Trump underestimated his enemy!

Foxmeister · Sunday at 2:33 PM

Ben1445 said:
Did you read what I wrote? Even once?

I sure did. You said, "That is sarcasm," in response to the post with Trump's disgusting post from Truth Social. You also said you weren't saying he was a Christian, but trolling Iran with that post he made.

Trump has claimed many times he's a Christian. First as a Presbyterian, than as non-denominational. He claims he has a great relationship with God. Well see for yourself.

He's even said he doesn't ask God for forgiveness because he never does anything wrong.

Foxmeister · Sunday at 2:36 PM

Ben1445 said:
So I blame CENTCOM for what you call error. They clearly have the information that they don’t share with POTUS.

Really? Do you honestly believe Generals would risk their careers by holding back vital intelligence from the POTUS? If that had happened, the CENTCOM commander would have been relieved and disgraced. That didn't happen.

DaveXR650 · Sunday at 2:49 PM

Foxmeister said:
I was in military intelligence and for the last seven years, I worked specifically in regards to Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon. As more and more comes out from the news, you're learning more about Iran's capabilities with missiles and drones. Our military has known that for years. It's also no secret that N. Korea has been supplying missiles to Iran for decades. Once Iran started launching missiles at targets in other Persian Gulf countries, Trump stated he had no idea the country had that many missiles. CENTCOM knew. He stated he had no idea Iran had that many drones. CENTCOM knew. EUCOM knew Russia was manufacturing the drones that were designed by Iran. They were not only manufacturing the drones for themselves to use against Ukraine, but for Iran as well. Military leaders wouldn't hold this information back from POTUS. So yes, Trump knew and he made the decision to pull the trigger underestimating Iran's capabilities while ignoring the intel he was being provided. I know how the system works. It's with my knowledge and experience that I can make that assessment.

It seems to make just as much sense that waiting a few more years would just mean that they would have even more missiles. And it would seem that what Rubio initially said, that Israel was going to attack with or without us that we would have risked even worse retaliation from Iran when Israel did so. I don't know if you are for real or just blowing smoke. It seems everyone on the internet is either retired Navy Seal, Airborne, or CIA. Personally I was in a rather tough Boy Scout troop. But seriously, if you are for real, I would genuinely like your opinion on this. If Israel had gone alone, would Iran have still tried to attack US bases and neighboring countries as they did? Also, in your opinion, was delivering skids of cash to Iran as some previous administrations have done, a good idea. Do you think they purchased medical supplies and fertilizer with that money? You were probably active during that time and probably not free to criticize but what is your take on it now. Thanks

Ben1445 · Sunday at 2:54 PM

Foxmeister said:
I sure did. You said, "That is sarcasm," in response to the post with Trump's disgusting post from Truth Social. You also said you weren't saying he was a Christian, but trolling Iran with that post he made.

Trump has claimed many times he's a Christian. First as a Presbyterian, than as non-denominational. He claims he has a great relationship with God. Well see for yourself.

He's even said he doesn't ask God for forgiveness because he never does anything wrong.

I just said I am not saying that he is a Christian and now you are asking me to defend him.
Are you only here for the argument?
This is why people say you have TDS and/or assume you’re not a conservative.

Ben1445 · Sunday at 2:56 PM

Foxmeister said:
Really? Do you honestly believe Generals would risk their careers by holding back vital intelligence from the POTUS? If that had happened, the CENTCOM commander would have been relieved and disgraced. That didn't happen.

It’s the picture that you painted.
The Generals knew and their Commander in Chief didn’t. That means they didn’t tell him.

So you probably don’t have the whole story.

Ben1445 · Sunday at 2:57 PM

DaveXR650 said:
Personally I was in a rather tough Boy Scout troop.

I love it. :Roflmao

canadyjd · Sunday at 3:43 PM

Foxmeister said:
I was in military intelligence and for the last seven years, I worked specifically in regards to Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon. As more and more comes out from the news, you're learning more about Iran's capabilities with missiles and drones. Our military has known that for years. It's also no secret that N. Korea has been supplying missiles to Iran for decades. Once Iran started launching missiles at targets in other Persian Gulf countries, Trump stated he had no idea the country had that many missiles. CENTCOM knew. He stated he had no idea Iran had that many drones. CENTCOM knew. EUCOM knew Russia was manufacturing the drones that were designed by Iran. They were not only manufacturing the drones for themselves to use against Ukraine, but for Iran as well. Military leaders wouldn't hold this information back from POTUS. So yes, Trump knew and he made the decision to pull the trigger underestimating Iran's capabilities while ignoring the intel he was being provided. I know how the system works. It's with my knowledge and experience that I can make that assessment.

What is the source for your statement that DT stated he had “no idea” Iran had that many missiles?

What is the source for your statement that DT stated he had “no idea” Iran had that many drones?

Edit to add: A quick google search found DT has stated, during his 2nd term, before the war, Iran has far more missiles than anyone had previously thought.

So, again, you are pushing deliberate falsehoods on this board, either out of ignorance or hatred, or both.

I don’t believe anything you say, quite frankly.

Peace to you

Ascetic X · Sunday at 4:47 PM

Why on earth did Trump in 2002 choose Paula White to be his spiritual advisor? She leads the newly created White House Faith Office, having previously advised the 2016 Trump campaign and the Faith and Opportunity Initiative.

Paula White, in 24 years as his advisor, was unable to convince Trump that you do not go to heaven by good deeds…and you should not use F bombs in presidential tweets?

Threatening to commit war crimes by bombing civilian power and water infrastructures does not seem to be Christian at all.

Ending that Easter Day tweet with “Praise be to Allah”, even if sarcasm, is disturbing.

As a citizen who voted for Trump twice, some things are starting to trouble me.

mei · Sunday at 6:19 PM

The war in the Middle East has affected so much area in all countries. I am in Asia, and due to the lack of oil, we suffered greatly for market prices and our living. No transportation as before, and even for a liter of oil or diesel, we have to wait about 3-6 hours, and that is not sure we will get. Not many cars on the road, and everything is so expensive.

kyredneck · Sunday at 9:45 PM

"Trump, Hormuz and the End of the Free Ride

For half a century, Western strategists have known that the Strait of Hormuz is the acute point where energy, sea power and political will intersect. That knowledge is not in dispute. What is new in this war with Iran is that the United States, under Donald Trump, has chosen not to rush to “solve” the problem. In Hegelian terms, he is refusing an easy synthesis in order to force the underlying contradiction to the surface.

The old thesis was simple: the US guarantees open sea lanes in the Gulf, and everyone else structures their economies and politics around that free insurance. Europe and the UK embraced ambitious green policies, ran down hard‑power capabilities and lectured Washington on multilateral virtue, secure in the assumption that American carriers would always appear off Hormuz. The political class behaved as if the American security guarantee were a law of nature, not a contingent choice. Their conduct today is closer to Chamberlain than Churchill: temporising, issuing statements, hoping the storm will pass without a fundamental reordering of their responsibilities.

Trump’s antithesis is to withhold the automatic guarantee at the moment of maximum stress. Militarily, the US can break Iran’s residual ability to contest the Strait; that is not the binding constraint. The point is to delay that act. By allowing a closure or semi‑closure to bite, Trump ensures that the immediate pain is concentrated in exactly the jurisdictions that have most conspicuously free‑ridden on US power: the EU and the UK. Their industries, consumers and energy‑transition assumptions are exposed.

In that context, his reported blunt message to European and British leaders, you need the oil out of the Strait more than we do; why don’t you go and take it? Is not a throwaway line. It is the verbalisation of the antithesis. It openly reverses the traditional presumption that America will carry the burden while its allies emote from the sidelines.

