Trump Attacks Iran, III

[tusks_n_raider]

I will say this about W, he most like got preferential treatment to get into the reserve and for service while there but at least he didn't go full fraud and claim bone spurs.

I respect the heck out of him for piloting a supersonic interceptor.

That’s just Sick.

They don’t just let anyone fly those. You would have needed Eagle Vision and cat like reflexes and the intelligence to operate it.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

And the president's daily "briefing" consists of the biggest booms of the day...

That's just like when he was doing the daily Covid briefings and stopping to tell us how much of "the Wall" had been built that day.

So.....did Mexico after pay for that thing?
Was it ever actually built?

 

[selmaborntidefan]

CA, I'll respond to your post but this isn't directed at you since this is shared information on your behalf.
Thank you for that.

“Here are the clear objectives of the current military operation. You must take note of them”:

1. Destruction of Iran's military air forces;

Not a clear objective.

What the hell does it even mean?

As a reminder, while Bill Clinton may not have known what the meaning of "is" was, Trump doesn't seem to know the meaning of the word "obliterate," either. And destruction is little more than a synonym to another word he cannot define accurately, so this doesn't fill me with much confidence.

2. Destruction of their naval fleet;

And what does this mean?
This is nothing more than a restatement of #1 towards a different branch of the military (at least as the US defines them).

3. Sharp reduction of their missile launch capabilities;

Also not a "clear objective," which would be "to reduce their missile launch capability by 90% by (date you anticipate accomplishing this)

4. Destruction of their drone and rocket manufacturing plants;

This is the third time the guy who cannot define "destruction" has said this.

It is OBVIOUS at this point that someone with the Joint Chiefs told Corporal Punishment he better write out some objectives and this musing of an eight-year-old is the official US war policy.

5. They must never be able to acquire nuclear weapons.

That's a slogan, not an objective that can be met before the troops come home. It's like Reagan saying, "A nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought."

An example of a specific objective would be Reagan saying his objective was "a balanced budget by 1984." When he had been President less than a year, he publicly redefined the OBJECTIVE as a GOAL (and didn't make that one, either).

In the wake of the killing of the Marines in Beirut in 1983, SECDEF Caspar Weinberger developed his six tests of when we should use US troops abroad:

1) only on matters of matters vital to the interests of the US and their allies (okay, maybe this one)
2) only when there is reasonable assurance the public will support the action (nope)
3) only as a last resort (nope)
4) troops are only committed with a clear intention of winning (see next)
5) CLEARLY defined political and military objectives (e.g. liberate Kuwait, remove Saddam)
6) the relationship between objectives and troop commitment must be continually reassessed


Trump's objective:
1) get the Epstein files story THAT HE HIMSELF CREATED out of the news

That's all.

And he apparently didn't get his mail order bride on board before she went full spitting cobra two days ago on the same subject.

 

[92tide]

CA, I'll respond to your post but this isn't directed at you since this is shared information on your behalf.
Thank you for that.



Not a clear objective.

What the hell does it even mean?

As a reminder, while Bill Clinton may not have known what the meaning of "is" was, Trump doesn't seem to know the meaning of the word "obliterate," either. And destruction is little more than a synonym to another word he cannot define accurately, so this doesn't fill me with much confidence.



And what does this mean?
This is nothing more than a restatement of #1 towards a different branch of the military (at least as the US defines them).



Also not a "clear objective," which would be "to reduce their missile launch capability by 90% by (date you anticipate accomplishing this)



This is the third time the guy who cannot define "destruction" has said this.

It is OBVIOUS at this point that someone with the Joint Chiefs told Corporal Punishment he better write out some objectives and this musing of an eight-year-old is the official US war policy.



That's a slogan, not an objective that can be met before the troops come home. It's like Reagan saying, "A nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought."

An example of a specific objective would be Reagan saying his objective was "a balanced budget by 1984." When he had been President less than a year, he publicly redefined the OBJECTIVE as a GOAL (and didn't make that one, either).

In the wake of the killing of the Marines in Beirut in 1983, SECDEF Caspar Weinberger developed his six tests of when we should use US troops abroad:

1) only on matters of matters vital to the interests of the US and their allies (okay, maybe this one)
2) only when there is reasonable assurance the public will support the action (nope)
3) only as a last resort (nope)
4) troops are only committed with a clear intention of winning (see next)
5) CLEARLY defined political and military objectives (e.g. liberate Kuwait, remove Saddam)
6) the relationship between objectives and troop commitment must be continually reassessed


Trump's objective:
1) get the Epstein files story THAT HE HIMSELF CREATED out of the news

That's all.

And he apparently didn't get his mail order bride on board before she went full spitting cobra two days ago on the same subject.

their “objectives” remind me of bud fox’s 3 point plan for blue star airlines

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I remember the poster from the 1960s that had a photo of LBJ with the caption: "War Is Good Busines. Invest Your Son."

But - and I'm as much a critic of LBJ on Vietnam as anyone - two things:
1) he had DAUGHTERS in a different time, they wouldn't have even been allowed to go to a combat zone
2) both of his sons-in-law DID go to Vietnam

But it's always funny to me to learn years later that the slogans I might have first heard (several of them) in the 90s are always much older, too.


Ambushed at Credibility Gap might be my favorite.

 

[Bazza]

Unfortunately, that is all too common with all mines.

Not all mines are the same though. There are "smart mines" that can be tracked and moved around, according to a guest on one of the news channels this morning.

 

[81usaf92]

CA, I'll respond to your post but this isn't directed at you since this is shared information on your behalf.
Thank you for that.



Not a clear objective.

What the hell does it even mean?

As a reminder, while Bill Clinton may not have known what the meaning of "is" was, Trump doesn't seem to know the meaning of the word "obliterate," either. And destruction is little more than a synonym to another word he cannot define accurately, so this doesn't fill me with much confidence.



And what does this mean?
This is nothing more than a restatement of #1 towards a different branch of the military (at least as the US defines them).



Also not a "clear objective," which would be "to reduce their missile launch capability by 90% by (date you anticipate accomplishing this)



This is the third time the guy who cannot define "destruction" has said this.

It is OBVIOUS at this point that someone with the Joint Chiefs told Corporal Punishment he better write out some objectives and this musing of an eight-year-old is the official US war policy.



That's a slogan, not an objective that can be met before the troops come home. It's like Reagan saying, "A nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought."

An example of a specific objective would be Reagan saying his objective was "a balanced budget by 1984." When he had been President less than a year, he publicly redefined the OBJECTIVE as a GOAL (and didn't make that one, either).

In the wake of the killing of the Marines in Beirut in 1983, SECDEF Caspar Weinberger developed his six tests of when we should use US troops abroad:

1) only on matters of matters vital to the interests of the US and their allies (okay, maybe this one)
2) only when there is reasonable assurance the public will support the action (nope)
3) only as a last resort (nope)
4) troops are only committed with a clear intention of winning (see next)
5) CLEARLY defined political and military objectives (e.g. liberate Kuwait, remove Saddam)
6) the relationship between objectives and troop commitment must be continually reassessed


Trump's objective:
1) get the Epstein files story THAT HE HIMSELF CREATED out of the news

That's all.

And he apparently didn't get his mail order bride on board before she went full spitting cobra two days ago on the same subject.

The problem is that none of these “objectives” solve the problem that they are harping on. Okay you do it and we go to peace… now what? Are you really going to believe that they aren’t going to try to replenish their supplies? If anything they are going to make their whole economy geared towards getting them and getting more of them. It’s like we ignore history. Did Versailles prevent Germany from rearming for 20 years and Hitler just supercharged it in 2 years? No. The German military was meticulously rearming during the Weimar era and Hitler just made it far more overt. The only thing Versailles did was destroy their navy and made fanaticism more inevitable.

I think unless there were specific targets then other than regime change this was a costly and stupid war that only is going to embolden Iran to hyper militarize their economy

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Not all mines are the same though. There are "smart mines" that can be tracked and moved around, according to a guest on one of the news channels this morning.

Doesn't appear to be what the Iranians used...

 

[tusks_n_raider]

CA, I'll respond to your post but this isn't directed at you since this is shared information on your behalf.
Thank you for that.



Not a clear objective.

What the hell does it even mean?

As a reminder, while Bill Clinton may not have known what the meaning of "is" was, Trump doesn't seem to know the meaning of the word "obliterate," either. And destruction is little more than a synonym to another word he cannot define accurately, so this doesn't fill me with much confidence.



And what does this mean?
This is nothing more than a restatement of #1 towards a different branch of the military (at least as the US defines them).



Also not a "clear objective," which would be "to reduce their missile launch capability by 90% by (date you anticipate accomplishing this)



This is the third time the guy who cannot define "destruction" has said this.

It is OBVIOUS at this point that someone with the Joint Chiefs told Corporal Punishment he better write out some objectives and this musing of an eight-year-old is the official US war policy.



That's a slogan, not an objective that can be met before the troops come home. It's like Reagan saying, "A nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought."

An example of a specific objective would be Reagan saying his objective was "a balanced budget by 1984." When he had been President less than a year, he publicly redefined the OBJECTIVE as a GOAL (and didn't make that one, either).

In the wake of the killing of the Marines in Beirut in 1983, SECDEF Caspar Weinberger developed his six tests of when we should use US troops abroad:

1) only on matters of matters vital to the interests of the US and their allies (okay, maybe this one)
2) only when there is reasonable assurance the public will support the action (nope)
3) only as a last resort (nope)
4) troops are only committed with a clear intention of winning (see next)
5) CLEARLY defined political and military objectives (e.g. liberate Kuwait, remove Saddam)
6) the relationship between objectives and troop commitment must be continually reassessed


Trump's objective:
1) get the Epstein files story THAT HE HIMSELF CREATED out of the news

That's all.

And he apparently didn't get his mail order bride on board before she went full spitting cobra two days ago on the same subject.

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”

"Move not unless you see an advantage; use not your troops unless there is something to be gained; fight not unless the position is critical".

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

- Sun Tzu

You can tell who is well read and who isn‘t

@81usaf92 made a lot of these points in one of his posts I saw this week stated in his own words.

He’s most likely at least somewhat familiar with the Art of War.

Trump and Hegseth probably think Sun Tzu is a menu item from a local Chinese Takeout joint.

We have absolute grifters in charge of our Military.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

The problem I've always seen with the ending of the peacetime draft is that it's much easier for politicians to get us into wars if most Americans don't even have skin in the game. Meaning, an all-volunteer military is made up of a fraction of the US, and they signed up for the duty.

This may fall into the laws of unintended consequences.

Nixon's whole intent when he discontinued the draft was to take that weapon away from the opposition. The marchers of the 60s (the war protestors) weren't "anti-war," they were "anti-draft into a war that makes no sense." He revoked the draft and all the anti-war protestors went home - while US involvement in said war continued for another two years.

Now, I'm not saying that the there weren't benefits of the all-volunteer force...but in all honesty, I don't think anyone in power thought through, "This is actually going to make it MORE LIKELY we go into these crazy Asian wars than less."

But as I've said previously, Jimmy Carter's blanket pardon ensured we'll never again have a draft for anything less than the survival of civilization.

I always found it odd during the Iraq war - all these gungho college Republicans cheering on the war wihile having other priorities when it came time for them to go fight.

Do you mean Vietnam or are you referring to another time?
I ask because I can see this a couple of different ways.

I may sound like a hypocrite here, I will admit. I missed the peacetime draft registration by about a week. Carter had reinstituted it in 1980, but only for those born in 1960 or above. I was born at the end of December 1959, so I didn't have to register.

But this was during the Iran hostage crisis, and I was in college at the time. I do remember at the time wanting to go enlist if we went to war with Iran. I think everyone was angry at the mullahs at the time.

Getting back to my point about soundng hypocritical...as I look back, the country really didn't have any wars during the time I probably would have been available. I turned 18 after Nam ended, and the country really didn't have any military skirmishes until Grenada in 1983, and that lasted about a minute. Ditto for Bush 41s invasion of Panama in 1989. By the time Desert Storm came around, I was 30 years old, and I'm not sure what the Army would have done with me.

I don't think this makes you a hypocrite at all.

I remember my Mom telling me - this would have to have been July 1975 - that both of my grandfathers were "too young" for WW1 and "too old" for WW2. I wondered as a five-year old how that was even possible, at least the second one.

Mom's Dad was born in 1909, so he was 5 when Ferdinand took the bullet and 32 when Pearl Harbor happened, so I get it. (People forget how much older 32 years old was in 1941 than it is today).

Dad's Dad was born in 1912, so he was way too young for WW1, but I'm told he volunteered for the Army for WW2 but didn't go to combat. (His brother was hit on the butt of a handgun by a shell that exploded and fired shrapnel into his guts, but he survived. The crazy old coot spent the rest of his life telling everyone he met about the Purple Heart he got, you'd have thought he was a six-time Medal of Honor winner).

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I think unless there were specific targets then other than regime change this was a costly and stupid war that only is going to embolden Iran to hyper militarize their economy

I recall asking my Dad sometime after the 1991 Gulf War, "Why didn't we assassinate Saddam Hussein or at the least require him to abdicate power as a condition of surrender?"

His immediate retort was, "And keep troops in place for the next 25-50 years?"

Dad went into a long soliloquy about how killing the dictator is the EASY part, but he then asked me what my plan was next after doing that. His point of reference was the long-term breakup of Yugoslavia after Tito died (and he had been warning it was going to happen upon his demise). He then explained that Hussein was viewed as a strong enough man by the Arabs that he could maintain power ruthlessly but was respected enough by other Arab nations to prevent...an incursion from taking over the country so as to (for example) expand the borders of Iran or someone else.

It was so funny to watch some of my Democratic friends mock Bush 41 when Clinton was elected with, "Saddam still has his Presidency, what about you?" And a number of them went the "he didn't take care of business crowd." It was funny to me given some of these folks were both anti-war AND anti-death penalty but now the vicious Republican President they hated was supposed to kill Saddam.

Well, we did - and remember what happened?
We lost trillions and thousands of lives - and little changed.

Anyone who follows politics will not be surprised to hear these exact same people just 15 years later WHINED LIKE BABIES when the son.....oh yes, did what they SAID they wanted in 1991. At least my next door neighbor union buddy was willing to admit he was wrong on that one.

 

[Bazza]

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”

"Move not unless you see an advantage; use not your troops unless there is something to be gained; fight not unless the position is critical".

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

- Sun Tzu

You can tell who is well read and who isn‘t

@81usaf92 made a lot of these points in one of his posts I saw this week stated in his own words.

He’s most likely at least somewhat familiar with the Art of War.

Trump and Hegseth probably think Sun Tzu is a menu item from a local Chinese Takeout joint.

We have absolute grifters in charge of our Military.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

This picture is from the Washington Post on the opening day of the USFL vs NFL trial that began 40 years ago next month.

As a reminder, Trump "won" in the sense that the jury DID rule that the NFL was a monopoly.
And Trump was right, they DID get a lot of things....they got 376 pennies of compensation, and the NFL had to pay the USFL's legal bills of $5.5 million.

Btw, wanna hear a good one since he's such a winner?



Trump fired his first attorney, Roy Cohn, because he was a gay man dying of AIDS. Cohn was disbarred in June 1986 DURING THE TRIAL for dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation. It won't surprise any of you that one thing Cohn did was go into the hospital room of a dying man and trick him into signing over control of his million(s) dollar estate. (Cohn never admitted having AIDS, insisting he had liver cancer and insisting - are you ready for this - in June 1986 that he was "in complete remission" (again, sound like anyone you know?)

Cohn died five days after the USFL-NFL trial concluded.

His replacement, Harvey Myerson, began a firm with former baseball commissioner Bowie Kuhn in 1988, but in 1989, it fell apart when what later became Lehman Brothers disassociated with the firm after accusing them of padding legal bills.

Myerson later went to jail for 70 months, was himself disbarred, and died a quiet death in November 2015, remembered as little more than a schmuck.


Has anyone noticed how many attorneys wind up disbarred and/or IN JAIL after crossing paths with Mafia Don?

Cohn
Myerson
Giuliani
Michael Cohen
Kenneth Chesebro
John Eastman
Jenna Ellis

And Sidney Powell probably would have been had her license not been in Texas.

 

[81usaf92]

I recall asking my Dad sometime after the 1991 Gulf War, "Why didn't we assassinate Saddam Hussein or at the least require him to abdicate power as a condition of surrender?"

His immediate retort was, "And keep troops in place for the next 25-50 years?"

Dad went into a long soliloquy about how killing the dictator is the EASY part, but he then asked me what my plan was next after doing that. His point of reference was the long-term breakup of Yugoslavia after Tito died (and he had been warning it was going to happen upon his demise). He then explained that Hussein was viewed as a strong enough man by the Arabs that he could maintain power ruthlessly but was respected enough by other Arab nations to prevent...an incursion from taking over the country so as to (for example) expand the borders of Iran or someone else.

It was so funny to watch some of my Democratic friends mock Bush 41 when Clinton was elected with, "Saddam still has his Presidency, what about you?" And a number of them went the "he didn't take care of business crowd." It was funny to me given some of these folks were both anti-war AND anti-death penalty but now the vicious Republican President they hated was supposed to kill Saddam.

Well, we did - and remember what happened?
We lost trillions and thousands of lives - and little changed.

Anyone who follows politics will not be surprised to hear these exact same people just 15 years later WHINED LIKE BABIES when the son.....oh yes, did what they SAID they wanted in 1991. At least my next door neighbor union buddy was willing to admit he was wrong on that one.

I think taking out leaders is stupid in authoritarian regimes. Because 1) it creates an immediate power scramble and 2) it is taken as an attack on a sovereign country.

There was a story in which Stalin kept trying to assassinate Tito. Eventually Tito got tired of it and sent the last assassin back to Stalin with a message that read “Send another bad assassin after me and I’ll send the best in world to assassinate you”. Stalin was ofcourse furious and wanted to retaliate towards the threat but his inner circle basically said “Do you really want the headache of trying to keep a bunch of people who hate each other in line just to get rid of Tito?”

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I think taking out leaders is stupid in authoritarian regimes. Because 1) it creates an immediate power scramble and 2) it is taken as an attack on a sovereign country.

There was a story in which Stalin kept trying to assassinate Tito. Eventually Tito got tired of it and sent the last assassin back to Stalin with a message that read “Send another bad assassin after me and I’ll send the best in world to assassinate you”. Stalin was ofcourse furious and wanted to retaliate towards the threat but his inner circle basically said “Do you really want the headache of trying to keep a bunch of people who hate each other in line just to get rid of Tito?”

Here's another point, though (not arguing with you).

You have to remember that for me, my FRAME OF REFERENCE at the time - largely - was the execution of the Ceausescus in Romania on Christmas Day 1989. I did not know at the time about the Diems in 'Nam, nor about much else.

I don't recall much else on the news - granted, nothing was as dramatic as the killing of a dictator and his wife on video - but it almost sounded like in USA news of the day that, "Ho hum, they killed him and life went on for everyone else." Of course, there was more to it.

 

[crimsonaudio]

 

[Bazza]

Breaking news....JD Vance now announcing there is no deal - and everyone is going home....

I'm shocked!

 

[selmaborntidefan]

For those keeping score at home, the pompous nitwit who insisted in 1984 that he could end the Cold War through negotiation in one hour cannot even end the war that he started all by himself in six weeks.

 

[92tide]

https://bsky.app/profile/wfla.com%2Fpost%2F3mjamtdfque2z

 

[UAH]

A report from Israel this week demonstrated that there was wide support among Israelis for the genocide being committed in Gaza and now in Lebanon. Granted the report may have been slanted but showed a similar attitude toward Arabs and even Arab Christians in Lebanon as in the US had toward American Indians historically (The only good Arab is a dead Arab). There are at most 8 million Jews living in Israel (excluding non Jews living in Israel) and there are 400 million Arabs surronding them.

The point of all of this is to say that the highest probability of the use of a nuclear weapon is by Israel and that probability has increased dramatically. Once that fuse is lit?