Forum Crickets.

[MarketIfTouched]

President Turmp directs/leads a complex air strike against nuclear weapon creation sites in Iran.

The air strike:

• required extremely complex, high tech, and secretive weapons and processes.

• required extremely brave and bright military personnel.

• removed Iran as a nuclear threat.

• has resulted in a ceasefire between Iran and Israel.

Surprised/not surprised that the multitude of President Trump bashers on this site are silent.

[dualstow]

I think the main thing is that the forum itself is silent.

There are a lot of things I don’t like about Trump, but he’s killing it this second term. Deportations — although he still has a ways to go to catch up with Obama. NATO dues. Etc.

And yes, the strike on Iran. Who really knows how imminent the threat was, and how effective the strike was. Not me; I can only guess. But I was very impressed with the technical proficiency displayed.
Can’t imagine what Biden would have done about this. Probably nothing.

[yankees60]

President Turmp directs/leads a complex air strike against nuclear weapon creation sites in Iran.

The air strike:

• required extremely complex, high tech, and secretive weapons and processes.

• required extremely brave and bright military personnel.

• removed Iran as a nuclear threat.

• has resulted in a ceasefire between Iran and Israel.

Surprised/not surprised that the multitude of President Trump bashers on this site are silent.

I'm now reading my second Benjamin N (Israel Prime Minister) book.

Making me more and more a big-time non-Jewish supporter of Zionism.


Intuitively it felt right what Trump did. Still believe he's always been eminently unqualified on every level to be president.

But one has to attempt to restrain one's bias and attempt to be fair.

I'm generally almost always disgusted with Republicans and what they have to say.

The Democrats get the equivalent disgust direct their way for their unified response against what he did.

Both parties are ALWAYS putting party ahead of country.

Only reinforces me to be an independent with never a consideration to ever joining any political party.

[dualstow]

Audio only:

How does a country get nukes, basically?
How close was Iran?

Jump to about 4:20 — no cannabis reference intended — to get right to David Albright
Apple-Podcast-link

Youtube version coming soon if it isn’t out already.

[yankees60]

Audio only:

How does a country get nukes, basically?
How close was Iran?

Jump to about 4:20 — no cannabis reference intended — to get right to David Albright
Apple-Podcast-link

Youtube version coming soon if it isn’t out already.

Thanks!

I will, hopefully, get to hear the entire thing soon.

[dualstow]

Here’s the youtube version:

[I Shrugged]

I'll admit right up front that I know nothing and don't care to put forth enough effort to learn more. Mostly because it's a fool's errand, given how everything that is available to us is heavily biased. I'm sure there is something unbiased out there, but there is no way to tell, given the environment.

That said, I've seen that Benjamin N is on record several times over the last 30 years saying Iran was only months away from having a bomb.

So I'm just a bit skeptical.

The way it looks to me is that the Hamas uprising created the conditions that Israel had been waiting for, to destroy/degrade Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and now Iran. And it's pretty stunning how well and easily they accomplished it. The step by step process, etc. Very well done.

The flip side is all of those places still hate Israel, and in time will be back. It's a long game. The biggest wildcard is, will the strict Islamist governments lose favor and fade away, or will that movement persist? If the latter, Israel will never rest easy.

As to Trump, as usual it's not clear if he's just another pawn of the neocons, or a street smart genius, in these matters. As time goes on, I'm less inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[I Shrugged]

And, what is happening on Trump's suggestion that the US will take over Gaza and develop it as a tourist destination?
Seems reasonable. Med beachfront, sunshine.

[I Shrugged]

Also, our US intel agencies said Iran was not developing the bomb.
Trump says they are wrong.

Jeez, with a town full of liars, and a media full of mouthpieces, it's just so hard to know. Which goes back to my first comment. Too much work to even care.

[yankees60]

I'll admit right up front that I know nothing and don't care to put forth enough effort to learn more. Mostly because it's a fool's errand, given how everything that is available to us is heavily biased. I'm sure there is something unbiased out there, but there is no way to tell, given the environment.

That said, I've seen that Benjamin N is on record several times over the last 30 years saying Iran was only months away from having a bomb.

So I'm just a bit skeptical.

The way it looks to me is that the Hamas uprising created the conditions that Israel had been waiting for, to destroy/degrade Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and now Iran. And it's pretty stunning how well and easily they accomplished it. The step by step process, etc. Very well done.

The flip side is all of those places still hate Israel, and in time will be back. It's a long game. The biggest wildcard is, will the strict Islamist governments lose favor and fade away, or will that movement persist? If the latter, Israel will never rest easy.

As to Trump, as usual it's not clear if he's just another pawn of the neocons, or a street smart genius, in these matters. As time goes on, I'm less inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

You have lots of truth above. When it comes to Trump ... it's been fairly obvious since day one that he is no one's pawn.

[yankees60]

And, what is happening on Trump's suggestion that the US will take over Gaza and develop it as a tourist destination?
Seems reasonable. Med beachfront, sunshine.

Another one of his thoughts that end up as just thoughts.

[dualstow]

I do hate the idea of the US govt taking a 10% stake in Intel Corp.

Does anyone like it?

[Xan]

I do hate the idea of the US govt taking a 10% stake in Intel Corp.

Does anyone like it?

I know you were asking for people who like it, so sorry... But it's just terrible.

I have similar issues with extorting NVidia on deals with China. If it's for national security, then it shouldn't be allowed. But then to allow it when the government gets a cut just makes it extortion.

[dualstow]

Ah yes, I should have mentioned Nvidia, too.

[ochotona]

State Owned Enterprises just stink all the way around. The owner is totally conflicted and can't actually regulate.

[coasting]

I do hate the idea of the US govt taking a 10% stake in Intel Corp.

Does anyone like it?

Don't like it. But there is an argument that "the US govt taking a 10% stake in Intel Corp" is better than just giving the company free money like the CHIPS Act does. Two wrongs don't make a right, but this is more of trying to make the first wrong somewhat less of a wrong.

See this viewpoint: https://wolfstreet.com/2025/08/25/big-f ... -was-fine/
Excerpts from Wolf's article: Big Fuss in the Media about the Government’s 10% Stake in Intel, but just Giving this Cash to Intel under the CHIPS Act Was Fine?

The Trump Administration announced on Friday that it had extracted a 9.9% stake in Intel, valued at $11.1 billion, in return for the $2.2 billion in grants already paid to Intel under the CHIPS Act, plus $5.7 billion in grants to be paid under the CHIPS Act, plus $3.2 billion to be paid under the Secure Enclave program, which were passed by Congress and signed into law by Biden in August 2022.

So the Biden Administration’s gift to Intel, paid for by taxpayers with love, is now getting converted from a gift into a stake in the company. Intel will issue new shares to the government, which will dilute existing shareholders. But existing shareholders shouldn’t complain, they’re still getting the cash that the Biden Administration had promised them. Intel is expected to do great things in the US with the cash.

If Intel fails, and its shares go to zero, taxpayers will be no worse off than under the Biden deal. But if it thrives and the shares retain their value or gain value, taxpayers are far better off.

Manufacturing chips in the US is crucial. Biden and Trump agreed on that. So how do you get chipmakers to invest in production facilities in the US when each can cost tens of billions of dollars, and when other countries subsidize such investments? Just give them the cash? Loan them nearly free money? Or extract something in return (a stake in the company) for the cash so that the taxpayer doesn’t get totally screwed?

...and...

These handouts from taxpayers to semiconductor makers were part of the Biden Administration’s industrial policy and national security policy to induce chipmakers to produce semiconductors in the US, rather than in Asia.

And the media were fine with the taxpayer handing some of the richest companies in the world, foreign companies too, tens of billions of dollars in cash gifts to produce in the US. And Wall Street and the companies – the biggest welfare queens of all times – were fine with it too, obviously, because they were getting these taxpayer handouts.

The Trump Administration – after implementing the tariffs I’d clamored for – has largely continued the CHIPS Act, but in rebranded format, and is now trying to actually get something in return for those gifts, so that this taxpayer money doesn’t just get transferred without trace from taxpayers to big companies and their shareholders.

Yet, the media are getting tangled up in their own underwear about this deal, while they were totally onboard with sacrificing taxpayers on the altar of Biden’s policies. That tells you something about who the media root for – it’s not the taxpayer, but Wall Street and the shareholder class.

[Xan]

Don't like it. But there is an argument that "the US govt taking a 10% stake in Intel Corp" is better than just giving the company free money like the CHIPS Act does. Two wrongs don't make a right, but this is more of trying to make the first wrong somewhat less of a wrong.

I suppose there could be an argument, but it's pretty one-sided. I would say that a situation where the government owns a company is always worse than a situation where it doesn't. It's affirmatively better for the government to throw money at Intel and NOT get a stake than it is for the government to have a stake.

[Mountaineer]

Don't like it. But there is an argument that "the US govt taking a 10% stake in Intel Corp" is better than just giving the company free money like the CHIPS Act does. Two wrongs don't make a right, but this is more of trying to make the first wrong somewhat less of a wrong.

I suppose there could be an argument, but it's pretty one-sided. I would say that a situation where the government owns a company is always worse than a situation where it doesn't. It's affirmatively better for the government to throw money at Intel and NOT get a stake than it is for the government to have a stake.

Agree. As ‘they’ say, if you make a deal with the devil, he will own you - forever?

[dualstow]

These are thoughtful answers.
Thanks, guys.

[glennds]

There's a difference between ownership and control. I see the government is taking 10% ownership. How much formal or de facto control do they now take? Does the government take one or more Board seats?

Does Intel now effectively require government ratification of its major decisions?
Are Intel's competitors now competing with the US Government?

This is very different than a bailout situation like GM, Chrysler or AIG. Intel was not in distress. All very unusual.

[boglerdude]

Drone war

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/2 ... e-00524433