This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Anybody actually believe this hogwash?

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-cocked-loaded-for-iran-strike-called-it-off-with-10-minutes-to-spare-140408156.html

I know Trump thinks his base is stupid. I know he's justified for thinking that, too -- they're dumb as hammered shit and they keep proving it. Anybody who's left on that train is barreling straight toward Stupidlyville with their pants on backward and pie in their hair, making hooting noises. But, wow, this is a new one he's running by 'em:

We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, not........proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone.

First, it's "sites," fuckwit. Rolling Eyes How I hate that the rest of the world can read this dullard.

Now, to the obvious: I'm glad the attack was called off, for whatever reason. There shouldn't have been an attack in the first place, not for a drone - you don't escalate things to kill-offs until other options have exhausted themselves, especially when you're the far stronger party in the conflict. And I'm glad that he realizes that it would not be a proportionate or appropriate response, even if it's only in the confines of a fantasy scenario he's concocted to wag his trained dogs.

But come onnnnnn, son, no one with even a basic played-in-the-sandbox-with-army-men knowledge of how military strikes are planned is going to believe a Commander-In-Chief called off a strike in the last ten minutes because, waitaminute, you mean there might be casualties? Oopsie! That is just a hatful of shit, there, folks, so don't wear it.

Trump has a very cynical regard for everyone's intelligence if he expects such a ridiculous story to sail. Potential casualties are one of the first things taken into account in any strike at a target, especially one in a country with whom we are not yet at war. Nothing escalates a tense situation like a body count, and there's no way such a thing would be an "afterthought." Even Trump is not that stupid... although, apparently, he thinks his base is, feeding them this hogwash. And it's not even good hogwash. I know it's hard to get into putting much effort into making out scenarios for people who want to be lied to, but there really has to be a limit, just out of courtesy, to help them pretend the guy pissin' on 'em doesn't regard them as a bunch of hilarious flipperheads. I have no idea why they put up with being treated the way he treats them, other than they're a cult, really don't have much pride, and will happily be doormats because Jesus and "but-Obama." Trump's insulting them to their face with this junk and they're just sucking their thumbs and nodding.

Give Bomber by Len Deighton a read if you want a glimpse of the kind of intense planning that goes into any military operation. That book'll wear you out with the logistics, meteorological reports, navigational plans, casualty estimates, etc. long before the planes ever leave the tarmac... and it's about a bombing raid when WWII was already at its hottest. Or if that one's too slow for you, go for The Dogs Of War by Frederic Forsyth -- 440 pages of planning, leading up to 20 pages of bang-bang.

Sorry, but there just ain't no goddamn way the Generals didn't inform Trump of potential casualties, especially as an afterthought ten minutes before the strike. I don't know why Trump even wants to try to tell such a ridiculous story, because if it were true it would mean he's absolutely incompetent to be in charge of a military... or that he's a posturing poser whose threats can't be taken seriously. Neither one is good, at all.

Also, it's reported that Trump told the Iranians the planes were coming. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-iran-usa-oman-exclusive/exclusive-trump-warned-iran-via-oman-that-u-s-attack-was-imminent-called-for-talks-iranian-officials-idUSKCN1TM0UZ Again, this is so idiotic that it's mindboggling.

If it's scenario (A) - a serious attack -- then telling the enemy in advance is... well, I don't really have to explain why that's stupid, right? It not only gives the enemy time to intercept you and kill your pilots, it allows them time to clear anyone and anything important away from likely targets. Absolutely nothing you want to happen will be achieved by cluing your enemy in on your plans.

More likely it's an admission that it's scenario (B) - some posturing bullshit that ain't gonna happen, which only makes us look stupid and un-serious, and weak. We ain't weak. Well, except for our "leadership."

Anyway, anybody who's not insulted by the whole thing, DM me, I've got some magic beans to sell ya.


