So you can't walk me through that syllogism. Got it. Continue shouting insults in lieu of substance. It's very convincing. Doesn't make you look like an incompetent, attention-seeking child at all.Go back and read your first line. I know you’re not used to being up this early, but please stop wasting my time with you stupid “ish”
Military Strikes on Iran Imminent
- Thread starter PalmettoTiger1
- Start date
Yea as opposed to you shouting ALLAHU AKBAR while holding your Starbucks mug with a limp wrist, pinky out?
I agree....one thing non military/defense people don't seem to understand, not that they either should or need to, is that conducting war is as mental a game as running a fortune 100 company or any other large endeavor. Those that think "there is no plan" have obviously never worked in a "war plans" department or participated in "war gaming exercises - or picture war games as a bunch of soldiers running around yelling "bang" with either red or blue banners on their sleeves.
The military plans, then plans again, then again for just about every contingency anybody can come up with. Plus, when things go counter to plan, they revert to the words of the marine gunney in "Heartbreak ridge", they adjust, innovate and adapt.
I know this is a generalization, but one reason American companies hire former military officers, especially combat veterans, is that they know that these people adapt to stress, revert to achieving the objective and effectively adjust to changing environments. It's not unusual, in my experience, that when plans go amuck and everybody throws out solutions, a retired military office brings the debate back to "what's the objective?" It's in the training.
Stop stalling. You can insult all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you were asked to walk me through the syllogism, and you have been unable to do so. You have no clue what you're saying, which is why you stick to playground name-calling in order to cover up your obvious intellectual shortcomings. So, walk me through the syllogism, or STFU.
yes, he can!!! and I didn't even read his post. I speak from experience with him
Shhh! It's time for your nap ... you need to rest up so you can wake up refreshed and ready to equivocate away all sorts of awful actions, thoughts and beliefs and rationalize for the awful people who promote such actions, thoughts and beliefs.
no too early for nap...which by the way, is one of the greatest inventions of mankind....naps come in the afternoon for us early risers.
That's a shame. I was hoping you not being at the top of your game was due to exhaustion. Instead, it just might be the natural state of things. Oh well. I'd take a nap, anyway, if I were you.
You can’t be serious. In your first sentence, you clearly said “Trump wants a war no one wanted”
I post a link with three different presidents giving the reason we’re in the position we are
MEANING..
now this may be hard for you, but listen and listen close .. I know it’s early for someone with no job or family
YES NOBODY WANTED THIS WAR, BUT IT WAS NECESSARY.
Now please for the love of god, STFU and get a job, b!tch
"ok, whats the problem we're trying to solve here" ... That's a good one. lol. Then "why?" , then "why?" again. Lol. The other good one as meetings are about to break up and everyone is feeling good ...."Ok so lets just recap, what did we just decide? Who is doing what? "
I’d be willing to bet, save dpic, everyone on this board wish you’d take a nap… a very long one(if you know what I mean )
Trump is a jerk/bully. That said I agree with him 100% that our so called allies have taken advantage of us for decades. Organizations like NATO and the UN have been a lot of people getting together to decide how to spend American money.
Should Trump have talked to our "allies" ahead of time? Probably but they would have never supported him and they would have probably leaked his plans. Bottom line is that I have had concerns about this war from the beginning, but I also understand that these things aren't simple. Do we allow Iran to further develop their nuclear capability? To continue to terrorize the region? To murder tens of thousands of their own people?
Should our "allies" participate in an international task force to keep the straights open? IMO ABSOLUTELY! Keeping the straights open is in their best interest even if they disagree with Trump's actions.
Last edited:
You nailed it again Dpic. The Iranian Red Crescent is a reliable source. Trump is targeting innocent civilians and unfortunately the mullahs and some military establishments are unfortunately getting caught in the crossfire.
Last edited:
Is Trump's war failing? If the goal was regime change I would probably agree. That aside read this from Al Jazeera:
When you look at what has actually happened to Iran’s principal instruments of power – its ballistic missile arsenal, its nuclear infrastructure, its air defences, its navy and its proxy command architecture – the picture is not one of US failure. It is one of systematic, phased degradation of a threat that previous administrations allowed to grow for four decades.
Iran entered 2026 with 440kg of uranium enriched to 60 percent purity – enough, if further enriched, for as many as 10 nuclear weapons. Before the June strikes, Tehran was less than two weeks away from enriching enough uranium for one nuclear bomb, according to US intelligence assessments. At that time, the International Atomic Energy Agency acknowledged that Iran’s accumulation of near-weapons-grade material had no clear civilian justification.
The current campaign has damaged further the Natanz nuclear facility. The one in Fordow remains inoperable. The defence industrial facilities that would be needed to reconstitute enrichment capacity are being systematically targeted.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether diplomatic alternatives were fully exhausted, the Omani-mediated negotiations in February showed real progress, and there are legitimate questions about whether Washington walked away too soon.
But the critics’ implicit alternative, continued restraint while Iran inched towards a nuclear weapon, is the policy that produced the crisis in the first place. Every year of strategic patience added centrifuges to the enrichment halls and kilogrammes to the stockpile.
The US-Israeli strategy against Iran is working. Here is why | US-Israel war on Iran | Al Jazeera
When you look at what has actually happened to Iran’s principal instruments of power – its ballistic missile arsenal, its nuclear infrastructure, its air defences, its navy and its proxy command architecture – the picture is not one of US failure. It is one of systematic, phased degradation of a threat that previous administrations allowed to grow for four decades.
Iran entered 2026 with 440kg of uranium enriched to 60 percent purity – enough, if further enriched, for as many as 10 nuclear weapons. Before the June strikes, Tehran was less than two weeks away from enriching enough uranium for one nuclear bomb, according to US intelligence assessments. At that time, the International Atomic Energy Agency acknowledged that Iran’s accumulation of near-weapons-grade material had no clear civilian justification.
The current campaign has damaged further the Natanz nuclear facility. The one in Fordow remains inoperable. The defence industrial facilities that would be needed to reconstitute enrichment capacity are being systematically targeted.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether diplomatic alternatives were fully exhausted, the Omani-mediated negotiations in February showed real progress, and there are legitimate questions about whether Washington walked away too soon.
But the critics’ implicit alternative, continued restraint while Iran inched towards a nuclear weapon, is the policy that produced the crisis in the first place. Every year of strategic patience added centrifuges to the enrichment halls and kilogrammes to the stockpile.
The US-Israeli strategy against Iran is working. Here is why | US-Israel war on Iran | Al Jazeera
Uh oh.
A senior US intelligence official appointed by President Donald Trump abruptly announced he is stepping down from his post on Tuesday, citing misgivings about the administration’s war with Iran.
“After much reflection, I have decided to resign from my position as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, effective today,” Joe Kent wrote in a post on X.
“I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby,” Kent added in the resignation letter he attached to the post.
Kent was a staunch Trump supporter, and his resignation marks the first high-profile departure of the president’s second term over a major policy issue. Some lawmakers and experts have raised doubts over the intelligence the president used to justify the war, and the departure of a key intelligence official will increase scrutiny of the administration’s case.
A senior US official confirmed that Kent was resigning.
The Office of Director of National Intelligence did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
After the initial wave of strikes against Iran, Trump cited an “imminent threat” to the US, and administration officials said the US acted in response to potential preemptive attacks by Iran on forces in the region — claims that were contradicted in Pentagon briefings to Capitol Hill, where defense officials said Iran was not planning to attack unless struck first.
Kent blamed Israeli officials and the media for misleading Trump about the threat posed by Iran.
“This echo chamber was used to deceive you into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States, and that should you strike now, there was a clear path to victory,” he wrote in his resignation letter. “This was a lie and is the same tactic the Israelis used to draw us into the disastrous Iraq war that cost our nation the lives of thousands of our best men and women. We cannot make this mistake again.”
Kent is leaving a crucial role at an organization tasked with monitoring intelligence associated with long-existing terrorist organizations in the Middle East as well as drug cartels and international gangs. Before taking on the position he served as a top aide to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.
Kent earned his top position in part by being a vocal proponent of Trump’s 2020 election conspiracies. But Kent’s penchant for conspiracies led to clashes with other administration officials since taking office.
Last year Kent drew a rebuke from FBI Director Kash Patel and other Justice Department officials after he sought to access FBI systems to investigate the Charlie Kirk assassination, pursuing claims that there could have been foreign involvement in the killing, according to people briefed on the discussions.
Patel and other officials raised concerns that accessing FBI evidence could damage the prosecution of Tyler Robinson, the Utah man charged in the Kirk assassination, those briefed said.
Kent has extensive experience in counterterrorism and the military — he served 11 combat tours over a 20-year career in the Army before retiring to become a CIA officer — and has personal experience as a Gold Star spouse. His first wife, Shannon, was killed in a 2019 suicide bombing in Syria while serving as a Navy cryptologist.
Kent ran an unsuccessful campaign for Congress in 2022, during which past associations with far-right figures became a key issue.
Kent repeatedly had to disavow past interactions with Nazi sympathizer Greyson Arnold and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes. Kent said at the time he was unfamiliar with Fuentes and later said he did not want Fuentes’ endorsement.
During Kent’s confirmation hearing, he faced criticism from Democratic lawmakers who pointed to those past associations.
Sen. Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat, described him at the time as a “conspiracy theorist who espouses white supremacist views and is patently unqualified for this important role in just about every way imaginable.” He was confirmed in a 52-44 vote in the Senate.
Trump’s rationale for attacking the Iranian regime has whipsawed from protecting the demonstrators who protested in the streets of Iran in January to defending the US against the risk of Iran building nuclear and long-range weapons and eliminating a regime that’s backed terrorist groups’ killing Americans for decades. He’s called for the Iranian people to take control of their country even as top officials say the war is not about regime change.
‘Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation’: Trump-appointed intelligence official resigns over Iran war
A senior US intelligence official appointed by President Donald Trump abruptly announced he is stepping down from his post on Tuesday, citing misgivings about the administration’s war with Iran.
“After much reflection, I have decided to resign from my position as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, effective today,” Joe Kent wrote in a post on X.
“I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby,” Kent added in the resignation letter he attached to the post.
Kent was a staunch Trump supporter, and his resignation marks the first high-profile departure of the president’s second term over a major policy issue. Some lawmakers and experts have raised doubts over the intelligence the president used to justify the war, and the departure of a key intelligence official will increase scrutiny of the administration’s case.
A senior US official confirmed that Kent was resigning.
The Office of Director of National Intelligence did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
After the initial wave of strikes against Iran, Trump cited an “imminent threat” to the US, and administration officials said the US acted in response to potential preemptive attacks by Iran on forces in the region — claims that were contradicted in Pentagon briefings to Capitol Hill, where defense officials said Iran was not planning to attack unless struck first.
Kent blamed Israeli officials and the media for misleading Trump about the threat posed by Iran.
“This echo chamber was used to deceive you into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States, and that should you strike now, there was a clear path to victory,” he wrote in his resignation letter. “This was a lie and is the same tactic the Israelis used to draw us into the disastrous Iraq war that cost our nation the lives of thousands of our best men and women. We cannot make this mistake again.”
Kent is leaving a crucial role at an organization tasked with monitoring intelligence associated with long-existing terrorist organizations in the Middle East as well as drug cartels and international gangs. Before taking on the position he served as a top aide to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.
Kent earned his top position in part by being a vocal proponent of Trump’s 2020 election conspiracies. But Kent’s penchant for conspiracies led to clashes with other administration officials since taking office.
Last year Kent drew a rebuke from FBI Director Kash Patel and other Justice Department officials after he sought to access FBI systems to investigate the Charlie Kirk assassination, pursuing claims that there could have been foreign involvement in the killing, according to people briefed on the discussions.
Patel and other officials raised concerns that accessing FBI evidence could damage the prosecution of Tyler Robinson, the Utah man charged in the Kirk assassination, those briefed said.
Kent has extensive experience in counterterrorism and the military — he served 11 combat tours over a 20-year career in the Army before retiring to become a CIA officer — and has personal experience as a Gold Star spouse. His first wife, Shannon, was killed in a 2019 suicide bombing in Syria while serving as a Navy cryptologist.
Kent ran an unsuccessful campaign for Congress in 2022, during which past associations with far-right figures became a key issue.
Kent repeatedly had to disavow past interactions with Nazi sympathizer Greyson Arnold and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes. Kent said at the time he was unfamiliar with Fuentes and later said he did not want Fuentes’ endorsement.
During Kent’s confirmation hearing, he faced criticism from Democratic lawmakers who pointed to those past associations.
Sen. Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat, described him at the time as a “conspiracy theorist who espouses white supremacist views and is patently unqualified for this important role in just about every way imaginable.” He was confirmed in a 52-44 vote in the Senate.
Trump’s rationale for attacking the Iranian regime has whipsawed from protecting the demonstrators who protested in the streets of Iran in January to defending the US against the risk of Iran building nuclear and long-range weapons and eliminating a regime that’s backed terrorist groups’ killing Americans for decades. He’s called for the Iranian people to take control of their country even as top officials say the war is not about regime change.
If me posting less often than you means I don't have a job ... what does that say about you, sport? Once again you end up trolling yourself. So, using your own logic, we've established, not just that you're an insecure little troll, but an unemployed one. At least we accomplished something here.
As to your attempt at an argument (finally!) ... first, you ended up agreeing with me. I simply stated no one wanted the war ... you provided support for my statement. Well done. So you agreed with me.
Second, that portion of my post was just "flavor" ... it wasn't central to the argument. You avoided the actual substance ... and ended up agreeing with my statement, regardless, despite trying to insult me repeatedly. The substance of my post was a retort to your post ... where Clay Travis tried to attack the left ... for, in his opinion, not crying enough about Trump's failures, which are getting people tortured/killed. You'd think a reasonable human would want to criticize the guy getting innocents killed/tortured, not yell at the political opposition for not crying about this fact enough.
As to your additional commentary about what was necessary ... according to whom? Trump criticized Obama ... said war was completely unnecessary ... said Obama was going to get us into a needless war because he sucked at negotiating, and because he wanted to divert attention away from other things. Then he ran for POTUS with one of his pillars being he was going to be the peace POTUS ... no new wars, no regime change, no nation building. So, what happened, sport? Trump abandoned all his previous stances, admitted he sucks at negotiating, and admitted he lied about one of the main things that got him elected ... and we're supposed to trust him that killing people and harming many countries, including our own, was "necessary"? The last time he bombed Iran, he said the job was done ... nuke program completely obliterated ... a short time later ... not nearly enough time to rebuild an obliterated nuke program ... we're back at it ... this time in a full blown war because, apparently, things are even worse than when a "little bit of bombing" would do the trick.
Last edited:
It is pretty amazign how military staffs function, is't it? Especailly if they are dialed in and have experienced memebers that have been working together for long enough to individually get in synch with each other and mesh with the commander they support.
I think current G/J staffs are bigger and more specialized than in the vietnam era. (for example J3 or G3 is now J/G3/5/7/9 in many cases ). .
More time also means, with iran working overtime to produce one-way attack drones and conventionally tipped missiles of all types (to include cluster munitions) thousands and thousands more that we woudl have to account for later. The pace that Iran was producing those weapons outstripped by far us/israely/gulf state producton of weapons/munitions to counter them.
Lets also not forget: More time = more improvmenets on ballistic missile capability and research on how to marry a future bomb with those ballistic missiles.
Hey everybody get ready to hear this repeated ad nauseum by all the dumbest people you know.
I know. It won't matter. It's out there. Get ready to hear it from all the dumbest people you know.
Quite telling ... and, yet, as we all know from past occurrences, this information will be spun as Kent will just be characterized as a traitor to the cause. It will not give a single MAGAt a moment of pause.
Then the US isn't their ally, and should stop pretending they are. Now, granted, I don't believe that, of course. I believe the US and Europe/NATO need each other and benefit from being allies ... but Trump's Second Reich is obviously NOT an ally to those countries. That should give a reasonable person pause, if all of your allies are against an action of yours, to the point where you believe, beforehand, that they won't approve.
1. We were told their nuclear capability was obliterated, just months ago.
2. Trump promised us that it would be America first, and other countries would be responsible for their own citizens, and those citizens responsible for their countries. That was the entire basis for his foreign policy. What he's doing now is the "neocon" stuff that he railed against, and his opposition to which helped get him elected. But now his supporters are behind him, 100%. It's insanity.
Imagine the uproar had the UK (or pick a NATO country of your choosing) unilaterally decided to bomb the ish out of Iran, causing all these problems, and then said "hey, USA, you need to come help us, even though we're the ones who made this mess." MAGAts would have been spitting on the UK, and telling them to go blank themselves.
Trump said he spoke to a former president about bombing Iran. Four denials suggest otherwise.
Trump said twice Monday that he spoke to one of his predecessors about the Iran war and that the former president said he wished he had taken the action Trump did.
www.nbcnews.com
It's definitely dumb for Trump to say the war was started by Obama. That's typical Trump.
It would be much more accurate to say that prior presidents didn't do anything to stop Iran's aggression and military build up which included nuclear. "Don't" certainly didn't work. Of course there's also no guarantee that Trump's efforts will do much more than slow them down.
Well it turns out that was fake. But just wait, when Trump does officially delegate blame, it will be on someone other than him.
you've got to admit he's a good marketing man.
thanks for your attention to this matter
Nobody I know would have been in an uproar if the UK or another country bombed Iran. I think you're wrong about that.
I think the UN is totally worthless. We don't need that.
I agree 100% that it would be in our best interest to have a strong alliance with NATO countries but I also think we've won favor with these countries by shouldering a disproportionate share of the burden. The "allies" want us to continue doing that and I support Trump calling them out. I just wish he did in in private instead of making public insults.
I have less respect for Trump voters who claim to not really like him than I do for the ones who own it.
For someone who "doesn't like" Trump, it's astonishing how often you take the Maga side of things. It's in the neighborhood of literally every single time you post anything.