American Politics

[Sirioja]

The current Secretary of War cannot handle those who are smarter and more competent than he is because the current Secretary of War knows he is incompetent and does not deserve to be in the position.

This is the main reason I believe the Dis United States of America cannot win the current conflict with Iran. Due to the incompetent civilian leadership.

I think USA who have most powerful army, can't win, because they are once more too ignorant and led by a gang who is master for stupidity, when David resist to stupid Goliath USA are once more, because of their ignorance out of their borders. Trump is great example for stupidity.

[SubCmdr]

The Oil market is the most neutral judge of what is going on over there.

Brent Crude 95.78 Up 1.15 +1. 22%.

WTI Crude 91.09 Up 0.97 +0.94%.

Will prices climb over 100+? I've got 5 on it!

I got five on it (Got it good), grab your four and let's get keyed
'Cause I got five on it, messin' with that Indo weed
'Cause I got five on it (Got it good), it's got me stuck, and I'm tore back
'Cause I got five on it, partner, let's go half on a sack - I Got 5 On it, Luniz

ROTFLMAO!

[SubCmdr]

United States Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll has submitted his resignation following months of tension with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, according to media reports.

One US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters that Hegseth saw Driscoll as a threat within the bureaucracy and had long wanted to remove him. But his ties to Vance, the official said, made it tough for Hegseth to do so.

The current Secretary of War cannot handle those who are smarter and more competent than he is because the current Secretary of War knows he is incompetent and does not deserve to be in the position.

This is the main reason I believe the Dis United States of America cannot win the current conflict with Iran. Due to the incompetent civilian leadership.

[Elvis 2008]

In the Iran War American superior airpower has decimated Iran's military, destroyed its Uranium enrichment facilities, and killed the top 2 echelons of the Iranian regime including the Ayatollah otherwise known as the Supreme Leader. The remaining IRCG leadership still refuses to surrender. The war is not over! But rather than use American combat troops to achieve victory, President Trump has instead successfully imposed a naval blockade surrounding Iran in the Persian gulf. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/28/navy...92a74fa7d6b20. The Headline reads: "USA Navy blockade slashes Iran oil exports as Trump administration shifts to economic warfare". In addition, President Trump has imposed and Economic blockade named "Economic the-Day" to force the regime to capitulate. https://nypost.com/2026/08/19/us-new...on-ever-taken/.

It is now obvious that the hard core will hold out until they are removed from power. The 2-fold strategy now in-place is designed to create a situation on the ground that induces a revolt within the power structure of the IRCG.

AH, I do not think you get the power structure of Iran at all. The IRGC was designed as a set of body guards to the mullahs. They are loyal to the religious supreme leader. That was Ali Khamenei, but he was killed by the Trump raids. Supposedly, his son, Mojtaba Khamenei has been appointed supreme leader.

But few know where he is: An Iranian official told The Telegraph: "No one knows anything about Mojtaba, whether he is alive or dead or how badly injured. We are all just told that he's injured. He has no control over the war because he is not here. The majority of commanders, or more correctly, all commanders, have no news about him. "

So when you say the IRGC is refusing to step down, whom do you mean? The IRGC serves the clerics and Mojtaba is their supreme leader, and we do not know if he is on a ventilator or is keeping a profile low enough that he is calling the shots but is in hiding.

And there already was a rebellion among the clerics. Ayatollah is not some degree you obtain. It is an informal designation that clerics and the public give to you after you have shown enough religious or faith based wisdom. So when the religious council picked the Supreme leader, there were some who griped that Mojtaba was not even an Ayatollah.

So now you have the power players and let me put it in Western terms. You have the pope and the people around him. You have the cardinals who elect the pope. You have the pope's bodyguards, the IRGC. And then you have the Iranian military / army which is separate from all of this.

The issue I have with the Trumpian version of events is what type of government are you trying to overthrow. Do you even know? If the IRGC is in control, then you have a military dictatorship. If the Supreme leader is in control, then you have a theocracy. If the Supreme leader is brain dead or on a ventilator, then we could have a Joe Biden or Woodrow Wilson after a stroke type situation where they could be someone or ones in control that few know about saying Mojtaba wants X or why when Mojtaba might not even be able to speak. The one thing we know about the Biden administration is anyone who thinks Joe Biden was making all the important decisions was more brain dead than Biden himself.

But what is so pathetic is that Trump already took out the Iranian Supreme leader. I thought things were going to be so much better once he was gone, but they are not better. They are worse because you do not even really know who you are dealing with or who has power.

And you are saying the IRGC is in control. Well, that means Iran is now not being led by religious leaders and is a military dictatorship which is going to be a huge issue with the population, and I am not sure that is true.

Given the power players here, if you kick out whomever is in charge now, what is the ideal percentage each power group should have, and who is going to run the government and are they trustworthy? Is there anyone in the pro war camp who can even come up with a name? If we want Iran to be run by the good guys, who are they?

Contrast that to Venezuela where we had a specific succession plan in place and really understood how the government worked.

The idea that we take out leadership and hope things get better has already failed. And what kind of strategy is hope?

What I personally know that is different than most is who these clerics / mullahs really are. You know the Christian Televangelical preachers that so often preach against sin and are found to be among the biggest sinners? You know of those in the Catholic church who covered up how priests were molesting children? Yeah, the Iran religious leaders, the mullahs, IMO are even worse than that.

They are like the popes of a thousand or so years ago who stole nations blind and who were among the most sexually deviant and cruel people in Western history. The standard line among the Iranian people is that while the mullahs preach against drinking if you want the best liquors, go to one of their homes. And they have been slaughtering "sinners" in the thousands just like the Roman Catholic Church used to.

So when those who are in favor of the Trump plan think they are going to find a good mullah, I am very cynical. I think you were more likely to find a Nazi who was a decent person after WW 2 than a good Mullah in Iran right now.

[Sirioja]

When failures for Ukraine and Ormuz / Iran, with inflation, but stupid Trump keep on cheating at golf and after ridiculous gulf of America, now lake of America and his dancing hall in White House, I wonder if he is at least a good dancer, when worst since a long while for our world.

[EihTooms]

The most pertinent question about the effect of Donald Trump's economic policies and stewardship is, "By the end of his 2nd term and having spent 8 full years in office will those policies have produced even one single net gain private-sector job in America or will they have produced a net loss of almost 2 million private-sector jobs in America, despite his having added Trillions and Trillions of dollars to the deficit, more than any 2-3 other presidents combined?

That's a legitimate question based on every bit of available evidence and data.

It is well known and found to be the result of any ordinary research that Trump was finally driven out of office the first time around after losing that particular Trump War Against America and American Democracy on American Soil having produced a net loss of between 2. 7 Million and 3 Million private-sector or non farm payroll jobs for America.

And this is what is happening in his 2nd term as the result of his economic policies and stewardship:

The A.I. Overview:

Trump's average monthly private-sector jobs creation numbers in his 2nd term

During Donald Trumps second term, private-sector job growth averaged approximately 24,000 to 42,000 jobs per month depending on the baseline and recent U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics benchmark revisions, reflecting a volatile and decelerating labor market compared to prior years.

Job Growth Context and Revisions
Initial Estimates: Earlier reports placed private sector gains higher during the initial stretch of Trump's second term, totaling over 500,000 to 600,000 cumulative private jobs over the first year-plus.
BLS Adjustments:
Recent BLS benchmark revisions adjusted private employment estimates downward reflecting a reduction of roughly 178,000 private-sector jobs in benchmarked periods, bringing the average monthly private job creation pace down closer to a seasonally adjusted 24,000 per month.
Administration Viewpoints: The White House has highlighted strong monthly reports emphasizing specialty construction, manufacturing shifts, and a shrinking federal workforce.
Independent Analyses:
Independent economists point out that growth has been unevenheavily reliant on service and healthcare sectors while goods-producing and retail sectors faced sluggishness or downward revisions amid policy changes and tighter immigration enforcement.

Therefore, unless Trump abandons his wrong-headed and disastrously failed tariffs and trade wars with America's easiest to deal with allies and biggest trading partners around the world and then apologizes profusely to the immigrant population both legal and illegal for his treatment of them and begs them to remain and return to America ASAP along with welcoming millions more border-crossing immigrants starting this week, Trump's final private-sector jobs creation number, at the lower estimate of 2.7 Million lost in his first term and a now pathetic BLS-adjusted average of 24,000 per month created in his 2nd term, is on track to produce a net loss of almost 2 Million private-sector American jobs during his entire time as so-called president of the United States of America.

No other president in USA history and no president of any country on Earth has flushed Trillions and Trillions of dollars down the shitter with nothing to show for it in their country's economy than a net loss of almost 2 Million private-sector jobs. None. Trump's record of results will go down in history as the Worst Economic and Jobs Creation Results for anyone. Ever.

Will he do what is required as stated above to turn it all around ASAP and perhaps if America is lucky and all the stars are aligned perfectly that Trump will finally, blessedly and mercifully leave office after two full terms having created at least one net gain private-sector job for America? That would be nice.

Of course, even if he does launch into the fix for his disaster as cited above starting today and somehow miraculously squeezes out one net gain private-sector job by the blessed end of his presidency, well, that will still be the Worst Economic and Jobs Creation Result for anyone anywhere at anytime in history.

Unless Trump convinces Elon and the other billionaires who fund him and the RNC as well as any other Trillionaires that are created among those Billionaires through Trump's shared insider trading and so on to reimburse America's coffers for the Trillions and Trillions of dollars Trump flushed down the shitter, that is. Then at least that one net gain private-sector job created won't have cost American tax-payers and Working Men and Women those Trillions and Trillions of dollars.

But nobody should hold their breath waiting for any of those fixes to happen.

[SubCmdr]

Trump's war on Iran is rapidly draining US navy budget, documents and interviews reveal.

Donald Trumps war on Iran has driven the US military into a severe financial crisis, with the US navy forced to transfer money from its payroll and other sources to cover the costs of combat, according to documents seen by the Guardian, and interviews with navy officials, contractors and defense analysts.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ar-navy-budget

[SubCmdr]

And then we have expats like you praising Canada just like you praise the beaten down. Crime ridden, and overpriced slums that are the American cities being run by Democratic mayors and then high tail it out of the country when the costs become prohibitive. Well, at least, you are consistent.

Of course, you are going to praise anyone anti-Trump but unlike what I saw twenty years ago with Canada, today I see a nation in decline. The entire nation is being run like the city of Baltimore.

The Ten Poorest States: Mississippi, Louisiana, West Virginia, Arkansas, Alabama, Tennessee, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Kentucky, New Mexico
Political Control and Nuances: Republican Dominance: Seven to eight of these ten states have complete Republican control (governor and legislature), with Kentucky having a Democratic governor but a Republican supermajority in the legislature.

https://medium.com/@carmitage/republ...p-713c1d270f00

The second phenomenon is a growing political divide between rich and poor places. This will shock many folks, but poor places are increasingly governed by Republicans and rich places by Democrats. The gap between rich and poor places might help explain the partisan differences in perceptions of the economy.

https://www.indystar.com/story/opini...y/74173361007/

Republicans run things for their own pocket books and for the benefit of their crony capitalism friends.

[Elvis 2008]

Friday, Aug. 21, may go down in history as Canada's Liberation Day. It was the day America came for Canada ...and Canada said NO! .

"But Mr. Carney did not simply reject a trade offer on Friday. He was openly defiant of the new breed of American aggression. We will not allow any nation to determine our future, he said.

The American president clearly did not know whom he was dealing with. He is following in the grand tradition of American leaders starting wars with people they don't understand, then wondering what went wrong.

Viva Canada's Liberation Day?

Thanks for making my point. When Canada imposes 250% tariffs on USA dairy product, you leftards still are against Trump and take Canada's side. Everything Trump does has to be bad for America.

As for Canada and energy, of course, Canada should have pipelines to the open market but you left and your climate change nuttery stopped that at every turn. Now you have done a 180 and somehow building pipelines is sticking it to Trump. In reality, those pipelines are going to take years and here is the dirty little secret. The tar sands of Canada and oil in Venezuela are very similar and while you Dems have been blasting Trump on Iran, you have not noticed what a success is going on in Venezuela.

Venezuela has doubled its paltry oil production. In addition, since Trump took over Venezuela's finances, money is being sent to the people of Venezuela and not finding its way into some dictator's foreign back account, and people on this very forum have commented on it.

$120 billion of Canada's $410 billion in exports were related to energy, but Venezuela has more proven reserves than anywhere in the world. If Venezuela gets its production going before those pipelines are built, the USA may be in the position to tell Canada thanks but no thanks with their oil, and Canada would be fucked.

I remember going to Canada during the W Bush years and wondering why the USA dollar bought $1. 50 Canadian. They had a balanced budget, provided national health care, weren't wasting money on dumb wars, and the overall quality of life in Canada seemed higher. It used to be a crime free haven and sure enough, what I thought should happen did happen, the Canadian dollar went to par with the American dollar.

Now I look at the costs at Canada and am stunned: sky high housing, a massive flodding of immigrants on welfare, crime rates in places that are worse than the USA, and I am like, forget $1.50 Canadian to $1 USA. It should be $2 Canadian to $1 USA. And if they lose their ability to export oil, that should go to $3 Canadian to $1 in the USA. Quality of life sucks in Canada now.

And then we have expats like you praising Canada just like you praise the beaten down. Crime ridden, and overpriced slums that are the American cities being run by Democratic mayors and then high tail it out of the country when the costs become prohibitive. Well, at least, you are consistent.

Of course, you are going to praise anyone anti-Trump but unlike what I saw twenty years ago with Canada, today I see a nation in decline. The entire nation is being run like the city of Baltimore.

[SubCmdr]

Peacekeepers suffered casualties over the subsequent years from snipers, landmines, civil riots, and accidents.

Over the course of the ongoing 27-year NATO mission in Kosovo, more than 200 peacekeepers from various contributing nations have lost their lives. The vast majority of these total deaths resulted from vehicle crashes, accidental ordnance detonations, illness, or aircraft accidents (such as the 2006 Slovak Air Force crash which killed 42 returning personnel)

Dead is Dead

A designation or AI summery posted by a online general who has never stood on a wall with a gun or faced an armed enemy (as I have) will not replace the loss nor ease the pain that the loved and liked ones of the individuals who lose their lives "peacekeeping" will suffer through.

Remember in the Dis United States of America we have Peace Officers. A peace officer in the United States is a legal title for a person given the power by the government to enforce laws and keep public order. They die in the line of duty also.

[SubCmdr]

The current Article 2 leader of the Dis United States of America tells another lie.

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/28/trum...-reserves.html

"Trump said the Venezuela deal should bring down prices at the pump. " - he lies!

Venezuelan oil can be refined into gasoline, but it is significantly more expensive and complex to process than lighter crudes.

Total production and refining costs can reach $65 $80 per barrel (or higher, per some estimates), making it unprofitable at current global oil prices unless sold at a $12 $20 discount compared to benchmarks like Brent.

It does not naturally yield a high share of gasoline; significant processing is required to convert the heavy fractions into high-value products.

Facts are a wonderful thing when used correctly.

[Axel Heyst]

A BM recently conflated the utilization of peacekeeping troops as were consigned by President Clinton (the USA & NATO) and Russia after a peace agreement was signed by the combatants in the Serbia / Yugoslavia war and the possible use of combat troops in the present, ongoing Iran War. There is a big difference. The Yugoslavian civil war ended after Clinton bombed Serbian military installations and civilian infrastructure. Although Serbia posed no threat to the USA or NATO. President Clinton used overwhelming air power alone to end that war.

In the Iran War American superior airpower has decimated Iran's military, destroyed its Uranium enrichment facilities, and killed the top 2 echelons of the Iranian regime including the Ayatollah otherwise known as the Supreme Leader. The remaining IRCG leadership still refuses to surrender. The war is not over! But rather than use American combat troops to achieve victory, President Trump has instead successfully imposed a naval blockade surrounding Iran in the Persian gulf. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/28/navy...92a74fa7d6b20. The Headline reads: "USA Navy blockade slashes Iran oil exports as Trump administration shifts to economic warfare". In addition, President Trump has imposed and Economic blockade named "Economic the-Day" to force the regime to capitulate. https://nypost.com/2026/08/19/us-new...on-ever-taken/.

It is now obvious that the hard core will hold out until they are removed from power. The 2-fold strategy now in-place is designed to create a situation on the ground that induces a revolt within the power structure of the IRCG. It remains to be seen if this siege strategy will work. Many including myself think the strategy eventually will work. But the point is, until it does, nobody in the US administration is advocating the use of combat troops in Iran. But if / when the Iranian Regime does agree to peace terms, American personal will most definitely be sent into Iran, specifically to inspect and monitor all of Iran's nuclear facilities and collect the Uranium dust.

So that there is no further confusion on the difference between Combat troops and Peacekeeping troops I include the following core principles:

"Core Principles Differentiating Peacekeeping and Combat Engagements.

The core principles that differentiate peacekeeping from combat engagements primarily revolve around objectives, rules of engagement, and operational conditions. These distinctions influence decision-making and the application of force in each context.

In peacekeeping missions, principles emphasize neutrality, consent, and the protection of civilians without aggressive intent. The rules of engagement for peacekeeping roles restrict use of force to self-defense or defending mandate-mandated populations.

Conversely, combat roles are driven by offensive objectives that involve defeating enemy forces. The principles prioritize mission success, where decisions to use force can be immediate and more aggressive based on battlefield developments.

Key differences can be summarized as:

Peacekeeping focuses on stabilization and protection with restrictive rules of engagement.

Combat roles involve proactive engagement with more permissive rules to achieve military objectives.

Ethical considerations and legal frameworks guide peacekeepers to minimize harm, contrasting with combat roles' emphasis on decisive action.

These core principles fundamentally shape the manner and scope of engagement in peaceful versus combat military operations.

Rules of Engagement for Peacekeeping Operations.

In peacekeeping operations, rules of engagement (ROE) are guidelines that specify how military personnel can interact with civilians, local authorities, and combatants. These rules aim to maintain peace, ensure safety, and prevent escalation. They emphasize restraint and proportional responses to threats.

Key components of ROE for peacekeeping include the obligation to minimize harm and prioritize non-violent resolution. Personnel are typically authorized to use force only when necessary for self-defense or to protect civilians from imminent danger. Specific circumstances and legal frameworks often shape these rules.

Engage only when there's a direct threat to personnel or civilians.

Use non-lethal methods whenever possible.

Confirm the identity of individuals before taking action.

Report and document all use-of-force incidents for accountability.

These rules are designed to foster neutrality and protect the credibility of peacekeeping missions. They differ significantly from combat roles by underscoring restraint, respecting human rights, and avoiding unnecessary conflict escalation.

Rules of Engagement for Combat Roles.

Rules of engagement for combat roles are strict and clearly defined to ensure military effectiveness and adherence to international law. They specify when and how force can be used, emphasizing the protection of civilians and minimizing unnecessary harm.

