We have, in many posts, discussed how to conduct a war and
have noted that the US, and the West, repeatedly fail to finish their wars
which results in having to refight them down the road (see, “Ending War – True Victory”). Consider the following quote from a Redstate
article related to an attack by Iran against US ships transiting the Strait of
Hormuz.
You might be initially tempted to think this is a good, forceful response but give the statement some more thought. It’s revealing and damning. After being attacked, we struck various Iranian facilities as listed in the statement. Since we apparently knew where these facilities and capabilities were, why hadn’t we already attacked them? In war, you don’t allow the enemy the first shot. You kill them before they can attack you. What’s more, if you’re in a war worth fighting, your goal is total victory which means you don’t stop until the enemy forces have been 100% eliminated. Again, why had we allowed known military facilities to remain in existence?
From a military perspective, we now appear to be fighting a
half-measures war instead of going for total victory as we had seemed poised to
do a few weeks ago. I’m very
disappointed that we’re in a war we don’t seem to want to pursue to the only
worthwhile conclusion. If we weren’t
serious about it, we shouldn’t have gotten into it.
Note: As always, we’re discussing only the military
aspects, not the political. Political
comments will be deleted so don’t bother.
_______________________________
U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) eliminated inbound threats and targeted Iranian military facilities responsible for attacking U.S. forces including missile and drone launch sites; command and control locations; and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance nodes.[1]
You might be initially tempted to think this is a good, forceful response but give the statement some more thought. It’s revealing and damning. After being attacked, we struck various Iranian facilities as listed in the statement. Since we apparently knew where these facilities and capabilities were, why hadn’t we already attacked them? In war, you don’t allow the enemy the first shot. You kill them before they can attack you. What’s more, if you’re in a war worth fighting, your goal is total victory which means you don’t stop until the enemy forces have been 100% eliminated. Again, why had we allowed known military facilities to remain in existence?
https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2026/05/07/us-hits-iranian-targets-n2202116
The list of missile and drone launch sites; command and control locations; and ISR nodes sound like a known target list that would be submitted for prepare targets that should be prosecuted prior to maneuvers. Why did we not strike these targets before we had ships in harm’s way?
ReplyDeleteThe Israelis eliminated the C&C and ISR nodes.
DeleteThe IRGC and National forces are now running on commanders intent.
The Bashars and SubBashar's get to use their initiative.
ISR is now a guy with binoculars and a Radio Shack
ESM kit.
A couple of comments.
ReplyDeleteBecause we’ve become extraordinarily casualty averse, we’ve had to expend - apparently - a large percentage of our limited inventory of expensive long range precision strike weapons, instead of risking the loss of a few airplanes by using gravity bombs, of which there is - apparently - a very large supply.
Also, if we inflicted a total crushing military defeat on Iran and destroyed its civilian infrastructure along with its economy, which we obviously could do, the country would likely break up, which might cause us more problems than it solves.
These two factors may be shaping our thinking and strategy around the way we’re managing this conflict.
Without a doubt, the fear of casualties is causing us to use our smart weapons more than might otherwise be warranted.
DeleteThe experience of WWII strongly suggests that your concern with civilian infrastructure damage is unwarranted. We obliterated Germany and Japan's infrastructure and achieved nothing but good results both in the short term and long.
Yes, that was certainly true after WW2. However both Germany and Japan were ethnically homogeneous countries, while Iran is the opposite. Only about 60% of the population of Iran are ethnic Persians, with the remaining 40% being mostly Kurds, Baluchs and Azeris, along with some Arabs, who don’t like each other very much.
DeleteMy suggestion was that a concern for the consequences of a hypothetical fracturing or ‘Balkanization’ of Iran might be shaping our conduct of the war.
I think that ultimately that’s likely to happen, and if it did then it would be a good thing, and it’s what we should be aiming for regardless of the short term consequences.
Hope that’s not too political for your blog.
"if it did then it would be a good thing,"
DeleteAnything that takes Iran's capability and focus away from world affairs and limits them to local affairs is a good thing.
I've not heard anyone else espouse your idea but it's an interesting one. What adjustments in our military strategy (conduct of the war) do you see being made to accommodate your idea? What are we doing differently, or should be doing differently, militarily? I haven't seen any changes but maybe you see something I don't?
"Hope that’s not too political for your blog."
