15 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

The pundits on both site cheery pick to make it look great or horrible, I lean to the horrible side for reasons outlined below. I've read a lot of what Gen Jack Keene has written and said on the matter. For those that support do you really think Iran honored the deal? They are masters of lying and delay. JCPOA had a HUGE loophole that allowed Iran up to 24 days before a site could be inspected.

You don't live and let live with enemies. You destroy them. One of the things that makes the United States stand above the rest is that we have historically defined our enemies only as those who seek to do us harm, rather than those who have land or resources we want.

The enemies we tolerate are the ones we cannot easily destroy. We're pretending like China and Russia aren't enemies, using the justification that they don't want to do us harm, they only want power within their own region. I think we know that's not true, but at least it's plausible.

With Iran, only the most fearful, ignorant analysis of reality can lead you to believe they aren't our enemy. It would be bad enough to have them chanting death to America at every turn, but they put their money where their mouth is. For decades. You don't make deals with that type of enemy unless you have no other choice. We are the United States. And the last month is shown we definitely have another choice.

The administration has been relatively consistent on what we're doing there. Right now there's no "deal," and everyone posting the Iranian demands are shoving their heads so far up their ass to pretend this represents some sort of settled failure, that I'm surprised they aren't being canceled for wearing blackface.

Trump has given a lot of "two week warnings." Often it's a TACO. Other times worldwide tariffs jump 10x, or the president of a country gets kidnapped, or nuclear facilities get bombed, or the entire country gets bombed.

I think what we're seeing here is more about personality differences than anything else. Some people are words focused, other people are deeds focused. The group here hyperventilating about Trump day in and day out are repeating how "we" keep downplaying how Trump is making everything worse. But they won't stop shouting long enough to understand that we don't think it's worse, because we aren't comparing it to a hypothetical world that no longer exists. Our European allies aren't allies anymore. Just like NATO isn't an alliance anymore, it's a European insurance policy and the Europeans haven't been paying their premiums. Free trade hasn't been free for a long time, and what we got in exchange for a bunch of cheap electronics is a national defense nightmare (the loss of manufacturing) and a social catastrophe (the destruction of the middle class). Immigrants don't make America, America. Values do, and we're no longer assimilating those values into immigrant populations. Politicians aren't respectable war veterans anymore, they're profit-seeking sociopaths.

Then when they are confronted with the concept of trade-offs, we get: oh you're just saying the ends justify the means!! Well, yeah, sometimes. When the "means" are ugly and undignified hyperbole and rhetoric, sure. If the "means" become war crimes or racial discrimination or some other horrible act, then the "ends" will no longer justify the means.

I don't like the term TDS which is why I never use it. More accurate would be "Trump Fixation Syndrome" where the detractors can't look past the man long enough to intelligently argue the policy. That's not unreasonable, he's insane and becoming more insane. Maybe his brain is finally going through the same old-man collapse that Biden experienced shortly into his term. We'll see. But the Biden administration didn't do anything that broke our democracy, even with an invalid at the helm. So far this administration hasn't done anything to break our democracy either, even with a madman at the helm.

Alternatively, we could have had a moron who couldn't string 10 words together despite decades of political experience. Bad choices all around. But comparing the policy preferences of the three (Biden, Harris, Trump) both domestically and internationally, it's not even close for me.

26 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

The pundits on both site cheery pick to make it look great or horrible, I lean to the horrible side for reasons outlined below. I've read a lot of what Gen Jack Keene has written and said on the matter. For those that support do you really think Iran honored the deal? They are masters of lying and delay. JCPOA had a HUGE loophole that allowed Iran up to 24 days before a site could be inspected.

Bottom line for me:

1. Why were the enriching in the first place?

2. They lied about the TBMs as proven by four that were launched at Guam (4,000 Miles).

3. There were the single largest exporter of terror in the world. How many dead injured Americans have they impacted?

Posted on other sites here are the key faults of JCPOA.

1. Sunset Clauses: Restrictions on uranium enrichment and other activities begin to expire, allowing Iran to expand to an industrial scale after 2030, merely delaying rather than preventing a nuclear program.

2. No Missile Restrictions:

   The deal did not address Iran's ballistic missile program, which is capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

3. Regional Aggression: Critics claimed sanctions relief provided Iran with funds that enabled it to expand its network of proxy military forces in the Middle East.

4. Weak Inspection Regime: IAEA inspectors did not have unconditional "anytime, anywhere" access, specifically to military sites, with a potential 24-day waiting period for accessing suspicious sites.

5. Limited Scope: The agreement failed to address Iran's past work on nuclear weapons and didn't cover conventional weapons proliferation.

6. Sanctions Relief: The deal freed up billions in assets, which opponents argued empowered a hostile regime rather than encouraging it to change its regional policy.

1. Sunset: Because deals can never be renewed or renegotiated. Instead of being rehashed in 30 years it was abandoned in 3.

2. Missiles: "Capable of delivering nuclear weapons." Firstly the whole idea of the deal was they don't get a nuke so who cares? Secondly anything can deliver a nuke. A car. A plane. A fishing boat. A person. Thirdly they're a sovereign nation with some backing of some other state actors. Regardless of if any of us support them and their ideology there's only so much you can do, especially when it comes to trying to limit 1940s tech in 2010s. As we've seen today drones are a bigger threat than missiles.

3. Regional Aggression: And control of the hormuz with a $1M toll per ship is better than decreased sanctions how exactly? Perhaps we should learn our lesson and stop diddling countries in the middle east.

4. Weak inspection: Something is better than nothing weve had since and "weak" is an opinion. During the few years the deal was in place the inspections unequivocally worked. Iran was holding their side of the deal. Additionally inspections + intelligence is a strong combo.

5. Past work: How exactly do you address past work? Did we do so after withdrawing from the deal? Does the current peace plan do this in any measurable form? Conventional weapons proliferation... As if we aren't equally guilty having given the taliban stingers in the 90s or humvees, guns and other equipment in 2020s. Do you expect Iran to fully disarm? Can you imagine China telling the US no nukes. Also no tomahawks. Or F-16s.

6. Sanctions relief: Firstly they're now going for sanctions relief plus control of an international waterway with tolls extracted. That's better how? Secondly you've got to negotiate with something and act as enforcement mechanisms. If the deal didn't involve easing sanctions how do you punish violations of the terms? You didn't remove anything so you can't sanction them harder. You leave military force as the main mechanism. Which is drastic. Do you invade when they go to 2.6% vs 2.5%? Do you start bombing stuff causing fear, hate, and irreversible damage? I'd much rather be able to say "we're going to reimpose X level of sanctions until you return to compliance." If they don't, ramp it up. You still have military if truly needed. It gives you options.

Seriously compare the peace plan to jcpoa and tell us a single point on which it's "better" for global stability and for the US.

10 minutes ago, No One said:

Seriously compare the peace plan to jcpoa and tell us a single point on which it's "better" for global stability and for the US.

Nah - I will compare it to the plan that destroyed their Air Force, their Navy and 90% of their ballistic missile production capability.

37 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Nah - I will compare it to the plan that destroyed their Air Force, their Navy and 90% of their ballistic missile production capability.

wow with all that destruction it really makes you wonder how they got the United States to cave to their 10 point ceasefire proposal. It’s almost like rusted out tomcats and 5 goofy catamarans weren’t the basis of their power projection in the region.

but don’t let me ruin a good spike of the football MURICAAAA

34 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Nah - I will compare it to the plan that destroyed their Air Force, their Navy and 90% of their ballistic missile production capability.

Ah the tried and true method of this thread. Ignore the entire substantive point by point reply and argue a selected portion with a "zinger" as if it trumps everything. Remind me @HeloDude which side "don’t want to discuss in good faith."

How was their AF, navy, or missile capability a realatic and substantive threat to the US before? Especially seeing as we could remove it at anytime. The reality is you're creating a false comparison as in pre and post conflict cases the threat wasn't substantive based on empirical evidence of the results you're claiming we've achieved in only 30 days.

Meanwhile in return for removing the alleged threat we've lost the following:

1. Unquestionable control of the straight to Iran causing short and long term global economic impacts and major economic leverage.

2. Regional soft power as we can't protect our allies from drones an missiles.

3. Diplomatic credability in any future negotiation not just with Iran but any nation.

4. Sanctions on Russia and Iranian oil.

5. A massive amount of ordinance and numerous assets that will take years to replace.

6. Alienated our closest European allies and frustrated our middle Eastern ones to back Israel.

7. 13 dead americans, 200+ injured.

8. TBD on the peace plan.

Edited 5 hours ago5 hr by No One

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

You don't live and let live with enemies. You destroy them. One of the things that makes the United States stand above the rest is that we have historically defined our enemies only as those who seek to do us harm, rather than those who have land or resources we want.

The enemies we tolerate are the ones we cannot easily destroy. We're pretending like China and Russia aren't enemies, using the justification that they don't want to do us harm, they only want power within their own region. I think we know that's not true, but at least it's plausible.

With Iran, only the most fearful, ignorant analysis of reality can lead you to believe they aren't our enemy. It would be bad enough to have them chanting death to America at every turn, but they put their money where their mouth is. For decades. You don't make deals with that type of enemy unless you have no other choice. We are the United States. And the last month is shown we definitely have another choice.

The administration has been relatively consistent on what we're doing there. Right now there's no "deal," and everyone posting the Iranian demands are shoving their heads so far up their ass to pretend this represents some sort of settled failure, that I'm surprised they aren't being canceled for wearing blackface.

Trump has given a lot of "two week warnings." Often it's a TACO. Other times worldwide tariffs jump 10x, or the president of a country gets kidnapped, or nuclear facilities get bombed, or the entire country gets bombed.

I think what we're seeing here is more about personality differences than anything else. Some people are words focused, other people are deeds focused. The group here hyperventilating about Trump day in and day out are repeating how "we" keep downplaying how Trump is making everything worse. But they won't stop shouting long enough to understand that we don't think it's worse, because we aren't comparing it to a hypothetical world that no longer exists. Our European allies aren't allies anymore. Just like NATO isn't an alliance anymore, it's a European insurance policy and the Europeans haven't been paying their premiums. Free trade hasn't been free for a long time, and what we got in exchange for a bunch of cheap electronics is a national defense nightmare (the loss of manufacturing) and a social catastrophe (the destruction of the middle class). Immigrants don't make America, America. Values do, and we're no longer assimilating those values into immigrant populations. Politicians aren't respectable war veterans anymore, they're profit-seeking sociopaths.

Then when they are confronted with the concept of trade-offs, we get: oh you're just saying the ends justify the means!! Well, yeah, sometimes. When the "means" are ugly and undignified hyperbole and rhetoric, sure. If the "means" become war crimes or racial discrimination or some other horrible act, then the "ends" will no longer justify the means.

I don't like the term TDS which is why I never use it. More accurate would be "Trump Fixation Syndrome" where the detractors can't look past the man long enough to intelligently argue the policy. That's not unreasonable, he's insane and becoming more insane. Maybe his brain is finally going through the same old-man collapse that Biden experienced shortly into his term. We'll see. But the Biden administration didn't do anything that broke our democracy, even with an invalid at the helm. So far this administration hasn't done anything to break our democracy either, even with a madman at the helm.

Alternatively, we could have had a moron who couldn't string 10 words together despite decades of political experience. Bad choices all around. But comparing the policy preferences of the three (Biden, Harris, Trump) both domestically and internationally, it's not even close for me.

Enemies: War only creates further resentment and enemies. It's not going to get rid of them. How many more Iranians hate us now than 2 months ago because we've killed their friends, fathers, and children? We let the regime slaughter thousands who might have been more aligned with us 2 months ago. We're supposed to be improving and learning from the past. I don't want our country to be an imperialist nation. It is insane you believe deals should only occur if we have no other choice. War should never be the first choice. The consequences are irreversible and frankly abhorrent. We are supposed to be better than that. Do you also go over to your neighbors when his dog shits on your lawn, shoot him and take his shit because you own a gun and he doesn't? Makes us no better than the Russians. No better than an animal.

Policies: Most of us arguing against this have argued nothing but facts and policies. To be met with TDS or TFS whatever you want to call it. We're writing paragraphs regarding policy and the abject failure of this admin as a whole and getting 2 sentence strawman or what about X replies. Also regarding admin consistency with what we're doing there I posted the evidence 2 pages back of the daily flip flopping.

Allies: Our allies are still there. They're allientated because we've elected Trump twice. Because we've proven to be unreliable. Because we've threatened to invade them multiple times in the last year. Because the values of strength, military might, and taking what we want over diplomacy, partnership, and stability align us close with Russia than the EU.

NATO: Is a defensive alliance and yes it was and is quite literally America's European insurance policy against the Soviet Union/Russia. We are the only country that's enacted it, everyone answered, and our allies all paid the price alongside us. Per capita many of them paid a higher price than we did. There is 0 proof for your claim "NATO isn't an alliance anymore, it's a European insurance policy." You're parroting a talking point and fundamentally lack an understanding of what nato is and ever was.

Free-trade: The economic benefit of free trade vastly outweighs the negative loss of domestic manufacturing. We still retained high level skilled manufacturing and a lot of the rest ties nations to us in a manner which is a plus for diplomacy. If Taiwan wasn't the primary source for high end chips globally or China didn't risk crippling economic trade sanctions they'd be much more inclined to make military moves. Trade has kept the developed world significantly more peaceful than the past.

Immigrants/middle class: Not the thread to discuss or begin to cover that rant. I'll just say go visit the base of the statue of liberty and read Emma Lazarus' poem “The New Colossus” laid there.

Politicians: "Politicians aren't respectable war veterans anymore, they're profit-seeking sociopaths."

Firstly Trump fits this quote perfectly. He's a draft dodger and has utilized his second term to 2x or more his personal wealth and appointed a cabinet full of folks doing the same.

Secondly, being a war vet doesn't make magically make you more respectable or better than anyone else. How you carry yourself, treat others, your words and actions do that. Our government is better off with a spectrum of backgrounds and experience.

Options: "could have had a moron who couldn't string 10 words together"

Lol I'm sorry what. Have you listened or read anything trump puts out himself? Neither is the orator Obama was, but it's legitimate delusion to believe Trump is a better orator than Harris.

Edited 4 hours ago4 hr by No One

53 minutes ago, No One said:

Ah the tried and true method of this thread. Ignore the entire substantive point by point reply and argue a selected portion with a "zinger" as if it trumps everything. Remind me @HeloDude which side "don’t want to discuss in good faith."

I will never discuss this with you in "good faith" because you can't admit a single good thing Trump has done. The vast majority of us have pointed out the good and the and said we don't like him a as person.

Its that simple...you hate him....we get, it is pointless to even attempt to discuss issues with you.

saving private ryan gripes go up - Google Search

Yes, it's fiction but I think it encompasses the difference in viewpoints between then and now. One undertone is the question of why so much is being risked all for one man. Not saying one way or another just giving the example and certainly will spark debate. Not that it's difficult to do on BO. LOL

49 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

I will never discuss this with you in "good faith" because you can't admit a single good thing Trump has done. The vast majority of us have pointed out the good and the and said we don't like him a as person.

Its that simple...you hate him....we get, it is pointless to even attempt to discuss issues with you.

-No tax on tips is solid

-I like how angry he makes blue haired liberals

-I generally like his border hawkishness but in execution it’s been kinda a mess

-his Supreme Court picks have been generally decent

There. Now can we talk about how this war is a shitshow? Or are we just gonna deflect to Chicago crime rates or me being “triggered” or TDS again?

Explain to me how we are in a materially better position right now with this 10 point ceasefire proposal, than we were two months ago before all this went down. And I’m talking strategically. I know we blew up a bunch of their stuff. We’re great at that. Cool. Explain to me how Iran is weaker in terms of regional influence today than they were last year. Because it seems like they just got us to tentatively agree to a deal that is better than anything they’ve had in decades.

….and they closed the Strait again due to Israel’s continued bombings.

Edited 3 hours ago3 hr by Sua Sponte

We're basically just arguing philosophy. Realpolitik vs idealistic liberalism. So we're not going to agree because you fundamentally believe in a utopian outcome, if we just get it right this time. I don't.

43 minutes ago, No One said:

Enemies: War only creates further resentment and enemies. It's not going to get rid of them. How many more Iranians hate us now than 2 months ago because we've killed their friends, fathers, and children? We let the regime slaughter thousands who might have been more aligned with us 2 months ago. We're supposed to be improving and learning from the past. I don't want our country to be an imperialist nation. It is insane to you believe deals should only occur if we have no other choice. War should never be the first choice. The consequences are irreversible and frankly abhorrent. We are supposed to be better than that. Do you also go over to your neighbors when his dog shits on your lawn, shoot him and take his shit because you own a gun and he doesn't? Makes us no better than the Russians. No better than an animal.

Nonsense. Are we enemies with Japan? Germany? The American South?

This is uniquely funny with Iran because if we are creating so many enemies amongst the Iranian people, why is the regime doing everything in their power to keep them silent? Curious. Also funny that you say "we let the regime slaughter thousands," yet now you are claiming we are making it worse by... killing the regime. Which is it? Is you true complaint that we didn't attack earlier?

Your neighbor analogy is stupid. If he killed my daughter and tried to rape my wife, you bet your ass I'd kill him. And if his family has a problem with that, I'd kill them too.

49 minutes ago, No One said:

Policies: Most of us arguing against this have argued nothing but facts and policies. To be met with TDS or TFS whatever you want to call it. We're writing paragraphs regarding policy and the abject failure of this admin as a whole and getting 2 sentence strawman or what about X replies. Also regarding admin consistency with what we're doing there I posted the evidence 2 pages back of the daily flip flopping.

I already addressed this. Where you see policy failure, I don't. Which specific policies are failing again? Tariffs were supposed to collapse the world economy. They haven't. We were told that stopping illegal immigration would make groceries quadruple in price. They haven't. Hell, my whole life the Doomsday scenario for the oil markets has been the closing of the strait of Hormuz. Yet it's only doubled? Oil isn't even remotely close to the inflation adjusted highs of previous decades. What gives? Keeping trans athletes out of girls sports and bathrooms? Weren't there supposed to be mass suicides? Nope. I'm hoping for a catastrophic stock market collapse and an entire restructuring of the domestic economy. But in the meantime, the stock market is near all-time highs, and unemployment is still near all-time lows. So I asked you very specifically, what policies are failing, and how?

52 minutes ago, No One said:

Allies: Our allies are still there. They're allientated because we've elected Trump twice. Because we've proven to be unreliable. Because we've threatened to invade them multiple times in the last year. Because the values of strength, military might, and taking what we want over diplomacy, partnership, and stability align us close with Russia than the EU.

NATO: Is a defensive alliance and yes it was and is quite literally America's European insurance policy against the Soviet Union/Russia. We are quite literally the only country that's enacted it, everyone answered, and our allies all paid the price alongside us. Per capita many of them paid a higher price than we did. There is 0 proof for your claim "NATO isn't an alliance anymore, it's a European insurance policy." You're parroting a talking point and fundamentally lack an understanding of what nato is and ever was.

You define an ally as someone who says they are an ally. I define them based on their acts. The European Union has taken economic advantage of us for a long time. You can call that retribution for the advantages we had following world war II. I called that ancient history. Just because I don't consider them in the enemy doesn't mean they are by default an ally. We haven't had shared goals in a while.

Talking about what NATO was during the Cold war is not the same as talking about what NATO is now, over 30 years later.

Comparing the per capita lives lost during the war on terror is interesting yet completely irrelevant. Unless you can find me part of the NATO charter that discusses how many lives each country is supposed to put up. It does not matter what they have done in the past. What matters is what they are doing now. And Ukraine proves unequivocally that they are not remotely pulling their weight. Can you honestly say with a straight face that if Western Europe were attacked today, they would have anything to offer? I worked with them, they could barely put together enough planes to practice refuelling.

The "alienated" allies are putting more into defense thanks to Trump than they have in decades. I'd rather they be upset and lethal than harmless dependants.

1 hour ago, No One said:

Free-trade: The economic benefit of free trade vastly outweighs the negative loss of domestic manufacturing. We still retained high level skilled manufacturing and a lot of the rest ties nations to us in a manner which is a plus for diplomacy. If Taiwan wasn't the primary source for high end chips globally or China didn't risk crippling economic trade sanctions they'd be much more inclined to make military moves. Trade has kept the developed world significantly more peaceful than the past.

In the first few words you already miss the point. The "economic benefit" is only part of the picture. Is the middle class family of four better off with iPhones, large TVs, and fancier vehicle options if both parents must work out of necessity, and they will rent forever because a home is out of their reach?

Are we better off having power pharmaceutical supply chain almost entirely at the whims of the Chinese?

Even the manufacturing we retained, such as automobiles, we're ground to a halt because we don't even have the capacity to make 27+ nanometer chips, ancient technology by today's standards. Just because something was good yesterday doesn't mean it's good tomorrow. Opioids reduced the physical pain of millions of Americans over the past couple decades. Now we have a crippling addiction problem because of it. And why? Who decided that pain was bad? Who decided that pain was so bad it was worth any risk to mediate it?

Do you think it's a good thing that our rare Earth mineral supply chain is functionally entirely in the hands of the Chinese? Please explain how we are better off for that.

1 hour ago, No One said:

Immigrants/middle class: Not the thread to discuss or begin to cover that rant. I'll just say go visit the base of the statue of liberty and read Emma Lazarus' poem “The New Colossus” laid there.

Poetry is not policy. Are the rest of your political opinions informed by poetry written for a fundraiser?

1 hour ago, No One said:

Politicians: "Politicians aren't respectable war veterans anymore, they're profit-seeking sociopaths."

Firstly Trump fits this quote perfectly. He's a draft dodger and has utilized his second term to 2x or more his personal wealth and appointed a cabinet full of folks doing the same.

Secondly, being a war vet doesn't make magically make you more respectable or better than anyone else. How you carry yourself, treat others, your words and actions do that. Our government is better off with a spectrum of backgrounds and experience.

I'm confused. When I say "Politicians aren't respectable war veterans anymore, they're profit-seeking sociopaths," and you point out that Trump is a draft-dodging sociopath, that just sounds like you're agreeing with me.

And once again, arguing a point I never made. "Our government is better off with a spectrum of backgrounds and experience." Agreed, of the many thousands and thousands of people that make up our government, a spectrum of backgrounds is desirable. For the very specific position of the president, military experience is an invaluable ingredient to the literal head of the military.

1 hour ago, No One said:

Options: "could have had a moron who couldn't string 10 words together"

Lol I'm sorry what. Have you listened or read anything trump puts out himself? Neither is the orator Obama was, but it's legitimate delusion to believe Trump is a better orator than Harris.

I watched Trump do multiple multi-hour unscripted interviews. Harris could barely make it through 5-minute softball session with friendly interviewers without spouting literal gibberish.

Why do you think Kamala couldn't do a single podcast? Joe Rogan is literally a Bernie Bro. I never said Trump was telling the truth or demonstrating some sort of incredible knowledge base. He knows very little. But it's laughable to try to compare Biden and Harris, who even while hiding from any sort of press scrutiny couldn't remain coherent for longer than 2 or 3 minutes, with Trump who subjected himself to every single microphone that he could get in front of, friendly or foe.

You guys are so desperately trying to frame us as Trump sycophants, justifying away his every flaw and failing. We're not. We're simply pointing out that of the options we were given, this was the best shit sandwich, and objectively better for our policy preferences.

Obviously you guys are just smarter and more capable and more honorable than everyone else here and in Washington DC. Great. I can't wait to see your names on the ballot. It's clear that you are the first people to realize that honor and truth and cooperation are valuable components of domestic and foreign policy. It should be pretty easy then for you to make your pitch to the American People and get voted in. We need you! I'm sure they'll vote for the "better way" as soon as you, the first ever to put it in words, share your genius with the rest of us. Surely the Russians and Chinese and Iranians and Venezuelans will set aside their violent ambitions as soon as they hear the siren-sing of your logic and poise.

Or maybe, just maybe, that's not how the world works.

Peace deal:

18 hours ago, Negat0ry said:

Do you seriously think it would have been worse?

Serious question.

Absolutely! Based on the previous two Democratic administrations, she would have either a) buried her head even deeper into the sand and/or b) sent pallets of money to them in hopes to buy their cooperation.

If you think she would have been smarter, please enlighten us all!

15 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

If BaseOps used AI to moderate posts...

What makes you think it doesn't?!?

Anybody who thinks you can make with them is Charlie Brown because Iran is Lucy with the football

5 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Nah - I will compare it to the plan that destroyed their Air Force, their Navy and 90% of their ballistic missile production capability.

For a previous O-6, you still don’t understand DIME. Destroying a power militarily that was never a military power does not achieve strategic goals. They are an emboldened economic power and that’s it.

4 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

I will never discuss this with you in "good faith" because you can't admit a single good thing Trump has done. The vast majority of us have pointed out the good and the and said we don't like him a as person.

Its that simple...you hate him....we get, it is pointless to even attempt to discuss issues with you.

32 minutes ago, Negat0ry said:

For a previous O-6, you still don’t understand DIME. Destroying a power militarily that was never a military power does not achieve strategic goals. They are an emboldened economic power and that’s it.

a perspective a lot of y'all could really benefit from listening too.

9 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Gotta zoom in really far on the doll’s ass to see it: