brabus

I can see that. Two reasons: The media at large wants to paint anything Trump does as a failure. So, every American is bombarded with bullshit, half truths, and the legit info is typically suppressed significantly - it takes real effort to find it. For example, here’s a good example of clearly defined objectives (at unclass level): https://gulfnews.com/world/mena/trumps-4-objectives-in-iran-explained-1.500461406 Bottom line, the objectives have been pretty clear and not nebulous, but they also have been severely suppressed and therefore it makes sense that they seem non-existent/nebulous to a large portion of the population. Trump says all kinds of wild comments coming from left field that may or may not be true/fully accurate. He does this on purpose a lot - debatable how much it helps vs hurts his goals. So he is certainly a PCF to making it all seem nebulous at times when, in fact, it’s not nebulous at all. Bottom line, the admin could do better at clearer messaging, but it’s also hard to get clear messaging out when the “middle man” is doing everything possible to suppress or misconstrue that messaging.

Google how many ships have gone through the Strait during the war and ceasefire. Reduced traffic, absolutely, but 100% not closed. Your statement is factually wrong; amend it to “reduced” and you’d be correct. This is not quibbling, it’s you pretending words don’t matter. Be accurate in your communication and you won’t be called out for making incorrect statements. The IRGC and the civ leadership are two different groups with different outlooks and goals. That’s a big, complicated problem…but when you say “regime still in tact” - well yeah, we didn’t ever plan to or think, the regime would go away as an entity. And that’s why your comment is invalid. Wrong. Your assessment is based off a nebulous comment (which Trump makes a lot of), mine is based off hard facts. Again, wrong. You are basing this assessment off a nebulous statement, not the facts. Yeah the people should rise up, but that doesn’t mean liberating them was or is a primary objective. It factually was, and is, not. Nukes - I’m not touching that subject on the internet. Believe what you want…and yeah, I know what has been publicly said. Use that critical thinking part of your brain. If you don’t have the experience to figure it out, well then OK. Bottom line, you highlighted in your reply that your opinions are based off conclusions drawn from nebulous statements and articles written by people who do the same. My replies are based off fact - the ones you clearly have not seen, and seemingly can’t even comprehend might exist. Go ahead and advocate for your position against the war, that’s fine, but you should do it without claiming things as “fact” that are not so; be honest and label them for what they are - your own conclusions/opinions.

Copy joke meter broke! Nah, haven’t had a free handout in my life, why start now.

@Pooter See my reply to Negatory. Strait is not closed We were never after no “regime” in power, we were after people change. And that has occurred, multiple times actually. TBMs - Never was the goal to take 100% of the capability (unattainable goal). We’ve met our desired goal. Iranian people - Liberating gen pop was never a pri objective. Sure we’d like to see them get out of their situation, and we’ll help them indirectly when it’s convenient, but is not a pri objective. Nukes - Sure, believe whatever you want… Turns out your list was mostly poorly informed opinion and not “basic facts.”

California is a masters class in how not to govern at every level. But, when you have a lot of very stupid people living on the coast, you’re going to get very stupid, elected officials.

Neither. Is an American company running propaganda for the enemy OK or not? I argue it’s not, certainly in the moral sense. Also, your list is not accurate and lacks the full picture…by a long shot.

…who has no nazi tattoos. “Match,” I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

Are what ifs open? What if you weren’t such a politically-charged hack that you could be honest instead of purposely curating/cherrypicking to make your political opponents look bad in a false way (guess you have a great future career in the MSM). What if you weren’t so retarded as to compare Trump to Mao. I mean, you have to be pretty stupid/brainwashed to make that comparison. You’re embarrassing yourself, recommend stop.

Let’s start with the definition of propaganda: “ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause.” Whose cause are they furthering and whose cause are they attempting to damage? There are easy, obvious answers to those questions. Additionally, it is written and curated to push a narrative that Iran has dealt significant blows to the US, the US has been decently hurt/licking its wounds, etc. That implied narrative is not accurate at all. There is also some 100% false stuff in it - but obviously nobody is confirming that publicly due to classification/opsec. Overall, the narrative is very misleading at best, and actually full up false in some instances (but, I won’t say the false parts are purposeful, as a journalist/think tank talking out their ass is nothing new). There’s the right, patriotic thing to do, and then there’s this bullshit. The fact you can’t see the difference is not surprising, but still disappointing.

WTF is that garbage? In the first 20 sec of scanning photos I ID’d several of them (though the captions say “unresolved”). That’s some clown work, or they’re just throwing random shit on there to make ignorant Joe think they’re being transparent.

@No One You're not wrong. However, my distaste for this article is far more general - the fact an American company is happy to put out propaganda for the enemy. That is morally corrupt and wrong, even if not illegal in the law’s eyes. In closing, fuck those Wapo douche bags.

Well it is Wapo - they hate America and will produce any trash they can to discredit the country that enables their very existence.

And yet we’re still pushing for that massive waste of money E-7. The concept of traditional large, manned C2 platforms has hit zero utility. And I mean it - zero. If there’s still a place for WDs and ABMs, it’s parsed out to other assets for specific scenarios (a couple in the back of a 46, MC-130, G6, etc.)

Super old man off! The challenge: who’s laid up on the couch longer after getting out of bed “the wrong way” (“right way” still not fully determined).

2028…idiots. The concept/long term plan is fine, but the timing is impossible, assuming anyone gives a shit about not losing significant capabilities for years.