Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
23 minutes ago, billsfan_34 said:

I bet you get your ass kicked a lot.

Nope, wrong 

 

 

24 minutes ago, billsfan_34 said:

Actually buddy, im extremely intelligent.

Oh? Sure 

  • Vomit 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Nope, wrong 

 

 

Oh? Sure 

Well that’s me next to the aircraft. Highest scores needed for avionics. You lack substance to your argument, like most posters on here point out. You are pathetic; part of me feels sorry for trolls like you. You would never say this stuff to someones face; that’s a fact. Later douche. 

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, Doc said:

 

He was talking about getting out of the ME and letting them blow each other up.  Not isolating themselves from the entire world.

I agree there's a lot of real estate to stake out strategy and policy between the choice of getting involved everywhere and isolationism.  But that's the binary choice people making the argument for constant intervention and conflict attempt to present.  

They might want to consider by their standards perhaps the entire world minus 5 or 6 countries pursue a policy they might call isolationism.

 

Edited by All_Pro_Bills
  • Like (+1) 3
Posted
33 minutes ago, billsfan_34 said:

Well that’s me next to the aircraft. Highest scores needed for avionics. You lack substance to your argument, like most posters on here point out. You are pathetic; part of me feels sorry for trolls like you. You would never say this stuff to someones face; that’s a fact. Later douche. 

Lol, ok. 

 

Another poster? Switch names? lol 

  • Vomit 2
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Maybe they are smart?  But assigning that attribute to your enemies should not be confused as an endorsement of them or of support for them.  Its merely good business to understand your adversary and perform a realistic assessment of their capabilities.  Anything short of dealing with the reality of your foes capabilities generally leads to getting your ass handed to you in any competition or conflict.  Look no further for an example than how our current bumbling administration is handling everything.  The Iranians know that no matter how much the war hawks hoot and holler Joe's crew won't do too much damage to them because anything impacting world oil prices will doom him to defeat in November.    

Edited by All_Pro_Bills
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Maybe they are smart?  But assigning that attribute to your enemies should not be confused as an endorsement of them or of support for them.  Its merely good business to understand your adversary and perform a realistic assessment of their capabilities.  Anything short of dealing with the reality of your foes capabilities generally leads to getting your ass handed to you in any competition or conflict.  Look no further for an example than how our current bumbling administration is handling everything.  The Iranians know that no matter how much the war hawks hoot and holler Joe's crew won't do too much damage to them because anything impacting world oil prices will doom him to defeat in November.    

 

giphy.gif?cid=2154d3d7mdhf7c7er0ac8377n7


 

Posted

I have no idea how this is a successful strategy.

The strike occurs, the Americans are killed.

The Administration should have responded immediately.

It is impossible for me to think that target folders were not ready, and we have the assets in the area.

 

Then we announce we are going to respond.

Two days later we announce we have decided to respond.

 

Meanwhile, the option to hide has been available for five days.

 

The only logical explanation, and it is a major tactical error, is that we are aligning others to participate.

 

I am reserving judgement, but this "response" in not easily explained.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 4
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted (edited)

So, B-1 bombers?  Weigh in on that Sherpa.  Combined with other assets?  What are your thoughts?

Edited by LDD
Posted
14 minutes ago, LDD said:

So, B-1 bombers?  Weigh in on that Sherpa.  Combined with other assets?  What are your thoughts?

 

Nukes dropped from B-1 bombers - maybe.  Much prefer cruise missiles.  I think some indiscriminate strafing might help too.    

  

  • Agree 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, LDD said:

So, B-1 bombers from the continent?  Weigh in on that Sherpa.  Why not assets from carriers in the area or bases closer?

 

It looks like a good number of targets at seven locations were targeted, so the operation probably included a number of our folks.

Have to see the entire strike plan, but it seems like a "message" strike as much as a tactical operation.

 

Not a fan.

I hate it when it is obvious that a press release was prepared before an operation.

Mentioning what targets were hit, how many precision guided weapons were used etc., are tell tale signs of political rather than tactical people behind it.

This should have been done immediately, not after four days of press releases claiming we will respond, we have decided to etc.

Too much time for the roaches to hide, limiting effectiveness.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Irv said:

 

Nukes dropped from B-1 bombers - maybe.  Much prefer cruise missiles.  I think some indiscriminate strafing might help too.    

  

 

Cruise missiles are very expensive and not the weapon of choice in a low anti air threat.

You can get much more damage done using conventionally delivered ordnance, and it's much cheaper.

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted

You hit us, you will pay. Big time 

 

No one wants an all out war, but Iran crossed a line and were hit because of it 

 

Cool, calculated response from American leadership 

  • Eyeroll 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
×
×
  • Create New...