I just find it funny that countries try to do these things and broker deals when they have no hand in any sort of decision making process for the other countries.
But THAT... or any of the other things mentioned above don't matter. Trump gets to declare victory and leave. THAT'S all that matters to the US now.
So, they're not surrendering and trump is giving them $300B. I don't think trump knows who is surrendering to who.
Show your factual evidence regarding the numbers. Show the source. What an un American moron you are for believing Iran. Lmao I wonder, just how many pair of panties will all the Socialist libs on here need to buy. It's beyond hysterical, the amount of drama, all y'all cuck boys cry over. Thank God, y'all care so much. More than anyone could possibly imagine.
So it must be true. Lmao. Kinda like the 10 point plan you just knew Trump agreed to. You literally posted about it.
No, we are not. Show your proof. Do you not ever learn? Do you not have an ounce of critical thinking available to you? Did you already see the signed agreement? Funny, no one else has. You must be very special.
You will be absolutely roasted on here like the rest of your ilk for posting lies. The White Has has never once released what you speak of. Vance said directly the opposite. But, hey, you believe Iran. Lmao.
don't disagree, but my point was in response to those that said Trump was being led by netanyahu. So in this deal, trump made it over objections of netanyahu who publicly said it was a "bad deal". That just doesn't seem to me that Trump was being "led"
Exactly what I thought you'd say. You can back up a single point of your nonsense. Just lies.
Couldn't agree more. Trump doesn't work for Netanyahu. Trump works for Trump. Just like anyone else that works with Trump, Netanyahu is going to find out that Trump will absolutely work with him, RIGHT UP TO THE POINT where Trump can get Paid not to. THEN you are screwed.
Overwhelming military strength over Iran and 100+ days later the WH hadn't accomplished a single thing.
I'm not sure you understand military strategy/tactics and the role of civilian control of the military. Things run in sequence, not all at once. First we took out air defenses, then the most significant military targets. Strait would have been next. If you don't think we could have taken the strait, then I don't think you totally understand the capabilities of our military. The military part of the operation was stopped when we agreed to, or initiated, the ceasefire. At that point the war became political, not military.
Gee, it's almost like someone predicted EXACTLY the way the administration was going to try to gaslight this fact - and in this very thread no less!
Kinda like using Michael Cohen to pay off Stormy Daniels.
Precisely.
I see where you're going with that, he has a history of lying and saying the opposite. So chances are, trump is surrendering to Iran.
A criminal war can be a just war though. Had we successfully decapitated the current regime and had them replaced by the people's democratic choice we'd have clearly done a great good, not a bad. (especially if it was a more liberal regime that actually recognized human rights)
Makes me think of the movie The Mouse That Roared. Which seems to be available for free without ads on YouTube!
you might be coming into this debate a little late...As I explained, or tried to, there is a planning sequence to military engagements...The military had not finished with the first part of the operation..you don't just do one segment part way and then move to another then back to the first..that's simply not how it's done for obvious reasons. In the planning order there is something called "concept of operations" which lays out the plans and the sequence. to take the strait would have required ground forces, and as you might recall, the Marines weren't there yet. Now if you want to criticize that the ground forces weren't there, remember, they didn't need to be there first, because the concept of operations didn't require them to be there.
why don't we wait and see what the agreement is before we draw our conclusions. I know I am. I hear different reports from different people, none of whom have seen the agreement. I'll be among those who criticize it if it's bad for us. But would have to admit he was right on Friday when he said the "war is almost over".
OK, I don't know if this is right or wrong. But one of the talking heads on Fox, of all places, said he was briefed on the agreement and one of the things he said was that there was a Gulf States fund that was providing the $300million. No, not the Gulf of America states.
Wait. Are you saying we had plans?you might be coming into this debate a little late...As I explained, or tried to, there is a planning sequence to military engagements...The military had not finished with the first part of the operation..you don't just do one segment part way and then move to another then back to the first..that's simply not how it's done for obvious reasons. In the planning order there is something called "concept of operations" which lays out the plans and the sequence. to take the strait would have required ground forces, and as you might recall, the Marines weren't there yet. Now if you want to criticize that the ground forces weren't there, remember, they didn't need to be there first, because the concept of operations didn't require them to be there.
To your second question, if I were part of the planning sequence I would have started pretty much most ground operations do...bomb/lob large shells from offshore ships into areas where we put ground troops. I would have gone after the IRGC ground troops with aviation to take out communication and ground command and control. Then put ground forces in the area where we know the Iranians are launching their missiles and drones. Now how close we were to engaging those capabilities I really have no idea. As to plans, the military has entire groups in the pentagon who do nothing but war planning and war gaming. I watched numerous interviews on numerous networks talking about both those plans and the gaming. There was total agreement that effective plans were in place. I was not part of the planning group, I was in R&D and acquisition during my Pentagon years. So, I'm not an expert on the other side.
On timing of the closure, again from interviews, the military expected strait closure to be an Iranian strategy. But coming back to the concept of operations, it wasn't the first thing to be accomplished.
why don't we wait and see what the agreement is before we draw our conclusions. I know I am. I hear different reports from different people, none of whom have seen the agreement. I'll be among those who criticize it if it's bad for us. But would have to admit he was right on Friday when he said the "war is almost over".
So if something that was never in a milion years going to happen, has never happened and will never happen actually HAPPENED then this would have made sense?
And where is that money coming from . . . hint: WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED IT HERE:
absolutely..if you were ever in the military you'd know they have plans that have plans...