In combat roles, these rules are generally more permissive to allow forceful response to threats and hostile actions. Troops are authorized to neutralize敌 threats, including using deadly force if necessary, within the scope of national and international regulations. The rules are designed to provide operational flexibility while maintaining ethical standards.

Decision-making in combat is often rapid, requiring troops to evaluate situations quickly under pressure. Clear protocols guide actions, but ambiguous or complex scenarios can challenge adherence to rules of engagement. Proper training ensures troops understand their authority and responsibilities in high-stakes environments.

Comparing Decision-Making Processes in Peacekeeping vs Combat Roles.

Decision-making processes in peacekeeping and combat roles differ significantly due to their distinct operational contexts. In peacekeeping, decisions often involve careful analysis of rules of engagement for peacekeeping vs combat roles, prioritizing restraint and conflict prevention. Commanders must weigh diplomatic considerations, the potential consequences of force, and the need to maintain neutrality, often operating with strict guidelines that emphasize peace preservation.

Conversely, combat roles require rapid, instinctive decision-making driven by immediate threat assessments. Commanders and troops rely on extensive training and situational awareness to determine the necessity of force. The focus is on achieving military objectives swiftly while adhering to the rules of engagement for combat roles, which permit a broader scope of action in hostile environments.

Overall, while peacekeeping decision-making emphasizes restraint and diplomatic judgment, combat decision-making hinges on swift, decisive actions based on real-time threat analysis. Both processes are vital to operational success but are shaped by the differing rules of engagement for peacekeeping vs combat roles.

Training and Preparedness for Applying Rules of Engagement.

Training and preparedness for applying rules of engagement differ significantly between peacekeeping and combat roles. Peacekeeping forces focus on cultural sensitivity, legal frameworks, and conflict de-escalation techniques, which are integral to their operational readiness.

In contrast, combat troops emphasize intense combat simulations, threat recognition, and quick decision-making under fire. Such training ensures they can respond decisively within the rules of engagement outlined for high-intensity conflicts.

Simulation exercises and scenario-based learning are vital for both roles. Peacekeepers often engage in mock negotiations and peacebuilding tasks, whereas combat units practice live-fire drills and rapid response scenarios. Both approaches enhance the ability to adapt rules of engagement to dynamic situations.

Cultural and legal awareness training is increasingly emphasized, particularly for peacekeeping personnel. Understanding international laws, rules of engagement, and the local context reduces risks of violations, ensuring operational legality and ethical conduct.

Differences in training focus for peacekeepers and combat troops.

Training focus for peacekeepers and combat troops markedly differs due to their distinct operational mandates. Peacekeeping training emphasizes conflict management, cultural sensitivity, and adherence to legal frameworks such as Rules of Engagement for peacekeeping roles. It prepares personnel to interact with diverse populations peacefully and avoid escalation. Conversely, combat troop training prioritizes offensive and defensive skills, survivability, and rapid decision-making under intense conditions. This training builds resilience and tactical proficiency aligned with combat scenarios.

While peacekeepers are trained to de-escalate tensions and protect civilians, combat troops focus on engaging adversaries effectively. The training modules for peacekeepers often include conflict resolution, human rights awareness, and understanding of international legal standards. For combat roles, instruction centers on weapon handling, combat tactics, and DOMINANT operational strategies. These differences reflect the need for peacekeepers to operate within complex socio-political environments, whereas combat troops train for direct engagement. Consequently, the emphasis on specific skills ensures each group is equipped to fulfill their roles responsibly and effectively.

Simulation exercises and scenario-based learning are integral components of training programs for both peacekeeping and combat roles. These methods provide realistic, controlled environments for personnel to apply their rules of engagement in situations mirroring actual operations. By replicating complex scenarios, soldiers learn to make swift, informed decisions while adhering to legal and ethical standards.

Such exercises foster critical thinking and help troops understand the nuances of different operational contexts. For peacekeepers, scenarios often emphasize conflict de-escalation, cultural sensitivity, and restraint within the rules of engagement. Conversely, combat training focuses on quick, decisive action under pressure. The scenario-based approach ensures that soldiers internalize appropriate responses to unpredictable circumstances, reducing the likelihood of violations or misjudgments.

