While i think your criticism on messaging is very fair, the objective all along has been to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Objective is clear, but the how we are going to do it, and why now has not been very clear. $.02
Military Strikes on Iran Imminent
- Thread starter PalmettoTiger1
- Start date
Objective is clear, but the how we are going to do it, and why now has not been very clear. $.02
Not only are we helping our enemy Russia in their war against our ally Ukraine by removing sanctions on their oil but we now may be re-routing our weapons systems intended for Ukraine to the ME. If you are our friend in need you can no longer count on us to be a friend indeed.
The Pentagon is considering whether to divert weapons intended for Ukraine to the Middle East as the war in Iran depletes some of the U.S. military’s most critical munitions, according to three people familiar with the matter.
Although a final decision to redirect the equipment has not yet been made, the shift would highlight the growing trade-offs required to sustain the U.S. war against Iran, where U.S. Central Command has hit more than 9,000 targets in just under four weeks of fighting.
The weapons that could be diverted away from Ukraine include air defense interceptor missiles, ordered through a NATO program launched last year in which partner countries buy U.S. arms for Kyiv, the three people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe the Pentagon’s sensitive deliberations.
Pentagon considers diverting Ukraine military aid to the Middle East
A shift would highlight the growing trade-offs required for the U.S. to sustain its war with Iran as the conflict depletes the military’s critical munitions.The Pentagon is considering whether to divert weapons intended for Ukraine to the Middle East as the war in Iran depletes some of the U.S. military’s most critical munitions, according to three people familiar with the matter.
Although a final decision to redirect the equipment has not yet been made, the shift would highlight the growing trade-offs required to sustain the U.S. war against Iran, where U.S. Central Command has hit more than 9,000 targets in just under four weeks of fighting.
The weapons that could be diverted away from Ukraine include air defense interceptor missiles, ordered through a NATO program launched last year in which partner countries buy U.S. arms for Kyiv, the three people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe the Pentagon’s sensitive deliberations.
Rational people know that the only way to 100% guarantee anyting is to get on the ground a put your eyes on it or wrap your hands around it. Trump said "obliterated" . He should have said "seriously degraded" or that we "obliterated" this site and that one and the other one. But he didn't. Either way, the situation on the ground would be the same.
Trumps main stated objective has been consistent , Prevent Iran from obtaining a nuke. It's not a radial position. It's the same one shared by all his predecessors since 1979.
"Midnight Hammer" was a quick strike that knocked out main faciliies. It was a statment. The biggest one that the US had mad made ever. An indication of will that had a risk but a lower one of kicking off a bigger fight. But, Iran shrugged it off and went right back to it. Rebuilding, hardening facilities. I wouldn't be surprised if, in the aftermath of those strikes we got indication from any number of collection assets, of other faciliities/locations involved in their nuclear ambitions from changes in activity patterns. maybe we knew about them before but they just didn't make the list for the strike.
I honestly think that Trump wanted midnight hammer to be a conversation starter for a deal. Iran didn't get the hint and they evidently made a claim that they had more and further enriched uranium than we had thought, so the options are... do nothing but talk talk, or rip the band aid off and take out as much capability as possible, to hopefully not have to revisit every other year.
And you actually believe anything coming out of the terrorist state of Iran. Lmao.
I think you're putting the "Trump's main objective" on him. I don't think he's been clear or consistent with a main objective at all.
Lmao. No one has had to make more apologies than she has for spreading blatant fabrications. She has zero credibility and is biased as hell. But hey, keep rooting for Iran.
It's been quite clear and laid out several times. You're simply too partisan to accept it. 1, take out all nuclear capability. 2, take out all capability to wage war against friendly nations via icbm's and other means. 3, encouraged and support an uprising of the Iranian people against a terrorist government.
What don't you get? Y'all like to mince words and statements to suit your narrative. Y'alls narrative is complete bullsh-t. Iran has been militarily, completely decimated. It's at the stage of Nazi Germany using V2 rockets against England, or the Japanese using kamikazi("divine wind") pilots as a last ditch effort. Meanwhile, all folks like you have is, get Trump. You have just witnessed the greatest military beat down in history within 3 weeks. Also, done from halfway across the globe. Sit down pup.
I don't know the answer to this and I can't remember, But didn't midnight hammer take out enrichment capabilities. Would the 60% enriched - for the 10 potential bombs, 60% enriched) have been at the same site or stored someplace else.
that's what was reported . enrichment facillities. but i don't remember anything about where they had uranium stored. on the lead up to this latest, they released some photos indicating a different hardened facillity that was built/being built into a different mountain. Granite rock, so a tougher nut to crak... and likely deeper. i'd think, being the busy little beavers that they are, that they would disperse stuff to some extent. But given what we are talking about, there is a practical limit to what they could support / secure. But that's a 100% wild assed guess.
Last edited:
that's what I thought which is why conversations that trump took out Iran's nuclear capabilities during midnight hammer were only partially right. That raid didn't destroy the total capability only the new enrichment capability
I assume you remember how aggressively Trump attacked any reporting or pundit who tried to suggest that Iran's nuclear capability wasn't obliterated.
You agree Trump always lies as you have stated here multiple times. Why would Iran, our allies, or anyone trust that Iran was an immenent nuclear threat to the US?
This attack and then try and create the reasons is extremely concerning to me, and it's funny to see from the MAGAs who have repeatedly claimed that they wanted to avoid wars, and drain the swamp that misleads us all the time....
my take is that we attacked and "obliterated" the capability for FUTURE enrichment. The assumption has always been that the Iranians had a separate location(s) where they had some lesser enriched uranium. According to reports, the iranians told our negotiators on day 1 that they had enough 60% enriched uranium to make 11 bombs (I've also seen the number at 10 bombs). They likely don't have the capability to put those on a missile yet, but they might be able to make a different type bomb..or why would they say 11 bombs?
Now were the Iranians lying? I don't know, but I saw a report that the Russians proposed taking the uraniam for storage there and we said "no". I don't know if that's true either. But, if true, I think I would have accepted that offer.
I said at the time, If I were trump I would not have used the term "obliterated"...he's have been better off just describing the attack as "the best ever", "never been an attack like this one". Unless you have eyes on the target after the bombers are gone, you really don't know what is the BDA
And he refused to use any term other than obliterated. He absolutely insisted on that being the only description.
yea, I know, and he still uses it. And, in my opinion he should not have used it then and shouldn't use it now. There are plenty of other words that would get the message out and not be so definitive
I think politically attacking Iran was disastrous for Trump. I also think this provides, at least in my mind, the urgency of the issue. I could be wrong, but this is definitley not helping in terms of keeping power in the Senate/House and we know exactly what will happen if he loses those....impeachments and neutering of any agenda moving forward.
Reps were probably losing the house anyway. They won't get legislation past Trump (or senate) so they'll focus on impeachment.
Are you saying that we should lay waste to all the infrastructure in that country? Don't waste another second. Not knowing what negotiations may be going on in private , fukkit, just do it?
? Greenwald, a former Trump supporter, is saying that Donnie is weak and making it up as he goes along. Suggests that Iranians haven't agreed to or participated in any of this. That's what HE is saying.
A leader who wasn't a Putin lover would confront him about helping the Iranians and do something about it instead of saying he's "not worried about it" and "their help isn't having much impact." He also wouldn't have lifted the sanctions on their oil to help them kill more Ukrainians. That's what.
edit: We're helping ukraine.. THat help is keeping them at bay. Russia occupying some ukranian territory is not IMO an existential threat to the US. Europe/NATO can help more. They are free to do so.
Last edited:
John bolton was a "former trump supporter" and there are former trump detractors that are now supporters. So, meh. But ok. plausible. So what do we do now? You're in charge. What should we do?
@dpic73 is not thinking on a logical level. His reasoning is limited to what will hurt Trump.
Glen Greenwald is a leftist who left the US and has never been a Trump supporter. He supported a few select things that just happened to line up over the years but is not a Republican or with MAGA at all.
Dude this post makes you seem delirious. We have been helping Ukraine on a huge level.
Dude he spent the majority of Trump's first term defending him and was especially loud about RussiaGate. He was on Tucker's show dozens of times criticizing liberals for their attacks on Trump, so call him what you want but for four years, he was a hard-core Trump defender.
So that makes it ok to now help Putin fight Ukraine? Is that your take? Seriously?
Scott Ritter – CLARITY PRESS, Inc.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union, implementing arms control agreements, and on the staff of General Norman Schwartzkopf during the Gulf War…
www.claritypress.com
Last edited:
Scott Ritter – CLARITY PRESS, Inc.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union, implementing arms control agreements, and on the staff of General Norman Schwartzkopf during the Gulf War…
I was going to, but won't. I do get a kick out of people on the outside who know exactly what is going on in the pentagon. He's been on the outside for nearly 30 years, yet somehow he knows exactly what is going on in the highest echelons of the Pentagon. Maybe there is a reason why the members of the JCS didn't resign...and that's because they might differ in opinion, or maybe they know more than Mr Ridder about what went into the war plan.
It has been reported that the girls school was targeted in error, Ridder makes it sound as if the military targeted the school on purpose. We targeted a hospital? First I've heard of that.
Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Mr Ridder expresses his....
Scott Ritter – CLARITY PRESS, Inc.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union, implementing arms control agreements, and on the staff of General Norman Schwartzkopf during the Gulf War…
That guy is a loon. He's a political commentator who hasn't had a thing to do witht them military in 25years. Totally making **** up. Lol. Before anyone gets too impressed with is bio, his "critical role" on Gen Schwartzkopfs staff was as an O3 (marine captain... which you attain at +-4yrs total service) he was "critical" in helping with the whack a scud launcher effort. Probably looked at al lot of pictures, made a lot of briefing materials, fetched a lot of coffee, pulled some shifts manning the phones at night. Hey someone's got to do it, and everyone's job is important but... Yeah doesn't mean he's a pentagon insider.
I watched until he basically said that everyone from the SecWar to the CJCS to the CENTCOM Commander to the targeteers to the guys pulling the trigger are gleefully committintg war crimes. Yeah ok. What an idiot.
He spends a lot of time in Russia and has been under investigation since 2024 for violations of the foreign agents registration act. Maybe nothing there, But hey, guy's got to make a buck any way you can after serving a few years in the big house and having to register as a sex offender for having sex chats with a underage girl (actually a police officer) while giving himself a handy live on his web cam.
Last edited:
LOL, just sharing an opinion like many others do here though I feel he's probably more informed than Catturd. Seems like others, including respected generals are also concerned about Whiskey "We negotiate with Bombs" Pete
I dont take catturd as gospel. I also only watch a fraction of stuff that is posted here, but i happened to click on that one, frankly because i figured why not, let's get a look inside the mind of dpic, i need to watch /read some stuff that he posts, and wow, that commentary was a doozy, and from a sex offender to boot! LOL.
I'll give you a second chance and watch the next one.
Ya know what, I'll accept your thoughts on the subject because I honestly didn't know enough about Ritter before I posted it, but it seems like it was a good conversation starter, no?
I recognize that guy. Ha. Don't remember anythign about him one way or another.
Ok. I watched that. Professionally embarrassing is my most charitable take.
There was nothign wrong with that initial statement by the SecWar. Nothing. Intimidate and Demoralize them... Great! Maybe they will run so we can kill them easier or better yet, maybe the'll just give up. That' would be even better. Hunt down and Kill enemies. Yes that's what the military does.
... Not having "stupid rules of engagement" or whatever hegseth said,. Not an elegent way make the point he was trying to make, but but that does NOT imply that he wants combatant commanders to establish ROE that are contrary to the Law of War. The Law of War is hammered into our force... we have lawyers on staffs at all levels from the Brigade/Regiment on up. Reviewing orders and advising the commander on what is or is not legal is why they are are there primarily.
Maybe there was more that this dude was reacting to, but short of direct statements from the Sec War that directly and specfically direct or encourage non compliance with the Law of War, for him as a retired GO to say that the Sec War in on his way to being a war crimminal is flat out unbelievable. To me anyway.
The "unqualified" part is, whatever. I find it very very offputting for retired general officers to make those types of remarks, while 'wearing' their rank, but ok.
And then there is the fact that he's also a flat out liar. Hegseth was not kicked out of the DC guard in disgrace. And for him to say that as fact? A Major General (Retired)?
Jeebus.
Last edited:
