We Have A President Again

Apparently our military runs like an open group chat now — because how else would half the Middle East know about upcoming U.S. operations before they happen, much less get a vote on whether they go forward.

It’s not just Pakistan getting the briefing, either. UAE, Qatar, the Saudis — everybody gets a seat at the table now, apparently.

Good to know operational security means running our plans through the regional comment section first. What a JOKE.
 
Hey tribalist, hit back at this one. Maybe toss up a meme too. At this point I’m convinced some of those red MAGA hats are cutting off the circulation to your brains, lol.
 
Iran attacked UAE & UAE has been striking back. And they've reportedly been in the fight for a while now, not just in the last week or so

Some things I know:

#1 is that none of us reallt know what's going one. We don't see the intel, we don't have access to much expect mostly what gets reported

#2 we can't trust what gets reported. It's often incomplte & also often outright wrong. Sometimes not malignantly but all too oftne they simply outright lie to us

#3 All of this is made worse by multiple factors. AI plays a huge role in this, it's used to show us crap that isn't true but presented in ways to be utterly convincing so we believe it. We also have info presented to manipluate our opinions by hostile actors, many from other contries but some of them are right here at home

All we can do, any of us, is do the best we can to try & filter the crap to have some idea of what's what. And our best is unlikely to be good enough
 
You can’t blame this on media spin when the pattern keeps repeating in plain sight.

It’s the same cycle every time: “take the deal or else,” followed by threats, then backing down when the bluff gets called. Over and over. It is not the media saying this, it is Trump.

And now—right after that announcement—our base in Irbil comes under fire. Put 2 and 2 together. They take none of his threats as real anymore.

Iran’s message has actually been the consistent one. Since the so-called ceasefire and that backdown, they’ve stayed on the same track: a slow war of attrition, steady strikes, and pressure without stopping.
 
It is not the media saying all these ME countries are privy to strikes before they happen. It is Trump saying it. There is no media spin off the nonsense coming directly from his mouth.
 
popper43 said:
Whatever.
redstate.com

Trump: Gulf States Now Asking USA to Hold Off on Iran

Trump halts Iran attack as Gulf states push for serious nuclear deal negotiations.
redstate.com redstate.com
Click to expand...
“Whatever” — so now we’re supposed to believe a right-wing blog’s opinion piece, built entirely on speculation, that while Iran is actively hitting them at will, they suddenly picked up the phone, called whoever they think runs Tehran, and said “enough is enough”… and that somehow that will convince them to give up? That is the grand strategy you are going with? Pass me that pipe.
 
Funny how asking for accountability is “derangement” when it’s your guy. Kinda proves everything I said.

Today’s the first day I’ve slowed down — we hunted hard the last three days.

Had some out-of-state hunters come in wanting to chase turkey. We got ours on day one, then spent the next two and a half days trying to get a kid his first Oklahoma bird. Seemed like if something could go wrong, it found a way.

Didn’t all go as planned, but I did get him and his dad their first Oklahoma coyotes, so there is still a story worth telling.

IMG_9140.jpeg
 
Typical. Hit someone with a hard question and the answer is “derangement,” but no actual response to defend your jersey.

That’s what stands out — not one logical counterpoint, just a label and move on. Then everybody piles on and co-signs the bull shit because at least it’s not Kamala Harris.

That’s a rough place to land. If “at least it’s not the other one” becomes the excuse for everything, accountability’s dead and team loyalty replaced common sense.Congratulations this is what WE voted for.
 
Maybe those other Arab countries that have been attacked by Iran don't want more damage to their countries? Age old problem - how to eliminate the warriors without decimating the general population. Typical solution is go after the populations/infrastructure. That works but gets some kick-back. We need to suck it up and get rid of the blood sucking corrupts in our Gov. Yes, I've got 4 G-sons at draft age and I don't really want them to have to go, but they would if necessary.
Old proverb - feed a lion enough steaks and it get fat and toothless - can only roar anymore. Europe for the last 100 years and US is getting like that.
 
popper43 said:
Maybe those other Arab countries that have been attacked by Iran don't want more damage to their countries? Age old problem - how to eliminate the warriors without decimating the general population. Typical solution is go after the populations/infrastructure. That works but gets some kick-back. We need to suck it up and get rid of the blood sucking corrupts in our Gov. Yes, I've got 4 G-sons at draft age and I don't really want them to have to go, but they would if necessary.
Old proverb - feed a lion enough steaks and it get fat and toothless - can only roar anymore. Europe for the last 100 years and US is getting like that.
Click to expand...

A man is only as good as his word — or at least that’s how the rest of us are judged. America’s word used to carry weight because red lines meant something. Now it’s empty threats, followed by walk-backs, followed by moving the goalposts when the bluff gets called. The world sees it. Allies see it. Adversaries definitely see it.

A country loses respect when its leader doesn’t even care about his own word. If his word means nothing to him, why would they mean anything to anyone else?
 
You ever hear of a rope a dope ?
While Iran thinks the stalling tactics are working, Trump and his ME allies have moved a large amount of military assets into the area and are making IRGC target lists for when he gives the word.
As in the past, he's five moves ahead and waiting for you to catch up.
SJC
 
Rope-a-dope only works if your opponent is actually exhausting himself. So far Iran used the pause to dig out launch sites, move assets, rebuild stock, and keep saying no to the same demands. That’s not getting played — that’s buying time.

And “moving assets into the area” isn’t proof of some master plan. The U.S. already surged carriers, bombers, and escorts months ago. Parking more steel in the Gulf after the first round stalled doesn’t magically make it chess. It just means phase one didn’t work.

The “five moves ahead” line starts falling apart when your own people get grilled in Congress about why there was no contingency for Strait of Hormuz closure — one of the most obvious Iranian responses imaginable — and the answer amounts to “we warned them not to.” That’s not five moves ahead. If the strategy was so airtight, why are we 80 days in and the United States Senate is moving to curb war powers over concerns there’s no clear endgame?

You call it rope-a-dope. I call it starting with “unconditional surrender,” then weeks later relying on Gulf states and backchannels through Pakistan to find an off-ramp. Five moves ahead should look like control. This looks like a cycle of making threats and blinking, I guess to you that looks like strategy.
 
All I know is that "Even a fool is counted wise when he holds his peace; When he shuts his lips, he is considered perceptive (Proverbs 17:28)".
Good counsel to follow.
To be clear, this is only a self reflection.
 
Infidel 762 said:
Rope-a-dope only works if your opponent is actually exhausting himself. So far Iran used the pause to dig out launch sites, move assets, rebuild stock, and keep saying no to the same demands. That’s not getting played — that’s buying time.

And “moving assets into the area” isn’t proof of some master plan. The U.S. already surged carriers, bombers, and escorts months ago. Parking more steel in the Gulf after the first round stalled doesn’t magically make it chess. It just means phase one didn’t work.

The “five moves ahead” line starts falling apart when your own people get grilled in Congress about why there was no contingency for Strait of Hormuz closure — one of the most obvious Iranian responses imaginable — and the answer amounts to “we warned them not to.” That’s not five moves ahead. If the strategy was so airtight, why are we 80 days in and the United States Senate is moving to curb war powers over concerns there’s no clear endgame?

You call it rope-a-dope. I call it starting with “unconditional surrender,” then weeks later relying on Gulf states and backchannels through Pakistan to find an off-ramp. Five moves ahead should look like control. This looks like a cycle of making threats and blinking, I guess to you that looks like strategy.
Click to expand...
Everybody has their opinion, but I look at a persons past actions and go with that.
Trump doesn't give in or give up and dealing with Iran is no exception.
We have no clue as to what's being discussed behind closed doors and are only assuming as to what outcome may occur, good or bad, but I tend to favor the side that doesn't want to destroy America.
Having Iran go nuclear isn't happening and it should be plain for all to see why after they reacted in attacking their neighboring countries and ships in the straits of Hormuz when challenged.
It's like running up to wounded coyote and not making sure it's dead before trying to drag it away after getting bit in the foot by a wounded coyote.
SJC
 
Today's congressional Republican party is like the pro war democrat party of the 2000s-2010s. There's only about 25-35 Conservatives in Congress between the House and Senate and the new Jesus Trump and "our greatest ally" are working to primary real conservatives out of office.
 
Last edited:
shoots100 said:
Everybody has their opinion, but I look at a persons past actions and go with that.
Trump doesn't give in or give up and dealing with Iran is no exception.
We have no clue as to what's being discussed behind closed doors and are only assuming as to what outcome may occur, good or bad, but I tend to favor the side that doesn't want to destroy America.
Having Iran go nuclear isn't happening and it should be plain for all to see why after they reacted in attacking their neighboring countries and ships in the straits of Hormuz when challenged.
It's like running up to wounded coyote and not making sure it's dead before trying to drag it away after getting bit in the foot by a wounded coyote.
SJC
Click to expand...
If the “five steps ahead” plan ends with basically the same deal we already had — if Iran even accepts what’s being offered — then what exactly was gained by tearing up the first one?

A war, attacks on shipping, depleted missile stockpiles, strained alliances, and America’s credibility taking another hit every time a red line gets drawn, then erased.

Same destination, higher cost, weaker standing — and that’s assuming Iran even signs onto it.
 
A tactical victory means nothing if it leads to a strategic loss.

If the endgame is the same deal, but after war, depleted stockpiles, weaker alliances, a damaged economy, higher inflation, and Iran already saying no to the core terms — then all we did was pay more to end up worse off.

Call it strategy if you want, but if every “win” leaves us weaker than before, that’s not five steps ahead. That’s one step forward, two steps back.
 
Back
Top