Additionally, simulation exercises enhance coordination, communication, and adaptability among team members. Regular scenario-based learning ensures ongoing proficiency and awareness of evolving rules of engagement. Overall, these training methods are vital for preparing military personnel to execute their roles responsibly and effectively in diverse operational settings. ".

[Spidy]

Friday, Aug. 21, may go down in history as Canada's Liberation Day. It was the day America came for Canada ...and Canada said NO! .

It was a decision made, seemingly, on the spur of the moment, but the deep history of this country paved the way for this one critical gesture a historic no.
...

While the decision to tough it out is ironically Canadian, Mr. Carneys gesture will resonate far beyond Canadas borders. A gray banker and not just any banker but one of the leading bankers in the world has stood up and said that theres more to life than a little bit of money. The power of that recognition alone, at this moment in history, cannot be overstated. Mr. Trumps world, a world of transaction and submission, is not the only world we all have to live in. By Stephen Marche https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/23/w...mp-carney.html

"But Mr. Carney did not simply reject a trade offer on Friday. He was openly defiant of the new breed of American aggression. We will not allow any nation to determine our future, he said.

The American president clearly did not know whom he was dealing with. He is following in the grand tradition of American leaders starting wars with people they don't understand, then wondering what went wrong.

Viva Canada's Liberation Day?

[Elvis 2008]

I swear to God if Trump wants something done, he should just come out against it. New ballroom for the White House? I oppose it. Peace in the middle east? No way that would work. Climate change? Totally real. Oil pipelines? Totally opposed.

The latest from Doomberg is in:

For nearly two years, we have chronicled for our readers one of the unlikeliest political transformations of high consequence in the modern era: Canadian president Carney's metamorphic shift from stout climate-change warrior to the best friend the hydrocarbon industry has ever had. This particular drama looks set for its wildly unnatural final act. With all the pieces now in place, the trump cards will soon be revealed, and global energy flows are about to shift in ways few thought possible.

Flows of Canadian energy—especially discounted barrels of heavy crude from Western Canada—are a central pillar of US energy dominance. These flows have become all the more important since the war against Iran went kinetic. Take away Western Canadian Select oil from the US refining system, and Trump's ability to keep a lid on global fuel prices all but evaporates.

"Canada fuels American growth: supplying 99% of their natural gas imports, 85% of electricity imports, and 60% of crude oil imports. I don't think they want us to stop sending it. "

Buttressing Carney's optionality is a predictable burst in his popularity, and some polls put his approval rating north of 60%, rarefied air for the current slate of Western political leaders—Trump included. In essence, the prime minister could propose just about anything at the moment and his citizens would rally behind the cause:

Has there ever been a better time to unstick Alberta's energy? Won't pesky concerns like Indigenous rights, environmental-impact studies, and even climate change itself be brushed aside in the mad, patriotic rush to approve major midstream projects? Who could be opposed to new "liberty pipelines" moving black gold to both oceans? Can we interest anyone in a Sir John A. Macdonald Molecular Highway? What are you, pro-Trump or something?

End of link. Yes, there is no doubt that the best way for Trump to get the leftists to move on a matter is to come out against it.

2026, the year of the Canadian oil pipeline. Or is it liberty pipeline?

[SubCmdr]

The conflict in Iran, no matter how you define it will not be won without boots on the ground. Never in the history of mankind has a conflict been won without ground solders unless the enemy gives up under siege.

Are you saying the Dis United States of America has the power to cut all vital supplies to Iran until they surrender unconditionally?

Thank you for proving my point!

On June 12, NATO forces moved into Kosovo from Macedonia. On the same day, Russian troops arrived in Pristina, Kosovo's capital, resulting in a joint occupation.

Ground troops ultimately were needed to bring the conflict to a successful end.