OlDawg

I would think his votes would go to Cornyn.

Yep. Light does travel faster than sound. Scooby Scooby Doo!

Interesting reading the paper from the UAE to see their views. Here’s their take on the reasons for U.S. involvement. Unfinished business: How the US strikes on Iran came about [Hidden Content]

US Air Force to 'quadruple' its bomber strike power to hit Iran Nature of air campaign 'about to change' with more B-52s and 'daddy of bombers' going into action, analysts say [Hidden Content]

Now Syria is beefing up their border to keep Hezbollah remnants out! Another move by a regional player putting pressure on Iran's proxies. Wow! These actions are a definite change from the past. Syria sends elite troops to border with Lebanon as Iran war spreads Rise of US-friendly government in Damascus has robbed Hezbollah of its base in Syria [Hidden Content]

Congrats Eagles!

Lady Dawgs had a great year. But, I figured Glenn was going to be too much.

This is why I said conflicts. I also said what was key that was missed. The U.S. military has never lost a conflict ON THE ACTUAL BATTLEFIELD. The politicians have caused some embarrassing withdrawals when they’ve lost their will after handicapping the military all during the engagements. Y’all can’t imagine the ROE’s that were thrown out by politicos that haven’t a clue. I don’t know how it is now. But, I doubt it’s any better. Sometimes, we wondered whose side they were on. It was literally that bad.

It really looks like all the moderate Arab players in the region have had enough. I saw something earlier today where Lebanon had told Hezbollah "No more missiles fired from our country." We'll have to see if they actually enforce it. But, this type of alliance by the locals is definitely what everyone should want--except China, Russia, & the terrorists themselves of course. No idea what will happen to the Houthis. But, if they don't get support, it's not as if they can engineer ballistic missiles on their own. I'm becoming a little more optimistic than I was before this started. Like you, and almost everyone else, I still wish for safety for those in harm's way. I still think we have a ways to go. But, can't stop now and leave things half done again. If Saudi & others are on board & willing to form almost like a 'Gulf NATO', our best interest is to help them, finish this quickly, and get out except for our normal relations. I remember posting a response to Reagan in another thread that I trusted our planners and military, but I didn't trust this Administration with the 'after the fact' issues. Maybe, by Iran attacking it's neighbors, this issue has been solved, they are ready to step in, and we won't have to worry about the messy part. I'm sure most of the Iranians would prefer to work with their neighboring countries anyway as they rebuild. They have a lot more in common with them than they do the U.S.

Seemed odd to me also. I guess BH grew that much real fast. That's a lot of growth. Leander Glenn looks tough.

If news reports are true, and the Saudi's and other Gulf States have decided to join in the offensive attacks against Iran, it's the game-changer I was hoping might happen if we did wind up getting into this conflict. It would be the first time they've ever actively joined the U.S. and Israel against another Arab country. Saudi Arabia and Israel are both tied into the U.S. CentCom system now, so they can all coordinate. This would be a best case scenario where the Arab nations take the active role in shaping their own region after Iran is demilitarized. Trump's visit earlier last year to the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia to patch back relations from the Biden Administration might pay big dividends for lasting peace in the region. Sounds like the more moderate/secular Muslim nations/states are finally fed up, and willing to step in. (If news reporting is true. Might be early yet to confirm.)

Let me put it in a way you should understand. If I thought it would keep my grandkids safe from terrorist attacks, I’d be willing to give some years, part of my body, and part of my soul. Oh wait…

Too early to tell. I will say this from my perspective. If Iran and their proxies are removed as an impediment to regional unrest, and--as payback for assistance--Israel will accept a Palestinian State due to more stability, it may provide the basis for Saudi Arabia to join the Abraham Accords. THAT would be the biggest factor towards getting long-term stability in the ME. If the Saudis join, many others will follow.

I thought it was interesting when the PO’s started that BH was D2 and LP was D1.

The U.S. military has never lost a conflict on the actual battlefield.

I said in other threads that I wasn’t a personal fan of this effort and gave my reasons. Those reasons were based off history, current info, and experience. I even referenced my concern in this thread. But, I never once declared this effort good or bad. A decision was made by the people with the information to make the decision. Since it’s done, it’s time to support those tasked with carrying out their mission, and hope for their success and safety.

10 pages of posts so far. I’ve gone back and looked at them all. There’s a whopping total of 3 posts that somewhat support, or even mention the troops.

Do you have any clue how disrespectful this is to the Service members and their families? Disagree with the policy. Disagree with POTUS. That’s fine. Don’t minimize or trivialize someone’s death who swore on their life—which they gave full measure—to protect you.

It depends on the “employee”, and the conditions. This situation wasn’t even an assist. Israel wasn’t involved in any negotiations, and the attack on the Iranian complex where the leaders were meeting was an Israeli op. As I said, the policy applies to direct employees of the Executive Branch. There are various entities and personnel that aren’t direct employees of the Executive Branch.

I’m a firm believer in the idea that a POTUS doesn’t really control events. Events control a POTUS. What they do when events occur define them—for better or worse. We may wish there had been another way. We may not be a fan of entering another ME conflict. But, when it happens due to events that weren’t entirely foreseen, and our men & women are in harm’s way following their oaths, they should be supported above all else.

Looking at their policy positions, I don’t see much daylight between the two. I assume you believe Talarico to be more electable?

‘Formal policy’ I guess I owe you (and all) a better explanation. Soleimani wasn’t ‘assassinated’ by the definition agreed to by our existing EO & common rules of war. He was killed without trickery, negotiations weren’t ongoing, and no attempt was made to deceive. Yes, he was killed by a direct “employee” of the Executive Branch. But, not in any way that involved subterfuge. In today’s case, there was a gray line since negotiations could be construed to still be ongoing up until the time of the attack. To make sure there were no questions, the U.S. didn’t partake in the killings of the Supreme Leader of Iran. Same rules were followed when we were searching for Hussein. Formal U.S. policy doesn’t apply to “non-direct employees.” Hopefully, this helps explain.

Good to see he hasn’t forgotten everything.

La Porte Lady Dawgs vs. Leander Glenn Grizzlies Tuesday 3/3, 5:00 pm Mumford HS

For those wondering, yes—Israel launched sorties with about 200 aircraft. In comparison, the U.S. sent over 900 strikes against selected targets. The reason Israel went against the human targets and the U.S. focused on military and industrial complexes is because formal U.S. policy still doesn’t allow assassinations. Plus, Israel doesn’t have the total missile capabilities of the U.S. Now, I’d really like to ask folks to squabble over Trump less in this thread when we have men & women in harm’s way. This isn’t about Trump. There are plenty of other threads for the political trash talking. This is far from over.