According to the New York Times, Trump held an informal meeting with the press in the Oval Office where he said that he believed the Iranians shot a US drone down by mistake, maybe one overzealous soldier operating the launcher there.

But about an hour later, after dismissing reporters, Trump had apparently ordered airstrikes against Iran involving both manned aircraft and cruise missiles.  They would have hit Iran a few hours before dawn their time.

Then a few minutes after that, Trump called the whole thing off.

This all makes me nauseous. We won't know the real story for a few years, if ever.  Was Trump deliberately trying to create some theater or is he truly being indecisive?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

According to the New York Times, Trump held an informal meeting with the press in the Oval Office where he said that he believed the Iranians shot a US drone down by mistake, maybe one overzealous soldier operating the launcher there.

But about an hour later, after dismissing reporters, Trump had apparently ordered airstrikes against Iran involving both manned aircraft and cruise missiles.  They would have hit Iran a few hours before dawn their time.

Then a few minutes after that, Trump called the whole thing off.

This all makes me nauseous. We won't know the real story for a few years, if ever.  Was Trump deliberately trying to create some theater or is he truly being indecisive?

If this is making you nauseous you should really unplug for a while. From their own article:

It was not clear whether Mr. Trump simply changed his mind on the strikes or whether the administration altered course because of logistics or strategy. It was also not clear whether the attacks might still go forward.

That you give such credence to an organization dedicated to presenting Trump in the worst light possible just feeds your mania.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

According to the New York Times, Trump held an informal meeting with the press in the Oval Office where he said that he believed the Iranians shot a US drone down by mistake, maybe one overzealous soldier operating the launcher there.

But about an hour later, after dismissing reporters, Trump had apparently ordered airstrikes against Iran involving both manned aircraft and cruise missiles.  They would have hit Iran a few hours before dawn their time.

Then a few minutes after that, Trump called the whole thing off.

This all makes me nauseous. We won't know the real story for a few years, if ever.  Was Trump deliberately trying to create some theater or is he truly being indecisive?

If this is making you nauseous you should really unplug for a while. From their own article:

It was not clear whether Mr. Trump simply changed his mind on the strikes or whether the administration altered course because of logistics or strategy. It was also not clear whether the attacks might still go forward.

That you give such credence to an organization dedicated to presenting Trump in the worst light possible just feeds your mania.

The NYT and Fox News are reporting the same thing.

It's hard to report facts that present Trump in a good light.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

According to the New York Times, Trump held an informal meeting with the press in the Oval Office where he said that he believed the Iranians shot a US drone down by mistake, maybe one overzealous soldier operating the launcher there.

But about an hour later, after dismissing reporters, Trump had apparently ordered airstrikes against Iran involving both manned aircraft and cruise missiles.  They would have hit Iran a few hours before dawn their time.

Then a few minutes after that, Trump called the whole thing off.

This all makes me nauseous. We won't know the real story for a few years, if ever.  Was Trump deliberately trying to create some theater or is he truly being indecisive?

You need to lay off the Clancy novels and whatever other fictional war novels you prefer. The real world doesn't operate like that.

This process happens quite often. In basic form without all the military lingo, the military operates on their own spectrum and based on a goal that is disseminated. Combatant Commanders have complete freedom of operation from the administration side. If the risk does not support the targeting, it will get called off and they will advise up. The problem with having all these publicized meetings or dog and pony shows are that the information spreads like wildfire and targets of opportunity get moved and hidden. Not to say that the mobile SAM launcher wasn't moved within 15 minutes anyway.

You also must weigh the risk of shutting down the Strait, which is actually what Iran wants. They also want the international community to believe we are the instigator. We aren't going to give them that unless there is no other way out. I can assure you that there is a heavy strike plan in place, and further assets are most likely being redirected (mine clearing and ship reclamation). We have enough capability in the area do damage many times over but strikes have wide-ranging consequences that have to be planned for. 

Stop with the Trump this or Trump that. You'd whine if there was a strike and you're whining now that there isn't.

---

If this is making you nauseous you should really unplug for a while. From their own article:

It was not clear whether Mr. Trump simply changed his mind on the strikes or whether the administration altered course because of logistics or strategy. It was also not clear whether the attacks might still go forward.

That you give such credence to an organization dedicated to presenting Trump in the worst light possible just feeds your mania.

The NYT and Fox News are reporting the same thing.

It's hard to report facts that present Trump in a good light.

You wouldn't know good or positive light even if it slapped you hard enough to unbury that dome of yours.

---

According to the New York Times, Trump held an informal meeting with the press in the Oval Office where he said that he believed the Iranians shot a US drone down by mistake, maybe one overzealous soldier operating the launcher there.

But about an hour later, after dismissing reporters, Trump had apparently ordered airstrikes against Iran involving both manned aircraft and cruise missiles.  They would have hit Iran a few hours before dawn their time.

Then a few minutes after that, Trump called the whole thing off.

This all makes me nauseous. We won't know the real story for a few years, if ever.  Was Trump deliberately trying to create some theater or is he truly being indecisive?

You need to lay off the Clancy novels and whatever other fictional war novels you prefer. The real world doesn't operate like that.

This process happens quite often. In basic form without all the military lingo, the military operates on their own spectrum and based on a goal that is disseminated. Combatant Commanders have complete freedom of operation from the administration side. If the risk does not support the targeting, it will get called off and they will advise up. The problem with having all these publicized meetings or dog and pony shows are that the information spreads like wildfire and targets of opportunity get moved and hidden. Not to say that the mobile SAM launcher wasn't moved within 15 minutes anyway.

You also must weigh the risk of shutting down the Strait, which is actually what Iran wants. They also want the international community to believe we are the instigator. We aren't going to give them that unless there is no other way out. I can assure you that there is a heavy strike plan in place, and further assets are most likely being redirected (mine clearing and ship reclamation). We have enough capability in the area do damage many times over but strikes have wide-ranging consequences that have to be planned for. 

Stop with the Trump this or Trump that. You'd whine if there was a strike and you're whining now that there isn't.

Since my post, the President has explained himself on Twitter.
Contrary to your explanation, he is taking responsibility for the decision making process.  The commanders presented facts and options, and the President made decisions.  
I asked if this was deliberate theater or indecision.  
Trump now says that he ordered his commanders to retaliate, and they initiated an attack plan, but then it occured to Trump to ask how many Iranians might die, and the number was too high.  So Trump is denying that this was theater and sort-of letting us blame him for ordering an attack before he asked all the relevant questions about the attack.  Was this really how it happened? Maybe not, but his explanation is a lot more plausible than yours because he was there.

I don't read Clancy.
The only fiction I read is Sci Fi with interstellar travel.

I get that you have spent lots of time in or around the military, and thank you for that, but the little inside details you offer never seem to add anything to the general, simplified picture you get just watching the news.

I also get that I have irritated you somehow, that you have a need to twist my words until they come out into something that you can disagree with.

I'm sorry that you think I would complain about Trump whether he attacks Iran or not.  If he really is trying to keep the straits safe without killing Iranians, I think that's great. But being 10 minutes away from killing 150 Iranians is exactly where the momentum of his rhetoric and diplomacy got him, and it will take him to that precipice again, as soon as tomorrow, if he doesn't reverse course.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

If this is making you nauseous you should really unplug for a while. From their own article:

It was not clear whether Mr. Trump simply changed his mind on the strikes or whether the administration altered course because of logistics or strategy. It was also not clear whether the attacks might still go forward.

That you give such credence to an organization dedicated to presenting Trump in the worst light possible just feeds your mania.

The NYT and Fox News are reporting the same thing.

It's hard to report facts that present Trump in a good light.

Fox says Trump decided that bombing would be a disproportionate response. Like, he thought about it and listened to the Generals not the politicos. Something we should appreciate. But the jingoistic left are pissed he didn't start WW3.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The NYT and Fox News are reporting the same thing.

It's hard to report facts that present Trump in a good light.

Fox says Trump decided that bombing would be a disproportionate response. Like, he thought about it and listened to the Generals not the politicos. Something we should appreciate. But the jingoistic left are pissed he didn't start WW3.

CNN is now reporting the same thing.
A bit of good news for once.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You need to lay off the Clancy novels and whatever other fictional war novels you prefer. The real world doesn't operate like that.

This process happens quite often. In basic form without all the military lingo, the military operates on their own spectrum and based on a goal that is disseminated. Combatant Commanders have complete freedom of operation from the administration side. If the risk does not support the targeting, it will get called off and they will advise up. The problem with having all these publicized meetings or dog and pony shows are that the information spreads like wildfire and targets of opportunity get moved and hidden. Not to say that the mobile SAM launcher wasn't moved within 15 minutes anyway.

You also must weigh the risk of shutting down the Strait, which is actually what Iran wants. They also want the international community to believe we are the instigator. We aren't going to give them that unless there is no other way out. I can assure you that there is a heavy strike plan in place, and further assets are most likely being redirected (mine clearing and ship reclamation). We have enough capability in the area do damage many times over but strikes have wide-ranging consequences that have to be planned for. 

Stop with the Trump this or Trump that. You'd whine if there was a strike and you're whining now that there isn't.

Since my post, the President has explained himself on Twitter.
Contrary to your explanation, he is taking responsibility for the decision making process.  The commanders presented facts and options, and the President made decisions.  
I asked if this was deliberate theater or indecision.  
Trump now says that he ordered his commanders to retaliate, and they initiated an attack plan, but then it occured to Trump to ask how many Iranians might die, and the number was too high.  So Trump is denying that this was theater and sort-of letting us blame him for ordering an attack before he asked all the relevant questions about the attack.  Was this really how it happened? Maybe not, but his explanation is a lot more plausible than yours because he was there.

I don't read Clancy.
The only fiction I read is Sci Fi with interstellar travel.

I get that you have spent lots of time in or around the military, and thank you for that, but the little inside details you offer never seem to add anything to the general, simplified picture you get just watching the news.

I also get that I have irritated you somehow, that you have a need to twist my words until they come out into something that you can disagree with.

I'm sorry that you think I would complain about Trump whether he attacks Iran or not.  If he really is trying to keep the straits safe without killing Iranians, I think that's great. But being 10 minutes away from killing 150 Iranians is exactly where the momentum of his rhetoric and diplomacy got him, and it will take him to that precipice again, as soon as tomorrow, if he doesn't reverse course.

There are several situations related to military matters that I have tried to explain to you without giving key details that could get me in trouble and what do you know...it plays out and your missing pieces get filled in. Unlike Hillary, I'd go to prison if I gave uncleared info. In any case, you can believe what you want and think I'm a mouthpiece.

I don't feel anything towards you or anybody else on this message board. To me, you're just some dude that is trying to learn but speaks beyond his knowledge sometimes. In any case, the offer is out there for anyone if they want to meet up at a game and eliminate any mystery or misconceptions. Most times I'm in the Zone a few hours before kick-off. I may even make a few camp practices as well.


It's no wonder folks have a certain perception about you. No matter how someone replies to you, it just isn't what you meant. Example, here you are still trying to tow a line saying there is a misperception that you complain about Trump and then you take an unsupported swipe at him. It seems the communication disconnect may be on your end but is what it is.

Not to add to your anxiety about global events, but the U.S. military operates in an environment that is minutes away from eliminating a threat on a daily basis.

---

The insane left is truly broken if they're spinning avoidance of war as a bad thing.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

The insane left is truly broken if they're spinning avoidance of war as a bad thing.

I thought they liked abortions. Confusing...

---

The insane left is truly broken if they're spinning avoidance of war as a bad thing.

Are you kidding? Nobody in their right mind, wanted a war. NOBODY. Not the left, not the right. You're looking for a fight where there isn't one. It was an unmanned drone. You don't command air strikes for that. If it was manned, that would be a different story, but it wasn't. Chill out dude! For once everyone is on the same page. You're just so one-sided, you can't see it. Geez. The only reason anyone is upset, is the fact that Trump even considered an airstrike.

---

The insane left is truly broken if they're spinning avoidance of war as a bad thing.

Are you kidding? Nobody in their right mind, wanted a war. NOBODY. Not the left, not the right. You're looking for a fight where there isn't one. It was an unmanned drone. You don't command air strikes for that. If it was manned, that would be a different story, but it wasn't. Chill out dude! For once everyone is on the same page. You're just so one-sided, you can't see it. Geez. The only reason anyone is upset, is the fact that Trump even considered an airstrike.

Exactly.
Thank you for saying so.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The insane left is truly broken if they're spinning avoidance of war as a bad thing.

Are you kidding? Nobody in their right mind, wanted a war. NOBODY. Not the left, not the right. You're looking for a fight where there isn't one. It was an unmanned drone. You don't command air strikes for that. If it was manned, that would be a different story, but it wasn't. Chill out dude! For once everyone is on the same page. You're just so one-sided, you can't see it. Geez. The only reason anyone is upset, is the fact that Trump even considered an airstrike.

I'm old enough to remember when presidents would bomb pill factories to distract from bad press.

I hate to scare you about the reality of it all, but our military prepares to kill our enemies around the clock.  It's only decisions like this that keep them from happening.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Are you kidding? Nobody in their right mind, wanted a war. NOBODY. Not the left, not the right. You're looking for a fight where there isn't one. It was an unmanned drone. You don't command air strikes for that. If it was manned, that would be a different story, but it wasn't. Chill out dude! For once everyone is on the same page. You're just so one-sided, you can't see it. Geez. The only reason anyone is upset, is the fact that Trump even considered an airstrike.

I'm old enough to remember when presidents would bomb pill factories to distract from bad press.

I hate to scare you about the reality of it all, but our military prepares to kill our enemies around the clock.  It's only decisions like this that keep them from happening.

The strikes you're referring to killed 11 Sudanese suspected to be making chemical weapons, and it was in retaliation for some of their friends bombing embassies that resulted in the deaths of 12 Americans.  
It may have been based on faulty intelligence, but it was proportional.

Whether it was about bad press or not seems like sour grapes at this point.  You can let it go.

Also note that the same former POTUS had airstrikes ready to go to kill OBL while he was in Kandahar.  He called it off because the final intelligence analysis said the strikes would kill about 300 people total. Al-Qaeda had not quite killed that many people yet.  Proportionality matters.  Trump and Clinton have both faced difficult decisions in this area and so far have balanced the concerns.  I hope Trump continues to do so.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Are you kidding? Nobody in their right mind, wanted a war. NOBODY. Not the left, not the right. You're looking for a fight where there isn't one. It was an unmanned drone. You don't command air strikes for that. If it was manned, that would be a different story, but it wasn't. Chill out dude! For once everyone is on the same page. You're just so one-sided, you can't see it. Geez. The only reason anyone is upset, is the fact that Trump even considered an airstrike.

I'm old enough to remember when presidents would bomb pill factories to distract from bad press.

I hate to scare you about the reality of it all, but our military prepares to kill our enemies around the clock.  It's only decisions like this that keep them from happening.

I know governments often "kill at will" but that still doesn't make it right. If someone destroys your car with a sledge hammer, you don't blow them away with a shotgun. You get even some other way, where no one gets hurt.

---

I'm old enough to remember when presidents would bomb pill factories to distract from bad press.

I hate to scare you about the reality of it all, but our military prepares to kill our enemies around the clock.  It's only decisions like this that keep them from happening.

I know governments often "kill at will" but that still doesn't make it right. If someone destroys your car with a sledge hammer, you don't blow them away with a shotgun. You get even some other way, where no one gets hurt.

The hell you dont, [BLEEP] them.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I know governments often "kill at will" but that still doesn't make it right. If someone destroys your car with a sledge hammer, you don't blow them away with a shotgun. You get even some other way, where no one gets hurt.

The hell you dont, [BLEEP] them.

---

Now matter how he finally arrived at the decision he made, Trump definitely showed good judgment, plus an ability to defy his advisors.

It was an unmanned drone. Escalation is what the Iranians are looking for. The sanctions are hurting them badly, so they are trying to change our path by provoking us.

A proportionate response by us, and a much more damaging one for Iran, would be a cyberattack, which I understand is what we have decided to do instead of a military strike.

---

I'm old enough to remember when presidents would bomb pill factories to distract from bad press.

I hate to scare you about the reality of it all, but our military prepares to kill our enemies around the clock.  It's only decisions like this that keep them from happening.

I know governments often "kill at will" but that still doesn't make it right. If someone destroys your car with a sledge hammer, you don't blow them away with a shotgun. You get even some other way, where no one gets hurt.

Various things in their gas tank while they're not seated in the vehicle will make your point clearly, and possibly very loudly.

---

I know governments often "kill at will" but that still doesn't make it right. If someone destroys your car with a sledge hammer, you don't blow them away with a shotgun. You get even some other way, where no one gets hurt.

Various things in their gas tank while they're not seated in the vehicle will make your point clearly, and possibly very loudly.

Someone comes at me or mine with a sledge and we aren't playing little games.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato