, but probably not the US alone as the Gulf States all have own Patriot batteries.

That's more than Ukraine used (or rather got) in four years.

#5

Off the Record / Re: Iran War?

Last post by The Minsky Moment - March 06, 2026, 10:16:36 PM

I'm seeing reports the US has used more than 800 Patriot missile interceptors in the war. Any verification on this?

#6

Off the Record / Re: Facebook Follies of Friend...

Last post by Razgovory - March 06, 2026, 09:06:37 PM

GOP is smart enough to have contempt for people that either can't vote, don't exist in large numbers, or are not reachable.

Similarly, they are very good at making their voting base feel the target of contempt, whether it exists or not. And they are also very very good at using contempt of others as a unifying force for their voters.

The enemies of the modern GOP are both "full of contempt and utterly contemptible to them at the same time." Conveniently.

Certainly, and it's not very hard.  The contempt you demonstrated for people in my town is something I remembered quite well.

#7

Off the Record / Re: Iran War?

Last post by Razgovory - March 06, 2026, 08:52:30 PM

Right now a large proportion of Iran's population support the attacks by the USA...

Is that really so? Honest question. Obviously there are Iranians that support it, but "a large proportion"?

Probably not that big a portion.  It's weird juxtaposition.  The urban leftists of Iran support the American regime while the urban left in America support the Iranian regime.  Conservatives in both countries support their regime.

#8

Off the Record / Re: Iran War?

Last post by Neil - March 06, 2026, 08:25:02 PM

who was going to counter attack the sub off the coast of Sri Lanka?

Presumably any other Iranian ship or aircraft.  It's pretty paper thin, but it's enough. 

#9

Off the Record / Re: Iran War?

Last post by Neil - March 06, 2026, 08:23:27 PM

Something that I think may rise to being criminal are reports that after we sunk Iran's ship that was leaving India, we made no effort to save the surviving sailors. My understanding is we are signatory to the 1949 convention that requires us to at least attempt to render aid in such circumstances (and while I think there are some exceptions, I don't believe any apply to that situation.)

There's an exemption for ship safety.  A submarine in wartime being so vulnerable to counterattack is typically the argument used.  Like when the British sank Belgrano in the Falklands. 

https://www.military.com/daily-news/investigations-and-features/2026/03/05/iranian-ship-was-leaving-indian-naval-exercise-when-sunk-raising-concerns-new-delhi.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_present_at_International_Fleet_Review_2026
See USS Pinckney.

The US Navy attacked a defenseless ship.  This is what Hegseth boasted about.

Attacking defenceless ships is what submarines are for.  That's the entire point of them.  It's predatory warfare.

#10

Off the Record / Re: Iran War?

Last post by viper37 - March 06, 2026, 08:18:05 PM

Something that I think may rise to being criminal are reports that after we sunk Iran's ship that was leaving India, we made no effort to save the surviving sailors. My understanding is we are signatory to the 1949 convention that requires us to at least attempt to render aid in such circumstances (and while I think there are some exceptions, I don't believe any apply to that situation.)

There's an exemption for ship safety.  A submarine in wartime being so vulnerable to counterattack is typically the argument used.  Like when the British sank Belgrano in the Falklands. 

https://www.military.com/daily-news/investigations-and-features/2026/03/05/iranian-ship-was-leaving-indian-naval-exercise-when-sunk-raising-concerns-new-delhi.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_present_at_International_Fleet_Review_2026
See USS Pinckney.

The US Navy attacked a defenseless ship.  This is what Hegseth boasted about.