Looking for LDP to return to this thread be like....

Nothing has changed from when this pointless war started, except the cost of gas shooting up. Trump hasn't done anything to prevent Iran from having a nuke. Huge stain on his 2nd term.

jrdaustin said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

So what is a win for you? Iran isn't budging and we continue to waste money we don't have and continue to ask for more.

Besides WW2, when has U.S. interference achieved the goals we want it to?

---

The US needs to think like a united country, and not a divided nation that thinks it can topple its own leader by supporting its enemies.

What is a win? That we show Iran that the US has more resolve than they do. We defintely have WAY more military might, so all we're potentially lacking in is resolve, and that's what they're banking on.

All they have to do is stop fighting, stop attacking ships in the Hormuz, and stop their quest for a nuke. It's that easy for them.

But, if they continue to fight, we will hit back... Harder. That's the Trump way. We should all embrace it. It's not like he's making an unreasonable ask of them. Quite the opposite, in fact.

As for your comment on US meddling. I would argue that it has been Iran all along who has been meddling. We're just putting an end to it.

---

You want us to embrace another quagmire perpetual war? I saw what happened in Iraq, no thanks.

jrdaustin said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

So what is a win for you? Iran isn't budging and we continue to waste money we don't have and continue to ask for more.

Besides WW2, when has U.S. interference achieved the goals we want it to?

---

The US needs to think like a united country, and not a divided nation that thinks it can topple its own leader by supporting its enemies.

What is a win? That we show Iran that the US has more resolve than they do. We defintely have WAY more military might, so all we're potentially lacking in is resolve, and that's what they're banking on.

All they have to do is stop fighting, stop attacking ships in the Hormuz, and stop their quest for a nuke. It's that easy for them.

But, if they continue to fight, we will hit back... Harder. That's the Trump way. We should all embrace it. It's not like he's making an unreasonable ask of them. Quite the opposite, in fact.

As for your comment on US meddling. I would argue that it has been Iran all along who has been meddling. We're just putting an end to it.

---

So you are willing to put U.S. troops on the ground in Iran? They don't have to stop. They can just sit back and wait because it's their part of the world. It's a tale as old as time.

And the U.S. has rarely been a united country in our history. Maybe WW2 and a few weeks after 9/11 but other than that, we've been extremely split politically, so you might as well say that we should wish for rainbow colored unicorns.

You see the world as you want it to be instead of the way it is. That's not a great way to manage a military conflict.

Nope. I want us to cease tolerating their BS and either they stand down, or we eliminate anything bigger than a pop gun in the whole country. If they're beaten back to the stone age, so be it. It's not like they don't have an off ramp that they can take at any time.

We're in it now. So anything short of that will be seen as a capitulation on our end.

DonHenley said:

---

Nothing has changed from when this pointless war started, except the cost of gas shooting up. Trump hasn't done anything to prevent Iran from having a nuke. Huge stain on his 2nd term.

---

I mean, all he has done is bomb the hell of their facilities and put them back to ground zero for developing that nuke...what a stain--in your underwear

Bull Meachem said:

---

You see the world as you want it to be instead of the way it is. That's not a great way to manage a military conflict.

---

So the world is in fact one in which we always capitulate? That's a new one.

Here's a hint. You manage a military conflict by winning it. You don't need boots on the ground to eliminate any offensive capability that Iran has. You make them believe that we're willing to go the distance. And the only way to do that is to actually be willing to go the distance.

THAT's how you manage a military conflict.

Or, you lose it and go home.

jrdaustin said:

---

The wisdom of Trump entering this conflict at this point in time can certainly be debated, but now that we're in it, we must finish it.

It seems to me that the media, and many on this very board, would find it acceptable for the US to lose this conflict, and ultimately lose standing across the world for generations, as long as the blame for it can somehow be pinned on Trump.

Talk about short-sighted thinking...

---

The U.S., like always since WW2, doesn't have the stomach to actually "win" anything.

To win, here, would take massive amounts of actual, true, no-talking-points genocide. We're talking about a people that, during the Iran-Iraq war, were sent to their deaths by their govt with nothing more than a copy of the Quran, against Iraq forces with guns. That kind of people can't be "won over". There's no hearts and minds here.

I'm perfectly fine with that....are you? Is most of America? Nope. Not at all. Why don't you want to win? Are you anti-America?

So, to most, it's a stupid game we're playing... with peoples' wallets. THAT is what the majority of America...regardless of the silly-assed MSM talking points.... worry about. The reasoning behind the war be damned. It doesn't impact peoples' lives, at all, to them. High prices do.

It's insane that a college-educated group of people don't see that.

I want the US to win. Hell, I'll push the ****ing button and then have a steak dinner. But this current strategy isn't winning a damned thing. And, when we pull back....not "if"....we'll look ever weaker. Maybe not Biden-esque weak....but Biden adjacent. And that's sad.

JWinTX said:

---

DonHenley said:

---

Nothing has changed from when this pointless war started, except the cost of gas shooting up. Trump hasn't done anything to prevent Iran from having a nuke. Huge stain on his 2nd term.

---

I mean, all he has done is bomb the hell of their facilities and put them back to ground zero for developing that nuke...what a stain--in your underwear

---

I thought we had done that when we bombed them before this current conflict?

jrdaustin said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

You see the world as you want it to be instead of the way it is. That's not a great way to manage a military conflict.

---

So the world is in fact one in which we always capitulate? That's a new one.

Here's a hint. You manage a military conflict by winning it. You don't need boots on the ground to eliminate any offensive capability that Iran has. You make them believe that we're willing to go the distance. And the only way to do that is to actually be willing to go the distance.

THAT's how you manage a military conflict.

Or, you lose it and go home.

---

So what does going the distance mean? Be specific.

Bull Meachem said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

You see the world as you want it to be instead of the way it is. That's not a great way to manage a military conflict.

---

So the world is in fact one in which we always capitulate? That's a new one.

Here's a hint. You manage a military conflict by winning it. You don't need boots on the ground to eliminate any offensive capability that Iran has. You make them believe that we're willing to go the distance. And the only way to do that is to actually be willing to go the distance.

THAT's how you manage a military conflict.

Or, you lose it and go home.

---

So what does going the distance mean? Be specific.

---

I like the latest tactic from the administration. Make it clear that if they hit a ship in the gulf, we reply by taking out a bridge, a power plant, or some other infrastructure that will force the Iranian people to realize that they need to do something about the crazies in their own government.

As for boots on the ground, all I think we need is intelligence gatherers to be able to relay where the decision makers are so they can be taken out. Continue to eliminate command and control until rational people take the helm. If C&C wants to go undergound, bury them where they hide.

Yes, it will take time. But it does not require a full invasion, it simply takes resolve to consistently provide unproportional responses to their aggression. That's what I mean by go the distance.

FWTXAg said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Nope. I want us to cease tolerating their BS and either they stand down, or we eliminate anything bigger than a pop gun in the whole country. If they're beaten back to the stone age, so be it. It's not like they don't have an off ramp that they can take at any time.

We're in it now. So anything short of that will be seen as a capitulation on our end.

---

You should prepare yourself for capitulation on our end as soon as you can. We already tried to capitulate fully once with the MOU that lasted 6 seconds.

We somehow will find a way to capitulate even more in a way Iran will accept.

---

I don't think that the MOU was a capitulation. It was an off ramp that was refused.

It's clear Iran says something to the negotiators, then tweets something else, and continues to jack around in the gulf.

So the MOU was a "fool me once" event. It appears Trump is fed up with them, and I don't see him looking for a save-face arrangement to cut & run.

The republicans may lose the midterms; but, if we do, I hope it's because Trump refused to back down and withdraw, not because he folded to the weak hand held by a handful of radicals in charge of a bunch of drones and scud missles.

jrdaustin said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

You see the world as you want it to be instead of the way it is. That's not a great way to manage a military conflict.

---

So the world is in fact one in which we always capitulate? That's a new one.

Here's a hint. You manage a military conflict by winning it. You don't need boots on the ground to eliminate any offensive capability that Iran has. You make them believe that we're willing to go the distance. And the only way to do that is to actually be willing to go the distance.

THAT's how you manage a military conflict.

Or, you lose it and go home.

---

So what does going the distance mean? Be specific.

---

I like the latest tactic from the administration. Make it clear that if they hit a ship in the gulf, we reply by taking out a bridge, a power plant, or some other infrastructure that will force the Iranian people to realize that they need to do something about the crazies in their own government.

As for boots on the ground, all I think we need is intelligence gatherers to be able to relay where the decision makers are so they can be taken out. Continue to eliminate command and control until rational people take the helm. If C&C wants to go undergound, bury them where they hide.

Yes, it will take time. But it does not require a full invasion, it simply takes resolve to consistently provide unproportional responses to their aggression. That's what I mean by go the distance.

---

I wonder what the daily cost is to keep a significant task force supplied in that theater for an extended period of time.

Bull Meachem said:

---

JWinTX said:

---

DonHenley said:

---

Nothing has changed from when this pointless war started, except the cost of gas shooting up. Trump hasn't done anything to prevent Iran from having a nuke. Huge stain on his 2nd term.

---

I mean, all he has done is bomb the hell of their facilities and put them back to ground zero for developing that nuke...what a stain--in your underwear

---

I thought we had done that when we bombed them before this current conflict?

---

I did, too, but in war, sometimes things shift. There are no absolutes, except for winning or losing. We lost in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan because we wouldn't finish the job. We allowed our opponents to use our own media against the populace to make us feel mean and colonialist and racist. When your own people won't support your military and its job, you will always lose. It's just a matter of how much you will end up losing.

We can win in Iran if we actually stay on the offensive. And my guess is that the MOU being toilet paper has shown everyone in the White House and in the military that they will be needing to bring more pain. The biggest question is will the wimpiness of the American public that we have seen in the past wars I mentioned above, will it show up again here? Because what has come out of those efforts has been atrociously bad for the US and for country we left behind.

Bull Meachem said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

Taking out Iran? The regime has fallen?

---

No, setting their nuclear program back to the beginning.

---

It silly that you believe the government propaganda.

---

Ok, do you have a newsletter perhaps, since you know truth?

docb said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

You see the world as you want it to be instead of the way it is. That's not a great way to manage a military conflict.

---

So the world is in fact one in which we always capitulate? That's a new one.

Here's a hint. You manage a military conflict by winning it. You don't need boots on the ground to eliminate any offensive capability that Iran has. You make them believe that we're willing to go the distance. And the only way to do that is to actually be willing to go the distance.

THAT's how you manage a military conflict.

Or, you lose it and go home.

---

So what does going the distance mean? Be specific.

---

I like the latest tactic from the administration. Make it clear that if they hit a ship in the gulf, we reply by taking out a bridge, a power plant, or some other infrastructure that will force the Iranian people to realize that they need to do something about the crazies in their own government.

As for boots on the ground, all I think we need is intelligence gatherers to be able to relay where the decision makers are so they can be taken out. Continue to eliminate command and control until rational people take the helm. If C&C wants to go undergound, bury them where they hide.

Yes, it will take time. But it does not require a full invasion, it simply takes resolve to consistently provide unproportional responses to their aggression. That's what I mean by go the distance.

---

I wonder what the daily cost is to keep a significant task force supplied in that theater for an extended period of time.

---

My guess is not as much as you would think, if you take into account that the members of that task force would be elsewhere training if they weren't there.

Outside of the cost of fuel for sorties, weapons cost, and lives lost, it's money we would be spending at any rate to maintain readiness.

That's one of the misleading statistics, imo. We like to view all the costs associated with the deployment as new, sunk costs, while ignoring that much of that cost would be spent anyway in the name of maintaining readiness.

JWinTX said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

JWinTX said:

---

DonHenley said:

---

Nothing has changed from when this pointless war started, except the cost of gas shooting up. Trump hasn't done anything to prevent Iran from having a nuke. Huge stain on his 2nd term.

---

I mean, all he has done is bomb the hell of their facilities and put them back to ground zero for developing that nuke...what a stain--in your underwear

---

I thought we had done that when we bombed them before this current conflict?

---

I did, too, but in war, sometimes things shift. There are no absolutes, except for winning or losing. We lost in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan because we wouldn't finish the job. We allowed our opponents to use our own media against the populace to make us feel mean and colonialist and racist. When your own people won't support your military and its job, you will always lose. It's just a matter of how much you will end up losing.

We can win in Iran if we actually stay on the offensive. And my guess is that the MOU being toilet paper has shown everyone in the White House and in the military that they will be needing to bring more pain. The biggest question is will the wimpiness of the American public that we have seen in the past wars I mentioned above, will it show up again here? Because what has come out of those efforts has been atrociously bad for the US and for country we left behind.

---

But if you start a conflict without understanding that Americans rarely want to do everything it takes to "win", then that has to be part of the initial plan. If not, it's ignoring mountains of data and just "hoping". Hope is not a plan.

Bull Meachem said:

---

JWinTX said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

JWinTX said:

---

DonHenley said:

---

Nothing has changed from when this pointless war started, except the cost of gas shooting up. Trump hasn't done anything to prevent Iran from having a nuke. Huge stain on his 2nd term.

---

I mean, all he has done is bomb the hell of their facilities and put them back to ground zero for developing that nuke...what a stain--in your underwear

---

I thought we had done that when we bombed them before this current conflict?

---

I did, too, but in war, sometimes things shift. There are no absolutes, except for winning or losing. We lost in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan because we wouldn't finish the job. We allowed our opponents to use our own media against the populace to make us feel mean and colonialist and racist. When your own people won't support your military and its job, you will always lose. It's just a matter of how much you will end up losing.

We can win in Iran if we actually stay on the offensive. And my guess is that the MOU being toilet paper has shown everyone in the White House and in the military that they will be needing to bring more pain. The biggest question is will the wimpiness of the American public that we have seen in the past wars I mentioned above, will it show up again here? Because what has come out of those efforts has been atrociously bad for the US and for country we left behind.

---

But if you start a conflict without understanding that Americans rarely want to do everything it takes to "win", then that has to be part of the initial plan. If not, it's ignoring mountains of data and just "hoping". Hope is not a plan.

---

To be fair, I think the quick success in Venezuela did Trump no favors. I think he was sold an idea that a quick, beheading strike in Iran would result in much the same quick victory.

That said, once he made the decision to go in, what certain Americans "want" is precisely the wrong thing to include in our military planning. The thing about war is that it needs a strong leader to be successful. Ike learned that in WWII when he initially benched Patton before he realized that he was an indispensible asset that was needed on the battlefield. Patton didn't give a **** about what people at home thought. He was a warrior, pure and simple.

The mountains of data you speak of is wormtounge whispering by domestic foes attempting to nibble away at the resolve of the administration.

Bull Meachem said:

---

JWinTX said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

JWinTX said:

---

DonHenley said:

---

Nothing has changed from when this pointless war started, except the cost of gas shooting up. Trump hasn't done anything to prevent Iran from having a nuke. Huge stain on his 2nd term.

---

I mean, all he has done is bomb the hell of their facilities and put them back to ground zero for developing that nuke...what a stain--in your underwear

---

I thought we had done that when we bombed them before this current conflict?

---

I did, too, but in war, sometimes things shift. There are no absolutes, except for winning or losing. We lost in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan because we wouldn't finish the job. We allowed our opponents to use our own media against the populace to make us feel mean and colonialist and racist. When your own people won't support your military and its job, you will always lose. It's just a matter of how much you will end up losing.

We can win in Iran if we actually stay on the offensive. And my guess is that the MOU being toilet paper has shown everyone in the White House and in the military that they will be needing to bring more pain. The biggest question is will the wimpiness of the American public that we have seen in the past wars I mentioned above, will it show up again here? Because what has come out of those efforts has been atrociously bad for the US and for country we left behind.

---

But if you start a conflict without understanding that Americans rarely want to do everything it takes to "win", then that has to be part of the initial plan. If not, it's ignoring mountains of data and just "hoping". Hope is not a plan.

---

So we can never go to war then.

K

jrdaustin said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

JWinTX said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

JWinTX said:

---

DonHenley said:

---

Nothing has changed from when this pointless war started, except the cost of gas shooting up. Trump hasn't done anything to prevent Iran from having a nuke. Huge stain on his 2nd term.

---

I mean, all he has done is bomb the hell of their facilities and put them back to ground zero for developing that nuke...what a stain--in your underwear

---

I thought we had done that when we bombed them before this current conflict?

---

I did, too, but in war, sometimes things shift. There are no absolutes, except for winning or losing. We lost in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan because we wouldn't finish the job. We allowed our opponents to use our own media against the populace to make us feel mean and colonialist and racist. When your own people won't support your military and its job, you will always lose. It's just a matter of how much you will end up losing.

We can win in Iran if we actually stay on the offensive. And my guess is that the MOU being toilet paper has shown everyone in the White House and in the military that they will be needing to bring more pain. The biggest question is will the wimpiness of the American public that we have seen in the past wars I mentioned above, will it show up again here? Because what has come out of those efforts has been atrociously bad for the US and for country we left behind.

---

But if you start a conflict without understanding that Americans rarely want to do everything it takes to "win", then that has to be part of the initial plan. If not, it's ignoring mountains of data and just "hoping". Hope is not a plan.

---

To be fair, I think the quick success in Venezuela did Trump no favors. I think he was sold an idea that a quick, beheading strike in Iran would result in much the same quick victory.

That said, once he made the decision to go in, what certain Americans "want" is precisely the wrong thing to include in our military planning. The thing about war is that it needs a strong leader to be successful. Ike learned that in WWII when he initially benched Patton before he realized that he was an indispensible asset that was needed on the battlefield. Patton didn't give a **** about what people at home thought. He was a warrior, pure and simple.

The mountains of data you speak of is wormtounge whispering by domestic foes attempting to nibble away at the resolve of the administration.

---

What problem was solved in Venezuela?

The mountain of data shows that Americans, in our history, have never tolerated long commitments to foreign wars well. We tried to stay out of WWI and WW2 as long as possible. Our history is a history of isolationism and no tolerance for long commitments without significant pushback. If you don't take that into account, you tend to get voted out of office and usually replaced by the anti-war group. So again, you had better take that into account in planning if you want to actually win because the window for that opportunity is very narrow.

WW2 is about the only time we've seen continued support for a war and even then, U.S. planners took into account public opinion when planning the invasion of Japan.

Nobody is whispering in my ear. A student of American history would recognize the repeated behavior over and over again. For some reason, you seem to ignore it.

Logos Stick said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

JWinTX said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

JWinTX said:

---

DonHenley said:

---

Nothing has changed from when this pointless war started, except the cost of gas shooting up. Trump hasn't done anything to prevent Iran from having a nuke. Huge stain on his 2nd term.

---

I mean, all he has done is bomb the hell of their facilities and put them back to ground zero for developing that nuke...what a stain--in your underwear

---

I thought we had done that when we bombed them before this current conflict?

---

I did, too, but in war, sometimes things shift. There are no absolutes, except for winning or losing. We lost in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan because we wouldn't finish the job. We allowed our opponents to use our own media against the populace to make us feel mean and colonialist and racist. When your own people won't support your military and its job, you will always lose. It's just a matter of how much you will end up losing.

We can win in Iran if we actually stay on the offensive. And my guess is that the MOU being toilet paper has shown everyone in the White House and in the military that they will be needing to bring more pain. The biggest question is will the wimpiness of the American public that we have seen in the past wars I mentioned above, will it show up again here? Because what has come out of those efforts has been atrociously bad for the US and for country we left behind.

---

But if you start a conflict without understanding that Americans rarely want to do everything it takes to "win", then that has to be part of the initial plan. If not, it's ignoring mountains of data and just "hoping". Hope is not a plan.

---

So we can never go to war then.

K

---

No. We have to understand American history when deciding to engage in a foreign war and then use that information to understand what Americans are willing to put up with. We aren't the Roman Empire who thrived off of foreign war and just rebuilt the army anytime they were defeated.

Bull Meachem said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

JWinTX said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

JWinTX said:

---

DonHenley said:

---

Nothing has changed from when this pointless war started, except the cost of gas shooting up. Trump hasn't done anything to prevent Iran from having a nuke. Huge stain on his 2nd term.

---

I mean, all he has done is bomb the hell of their facilities and put them back to ground zero for developing that nuke...what a stain--in your underwear

---

I thought we had done that when we bombed them before this current conflict?

---

I did, too, but in war, sometimes things shift. There are no absolutes, except for winning or losing. We lost in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan because we wouldn't finish the job. We allowed our opponents to use our own media against the populace to make us feel mean and colonialist and racist. When your own people won't support your military and its job, you will always lose. It's just a matter of how much you will end up losing.

We can win in Iran if we actually stay on the offensive. And my guess is that the MOU being toilet paper has shown everyone in the White House and in the military that they will be needing to bring more pain. The biggest question is will the wimpiness of the American public that we have seen in the past wars I mentioned above, will it show up again here? Because what has come out of those efforts has been atrociously bad for the US and for country we left behind.

---

But if you start a conflict without understanding that Americans rarely want to do everything it takes to "win", then that has to be part of the initial plan. If not, it's ignoring mountains of data and just "hoping". Hope is not a plan.

---

To be fair, I think the quick success in Venezuela did Trump no favors. I think he was sold an idea that a quick, beheading strike in Iran would result in much the same quick victory.

That said, once he made the decision to go in, what certain Americans "want" is precisely the wrong thing to include in our military planning. The thing about war is that it needs a strong leader to be successful. Ike learned that in WWII when he initially benched Patton before he realized that he was an indispensible asset that was needed on the battlefield. Patton didn't give a **** about what people at home thought. He was a warrior, pure and simple.

The mountains of data you speak of is wormtounge whispering by domestic foes attempting to nibble away at the resolve of the administration.

---

What problem was solved in Venezuela?

The mountain of data shows that Americans, in our history, have never tolerated long commitments to foreign wars well. We tried to stay out of WWI and WW2 as long as possible. Our history is a history of isolationism and no tolerance for long commitments without significant pushback. If you don't take that into account, you tend to get voted out of office and usually replaced by the anti-war group. So again, you had better take that into account in planning if you want to actually win because the window for that opportunity is very narrow.

WW2 is about the only time we've seen continued support for a war and even then, U.S. planners took into account public opinion when planning the invasion of Japan.

Nobody is whispering in my ear. A student of American history would recognize the repeated behavior over and over again. For some reason, you seem to ignore it.

---

My lord. I'm not sure why I'm even trying to engage with you when you ask that sort of inane first question.

As for my wormtounge comment, I could care less about YOUR ear. Your mind appears to be made up. The comment was in reference to the whispers of the media and the left undermining this administration's actions in order to aggravate the wavering of support for any sort of conflict.

If you are a student of history as you say, then you should understand that succumbing to Americans' lack of tolerance results in lost wars. Whether you like it or not, Trump's rationale with Iran is to deal with a real emerging threat before it manifests. Again, people may debate the wisdom of that, but once we're in it, we better finish it.

jrdaustin said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

JWinTX said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

JWinTX said:

---

DonHenley said:

---

Nothing has changed from when this pointless war started, except the cost of gas shooting up. Trump hasn't done anything to prevent Iran from having a nuke. Huge stain on his 2nd term.

---

I mean, all he has done is bomb the hell of their facilities and put them back to ground zero for developing that nuke...what a stain--in your underwear

---

I thought we had done that when we bombed them before this current conflict?

---

I did, too, but in war, sometimes things shift. There are no absolutes, except for winning or losing. We lost in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan because we wouldn't finish the job. We allowed our opponents to use our own media against the populace to make us feel mean and colonialist and racist. When your own people won't support your military and its job, you will always lose. It's just a matter of how much you will end up losing.

We can win in Iran if we actually stay on the offensive. And my guess is that the MOU being toilet paper has shown everyone in the White House and in the military that they will be needing to bring more pain. The biggest question is will the wimpiness of the American public that we have seen in the past wars I mentioned above, will it show up again here? Because what has come out of those efforts has been atrociously bad for the US and for country we left behind.

---

But if you start a conflict without understanding that Americans rarely want to do everything it takes to "win", then that has to be part of the initial plan. If not, it's ignoring mountains of data and just "hoping". Hope is not a plan.

---

To be fair, I think the quick success in Venezuela did Trump no favors. I think he was sold an idea that a quick, beheading strike in Iran would result in much the same quick victory.

That said, once he made the decision to go in, what certain Americans "want" is precisely the wrong thing to include in our military planning. The thing about war is that it needs a strong leader to be successful. Ike learned that in WWII when he initially benched Patton before he realized that he was an indispensible asset that was needed on the battlefield. Patton didn't give a **** about what people at home thought. He was a warrior, pure and simple.

The mountains of data you speak of is wormtounge whispering by domestic foes attempting to nibble away at the resolve of the administration.

---

What problem was solved in Venezuela?

The mountain of data shows that Americans, in our history, have never tolerated long commitments to foreign wars well. We tried to stay out of WWI and WW2 as long as possible. Our history is a history of isolationism and no tolerance for long commitments without significant pushback. If you don't take that into account, you tend to get voted out of office and usually replaced by the anti-war group. So again, you had better take that into account in planning if you want to actually win because the window for that opportunity is very narrow.

WW2 is about the only time we've seen continued support for a war and even then, U.S. planners took into account public opinion when planning the invasion of Japan.

Nobody is whispering in my ear. A student of American history would recognize the repeated behavior over and over again. For some reason, you seem to ignore it.

---

My lord. I'm not sure why I'm even trying to engage with you when you ask that sort of inane first question.

As for my wormtounge comment, I could care less about YOUR ear. Your mind appears to be made up. The comment was in reference to the whispers of the media and the left undermining this administration's actions in order to aggravate the wavering of support for any sort of conflict.

If you are a student of history as you say, then you should understand that succumbing to Americans' lack of tolerance results in lost wars. Whether you like it or not, Trump's rationale with Iran is to deal with a real emerging threat before it manifests. Again, people may debate the wisdom of that, but once we're in it, we better finish it.

---

Or lost wars are caused by not understanding Americans' lack of tolerance in long foreign engagements. The views of the Americans are less likely to waver, so maybe understand how that impacts how we fight foreign wars. Or don't and put us in a position where we walk away again.

And it's "couldn't care less".

What has changed in Venezuela?

Maduro is not in charge, and the new government is more aligned with US interests.

But you knew that already. As for arguing in good faith, you aren't doing it, so we're done. Pat yourself on the back. Tell yourself you won.

jrdaustin said:

---

Maduro is not in charge, and the new government is more aligned with US interests.

But you knew that already. As for arguing in good faith, you aren't doing it, so we're done. Pat yourself on the back. Tell yourself you won.

---

It's the same system in place and the people are still being **** on. There is nothing to win in a discussion.

jrdaustin said:

---

Nope. I want us to cease tolerating their BS and either they stand down, or we eliminate anything bigger than a pop gun in the whole country. If they're beaten back to the stone age, so be it. It's not like they don't have an off ramp that they can take at any time.

We're in it now. So anything short of that will be seen as a capitulation on our end.

---

if we escalate too hard and begin hitting civilian infrastructure, they're going to respond by blowing up desalination plants across the ME. That will cause a humanitarian crisis. Also, Iran is about 2x as big as Texas, so "well just bomb everything" isn't a realistic approach.

There's a reason nobody seriously moved on Iran before now. They have the whole region by the balls.

The US can't win at a cost that the American public is willing to bear. The Iranians know that they cannot win, they just have to not completely lose. One is much easier than the other. Not losing for the Iranians is the ability to maintain a threat at the Strait of Hormuz, that is easy to do with their level of drone technology.

I think the hardest reality here is that Iran knows that they enough help from American Leftists to survive Trump, Intelligence from Israel and the US shows nuclear capability getting stronger and stronger in Iran, with a regime in place that has a strong history of terrorist attacks on Israel via proxies and their own people, as well as constantly wishing Death to America. And it's a place that hates everything about the social practices of the West and dreams of conquering the West and converting everyone to Islam, especially women they would control. And yet, somehow, journalists, actors, entertainers, and professors just soak it all in and claim the US/Western Europe/Israel/Christianity/Judaism as the real enemies.

It's a death wish for the West and Europe is already there without any hope of getting back to the cultures it had. England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium, The Netherlands--they're all either being Islamicized or will be, all due to liberalism convincing their countries to stop having kids and stop practicing Judeo/Christian faith. They have no guns to fight back.

But we do. And we will.

JWinTX said:

---

I think the hardest reality here is that Iran knows that they enough help from American Leftists to survive Trump, Intelligence from Israel and the US shows nuclear capability getting stronger and stronger in Iran, with a regime in place that has a strong history of terrorist attacks on Israel via proxies and their own people, as well as constantly wishing Death to America. And it's a place that hates everything about the social practices of the West and dreams of conquering the West and converting everyone to Islam, especially women they would control. And yet, somehow, journalists, actors, entertainers, and professors just soak it all in and claim the US/Western Europe/Israel/Christianity/Judaism as the real enemies.

It's a death wish for the West and Europe is already there without any hope of getting back to the cultures it had. England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium, The Netherlands--they're all either being Islamicized or will be, all due to liberalism convincing their countries to stop having kids and stop practicing Judeo/Christian faith. They have no guns to fight back.

But we do. And we will.

---

What does all that have to do with Trump not escalating things to where they need to be to actually get the job done?

It's not as if he's ever cared about people hating him to stop him before.

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Nope. I want us to cease tolerating their BS and either they stand down, or we eliminate anything bigger than a pop gun in the whole country. If they're beaten back to the stone age, so be it. It's not like they don't have an off ramp that they can take at any time.

We're in it now. So anything short of that will be seen as a capitulation on our end.

---

if we escalate too hard and begin hitting civilian infrastructure, they're going to respond by blowing up desalination plants across the ME. That will cause a humanitarian crisis. Also, Iran is about 2x as big as Texas, so "well just bomb everything" isn't a realistic approach.

There's a reason nobody seriously moved on Iran before now. They have the whole region by the balls.

---

Maybe not with conventional ones....but, like I said, if El Presidente wanted bigger and badder explosions there that WOULD end this ****, post-haste, I'll volunteer to push the button(s) and then go to Ruth's Chris.

But, America doesn't have the stones for that.

jrdaustin said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

But if you start a conflict without understanding that Americans rarely want to do everything it takes to "win", then that has to be part of the initial plan. If not, it's ignoring mountains of data and just "hoping". Hope is not a plan.

---

To be fair, I think the quick success in Venezuela did Trump no favors. I think he was sold an idea that a quick, beheading strike in Iran would result in much the same quick victory.

That said, once he made the decision to go in, what certain Americans "want" is precisely the wrong thing to include in our military planning. The thing about war is that it needs a strong leader to be successful. Ike learned that in WWII when he initially benched Patton before he realized that he was an indispensible asset that was needed on the battlefield. Patton didn't give a **** about what people at home thought. He was a warrior, pure and simple.

---

I don't disagree, that much is obvious. But whomever told him that should be fired for being an unintelligent dumbass.

One was a dictatorial/political leader, Iran is ruled by religious dictators in a backasswards religion.

Ne'er the twain shall meet.

It's never Trump's fault. It's always someone he hired that gave him bad information or tripped him up.

Bull Meachem said:

---

It's never Trump's fault. It's always someone he hired that gave him bad information or tripped him up.

---

Exactly. Where is Harry Truman when you need him? Buck stops here. I don't think I've ever heard Trump take responsibility or blame for anything.

New World Ag said:

---

Bull Meachem said:

---

It's never Trump's fault. It's always someone he hired that gave him bad information or tripped him up.

---

Exactly. Where is Harry Truman when you need him? Buck stops here. I don't think I've ever heard Trump take responsibility or blame for anything.

---

To what end would him taking responsibility do?

It's always been the man's personality. He may learn from his mistakes but he's not going to admit them to folks.

And after 10 years of constant news cycle on him, of you voted for him not realizing this trait about him, then you simply were not paying attention.

So for Trump, what is gained by admitting a mistake? There will not be any recognition of his "admission", it will be spun in the worst possible manners, he will not have gained a single support, and in fact he loses support for caving in to bizarre demands.

It's highly unlikely Trump is going to admit a mistake, especially doesnt think he's made one.