You're fine. You've discussed a concept that directly impacts military actions and goals. I'm good with that.
#ComNavOps " We obliterated Germany and Japan's infrastructure and achieved nothing but good results both in the short term and long."
Deletefor that you need US to permanently militarily occupy that Country
US has Hundreds of `Military bases housing Tens of Thousands of Troops
Does US has money to do that in Iran while its Naval Ships are facing delay in their maintenance ?
Iran, because of its geography, topography and history, its large, young and well educated population, its advanced technological and industrial base, its wealth of natural resources, and the religion it shares with its neighbours, is always going to be the natural or default hegemonic power in the region.
DeleteImportantly, this is true whether the country is governed by mullahs, generals or post ‘regime change’ in a quasi-democracy by an elected president.
The resources of the Persian Gulf are absolutely critical to the economic health and security of the United States and its key allies in Europe and Asia, so this not something that we can or should live with or tolerate (a documented US policy that dates back to Carter’s presidency).
An Iran with its assets unfrozen, unsanctioned, free to export its oil, charge a toll on shipping passing through its territorial waters, exercising de facto control of its regional neighbors, and spending its wealth on rebuilding its military forces, would be a permanent threat to America.
But this is only the case while Iran remains a large and powerful unitary state. An Iran broken up along its ethnic fault lines, would be an Iran much reduced and more easily managed.
To achieve this we need to follow the model we established a generation ago in Yugoslavia; use military force to destroy the country’s ability to function as a viable and cohesive state, concurrently foment and precipitate a civil war, and later intervene to Balkanise the country.
Türkiye and Pakistan will object strongly to this, and will likely intervene militarily (which is fine as they’re both unreliable allies, and we shouldn’t really care what they think about it): Russia probably wouldn’t take any action as they’ve got their hands full at the moment, and anyway don’t like the Azerbaijan government very much. There would likely be enormous outflows of refugees via Türkiye into Europe, but that’s for the Europeans to worry about.
The Pentagon has been war gaming a conflict with Iran for at least forty years; I’m pretty sure they’ve gamed this outcome too.
"Does US has money to do that in Iran"
Delete1. That was a counter to our earlier comment suggesting that harm would come from that approach. In fact, I do not recommend that approach. It's not needed in this case. We do not need to rebuild Iran and reshape its government as we wanted to do with Germany and Japan. All we need to accomplish is to eliminate Iran's ability to threaten anyone via conventional or nuclear weapons or through the export of terrorism.
2. The amount of money it would require is well within our budget (as is proper maintenance of our ships!) IF WE SPEND WISELY and do not throw money away on Zumwalts, Fords, hundreds of admiral's staffs and so on.
3. The amount of money it would cost is insignificant compared to the cost of continuing to deal with an intact Iran that continues to engage in terrorism around the world. Similarly, the cost to rebuild Germany and Japan was insignificant compared to the benefits we, they, and the world have reaped over the decades by having them become responsible world neighbors. Your focus on cost is short-sighted.
I don't know how you can talk about war without talking about politics. There are no such things as "purely military" matters. How else are we to determine the nature of our actions or responses except in relation to our overall objectives? I seem to recall that some Kraut general wrote about this 200 years ago.
ReplyDeleteOf course politics and military actions are related. However, we avoid the purely political aspects since it is impossible for most people to discuss politics without injecting irrational illogic and pure emotions.
DeleteFirst, Trump has not even moderately prepared before starting the war.
ReplyDeleteFirst, not stuck enough ammunitions. For the 90-91 Gulf War, Bush Sr. spent months to stock weapons and ammunitions so even 1 year after that war, Pentagon still shipping ammunitions back to US.
No stock of SPR. Despite Trump attacked Biden on release SPR and vowed to fill it up, despite 2025 to early 2026 crude oil hovered around multi years low, Trump increased very little on SPR.
Knowing the Hormuz is a choking point but no preparation. During 2025's attack Iran, people talked loudly on Iran's possible blockade the Hormuz.
No thorough IFF passcodes coordination be the war start thus three F-15E shot down by Kuwait ground SAM (base on CENTCOM, WSJ is unreliable).
Not just Trump, his top generals also failed to alarm him. So, as a group of not prepared but entering war, what do you then expect?
Your comment is largely incorrect and reeks of Trump derangement syndrome. I'm allowing it to stand because you raise just enough military concerns and just barely avoid out and out Trump bashing. I'll now dissect your comment and point out the flaws.
Delete"Trump has not even moderately prepared before starting the war."
That's not even remotely true. The Trump administration engaged in a wholesale refocus of the military and has been attempting to increase arms production. They have been extremely focused on improving our overall military readiness.
"not stuck [sic] enough ammunitions"
Again, incorrect. The administration has been attempting to increase arms production. Unfortunately, the prior administration gave an enormous chunk of our weapons inventory to Ukraine and our factories are not sized to increase production much beyond where it is now. It takes years to significantly increase production capabilities. Trump began his Presidency just over a year ago. There's a limit to what can be accomplished in one year.
"No stock of SPR."
Yet again incorrect. Biden drained the reserve and Trump has been attempting to refill it but the equipment was never designed for rapid refill. Far worse, one of the major refill sites was found inoperable which drastically cut the amount of oil that could be transferred. I posted on this. Check the archives.
"Hormuz is a choking point but no preparation"
This is a valid concern and I, too, am puzzled by the seeming lack of anticipation and planning preparation around this obvious center of gravity.
"IFF"
Friendly fire is a constant of war. I have no inside information about what, exactly went wrong in the F-15 incident so unless you have some information, you're just wildly speculating and attempting to assign blame with no basis.
"top generals also failed"
This is a vague, non-specific claim and, as such, has no validity. Contrary to what you imply, the military leadership has produced an overwhelmingly successful military operation (setting aside the issue of the strait) which would suggest the leadership did, at the very least, do an adequate job.
Hopefully, your next comment will be much more factual.
I will note that what we have here is a modern day case of the Kwangtung Army, of the tail wagging the dog, in CENTCOM. We are supposed to be pivoting for a confrontation with China. We are supposed to be preparing for peer war with a peer opponent that is catching up to us qualitatively and which is capable of equalling us quantitatively.
DeleteAnd yet, CENTCOM was allowed to kick off a war, for no clear objectives, and has burned away our stockpile of weapons and done irreparable damage to the image of strength that we projected.
"CENTCOM was allowed to kick off a war"
DeleteYou need to research how the US initiates conflicts.
CENTCOM does not have the authority and cannot "kick off" wars. Only Congress or the President can initiate hostilities. CENTCOM merely follows orders.
"for no clear objectives"
Do not allow emotions to cloud your objectivity. While the Administration has failed to clearly present the objectives in a concise listing, there were, without any doubt whatsoever, some very clear, high level objectives articulated: eliminate Iran's nuclear weapons production capability and degrade/eliminate Iran's ability to export terrorism, as two clear examples. So, while the Administration has done a poor job of explaining the objectives and "selling" the war to the public, they have clearly had high level objectives and have largely achieved those.
"burned away our stockpile of weapons "
Patently false. Yes, we have expended weapons in pursuit of the high level objectives just mentioned, the bulk of our inventory reductions have occurred under the Biden Administration in support of Ukraine.
"done irreparable damage to the image of strength that we projected."
Flat out incorrect and, in fact, quite the opposite. The use of the military has ENHANCED our "image of strength". The appeasement policies of the previous administration and the plummeting readiness and downsizing of the military under Biden is what damaged our image of strength. USING the military ENHANCES the image of strength, whether you agree or disagree with the use.
I expect much more facts and logic in your next comment, should you choose to comment again.
While technically true that the combatant commands cannot declare war by themselves, it is undeniable that CENTCOM enjoys an oversized influence in decisionmaking, and that it clearly has a fair amount of influence with SecDef Hegseth, whose military service was spent in this region. While there may be high level objectives that the administration was pursuing, I do not agree that these objectives were time-sensitive enough that we had to start a war with Iran right now, when we are supposed to be preparing to fight China in the near future.
Delete"Patently false. Yes, we have expended weapons in pursuit of the high level objectives just mentioned, the bulk of our inventory reductions have occurred under the Biden Administration in support of Ukraine."
To the best of my knowledge, we have not transferred Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine. The bulk of weapons we have sent over have been JDAMs, HIMARS, G-MLRS, GL-SDB and the like, which are on the lower tier of PGMs and are weapons we can fairly easy restock. The Ukranians would not have needed to pursue their own domestic cruise missile programs if we were supplying them with Tomahawk and LRASM.
CENTCOM has enjoyed a lavish supply of our limited stockpile of cruise missiles to employ, first against the Houthis in Yemen, and now in Iran, leaving our cruise missile stockpile significantly drawn down. I can only see this as a benefit to China: given our long lead times and limited production capability, it's going to take us years to rebuild our cruise missile stockpile. As you noted, our weapons production cannot be easily ramped up, and it will take years to significantly increase production. This is an effort that will likely take multiple administrations.
China can already match us quantitatively in terms of hull count, and is catching up to us qualitatively. As their own shipbuilding efforts have shown, they are also better able to regenerate their combat losses than we can. We can barely build a single Burke a year, to say nothing of the delay and the catastrophe that was LCS, FFGX and FFX; meanwhile they built and launched 70 corvettes in 10 years.
The problem is that the combatant commands like CENTCOM don't own any of their assets - they just give a shopping list and demand things be given to them for their missions. Maintaining and managing combat firepower isn't a consideration for them at all.
It's strange that CENTCOM didn't yoink USS Preble from Yokosuka to take part in the blockade. You'd think this would be an excellent opportunity for OPEVAL and live fire experience of the Helios laser.
Delete"To the best of my knowledge, we have not transferred Tomahawk missiles"
DeleteYou did not specify Tomahawks or any specific weapon in your original criticism. You made a blanket statement that Trump failed to stock enough munitions (no type specified). This is clearly Trump derangement syndrome on your part as no President could possibly significantly increase weapon levels in the one year that Trump has been President. In fact, Trump has requested increased weapons production but the lag time between request and delivery precludes any instant improvement in stocks. I believe we should be doing more to increase weapons production but to blame Trump for the low level of our current inventory is completely misguided and is based solely on hatred for the President.
"Maintaining and managing combat firepower isn't a consideration for them at all."
This is a valid issue and is at the heart of our current military operations and readiness problem.
Be warned. I will not allow any further incorrect criticisms of Trump based solely on personal hatred. There are aspects of the Trump administration's management of the military, thus far, that can be fairly criticized but I insist they be based on actual fact not personal animosity.
"You'd think this would be an excellent opportunity for OPEVAL and live fire experience of the Helios laser."
DeleteUnless they already know it's not effective?
My friend, you are confusing me for the other anon who started this comment chain. I am a completely different person that him (interjecting myself into this comment thread because, to my embarrassment, I accidentally clicked reply to this chain instead of a generic comment.) I have not criticised Trump at all. My beef is with CENTCOM. I blame CENTCOM for wasting our cruise missile stockpiles.
DeleteAs I have said, CENTCOM is the modern day Kwangtung Army, a tail wagging the dog. We all know what happened to Japan- the Kwangtung Army was out of control and eventualy got Imperial Japan into a war that destroyed them.
"you are confusing me for the other anon"
DeleteThen attach a username to your comment. The onus is on you to identify your comment, not on me!
"I blame CENTCOM"
The Combatant Commander system is fundamentally flawed, without a doubt. It is NOT, however, responsible for getting us into conflicts. That is strictly a Presidential decision (or Congress, if they would ever have the moral courage to exercise their Constitutional duties). The CC system merely manages the conflict.
War aside, the CC system is not even responsible for our badly reduced maintenance and readiness. Yes, CC's make unceasing requests for assets but the fault lies with the services who refuse to say no the CC requests. Blaming the CC is like blaming a kid for constantly asking for candy. It is up to the candy holder (the parent or the service chiefs, in this case) to say no to unreasonable requests.
It is also, in no way, the fault of the CC system for depleted weapon inventories. Weapon procurement is the responsibility of the service chiefs and Congress.
So, while there are fundamental flaws with the CC system, they are not to blame for the things I've described.
I totally agree with this "not political" comment. I also agree with ComNavOps that when you fight a war you don't do it half assed - and first you need to prepare it carefully, game it extensively.
ReplyDelete"first you need to prepare it carefully, game it extensively."
DeleteThere should be no need to specially prepare anything. It is the job of the military to have contingency plans on the shelf for every conceivable scenario and to ensure that the military is trained, maintained, and equipped to execute any of the plans at a (figurative) moment's notice.
"Since we apparently knew where these facilities and capabilities were, why hadn’t we already attacked them?" But is it apparent? Isn't it possible that until missiles were launched the USN didn't know where the launchers were?
ReplyDelete" Isn't it possible that until missiles were launched the USN didn't know where the launchers were?"
DeleteNo. Go back and reread the quote from the article carefully. ONLY the launcher itself MIGHT be unknown until launch. All the rest of the listed targets would NOT be revealed by a launch. Therefore, we must have been aware of them prior to any launch.
If the US was aware of the targets and didn't attack them, it makes me wonder whether the skippers had been ordered not to expend materiel until it was unavoidable.
DeleteCIA estimated 70-75% of Iran’s missile and drone capabilities are still there, while we already spent a third to half of our precision guided munitions. The math is not working out. Also, while we sent couple destroyers into the gulf, albeit successfully defended themselves, there is no guarantee a string of tankers can be escorted out by siphoning off the same defense assets. Bottom line: we didn’t blow up most of Iran’s offensive assets while running down our war stock, and we can’t open up the strait by force alone.
ReplyDeleteThe CIA hasn't got a clue about anything. Other reports claim we've reduced Iran's missile and drone capabilities by 90+%. Regardless, the key is your last statement:
Delete"we can’t open up the strait by force alone."
Absolutely false. Of course we can but we would need to change our approach which has been hands off along the strait until now. Land a couple divisions along the coast and conduct continuous surveillance backed up by multiple carriers and AF assets and NOTHING will survive to conduct attacks. This is the difference between all out war and the half-assed approach we seem to be taking on this.
When I meant “not by force alone “, I meant by conventional naval or AirPower. But since you mentioned boots-on-the-ground, why did you forgo tactical nuke option ( which , I presumed, you must have thought of, too)?
DeleteP.S. I’m also puzzled why after 4+ years Putin hadn’t pull the nuke trigger on Ukraine, given NATO probably won’t respond in kind.
Because that would instantly make us a pariah on the world stage and cost us any semblance of rightness or moral authority while offering very little in the way of military effectiveness. Iran does not have the kind of targets that lend themselves to tac-nukes.
DeletePutin has refrained for the same reason. The moment he uses a tac-nuke, the entire world turns against him in outrage would impose every sanction imaginable and flood Ukraine with weapons and support and might well bring other countries militaries into the conflict.
Yeah, there's solid reasons we BEHAVE as though our nuclear policy is no first use, even though we regularly communicate that our nuclear policy allows first use. It just looks a lot better on thr geopolitical stage.
DeleteNotably, China is the opposite of us: they SAY their policy is no first use, but they BEHAVE as in a way that implies they'll nuke first. Note all of their investment into delivery systems.
The US, meanwhile, deemphasises nuclear delivery systems in favor of conventional options.
This is not a MAD scenario (no worry for nuke escalation), this is more like August, 45’ where we dropped two to ‘shock & awe’ Japan and saved projected half-million U.S. casualties ( not to mention millions of Japanese civilians) had land invasion occurred. And post-WW2 U.S. wasn’t demonized for the nuke use, in fact the opposite ( not the nuke, but resulting prosperity in the U.S. camp) happened.
DeleteAs for ‘ what to hit?’ Well, Im sure DoD has a list if tact. nuke is allowed (it’s a paradigm shift, not just changing equation). Right now, Iran is preparing for a knife fight (boots-on-the-ground is that), and we’re trying to strangle Iran economically which might not work ( given the same regime put Iran through a brutal 8-yr war, lost almost a million men in the eighties). Or, we may even try a pre-announced nuke demonstration in Iranian desert to urge them to cease and desist.
I can’t understand why we continue to tolerate the Strait of Hormuz being ‘closed’, and de facto concede control of this essential waterway to a hostile power.
DeleteThe Saudis and their neighboring Gulf States have trillions of dollars in assets - money is no object to them.
If they offered free full indemnity insurance to the shipowners for hulls and cargo at 120% of appraised value, and (say) $250k in life and disability insurance to the crews, the Strait would be open tomorrow.
If the Indian and other third world crews were unwilling to do their jobs, we could re-flag the ships and use our own people to crew them, and pay them $100kp+ per trip.
We could tell the Iranians that for every missile or drone attack, we’d take out a vital and irreplaceable piece of their infrastructure.
We’re allowing ourselves to be humiliated and defeated here - this is 100% unacceptable.
"This is not a MAD scenario"
DeleteActually, it is, if on a somewhat delayed time frame. Once we use the first tac-nuke, the precedent has been set and China, for instance, is free to nuke at will.
The WWII scenario is completely different. At that time, nukes were poorly understood, low powered, and, most importantly, there was no peer country with nuclear capability to do anything about our nuke use. None of that applies today. We thoroughly understand the self-defeating nature of nuclear weapons, our nukes are much higher powered, and several peer or near-peer countries have nukes and would be happy to return the "favor" of nuclear use once we set the precedent.
As far as targets, there are no readily suitable targets. Tac-nukes are useful against dense clusters of soldiers and equipment, high value ships and submarines, or hardened facilities otherwise immune to conventional weapons. I know of no such targets. It is remotely possible that there is some facility somewhere that might still be standing (or buried!) but we can deal with those using conventional weapons.
Once you start irradiating people and land, you've crossed a threshold you can't come back from. We attacked Iran, i large part, to prevent the use of nuclear weapons. Using nuclear weapons against them would ostracize us from the world and make us hypocrites of the highest order.
"I can’t understand ... "
DeleteTremendous comment! I love your solution. The various countries could also offer free ship replacements in the incredibly unlikely event that one was sunk.
Any scenario where you put merchant ships into the strait does invite people getting killed. And I think a big part of the problem is that, other than the US and Israel, there was no effort to cultivate international buy-in to the war beforehand (or even give notice); nor was the war declared by Congress; nor was any real effort made before the war started to persuade people that it made sense, and it has been quite unpopular throughout.
DeleteIn that context, risking the lives of US service people, or getting people from other countries to put their lives on the line, is a very hard lift.
In fact, the behavior of our military leadership, including the President, leads me to think they went into this conflict believing it could/would be resolved with very little US loss of life, and without a willingness to put US servicepeople in serious danger no matter how events subsequently unfolded.
I'm not sure what sense it makes to discuss hypothetical options that don't recognize those facts and the constraints they are currently exerting on miltiary action.
"Any scenario where you put merchant ships into the strait does invite people getting killed."
DeleteI'm not sure but I think I once read that people can be killed in a war.
"other than the US and Israel, there was no effort to cultivate international buy-in to the war"
You mean other than the decades of terrorism caused by Iran and their decades long pursuit of nuclear weapons? I don't know how much more justification and buy in you can get.
That aside, none of us - you especially - have the slightest idea what went on behind the scenes as far as discussions with other countries. Other than our closest allies who denied us support, there was no great protest from the Middle East countries which tells me they were quietly supportive. They sure turned on Iran pretty quickly when Iran started lobbing missiles and drones at them!
The evidence suggests you're way off base.
"believing it could/would be resolved with very little US loss of life"
And that's exactly how it's played out. For the number of strikes on Iran and the number of counterattacks by them, the loss of US life has been remarkably small.
Whether *you* or *I* think there's enough justification for this war is as relevant as a drop in the bucket. What is self-evident is that "decades of terrorism and decades-long pursuit of nuclear weapons" have not, in fact, convinced the majority of Congress to make a declaration of war at this point in time, nor convinced the majority of the American public or potentially-allied states to support the war in its current form.
DeleteIn the US, at least, the onus has historically been on political leaders to bring the public along in supporting a war. For example, one might have said in 1939 that it was obviously justified for America to fight against German and Japanese fascism. But in point of fact, political willingness to do so was low in the US. FDR worked tirelessly to make the case that fighting the conflict was in the United State's interest, and even after 2 years we were only up to the point of doing Lend Lease.
"have not, in fact, convinced the majority of Congress to make a declaration of war"
DeleteThat's utterly irrelevant as Congress has not formally declared a war since WWII. They have abdicated their responsibility. As far as the majority of Congress, the recent May war powers proposal to stop the Iran action failed to pass since the majority of Congress supports the war.
"majority of the American public"
Polls mean next to nothing and are totally dependent on who asks the questions, which party is answering, and how the question is worded. For example, asking do you support attacking Iran is likely to get less support than asking do you support preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons?. Another outstanding example is the repeated polling showing Trump's unpopularity and yet on election day, he wins.
Be warned. We're not going to discuss social or political issues any further. You've had your say and I've had mine.
Right. So we nuke Iran, invade Iran, problem solved ?
ReplyDeleteInstead of mocking, why don't you offer some sort of factual analysis and solution. That would be a productive and welcome comment.
Delete