In this dialectic, the prize is not simply the reopening of a chokepoint. The prize is a reordered system in which the United States effectively arbitrages and controls the global flow of oil. A world in which US‑aligned production in the Americas plus a discretionary capability to secure,or not secure, Hormuz places Washington at the centre of the hydrocarbon chessboard. For that strategic end, a rapid restoration of the old status quo would be counterproductive.

A quick, surgical “fix” of Hormuz would short‑circuit the dialectic. If Trump rapidly crushed Iran’s remaining coastal capabilities, swept the mines and escorted tankers back through the Strait, Europe and the UK would heave a sigh of relief and return to business as usual: underfunded militaries, maximalist green posturing and performative disdain for US power, all underwritten by that same power. The contradiction between their dependence and their posture would remain latent.

By declining to supply the synthesis on demand, and by explicitly telling London and Brussels to “go and take it” themselves, Trump forces a reckoning. European and British leaders must confront the fact that their energy systems, their industrial bases and their geopolitical sermons all rest on an American hard‑power foundation they neither finance nor politically respect. The longer the contradiction is allowed to unfold, the stronger the eventual synthesis can be: a new order in which access to secure flows, Hormuz, Venezuela and beyond, is explicitly conditional on real contributions, not assumed as a right.

In that sense, the delay in “taking” the Strait, and the challenge issued to US allies to do it themselves, is not indecision. It is the negative moment Hegel insisted was necessary for history to move. Only by withholding the old guarantee, and by saying so out loud to those who depended on it, can Trump hope to end the free ride."

Ascetic X · Sunday at 10:02 PM

kyredneck said:
In that sense, the delay in “taking” the Strait, and the challenge issued to US allies to do it themselves, is not indecision. It is the negative moment Hegel insisted was necessary for history to move. Only by withholding the old guarantee, and by saying so out loud to those who depended on it, can Trump hope to end the free ride."

Then why did Trump demand angrily “open the f***in strait you crazy b*stards” today in his Easter tweet? It seems like the problem is disturbing him rather hysterically. I am worried about his mind now.

kyredneck · Sunday at 10:29 PM

Time for Europe to Defend Itself

"....After cutting off oil production in the North Sea in the name of “climate change” and banning Russian energy supplies in the name of “democracy,” Europe depends quite a bit on Middle Eastern oil to stave off economic death. However, Europe is also right now transitioning from a Western to an Islamic civilization. Europe’s political elites are so afraid of Islamic immigrants that they would rather permit them to rape their youngest daughters than cause a scene. They certainly can’t be seen going to war against an Islamic country! Wealthy Europeans don’t mind sacrificing the continent’s peasants to mass slaughter, but they have no interest in seeing a scimitar up close themselves. Yes, yes, best to wear the white feather of cowardice as if it were a symbol of European principle. America’s courageous cowboys will surely save Old Europe from itself!

Except…maybe not this time. President Trump is not happy that our so-called NATO “allies” have refused to support America’s mission in Iran. U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer says, “This is not our war. We will not be drawn into the conflict.” Starmer wants to decouple from the U.S. and rejoin the E.U. France, Spain, Italy, and the U.K. have now denied the U.S. military permission to use European bases or airspace. Europe’s NATO members collectively insist that Iran is not NATO’s concern.

To which President Trump has appropriately pointed out that Ukraine is not a NATO member and therefore not America’s concern. Both the president and Secretary of State Rubio believe that if European members of NATO cannot be persuaded to protect their own economic interests in the Strait of Hormuz, then it is time for the U.S. to reconsider its NATO commitments to European security. “Allies” in name only aren’t really allies at all. For those of us tired of Europe’s crusty aristocracy leeching off of American military muscle while habitually grousing, the possibility of cutting off the Old World’s freeloaders is pleasant news. Americans shouldn’t fight for a continent that has no interest in defending itself."

canadyjd · Sunday at 10:32 PM

Ascetic X said:
Then why did Trump demand angrily “open the f***in strait you crazy b*stards” today in his Easter tweet? It seems like the problem is disturbing him rather hysterically. I am worried about his mind now.

It’s his way of negotiating. He’s making threats and taunting the enemy. Every country does it. DT does it rather crudely.

It’s all calculated, imo.

Peace to you

kyredneck · Sunday at 10:32 PM

Ascetic X said:
Then why did Trump demand angrily “open the f***in strait you crazy b*stards” today in his Easter tweet? It seems like the problem is disturbing him rather hysterically. I am worried about his mind now.

Lol, I won't sleep over eight hours tonight worrying about his mental state, He's the very same Trump we voted for back in 2016.

Foxmeister · Sunday at 10:38 PM

DaveXR650 said:
It seems to make just as much sense that waiting a few more years would just mean that they would have even more missiles. And it would seem that what Rubio initially said, that Israel was going to attack with or without us that we would have risked even worse retaliation from Iran when Israel did so. I don't know if you are for real or just blowing smoke. It seems everyone on the internet is either retired Navy Seal, Airborne, or CIA. Personally I was in a rather tough Boy Scout troop. But seriously, if you are for real, I would genuinely like your opinion on this. If Israel had gone alone, would Iran have still tried to attack US bases and neighboring countries as they did? Also, in your opinion, was delivering skids of cash to Iran as some previous administrations have done, a good idea. Do you think they purchased medical supplies and fertilizer with that money? You were probably active during that time and probably not free to criticize but what is your take on it now. Thanks

On April 1, 2024, an Israeli airstrike an Israeli airstrike destroyed the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria, killing several high-ranking IRGC officials, including General Mohammad Reza Zahedi.
On April 13-14, Iran launched over 300 drones and missiles directly from Iranian soil at Israel. Nearly all were intercepted by Israel and a U.S.-led coalition.
April 19, 2024, Israel responded with a limited strike on an air defense radar site near Isfahan, signaling its ability to hit sensitive Iranian military targets.
July 31, 2024, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh was assassinated by Israeli agents in Tehran with a bomb while attending the inauguration of Iran's president.
October 1, 2024, Iran launched approximately 180–200 ballistic missiles at Israel in retaliation for the killings of Haniyeh and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. Some missiles struck military and residential areas.
October 26, 2024, Israel conducted its first officially acknowledged direct strike on Iran, targeting air defense systems and missile production facilities in three provinces.
June 13, 2025, Israel launched Operation Rising Lion, a massive wave of airstrikes targeting dozens of Iranian nuclear facilities (including Natanz and Fordow) and military infrastructure.
June 13–24, 2025, Iran retaliated with nightly barrages involving over 550 ballistic missiles and 1,000 drones, hitting civilian population centers and military sites across Israel.

None of the attacks Iran made were against any other country other than Israel. It wasn't until the more recent attacks that included the US did Iran start launching missiles at neighboring countries. Most of the targets in those countries were the bases with US military personnel. Other targets in those countries were infrastructure related to oil.

My assessment in answer to your question is Iran would most likely have stuck to attacking Israeli targets and not other countries.

Regarding the cash Obama sent Iran - that was a bad idea. That money was most likely used to fund Hamas, Hezbollah, and purchase more arms from N. Korea.

Foxmeister · Sunday at 11:14 PM

canadyjd said:
What is the source for your statement that DT stated he had “no idea” Iran had that many missiles?

What is the source for your statement that DT stated he had “no idea” Iran had that many drones?

Edit to add: A quick google search found DT has stated, during his 2nd term, before the war, Iran has far more missiles than anyone had previously thought.

So, again, you are pushing deliberate falsehoods on this board, either out of ignorance or hatred, or both.

I don’t believe anything you say, quite frankly.

Peace to you

News articles. Do you ever read them?

Foxmeister · Sunday at 11:28 PM

kyredneck said:
Time for Europe to Defend Itself

"....After cutting off oil production in the North Sea in the name of “climate change” and banning Russian energy supplies in the name of “democracy,” Europe depends quite a bit on Middle Eastern oil to stave off economic death. However, Europe is also right now transitioning from a Western to an Islamic civilization. Europe’s political elites are so afraid of Islamic immigrants that they would rather permit them to rape their youngest daughters than cause a scene. They certainly can’t be seen going to war against an Islamic country! Wealthy Europeans don’t mind sacrificing the continent’s peasants to mass slaughter, but they have no interest in seeing a scimitar up close themselves. Yes, yes, best to wear the white feather of cowardice as if it were a symbol of European principle. America’s courageous cowboys will surely save Old Europe from itself!

Except…maybe not this time. President Trump is not happy that our so-called NATO “allies” have refused to support America’s mission in Iran. U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer says, “This is not our war. We will not be drawn into the conflict.” Starmer wants to decouple from the U.S. and rejoin the E.U. France, Spain, Italy, and the U.K. have now denied the U.S. military permission to use European bases or airspace. Europe’s NATO members collectively insist that Iran is not NATO’s concern.

To which President Trump has appropriately pointed out that Ukraine is not a NATO member and therefore not America’s concern. Both the president and Secretary of State Rubio believe that if European members of NATO cannot be persuaded to protect their own economic interests in the Strait of Hormuz, then it is time for the U.S. to reconsider its NATO commitments to European security. “Allies” in name only aren’t really allies at all. For those of us tired of Europe’s crusty aristocracy leeching off of American military muscle while habitually grousing, the possibility of cutting off the Old World’s freeloaders is pleasant news. Americans shouldn’t fight for a continent that has no interest in defending itself."

NATO was established in 1949 to provide a collective security against the growing threat of the USSR's expansion into other countries. NATO remained intact following the fall of the USSR because Russia could not be trusted. That's still its mission today. Perhaps it would have been in Trump's best interested to have gone to NATO first before assuming they would commit their military assets after he began the attacks on Iran.

xlsdraw · 2026-04-06T05:51:39-0500

Foxmeister said:
NATO was established in 1949 to provide a collective security against the growing threat of the USSR's expansion into other countries. NATO remained intact following the fall of the USSR because Russia could not be trusted. That's still its mission today. Perhaps it would have been in Trump's best interested to have gone to NATO first before assuming they would commit their military assets after he began the attacks on Iran.

You've already acknowledged, at least to some degree, that the Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39 Gog-Magog Alliance of nations are already working together. It's not just Iran versus Israel, and it hasn't been so for decades.

The American military is not immune from the Sovereignty of God. And like it or not, Israel is and will continue to be, the apple of God's eye.

The intent of the Gog-Magog Alliance of nations is pure evil and they shall be dealt with exactly as prophesied.

America is not the destroyer of the Gog-Magog Alliance of nations. God is. America will not be glorified, God will. The American military will only do what God orders.

canadyjd · 2026-04-06T11:01:14-0500

Foxmeister said:
News articles. Do you ever read them?

A quick google search disproves your claims that DT said he had no idea Iran had so many missiles and drones.

Do you know how to google search? It uses a fancy new invention called the internet. You should try it sometime. Oh wait, you are already online, aren’t you? Hummm, maybe you are simply willfully ignorant.

You must be getting your news from unreliable sources.

You should learn to research claims you see before you regurgitate them online so you don’t look like you are just making things up.

Do you know how to research for primary source material?

Peace to you

DaveXR650 · 2026-04-06T12:59:23-0500

Foxmeister said:
My assessment in answer to your question is Iran would most likely have stuck to attacking Israeli targets and not other countries.

Thanks. I was wondering about that. If we had not struck first, in your opinion would Israel have then suffered much worse or even catastrophic damage if the only first strike damage to Iran would have been from Israel herself?

Trump underestimated his enemy!

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Time for Europe to Defend Itself​

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Member

Time for Europe to Defend Itself​

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Time for Europe to Defend Itself

Time for Europe to Defend Itself