View user profile
zsomething wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-cocked-loaded-for-iran-strike-called-it-off-with-10-minutes-to-spare-140408156.html

I know Trump thinks his base is stupid.  I know he's justified for thinking that, too -- they're dumb as hammered shit and they keep proving it.  Anybody who's left on that train is barreling straight toward Stupidlyville with their pants on backward and pie in their hair, making hooting noises.  But, wow, this is a new one he's running by 'em:

We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, not........proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone.

First, it's "sites," fuckwit.  Rolling Eyes  How I hate that the rest of the world can read this dullard.

Now, to the obvious: I'm glad the attack was called off, for whatever reason.   There shouldn't have been an attack in the first place, not for a drone - you don't escalate things to kill-offs until other options have exhausted themselves, especially when you're the far stronger party in the conflict.  And I'm glad that he realizes that it would not be a proportionate or appropriate response, even if it's only in the confines of a fantasy scenario he's concocted to wag his trained dogs.

But come onnnnnn, son, no one with even a basic played-in-the-sandbox-with-army-men knowledge of how military strikes are planned is going to believe a Commander-In-Chief called off a strike in the last ten minutes because, waitaminute, you mean there might be casualties?  Oopsie!  That is just a hatful of shit, there, folks, so don't wear it.

Trump has a very cynical regard for everyone's intelligence if he expects such a ridiculous story to sail.  Potential casualties are one of the first things taken into account in any strike at a target, especially one in a country with whom we are not yet at war.  Nothing escalates a tense situation like a body count, and there's no way such a thing would be an "afterthought."  Even Trump is not that stupid... although, apparently, he thinks his base is, feeding them this hogwash.  And it's not even good hogwash.  I know it's hard to get into putting much effort into making out scenarios for people who want to be lied to, but there really has to be a limit, just out of courtesy, to help them pretend the guy pissin' on 'em doesn't regard them as a bunch of hilarious flipperheads.   I have no idea why they put up with being treated the way he treats them, other than they're a cult, really don't have much pride, and will happily be doormats because Jesus and "but-Obama."   Trump's insulting them to their face with this junk and they're just sucking their thumbs and nodding.

Give Bomber by Len Deighton a read if you want a glimpse of the kind of intense planning that goes into any military operation.  That book'll wear you out with the logistics, meteorological reports, navigational plans, casualty estimates, etc. long before the planes ever leave the tarmac... and it's about a bombing raid when WWII was already at its hottest.  Or if that one's too slow for you, go for The Dogs Of War by Frederic Forsyth -- 440 pages of planning, leading up to 20 pages of bang-bang.

Sorry, but there just ain't no goddamn way the Generals didn't inform Trump of potential casualties, especially as an afterthought ten minutes before the strike.  I don't know why Trump even wants to try to tell such a ridiculous story, because if it were true it would mean he's absolutely incompetent to be in charge of a military... or that he's a posturing poser whose threats can't be taken seriously.  Neither one is good, at all.

Also, it's reported that Trump told the Iranians the planes were coming.  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-iran-usa-oman-exclusive/exclusive-trump-warned-iran-via-oman-that-u-s-attack-was-imminent-called-for-talks-iranian-officials-idUSKCN1TM0UZ   Again, this is so idiotic that it's mindboggling.  

If it's scenario (A) - a serious attack -- then telling the enemy in advance is... well, I don't really have to explain why that's stupid, right?  It not only gives the enemy time to intercept you and kill your pilots, it allows them time to clear anyone and anything important away from likely targets.  Absolutely nothing you want to happen will be achieved by cluing your enemy in on your plans.  

More likely it's an admission that it's scenario (B) - some posturing bullshit that ain't gonna happen, which only makes us look stupid and un-serious, and weak.   We ain't weak.  Well, except for our "leadership."

Anyway, anybody who's not insulted by the whole thing, DM me, I've got some magic beans to sell ya.






Real Americans were insulted when he announced he was running.


Anybody actually believe this hogwash? Trump_22

View user profile
He apparently didn't get much of an education in spelling or grammar in that military school.
I don't know whether to believe the story or not. I can almost believe that John Bolton had the guys ready to strike before even telling him. I don't think they tell him half of what they do.
If he had a moment of lucidity and realized it was a bad idea at the last minute, I can almost believe it.

But then, it's Trump. We may never know.

View user profile
We know a couple of things. Iran knows he'll hit back... the world knows he can exercise restraint.

Win/win/results unknown

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:    Anybody actually believe this hogwash? Pkr_tu13

View user profile
Meanwhile... this is pretty accurate.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-top-us-diplomat-deplores-policy-toward-iran-untethered-to-any-coherent-strategy-170551239.html

President Trump seriously miscalculated when he scrapped the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal, embarking on a policy “untethered to any coherent strategy,” according to a scathing assessment by William Burns, the former U.S. diplomat who negotiated the nuclear agreement. Burns said the move was certain to embolden hard-liners in Tehran and contribute to military tensions in a way that will backfire against the U.S. — which was already happening this week, as news broke that Iran had shot down an American military drone.

“We’re worse off today as a result of bailing out” of the nuclear deal, Burns, former deputy secretary of state under President Obama and now president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said in an interview for the Yahoo News podcast “Skullduggery.”

“And if our goal is regime change, we’re worse off today too because in a sense we’re playing the game of hard-liners in the regime in Tehran, whose grip on power is probably even stronger.”

If you know anything about Iran at all, it's that their people do not like their government, and they want better relations with the U.S. Trump pulling out of that thing (just to show off how un-Obama-like he could be for his stupid cultists) only gave their hated government back the role of "protector." It was a stupid move on Trump's part and showed no tactical knowledge or intelligence about the situation in the region at all.

You wanna take over Iran? Open it up to WalMart and Starbucks. Their people want our culture. Hell, there are people risking death there to paint the Slayer logo on walls. Their desire for good relations with the U.S. was a wedge between the people and their government. Trump stupidly removed that wedge.


Instead, Burns observed, the Trump administration now seems to be at war with itself.

“That’s the incoherent part,” he said. “You know, what [national security adviser] John Bolton has stood for for many years, what I think Secretary [of State Mike] Pompeo clearly supports, is a set of aims that’s aimed more at either the capitulation of the Iranian regime or its implosion. I don't think either of those are realistic goals for policy. So what happens when you’re standing on that incoherent strategic terrain is your allies start to lose faith. … And your adversaries, in this case Iran, are prone to miscalculation because they’re going to assume the worst about our policy, that it’s aimed at regime change.”

Trump's getting puppeted into a war while he doesn't even have a Secretary of Defense. Who the fuck does that?

Trump's done nothing. He's showed he won't actually hit back, or do anything... he just flakes out and waffles and makes shit up. Nobody can take him seriously. That's the entire point.

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:We know a couple of things. Iran knows he'll hit back... the world knows he can exercise restraint.

Win/win/results unknown


Well, if it really happened, it was a good thing that happened.
If it was a lie, it was a good story to tell the world and slightly reassuring to Americans.

So, a successful political move on Trump's part.
I have to give the devil his due on this one.

But he may, very well, still be the anti-Christ. Twisted Evil



Last edited by bigdog on 6/21/2019, 5:46 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile
zsomething wrote:Meanwhile...  this is pretty accurate.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-top-us-diplomat-deplores-policy-toward-iran-untethered-to-any-coherent-strategy-170551239.html

President Trump seriously miscalculated when he scrapped the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal, embarking on a policy “untethered to any coherent strategy,” according to a scathing assessment by William Burns, the former U.S. diplomat who negotiated the nuclear agreement. Burns said the move was certain to embolden hard-liners in Tehran and contribute to military tensions in a way that will backfire against the U.S. — which was already happening this week, as news broke that Iran had shot down an American military drone.

“We’re worse off today as a result of bailing out” of the nuclear deal, Burns, former deputy secretary of state under President Obama and now president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said in an interview for the Yahoo News podcast “Skullduggery.”

“And if our goal is regime change, we’re worse off today too because in a sense we’re playing the game of hard-liners in the regime in Tehran, whose grip on power is probably even stronger.”

If you know anything about Iran at all, it's that their people do not like their government, and they want better relations with the U.S.   Trump pulling out of that thing (just to show off how un-Obama-like he could be for his stupid cultists) only gave their hated government back the role of "protector."  It was a stupid move on Trump's part and showed no tactical knowledge or intelligence about the situation in the region at all.

You wanna take over Iran?  Open it up to WalMart and Starbucks.  Their people want our culture.  Hell, there are people risking death there to paint the Slayer logo on walls.  Their desire for good relations with the U.S. was a wedge between the people and their government.  Trump stupidly removed that wedge.


Instead, Burns observed, the Trump administration now seems to be at war with itself.

“That’s the incoherent part,” he said. “You know, what [national security adviser] John Bolton has stood for for many years, what I think Secretary [of State Mike] Pompeo clearly supports, is a set of aims that’s aimed more at either the capitulation of the Iranian regime or its implosion. I don't think either of those are realistic goals for policy. So what happens when you’re standing on that incoherent strategic terrain is your allies start to lose faith. … And your adversaries, in this case Iran, are prone to miscalculation because they’re going to assume the worst about our policy, that it’s aimed at regime change.”

Trump's getting puppeted into a war while he doesn't even have a Secretary of Defense.  Who the fuck does that?

Trump's done nothing.  He's showed he won't actually hit back, or do anything... he just flakes out and waffles and makes shit up.  Nobody can take him seriously.  That's the entire point.





Right! He talks tough and does nothing. Makes his base happy and the numb-nutters who swear they are against him but we all know they are for him, happy. Twisted Evil

View user profile
bigdog wrote:
PkrBum wrote:We know a couple of things. Iran knows he'll hit back... the world knows he can exercise restraint.

Win/win/results unknown


Well, if it really happened, it was a good thing that happened.
If it was a lie, it was a good story to tell the world and slightly reassuring to Americans.

So, a successful political move on Trump's part.
I have to give the devil his due on this one.

But he may, very well, still be the anti-Christ. Twisted Evil

Lol... I doubt that the antichrist would say as many stupid things. I still think he's a clown. i wish a decent libertarian would challenge him. But realistically that wouldn't stand a chance. But i still won't vote for him. I decided not to vote republican after bush2's first term... broke that to vote for McCain against Obama. I regret that now... but it was really just a vote against a rookie congressman with no executive experience of any kind. It would take a true conservative/libertarian before I'd compromise again.

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:

Lol... I doubt that the antichrist would say as many stupid things. I still think he's a clown. i wish a decent libertarian would challenge him. But realistically that wouldn't stand a chance. But i still won't vote for him. I decided not to vote republican after bush2's first term... broke that to vote for McCain against Obama. I regret that now... but it was really just a vote against a rookie congressman with no executive experience of any kind. It would take a true conservative/libertarian before I'd compromise again.

I hope you at least had the decency to remove your MAGA hat before you typed that hogwash.

View user profile
Sal wrote:
PkrBum wrote:

Lol... I doubt that the antichrist would say as many stupid things. I still think he's a clown. i wish a decent libertarian would challenge him. But realistically that wouldn't stand a chance. But i still won't vote for him. I decided not to vote republican after bush2's first term... broke that to vote for McCain against Obama. I regret that now... but it was really just a vote against a rookie congressman with no executive experience of any kind. It would take a true conservative/libertarian before I'd compromise again.

I hope you at least had the decency to remove your MAGA hat before you typed that hogwash.

I've never owned one. You on the other hand probably own "Rules for Radicals" and the works of Marx.

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:
Sal wrote:
PkrBum wrote:

Lol... I doubt that the antichrist would say as many stupid things. I still think he's a clown. i wish a decent libertarian would challenge him. But realistically that wouldn't stand a chance. But i still won't vote for him. I decided not to vote republican after bush2's first term... broke that to vote for McCain against Obama. I regret that now... but it was really just a vote against a rookie congressman with no executive experience of any kind. It would take a true conservative/libertarian before I'd compromise again.

I hope you at least had the decency to remove your MAGA hat before you typed that hogwash.

Anybody actually believe this hogwash? Brands13

View user profile

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum