Trump is Delivering The Biggest Win the US, or Anyone, has Ever Had. And leftists HATE it.

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

1) You're not ranting right now, this level of drivel is normal for you

2) congrats for not shitting on the floor this time

Wrong. You guys were just whining about the risk this causes to Americans for the last week, and saying how uncoordinated and unplanned this was. Oh, and how bad of a military leader Trump is.

1. You don't understand how much harder it to project power 7,000 miles away, across the Atlantic ocean, than right in your own back yard, surrounded by your "allies"[?] that most countries have
2. This same US army has been used in the ME quite a bit over the last 30 years, and has never dominated anywhere near this level. And Iran is the toughest army they've faced.
3. Did "US Military vs Taliban under Joe Biden" look like "Tyson fighting toddler"? 🤣 More like Custer vs Indians.
4. Trump spanked Iran. Biden got spanked by the Taliban. The guys with no planes, no drones, no ballistic missiles, no tanks.... spanked Biden. Next. 

Sun Tzu gives you an F.

You've got your fake orange tan colored glasses on. 

All we're doing here is airstrikes. Push button. Stuff blows up. That's the only objective so far. With the resources we have, there is no way NOT to succeed at this.

The first gulf war put boots on the ground and expelled Iraqi army from Kuwait in about 100 hours--literally re-captured a country--a much bigger task against a much larger military. W's invasion of Iraq (again, a much more complex operation) took the country in about 3 weeks. Remember "shock and awe"?

The "blowing stuff up" phase is always easy for us. It's whatever comes next that is difficult, costly and dangerous.

For the hundredth time, Trump signed the "surrender" and withdrew literally 90% of US forces from Afghanistan and let the Taliban run wild. The only thing Biden did in Afghanistan was to bring home the last 10% of stragglers. They didn't fight the Taliban. That was not the mission anymore. It was just to clean up the mess as gracefully as possible. You're welcome to criticize the execution of that final 10% withdrawal, but you don't get to make up your own mission and then pretend that it failed.  

 

[User]

1 minute ago, Hodad said:

For the hundredth time, Trump signed the "surrender" and withdrew literally 90% of US forces from Afghanistan and let the Taliban run wild. The only thing Biden did in Afghanistan was to bring home the last 10% of stragglers. They didn't fight the Taliban. That was not the mission anymore. It was just to clean up the mess as gracefully as possible. You're welcome to criticize the execution of that final 10% withdrawal, but you don't get to make up your own mission and then pretend that it failed.  

Trump did not sign a surrender. Afghanistan was not controlled by the Taliban; there was still an Afghan government. 

The Taliban was not left to run wild. The US was still providing logistical support to the local Afghan government. Advising, equipment, and intelligence. 

Biden did not leave with any grace at all. 

The Taliban were not following the terms of the deal and Biden did nothing more than advertise to them we were leaving and it didn't matter which further emboldened them to prepare for the major counter offensive to retake all of Afghanistan the moment we left. 

That was Biden's doing. Not Trumps. 

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, John Johnston said:

The facilities were under a mountain of rubble. Or did your Dear Leader lie about that too?

At the time of the strike, leftists were echoing Iranian reports that "The buster bunker bombs didn't work! Trump failed!"

Now the story has been changed to "The initial strike was enough! This one wasn't necessary!" lol

No matter, because no one relies on the words of leftists anyways. 

Fact: the US acted on the intelligence reports that they had at the time, and conducted an attack that they thought would work.

My own personal guess is that they did what they felt was the minimum that they need to do and the maximum that they could safely achieve the first time, and then realized that they might be able to pull off a broader strike this time, after having that initial success. "Strike while the iron's hot" so to speak. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

At the time of the strike, leftists were echoing Iranian reports that "The buster bunker bombs didn't work! Trump failed!"

Now the story has been changed to "The initial strike was enough! This one wasn't necessary!" lol

No matter, because no one relies on the words of leftists anyways. 

Fact: the US acted on the intelligence reports that they had at the time, and conducted an attack that they thought would work.

My own personal guess is that they did what they felt was the minimum that they need to do and the maximum that they could safely achieve the first time, and then realized that they might be able to pull off a broader strike this time, after having that initial success. "Strike while the iron's hot" so to speak. 

to a degree I think it's even simpler than that. I think they caved in that site and said we have successfully stopped them from being able to build bombs essentially. And then they said to them if you start to dig this out or try and repair the facility there's going to be a problem. If you leave it as it is that's fine we're satisfied

And they started to try and dig it out and get back to refining material nor the warning. I mean no matter what the US bombed or how successful it was I ran can rebuild what was blown up. They were told not to and according to reports they were going ahead anyway and rather then enter into yet another round of negotiations or attempts to dissuade them the us and israel agreed they'd had enough. 

The initial strike could have been very successful and iran could still be looking at rebuilding. The two are not mutually exclusive. 

[Reg Volk]

Is this Hodoo?