For us, it was less about Iran and more about China. But most people don't understand that and are even less likely to support "let's bomb Iran to box in China". Iran and Venezuela are but single actions in support of a global strategy.
What's Trump's off ramp on Iran? Bad intel?
18,931 Views |
219 Replies |
Last: 9 days ago by flown-the-coop
When someone continues with incendiary threats and rhetoric against you, you need to take it seriously, especially when you see that they are taking actions that will lead to them being able to back up their threats. The sooner you remove it and end their capability to eventually make good on the threats, the better.
The longer you wait, the more people will die. Sooner is better than later.
The longer you wait, the more people will die. Sooner is better than later.
People of integrity expect to be believed, when they're not, they let time prove them right.
ThunderCougarFalconBird
Joined:
Oct 10, 2006
Posts:
49,651
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So the left's latest strategy is to try to convince people that Iran is the same quagmire that the bush - era Iraq nonsense was? Weak.
1. Never watched MSNBC in my life.
2. Instead of insulting me and my post, why don't you offer up an opinion of what was wrong with anything I said. In fact, most of what I said are NOT talking points of the liberal media, so your take of what I posted was extremely lazy and inaccurate.
3. I'm a former naval officer, my military opinions are not based upon anything any media OR politicians say.
2. Instead of insulting me and my post, why don't you offer up an opinion of what was wrong with anything I said. In fact, most of what I said are NOT talking points of the liberal media, so your take of what I posted was extremely lazy and inaccurate.
3. I'm a former naval officer, my military opinions are not based upon anything any media OR politicians say.
Ag-Yoakum95 said:
your posts are just plain stupid.
Over a week ago I posted about there being conflict between intel and Trump on Epic Fury. Everyone thought that was stupid. Yesterday, a top intel official and Trump loyalist resigned. He claimed there was no imminent threat to US, and Israel goaded Trump into war.
Im sorry you and others dont like me posting about political topics that arent echo chamber Trump war cheerleading. I want Trump to succeed for America, not get bogged down fighting Israel's war.
60 days max
FobTies said:Ag-Yoakum95 said:
your posts are just plain stupid.
Over a week ago I posted about there being conflict between intel and Trump on Epic Fury. Everyone thought that was stupid. Yesterday, a top intel official and Trump loyalist resigned. He claimed there was no imminent threat to US, and Israel goaded Trump into war.
Im sorry you and others dont like me posting about political topics that arent echo chamber Trump war cheerleading. I want Trump to succeed for America, not get bogged down fighting Israel's war.
"everyone" aka my imagination. No one cares about the intel, he has 60 days to bomb Iran, then we are out.
IMO this attack was not timed right.
More shaping operations were needed to prepare for all the second and third order effects. I believe we started as soon as we had assets in place because of wanting to take advantage of the Iranian people protesting, with hope that they would overthrow the regime.
Unfortunately, the (tens of) thousands of protesters killed, were probably the linchpin to overthrowing the regime.
If we had attacked earlier, with the assets on hand, we might have enabled the protesters to overthrow the regime, but the tradeoff would have been not having as many military assets to cripple the Iranian military / IRGC machine.
Hindsight, going in earlier would have been a better choice.
This is my opinion only and based on open source information.
More shaping operations were needed to prepare for all the second and third order effects. I believe we started as soon as we had assets in place because of wanting to take advantage of the Iranian people protesting, with hope that they would overthrow the regime.
Unfortunately, the (tens of) thousands of protesters killed, were probably the linchpin to overthrowing the regime.
If we had attacked earlier, with the assets on hand, we might have enabled the protesters to overthrow the regime, but the tradeoff would have been not having as many military assets to cripple the Iranian military / IRGC machine.
Hindsight, going in earlier would have been a better choice.
This is my opinion only and based on open source information.
From a "completely obliterated" nuclear capability in the greatest military operation in US history, to nuclear threat in less than a year is pretty impressive.
InfantryAg said:
IMO this attack was not timed right.
More shaping operations were needed to prepare for all the second and third order effects. I believe we started as soon as we had assets in place because of wanting to take advantage of the Iranian people protesting, with hope that they would overthrow the regime.
Unfortunately, the (tens of) thousands of protesters killed, were probably the linchpin to overthrowing the regime.
If we had attacked earlier, with the assets on hand, we might have enabled the protesters to overthrow the regime, but the tradeoff would have been not having as many military assets to cripple the Iranian military / IRGC machine.
Hindsight, going in earlier would have been a better choice.
This is my opinion only and based on open source information.
