DiabloWags said:
Welcome to Dumberica.
Where people are easily conned.
How much does the Wall Street Journal charge you to read their content?
Go Bears Forever - Heisman Mendoza
DiabloWags said:
Welcome to Dumberica.
Where people are easily conned.
DaddyLegend said:DiabloWags said:
Welcome to Dumberica.
Where people are easily conned.
How much does the Wall Street Journal charge you to read their content?
By squeezing the Strait of Hormuz, both the U.S. and Iran expected to outlast their foe, believing time would work in their favor. Now, it looks like the trend is moving against Tehran. https://t.co/nJQJxoDqyC
— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) September 5, 2026
cal83dls79 said:
Sure. Not the conclusions you were projecting.
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/time-is-no-longer-on-irans-side-in-the-battle-of-the-blockades-e47b657d?st=wtSdwG
cal83dls79 said:
Sure. Not the conclusions you were projecting.
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/time-is-no-longer-on-irans-side-in-the-battle-of-the-blockades-e47b657d?st=wtSdwG
BearlySane88 said:cal83dls79 said:
Sure. Not the conclusions you were projecting.
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/time-is-no-longer-on-irans-side-in-the-battle-of-the-blockades-e47b657d?st=wtSdwG
Absolutely the conclusion I was projecting. You're missing the point. The fact the WSJ even published an article with this title would have been blasphemous even a month ago.
DiabloWags said:
No regime change.
No unconditional surrender.
No control of Iran's plutonium.
Highest diesel fuel prices on record.
Yield on 10 Year Treasury Bonds highest in nearly 3 years.
SO MUCH WINNING!
cherry pck all of the "good" stuff you want, there are PLENTY of caveats and really bad outcomes that are still very much on the table laid out in this piece. What it fails to mention what the mission was, the cost of the mission and the aftermath. Basically, "hey, our screw up isn't bad bad as some might say it is" is your rally cry this point…. which is laughable and sad.BearlySane88 said:cal83dls79 said:
Sure. Not the conclusions you were projecting.
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/time-is-no-longer-on-irans-side-in-the-battle-of-the-blockades-e47b657d?st=wtSdwG
Absolutely the conclusion I was projecting. You're missing the point. The fact the WSJ even published an article with this title would have been blasphemous even a month ago.
cal83dls79 said:BearlySane88 said:cal83dls79 said:
Sure. Not the conclusions you were projecting.
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/time-is-no-longer-on-irans-side-in-the-battle-of-the-blockades-e47b657d?st=wtSdwG
Absolutely the conclusion I was projecting. You're missing the point. The fact the WSJ even published an article with this title would have been blasphemous even a month ago.
cherry pck all of the "good" stuff you want, there are PLENTY of caveats and really bad outcomes that are still very much on the table laid out in this piece. What it fails to mention what the mission was, the cost of the mission and the aftermath. Basically, "hey, our screw up isn't bad bad as some might say it is" is your rally cry this point…. which is laughable and sad.

DiabloWags said:
I must have missed this from our Energy Secretary...
Didn't Trump say we were real close to a deal 3 months ago?