Trump underestimated his enemy!

Foxmeister said:

News articles. Do you ever read them?

Click to expand...

@Foxmeister

Are you going to produce your news sources to support your claim that DT said he had no idea Iran had so many missiles and drones?

Or…. Just say you misspoke, misunderstood, or just plain got it wrong and let’s move on.

It’s important because folks come on this board and attack our POTUS with statements that are untrue.

There is plenty to criticize DT on without false information.

Additionally, your service in military intelligence should make you fully aware of the importance of accurate information, without bias, that is supported by facts, not speculation on how you think someone will act or what you imagine they are saying to their subject matter experts

Peace to you

Good news!!! Cease fire!!!

Hopefully optimistic this will be the beginning of the end of this war!!!

Despite those spewing hyperbolic misinformation, it appears DT has once again been proven right.

Should this hold, Iran will be better off, the Middle East will be safer, and DT will continue to be vilified by all the haters who would rather have the world burn than DT get credit for being right.

Peace to you

canadyjd said:

@Foxmeister

Are you going to produce your news sources to support your claim that DT said he had no idea Iran had so many missiles and drones?

Or…. Just say you misspoke, misunderstood, or just plain got it wrong and let’s move on.

It’s important because folks come on this board and attack our POTUS with statements that are untrue.

There is plenty to criticize DT on without false information.

Additionally, your service in military intelligence should make you fully aware of the importance of accurate information, without bias, that is supported by facts, not speculation on how you think someone will act or what you imagine they are saying to their subject matter experts

Peace to you

Click to expand...

This news conference was four weeks ago. Go to the 17:50 mark. He's reminded he said this war would be over soon. He states here it will be over very soon. 21:48 he states we wiped Iran out in the first two days, yet to this day the war is not over. He also states their missiles are wiped out, yet they have still been launching them. 23:42 he goes into how Iran was only weeks away from having a nuclear weapon, yet, following the attacks on their three nuclear sites he said it would take them years before they could resume developing them. Was he lying when he said that or was he lying in this press conference?

More about missiles:

This from another thread for perspective.

And the reason that there are still Iranian people who are resisting is because the purpose is not to wipe the country off the map.
There is a marked difference between previous people who have said things like this war in Ukraine will probably last for twenty years and we’ll finish this up in weeks.

I would much rather have someone who plans to finish the job quickly and go longer than planned, than to have someone plan for twenty years and go longer than planned.

Martin Marprelate said:

He should have thought about how to keep the straits open before he went to war. He's just playing catch-up now.
He should have realised the fanaticism of the Iran regime when it slaughtered thousands of its own people back in January. And by assassinating the Iranian leaders, Trump ends up not knowing whom to negotiate with.

Click to expand...

That is a two edged political sword (the alternative would be to continue doing business, as the EU has, with a regime that slaughters thousands of its citizens).

Personally, I would be in favor of the US using her own oil and let nations who cannot produce what their nation needs fen for themselves (but this is problematic for maintaining profit margins and refineraries would have to shift in refining "sweet oil").

DaveXR650 said:

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?

Click to expand...

If you recall, Israel struck Iran before we we did. Iran retaliated by only striking Israel. Israel's Iron Dome was pretty effective in taking out Iran's missiles - well the majority of them, as a few did get past. With the number of missiles and drones Iran had, the attacks could have been worse. I think they retaliated in a manner to keep the US out of it.

Foxmeister said:

This news conference was four weeks ago. Go to the 17:50 mark. He's reminded he said this war would be over soon. He states here it will be over very soon. 21:48 he states we wiped Iran out in the first two days, yet to this day the war is not over. He also states their missiles are wiped out, yet they have still been launching them. 23:42 he goes into how Iran was only weeks away from having a nuclear weapon, yet, following the attacks on their three nuclear sites he said it would take them years before they could resume developing them. Was he lying when he said that or was he lying in this press conference?

More about missiles:

Trump claims Iran or ‘somebody else’ could have carried out deadly school strike

President makes evidence-free claim despite video showing US Tomahawk missile hit naval base next to school

www.theguardian.com

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trump-was-warned-likely-iranian-retaliation-gulf-allies-sources-say-2026-03-17/

Click to expand...

I didn’t see anything about DT claiming he had no idea Iran had so many missiles and drones. Did I miss it was it in this report? I couldn’t find it. I couldn’t find a video news conference, either, just a reporter making claims about what was said

That was your original accusation, along with him ignoring his subject matter experts.

Like I said, there is plenty to criticize without making things up.

Please find a link to your news source where DT claimed he had no idea Iran had so many missies and drones.

Peace to you

JonC said:

That is a two edged political sword (the alternative would be to continue doing business, as the EU has, with a regime that slaughters thousands of its citizens).

Personally, I would be in favor of the US using her own oil and let nations who cannot produce what their nation needs fen for themselves (but this is problematic for maintaining profit margins and refineraries would have to shift in refining "sweet oil").

Click to expand...

35% of the oil our country uses is imported. 8-10% of it comes from the Middle East. 50% of our imported oil comes from Canada. The US exports on average 10 million barrels a day. In order for the US to be completely independent of foreign oil, we would have to cease most exports, make significant alterations to our refinery infrastructure, and increase our oil production. This would quickly result in a global recession as 30% of the worlds' oil comes from the Persian Gulf countries.

Foxmeister said:

35% of the oil our country uses is imported. 8-10% of it comes from the Middle East. 50% of our imported oil comes from Canada. The US exports on average 10 million barrels a day. In order for the US to be completely independent of foreign oil, we would have to cease most exports, make significant alterations to our refinery infrastructure, and increase our oil production. This would quickly result in a global recession as 30% of the worlds' oil comes from the Persian Gulf countries.

Click to expand...

Currently we are a net exporter of oil. But we export "sweet" oil and import "sour" oil. The US can refine sour oil.

But yes, for the US to be independent we would have to cease exports, which would cause prices to rize significantly not only to meet profit margins but also to account for shifting to "sweet" oil. And then there is infrastructure.

The US produces about 22% of the world's oil.

It is not possible to be self sustaining in the near future.

However, the Americas may be a different story. The US could produce much more than it does. Couple that with other American nations. You still have to work on infrastructure, but isolating the Americas economically would not be a bad thing in the long run.

My preference would be to withdraw from the UN and NATO (it is not adventatious to the US) and strengthen relationships in the Americas.

Several nations, like the UK, has been on life support for a few decades. Pull the plug. Prolonging the enivatable is too costly and really just passes the buck to the next generation.

JonC said:

Currently we are a net exporter of oil. But we export "sweet" oil and import "sour" oil. The US can refine sour oil.

But yes, for the US to be independent we would have to cease exports, which would cause prices to rize significantly not only to meet profit margins but also to account for shifting to "sweet" oil. And then there is infrastructure.

The US produces about 22% of the world's oil.

It is not possible to be self sustaining in the near future.

However, the Americas may be a different story. The US could produce much more than it does. Couple that with other American nations. You still have to work on infrastructure, but isolating the Americas economically would not be a bad thing in the long run.

My preference would be to withdraw from the UN and NATO (it is not adventatious to the US) and strengthen relationships in the Americas.

Several nations, like the UK, has been on life support for a few decades. Pull the plug. Prolonging the enivatable is too costly and really just passes the buck to the next generation.

Click to expand...

Are you referring to isolationism that focuses on self-reliance, non-intervention, and national sovereignty, aiming to avoid foreign risks?

@Foxmeister

I’m still waiting for you to provide those news stories where POTUS said he had no idea Iran had so many missiles and drones.

Peace to you

Foxmeister said:

Are you referring to isolationism that focuses on self-reliance, non-intervention, and national sovereignty, aiming to avoid foreign risks?

Click to expand...

Pretty much. Mostly self-reliance and national sovereignty. Intervention only when in direct domestic interests (intervention may become a necessity for the the other two).

Not really aiming to avoid foreign risks but to focus on national interests.

NATO and UN participation is a US intrest, however when weighed with cost to benefit it is not (IMHO) a national benefit. I believe cost to return needs to be weighed.

I do not see much being accomplished by NATO or the UN.

Ascetic X said:

I do not see much being accomplished by NATO or the UN.

Click to expand...

At one time we had more common goals. Now, not so much. Other nations benefit from NATO and the UN. It supplements their defense and provides a level of security.

I think both orginations should continue, just without us. We would benefit more from an alience within the Americas.

JonC said:

At one time we had more common goals. Now, not so much. Other nations benefit from NATI and the UN. It supplements their defense and provides a level of security.

I think both orginations should continue, just without us. We would benefit more from an alience within the Americas.

Click to expand...

War profiteers and arms manufacturers like to see the USA getting involved in combat all over the place.

Ascetic X said:

War profiteers and arms manufacturers like to see the USA getting involved in combat all over the place.

Click to expand...

They do. And so does other nations that may benefit from such conflicts while sparing expense/ risk themselves.

Ascetic X said:

War profiteers and arms manufacturers like to see the USA getting involved in combat all over the place.

Click to expand...

JonC said:

They do. And so does other nations that may benefit from such conflicts while sparing expense/ risk themselves.

Click to expand...

Eisenhower warned us.

Jefferson created the Marine Corp, because Islamic pirates were charging us tribute. After paying the pirates still pirated our merchant ships because every tribe wanted a piece of the action. The cost of this operation is nothing compared to the fight against terrorism by Iranian sponsored terrorism. I don't believe Trump "underestimated" or wasn't prepared. Fact is we don't rely on that strait, and those that do ought to be compelled to secure the merchant passageway. We're just reloading for when the Iranians are done in their attempts to deceive us further.

For the love Pete, we should of dropped "The bomb" the first day. How can anybody deceive themselves to the point to deny that the Iranians are not going to use the weapons grade uranium they boast about possessing! Oh wait, the Lib/Dems will because they're tyrants and domestic enemies of America. Like Iran there is no limit to their depravity and the only naiveness is to expect any limitations of how evil those people are.

Moderates and pacifist (insignificant) or red letter Christians ought to rip out the OT and Revelation. G-d ordained government to use the sword, for both a stumbling block and to seek out evil. The Iranians were so sure it was going to bridge and power plant day. Our Intelligence learned more about how they're were preparing including transferring crypto currency in a few days than decades. Just look the other way and "let it happen" rather than aiding and abetting the enemy while playing Christian. Some will argue in hell about the strife and lawlessness to Satan, it's unbelievable, the arm chair military strategic critics that wouldn't die for anything except to justify their cowardice and pacifism masked as meekness.

Christforums said:

For the love Pete, we should of dropped "The bomb" the first day. How can anybody deceive themselves to the point to deny that the Iranians are not going to use the weapons grade uranium they boast about possessing! Oh wait, the Lib/Dems will because they're tyrants and domestic enemies of America. Like Iran there is no limit to their depravity and the only naiveness is to expect any limitations of how evil those people are.

Moderates and pacifist (insignificant) or red letter Christians ought to rip out the OT and Revelation. G-d ordained government to use the sword, for both a stumbling block and to seek out evil.

Click to expand...

Warmonger churchians ought to rip out the New Testament from their Bibles.

That way they won’t be convicted by love your enemies, resist not evil, turn the other cheek, we wrestle not against flesh and blood, Peter put away thy sword, and other pacifist teachings.

Calling for nuclear war does not look good coming from someone who claims to follow Christ.

Ascetic X said:

Warmonger churchians ought to rip out the New Testament from their Bibles.

That way they won’t be convicted by love your enemies, resist not evil, turn the other cheek, we wrestle not against flesh and blood, Peter put away thy sword, and other pacifist teachings.

Calling for nuclear war does not look good coming from someone who claims to follow Christ.

Click to expand...

Calling for nuclear war, in the context of Iran? Sure disregard context.

"That way they won’t be convicted by love your enemies, resist not evil, turn the other cheek, we wrestle not against flesh and blood, Peter put away thy sword, and other pacifist teachings." This is what happens when man makes G-d into his own image. Nothing but misapplication here, for example, loving your enemies was to correct the misuse and misapplication of the Lex Talionis for personal vendettes, Jesus never abolished it either.

I find anybody that says nobody is good and no matter what nobody is righteous uncredible. Yes, think about that in this context, and I couldn't care less if anybody can't exegete or wrestle themselves out of a wet paper bag.

This is merely history repeating itself, the early Christian church was paralyzed by cowards and pacifist under the mask of meekness before the Crusades. Perhaps you should consider the context of Israel under the oppression of Rome and Israel throughout the Scriptures before then. Jesus hadn't said anything new on the subject.

Lastly, I couldn't care less about your personal enemies, Psalm 139:21-22. There's no way I'm going to be sucked into theological debate among present company. History told the story about Pacifist in the Christian church, for centuries standing by while their wives were taken away remarried to Muslims, children taken into slavery or married off, brethren murdered, property rights taken away, and citizenship lost. It takes a "special" kind of faith and "a man of men" to sit by for that, I must be one short of one too many chromosomes.

Here you go, love em. Maybe they'll appeal to seeing another "Christian" pacifist or otherwise murdered, beheaded, crucified or lit on fire and say, that's what converted them to Christianity. Maybe they'll have a dream or vision and that'll make you a believer. Obviously, the Scriptures hadn't. Is there an upright vertebrae anywhere in your spinal column? Usher them in next door, your home, your church, because the self-professed holy men have done a wonderful job in the fight for cultural inclusion.

Love em!