It was always going to take civil war, the protests do nothing in the middle east.
If the Iranians wont fight now? Then we should never help them again
samurai_science said:
"everyone" aka my imagination. No one cares about the intel, he has 60 days to bomb Iran, then we are out.
"No one" aka my imagination.
FYI, when I use "everyone here" Im refering to the vast majority of F16. I use the blue star recs on posts as a borameter. Its pretty clear where F16 stands on the topic of the Iran war and anyone who questions it.
As I said when I started this thread, give it a week or so for intel drama to make it to the headlines.
aggiegolfer2012 said:
From a "completely obliterated" nuclear capability in the greatest military operation in US history, to nuclear threat in less than a year is pretty impressive.
They will always be a threat unless they are wiped out or overthrown. Its the nature of that power structure and religion.
Quote:
No one cares about the intel, he has 60 days to bomb Iran, then we are out.
i don't know how long this will last, but I assure you that Trump (like every president before him since the law was passsed) will say the war powers act is unconstitutional and doesn't stop him from doing anything.
its only been two weeks......Lighten up Francis.....
I get your criticisms of this event but you keep ignoring the fact that there is already a built-in off ramp that happens in 42 days. It's law.
Do you mean a premature off-ramp?
Do you mean a premature off-ramp?
FobTies said:samurai_science said:
"everyone" aka my imagination. No one cares about the intel, he has 60 days to bomb Iran, then we are out.
"No one" aka my imagination.
FYI, Im refering to the vast majority of F16. I use the blue star recs on posts as a borameter. Its pretty clear where F16 stands on the topic of the Iran war and anyone who questions it.
As I said when I started this thread, give it a week or so for intel drama to make it to the headlines.
You said everyone, which is bs. You dont speak for everyone.
No one cares about the intel either way and the polls will prove it. This will be forgotten so fast, the voters don't care.
BMX Bandit said:Quote:
No one cares about the intel, he has 60 days to bomb Iran, then we are out.
i don't know how long this will last, but I assure you that Trump (like every president before him since the law was passsed) will say the war powers act is unconstitutional and doesn't stop him from doing anything.
Make a bet on the poli market, but I think he will stop at 60 days if not before.
One man's imminent might be more immediate than another's. Playing word games with liberals is always a iffy trip, because they can morph meanings much faster than conservatives, who are always influenced by reality.
flyrancher
why would I make a bet when I literally just said " i don't know how long this will last"
I think there could be some nuance needed here. I am skeptical myself too but it is possible we did destroy their nuclear program while the the doubled their efforts to achieve it. It could be in the form committed resources etc. and so it's possible the decision was made based on their effort commitment vs actual progress. Thats possible to me. However it is also entirely possible we being 100% gaslit about it.
And further more we were 100% lied to about WMD in Iraq. And so it should have been a precedent established that to go to war over WMD the American people deserve to see evidence of such claims. And sadly we have not. It ultimately doesn't do the war effort any favors because it creates skepticism for the merits of the action. And there's a looooong line of lies and abuses by the government against us to make "trust us bro" very hard to accept a second time.
If I had to guess, Trump is using nuclear weapons as a simplified explanation for a greater more complex geopolitical strategy. But time will tell.
What I find sad is people who are very concerned and questioning the merits and motivations for another war in the Me are called racists. It's like when people wanted border security were called racists. It's not a good argument. I think skepticism for the merits of war should be the status quo but there's a group, which is primarily dispensationalist cheering for more war. It's religious zealotry at the end of the day.
And further more we were 100% lied to about WMD in Iraq. And so it should have been a precedent established that to go to war over WMD the American people deserve to see evidence of such claims. And sadly we have not. It ultimately doesn't do the war effort any favors because it creates skepticism for the merits of the action. And there's a looooong line of lies and abuses by the government against us to make "trust us bro" very hard to accept a second time.
If I had to guess, Trump is using nuclear weapons as a simplified explanation for a greater more complex geopolitical strategy. But time will tell.
What I find sad is people who are very concerned and questioning the merits and motivations for another war in the Me are called racists. It's like when people wanted border security were called racists. It's not a good argument. I think skepticism for the merits of war should be the status quo but there's a group, which is primarily dispensationalist cheering for more war. It's religious zealotry at the end of the day.
Quote:
If I had to guess, Trump is using nuclear weapons as a simplified explanation for a greater more complex geopolitical strategy. But time will tell.
Thats a fair assessment.
Quote:
What I find sad is people who are very concerned and questioning the merits and motivations for another war in the Me are called racists.
thats because there are in fact posters here with a long history of antisemitic posts that are "questioning the merits and motivations." Their concerns may be valid, but you can't ignore a person's history.
Quote:
It's like when people wanted border security were called racists.
when david duke (example) says we need border security to preserve the white race, the merits of his desire for border security may be valid, but that doesn't make him any less racist.
FobTies said:
Its got to happen within weeks. Trump has shown us he pivots when he loses support. Looks like a new "Trump got bad intel" narrative might be birthing.
Tulsi has already posted about "Trump making the decision to go to war based on the intel in front of him." Making it clear she gave no recommendation for war. So who gets thrown under the bus? Probably Israel. Trump then goes back to his old self with "Israel doesnt know WTF they are doing".
Still time for Trump to claim the US hit all their Epic Fury targets and claim victory like Midnight Hammer. What's stopping that? Bibi and others pushing him hard to "finish the job".
Edit: "Bad intel" about an Iranian plot to attack the US. The "imminent threat" that was supposedly presented to Trump, that he then used to initiate war.
Joe Kent was not in briefings because he was a known duplicitous blue falcon.
Besides Witkoff sat through negotiations where Iran told him that nuclear weapon production will continue. Only a week or two to complete enrichment to make 10 or 12 nuclear bombs.
Thanks for the idiotic weapons grade conspiracy theory.
FobTies said:Ag-Yoakum95 said:
your posts are just plain stupid.
Over a week ago I posted about there being conflict between intel and Trump on Epic Fury. Everyone thought that was stupid. Yesterday, a top intel official and Trump loyalist resigned. He claimed there was no imminent threat to US, and Israel goaded Trump into war.
Im sorry you and others dont like me posting about political topics that arent echo chamber Trump war cheerleading. I want Trump to succeed for America, not get bogged down fighting Israel's war.
Don't post foolish disinformation. He was a Bernie bro.
And nice, blame it on the Jews.
bobbranco said:
Joe Kent was not in briefings because he was a known duplicitous blue falcon.
Besides Witkoff sat through negotiations where Iran told him that nuclear weapon production will continue. Only a week or two to complete enrichment to make 10 or 12 nuclear bombs.
Thanks for the idiotic weapons grade conspiracy theory.
Its not my "conspiracy theory". Newsmax and possibly the WH are brewing this "bad intel" excuse, or at least leaving it in the tool shed.
Glad to see you are following the script. Any resignation under Trump had to be an evil leaker who should be marginalized...but definitely not prosecuted under the espionage act or called to testify.
Again, the justification provided by Trump and WH was a planned imminent Iranian attack on US. NOT the narrative that they were 2 weeks away from enough enriched uranium to hypothetically build 10 bombs some day, after they some day build the ICBM tech to deliver them. Take that to another thread.
FobTies said:bobbranco said:
Joe Kent was not in briefings because he was a known duplicitous blue falcon.
Besides Witkoff sat through negotiations where Iran told him that nuclear weapon production will continue. Only a week or two to complete enrichment to make 10 or 12 nuclear bombs.
Thanks for the idiotic weapons grade conspiracy theory.
Its not my "conspiracy theory". Newsmax and possibly the WH are brewing this "bad intel" excuse, or at least leaving it in the tool shed.
Glad to see you are following the script. Any resignation under Trump had to be an evil leaker who should be marginalized...but definitely not prosecuted under the espionage act or called to testify.
Again, the justification provided by Trump and WH was a planned imminent Iranian attack on US. NOT the narrative that they were 2 weeks away from enough enriched uranium to hypothetically build 10 bombs some day, after they some day build the ICBM tech to deliver them. Take that to another thread.
Are ICBMs the only means to deliver bombs? Keep making excuses for the death cult.
Trump was high off his win in Venezuela and figured he was so talented that Iran would be the same. Now he's realizing this had a bigger impact than he thought and he's bitten off more than he can chew. Next step is to do what Trump does and blame someone else for his decisions.
Yukon Cornelius said:
What I find sad is people who are very concerned and questioning the merits and motivations for another war in the Me are called racists. It's like when people wanted border security were called racists. It's not a good argument. I think skepticism for the merits of war should be the status quo but there's a group, which is primarily dispensationalist cheering for more war. It's religious zealotry at the end of the day.
This is how you have internally rationalized people not buying your argument. There are some people like that, but they are few and far between. There are lots of rational geopolitical reasons to take out Iran, 95% are only incidental to Israel, and yet that is the focus of the posters who insist on calling it "Israel's war" or blaming it all on "Bibi's lies". You can blame those disagreeing with you on some specific hermeneutics of Scripture, but that is no different than your complaints of calling people antisemitic.
What's disturbing is when Trump himself says he didn't expect Iran to strike other countries. Maybe they shouldn't have fired all the experts in the State department that studies these things along with what might happen to oil if the oil passage gets blocked
Yeah, man! War is hell. Or something.
Same people have been attacking him non-stop. It doesn't matter what he does or doesn't do. The cries are fake. It's just agitation trying to turn sentiment against Trump and republicans l.
Same people have been attacking him non-stop. It doesn't matter what he does or doesn't do. The cries are fake. It's just agitation trying to turn sentiment against Trump and republicans l.
FriscoKid said:
Everyone knows there was no imminent threat. This was a once in lifetime chance to eliminate the terrorist threat that is Iran. If this forces a regime change and we get a more western Iran then it's all worth it. Even the Arab countries can't stand Iran.
Keep looking for your gotcha moment, because this ain't it.
I cannot think of another time in American history when this happened.
George W. Bush
Those "experts" in the State Department that were part of negotiating with Iran and giving them billions in cash to fund nuclear weapons and terrorism?
No, thanks. Every single person in that agency should have been terminated at 12:01 pm on January 20, 2025. Some of them are traitors.
No, thanks. Every single person in that agency should have been terminated at 12:01 pm on January 20, 2025. Some of them are traitors.
Ellis Wyatt said:
Those "experts" in the State Department that were part of negotiating with Iran and giving them billions in cash to fund nuclear weapons and terrorism?
No, thanks. Every single person in that agency should have been terminated at 12:01 pm on January 20, 2025. Some of them are traitors.
And should be treated as such (eg John Kerry).
FobTies said:
Its got to happen within weeks. Trump has shown us he pivots when he loses support. Looks like a new "Trump got bad intel" narrative might be birthing.
Tulsi has already posted about "Trump making the decision to go to war based on the intel in front of him." Making it clear she gave no recommendation for war. So who gets thrown under the bus? Probably Israel. Trump then goes back to his old self with "Israel doesnt know WTF they are doing".
Still time for Trump to claim the US hit all their Epic Fury targets and claim victory like Midnight Hammer. What's stopping that? Bibi and others pushing him hard to "finish the job".
Edit: "Bad intel" about an Iranian plot to attack the US. The "imminent threat" that was supposedly presented to Trump, that he then used to initiate war.
It's pathetic seeing people openly root against the US and our troops because of TDS.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan
Has anyone considered that the "Imminent threat" from Iran was the fact that as soon as Israel started their attacks Iran would attack any US bases within range? Not that Iran had plans for a pre-emptive strike "imminently", but that it would happen as a response to Israel's attack.
Meaning if USA wasn't going to convince Israel not to attack, that USA joining the attack would save US lives.
I believe that Iran would never otherwise negotiate in good faith or give up their plans of becoming a nuclear power. Yes it sucks, but the "suckage" would not be reduced by waiting.
Meaning if USA wasn't going to convince Israel not to attack, that USA joining the attack would save US lives.
I believe that Iran would never otherwise negotiate in good faith or give up their plans of becoming a nuclear power. Yes it sucks, but the "suckage" would not be reduced by waiting.
People of integrity expect to be believed, when they're not, they let time prove them right.
TexasAggie73 said:
What's disturbing is when Trump himself says he didn't expect Iran to strike other countries. Maybe they shouldn't have fired all the experts in the State department that studies these things along with what might happen to oil if the oil passage gets blocked
This was likely a low probability scenario.
It's war though.
Nothing ever goes fully according to plan. It's how you adjust. Time will tell. If Iran keeps the Emirates, and Qatar in their current state (where they are consistently being attacked) for an extended period of time, then that is problematic.
If the attacks can be reduced to negligible over the next few weeks, then things look a lot better.
Who were ALL the experts that he fired?
And i can guarantee, that the oil passage being blocked is one scenario that we would have remotely planned for, or not too concerned about, because it's happened multiple times in the past.
Featured Stories
See All
37:57
12h ago
4.9k
Baseball Thoughts: Aggies continue to creatively attack new hurdles
by Ryan Brauninger
9:07
11h ago
1.1k
College graduate Trovon Baugh wants to give back
by David Nuño
REGISTER NOW: Preseason Kickoff 2026 with Coach Mike Elko
by Brandon Jones
1/2 Man 1/2 Amazing
Earley on Kellner during TexAgs Live this morning
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
74