View Full Version : Are We About to Go to War with Iran?
Doc Safari
05-08-19, 16:34
I'd been wanting to do a thread on this for several days, but this seemed to present the best opportunity:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-05-08/brink-apocalyptic-war-iran-and-most-americans-dont-seem-care
This is the closest that the U.S. has been to a war with Iran in decades, and yet most Americans are either clueless or they don’t seem to believe that it could actually happen
And I certainly don’t think that President Trump wants a war, but he is surrounded by war hawks that have been pushing an extremely aggressive “get tough” policy with Iran. The Trump administration just canceled the waivers that were allowing other nations to continue purchasing Iranian oil, and the goal of that move is to reduce Iranian exports to zero. But oil exports are 40 percent of the Iranian economy, and the Iranians understand that this move could absolutely cripple their economy. The Iranians have threatened to close the straight of Hormuz in retaliation, and that would almost certainly provoke a U.S. military response. In addition, it is being reported that on Wednesday the Iranians will announce that they are taking steps to restart their nuclear program…
On Wednesday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is expected to announce small steps to resume his country’s nuclear program. According to the New York Times, that will include conducting research on centrifuges that can make nuclear fuel, and curbing nuclear inspections from observers.
Of course the truth is that the Iranians never fully abandoned their nuclear program in the first place, but that is supposed to be a big secret.
In any event, tensions between the U.S. and Iran have now reached frightening levels.
On Sunday, White House National Security Adviser John Bolton announced that the USS Abraham Lincoln and four B-52 bombers are being sent to the Middle East as a message to Iran…
Four B-52 Stratofortress bombers are being sent to the Mideast to support the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln in moves aimed at countering threats from Iran, U.S. Central Command said Tuesday.
The B-52s, from Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, are deploying to Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, a hub for U.S. air operations in the region, CBS News reported.
Apparently there was some intelligence which indicated that Iran was planning a possible attack on U.S. forces in the region, and Bolton said that these deployments would make it very clear that any assault would be “met with unrelenting force”…
The deployments would “send a clear and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime that any attack on United States’ interests, or on those of our allies, will be met with unrelenting force,” he said in a statement. “The United States is not seeking war with the Iranian regime, but we are fully prepared to respond to any attack, whether by proxy, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or regular Iranian forces.”
In response, the Iranians accused the U.S. of engaging in a form of “psychological warfare”.
In addition to everything else, CNN is reporting that it appears that the Iranians have been “moving short-range ballistic missiles aboard boats in the Persian Gulf”, and this has deeply alarmed U.S. officials…
Intelligence showing that Iran is likely moving short-range ballistic missiles aboard boats in the Persian Gulf was one of the critical reasons the US decided to move an aircraft carrier strike group and B-52 bombers into the region, according to several US officials with direct knowledge of the situation.
The concerns over the movement of the missiles was one of multiple threads of intelligence from various sources that led the US to believe Iran had a capability and intention to launch strikes against US targets.
...we could be soon engaged in a conflict that could literally spark World War 3.
While they are certainly no match for the U.S., the truth is that the Iranian military is quite strong, and they possess weapons of immense destructive power. And in the event of a military conflict with the U.S., the Iranians have already said that they will hit Israel too.
And if Israel gets hit, they will certainly strike back at Iran extremely hard.
The Iranians absolutely hate both the United States and Israel, and recent moves by the Trump administration have pushed the Iranians into a corner.
A cornered animal is extremely dangerous, and at this point the Iranians may feel as if the only option they have left is to lash out.
As a first step, they could potentially close the Strait of Hormuz, and that would instantly create a global oil crisis.
My take: Things definitely appear to be escalating but I will defer to people with more knowledge than I have as to whether this is genuinely the brink of war or if it's more of the brinksmanship we have witnessed over the years.
Would we really be fighting a war with Iran? China, Russia, the true enemy?
Straight Shooter
05-08-19, 17:02
Look here..this shit with Iran, N. Korea, China, Russia and all the other trouble makers has been kicked down the road for decades. SHOULD HAVE been dealt with during the Clinton years. Theyve let them grow now to be a big enough threat. But, if we..America..continue to kick it down the road, we are truly in for some serious serious shit soon. SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE, & FAST.
I dont know what that something is..Im just a poor old country boy...but America & its allies WILL SUFFER badly if we continue to just do nothing.
I am willing to suffer to get rid of the threats that have hung over our heads since the eighties, if not earlier.
I think that you have folks in place who would like nothing more than to kick off a war with Iran, Bolton for example.
Doc Safari
05-08-19, 17:05
I think that you have folks in place who would like nothing more than to kick off a war with Iran, Bolton for example.
Yes, I used to really like Bolton, but I think he masturbates to reports of enemy incursions at the present.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
05-08-19, 17:06
Same thing happened in 2011/12. Iran CLOSED the Straits of Hormuz. I was on the USS Pearl Harbor, as we (our WestPac/MEU), along with a carrier group and sub escorts, opened it back up by pushing right through their little fastboat armada. Was really a sight to see. Maybe it will come to a head eventually, but I don't see it happening soon.
Diamondback
05-08-19, 17:28
A friend in my college days (she was faculty, not a fellow student) happens to be of Persian heritage, and has a fatwa on her head thanks to the black-turbaned turds. I for one enthusiastically support Regime Change in Tehran, if for no other reason than so she can rest easier at night.
as I understand we are moving things around constantly and talking is cheap and seems to be done weekly daily whatever so I do not see us any closer then any other time in recent history since letting them gain so much power ?
if anything I think we would secretly back Israel to do some more sabotage etc.. chip away etc..
but I do not trust what they would do as they have nothing to lose and everything to gain in starting a war
Diamondback
05-08-19, 17:35
as I understand we are moving things around constantly and talking is cheap and seems to be done weekly daily whatever so I do not see us any closer then any other time in recent history since letting them gain so much power ?
if anything I think we would secretly back Israel to do some more sabotage etc.. chip away etc..
but I do not trust what they would do as they have nothing to lose and everything to gain in starting a war
This is part of the big thing for Arab-Israeli reconciliation--Iran's only friend in the region is Syria, and the main thing that lets them stay as far up the food chain as they do is that their enemies are kept fighting among themselves, the "fingers" of Guderian's quote rather than assembling into a "fist."
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-08-19, 18:00
Does Zerohedge ever actually work out? They seem to always have something that seems like it will track, but never does.
Straight Shooter
05-08-19, 18:00
I think that you have folks in place who would like nothing more than to kick off a war with Iran, Bolton for example.
26Inf- I value your opinion on this board, I find you to be intelligent on many subjects. May I ask, do you not think we need to go ahead NOW with some kind of action...BEFORE they get even stronger, bolder & crazier? What do you think needs to happen.
Genuinely curious, not being a smart ass.
Well, Bolton. So....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The_War_Wagon
05-08-19, 18:30
You mean all that Obam-... I mean, TAXPAYER MONEY :mad: - by the connex-load - DIDN'T buy the Iranian's good will & cooperation?!?! :rolleyes:
You mean all that Obam-... I mean, TAXPAYER MONEY - by the connex-load - DIDN'T buy the Iranian's good will & cooperation?!?! ************************
NO !!!!
It did not, but it was a criminal action by our President in my estimation.
Oh boy, more war and more immigrants.
And to think I wasted 8 years bitching about Obama.
YangGang 2020. At least I get an extra grand a month in NEETbux
I’m sick of “winning”
26Inf- I value your opinion on this board, I find you to be intelligent on many subjects. May I ask, do you not think we need to go ahead NOW with some kind of action...BEFORE they get even stronger, bolder & crazier? What do you think needs to happen.
Genuinely curious, not being a smart ass.
Well, you asked....
I don't think we should have backed out of the nuclear deal with them. Not saying that it was a great deal, but we kind of left a bad taste in the mouth of the other signatories, several of whom are allies, rapidly becoming former allies under this administration. Most knowledgeable sources apparently believed that Iran was in compliance. I think President Trump's administration was too focused on how Iran was acting in other areas such as Syria and Hezbollah.
At this point, we are on the road from being a trusted partner, to being a partner of necessity for many of our Nation's allies.
Nonetheless, we have come to this point, and here is what I believe should happen regarding Iran and the Middle-East in general:
If we get involved in a shooting conflict with Iran, that will play right into the hands of the Russians, and the Chinese. Guarantee you the problem in Venezuela will grow by leaps and bounds. And who else in the middle-east would we be battling?
Quite frankly, everyone in the world who keeps an eye on such things knows our military is getting frayed. We have solid troops, but they are too few and too worn to take on anything else right now. The other elements of force projection 1) transport to get the troops deployed and then keep them supplied is already stretched; 3) the Navy is facing a material and personnel readiness crisis because of the op-tempo; 4) likewise the Air Force. If I know that from reading open source material so does anyone else who cares to look. Russia and China would love to see somethin cook off with Iran to get us further in the hole readiness wise so that it will take us even longer to recover.
If I were given a free hand, I would begin building the armed forces back to 1990-91 levels. That would mean an across the board tax increase. The times we are living in have become near as, if not more volitale, than they were at the height of the Cold War in my opinion.
This will take time, and we need to calm things in order to get breathing room.
To signal that our build-up was not predatory, if I was given the keys to our foreign policy, I would realign our middle-eastern commitments. Countries would have to make a choice whther they want to remain our allies or go it on their own without our aide other than for basic humanitarian needs.
To that end, Israel would have to accept the stationing of U.S. troops in sufficient numbers to maintain order in the disputed areas (until a two-state agreement is brokered) and provide a credible deterent to any Nations set on Israel's destruction. Under my doctrine, to attack Israel would be to attack the U.S. and result in full scale war. As a result, Israel could begin to play nicer with it's neighbors and, hopefully in a decade, we would be able to reduce our footprint.
I would go to Iran and say we had a good thing going for you, and we need to reestablish that path.
Now, I'm not a complete fool, that is pie-in-the sky dreaming.
If we need to go into Iran, we need to do it with full force and effect, no half-steps. That means that we will likely be fighting other Nation's and taking and holding ground. That means emergency mobilization - the draft. It will be messy, it probably will expand. Otherwise, we are just going to be marching in place with no real progress for another 18 years.
The question is, do the America people have the guts for that, or will they allow the leaders to squander the lives of our youth for another decade? You can bet President Trump nor Bolton will be doing any fighting. (I won't either for that matter.)
Iran has plans to attack USA targets, in the region and around the world. We have hard intelligence on this and we shared it with the USA.
Regarding the deal obama made with Iran, my friends father was the Israeli Ambassador to IAEA and he told me that the deal would give Iran the bomb 100%.
When we took 1000 pounds of documents from Iran, it became evident they had switched from an overt nuclear weapons program to a covert one. But it was still going forward.
Israel has been and is still fighting a covert war to shut down or at least slow down the program.
The correct course of action for the USA is too shown our might and also to tighten sanctions even more. Choke the country.
Riots in Iranian cities are an on going thing, the people are fed up. So make it even worse the them, they will blame the leadership and try to over throw the government. These same people if it becomes a shooting war will line up at recruiting offices to be cannon fodder.
SilverBullet432
05-08-19, 23:26
Screw their oil, we’ve got more than enough to sell.... In fact, we’ve got so much, my company started shutting in wells. Too much production, not enough infrastructure..... Iran can suck it.
No. The urging to attack Iran is primarily coming from Saudi Arabia. That is why we went into Iraq and Syria. And they will want us kept in there for as many years as possible to strengthen their control over the ME.
Let’s stop being the bitch boy for Saudi royalty. When there is a direct threat we should crush it and move on. When the Saudis wet their man dresses we should laugh, tell to have at it if they want it so bad but we are staying out of it from now on.
Get off our damn knees from the Saudi dicks. Start fighting only for direct American threats and quit running around shooting whoever the Saudis point to next.
Coal Dragger
05-08-19, 23:59
Realistically our need to be involved in the Middle East is inversely proportional to our capacity to produce our own oil for energy, and industrial applications.
The balance of the equation has changed in the last 10 years, but our foreign policy hasn’t caught up. It’s long overdue for a serious review.
I suspect that we could probably ignore the entire region and still survive. With that in mind I see no compelling reason to commit US forces to conflict in the area that do not affect our economic interests or security. The economic interests portion dwindles everyday, and with it the national security interests.
Iran probably ran out of the billions Obama sent them and now they think they can raise hell and Trump will send another check. Id like to see these B-1's and B-2's down in Diego Garcia do what they were designed to do. Make Dresden look retro.
What would be the goal and or the win?
Straight Shooter
05-09-19, 05:42
Well, you asked....
I don't think we should have backed out of the nuclear deal with them. Not saying that it was a great deal, but we kind of left a bad taste in the mouth of the other signatories, several of whom are allies, rapidly becoming former allies under this administration. Most knowledgeable sources apparently believed that Iran was in compliance. I think President Trump's administration was too focused on how Iran was acting in other areas such as Syria and Hezbollah.
At this point, we are on the road from being a trusted partner, to being a partner of necessity for many of our Nation's allies.
Nonetheless, we have come to this point, and here is what I believe should happen regarding Iran and the Middle-East in general:
If we get involved in a shooting conflict with Iran, that will play right into the hands of the Russians, and the Chinese. Guarantee you the problem in Venezuela will grow by leaps and bounds. And who else in the middle-east would we be battling?
Quite frankly, everyone in the world who keeps an eye on such things knows our military is getting frayed. We have solid troops, but they are too few and too worn to take on anything else right now. The other elements of force projection 1) transport to get the troops deployed and then keep them supplied is already stretched; 3) the Navy is facing a material and personnel readiness crisis because of the op-tempo; 4) likewise the Air Force. If I know that from reading open source material so does anyone else who cares to look. Russia and China would love to see somethin cook off with Iran to get us further in the hole readiness wise so that it will take us even longer to recover.
If I were given a free hand, I would begin building the armed forces back to 1990-91 levels. That would mean an across the board tax increase. The times we are living in have become near as, if not more volitale, than they were at the height of the Cold War in my opinion.
This will take time, and we need to calm things in order to get breathing room.
To signal that our build-up was not predatory, if I was given the keys to our foreign policy, I would realign our middle-eastern commitments. Countries would have to make a choice whther they want to remain our allies or go it on their own without our aide other than for basic humanitarian needs.
To that end, Israel would have to accept the stationing of U.S. troops in sufficient numbers to maintain order in the disputed areas (until a two-state agreement is brokered) and provide a credible deterent to any Nations set on Israel's destruction. Under my doctrine, to attack Israel would be to attack the U.S. and result in full scale war. As a result, Israel could begin to play nicer with it's neighbors and, hopefully in a decade, we would be able to reduce our footprint.
I would go to Iran and say we had a good thing going for you, and we need to reestablish that path.
Now, I'm not a complete fool, that is pie-in-the sky dreaming.
If we need to go into Iran, we need to do it with full force and effect, no half-steps. That means that we will likely be fighting other Nation's and taking and holding ground. That means emergency mobilization - the draft. It will be messy, it probably will expand. Otherwise, we are just going to be marching in place with no real progress for another 18 years.
The question is, do the America people have the guts for that, or will they allow the leaders to squander the lives of our youth for another decade? You can bet President Trump nor Bolton will be doing any fighting. (I won't either for that matter.)
I appreciate the reply sir. As to the building up of troops, I truly think we need to be doing that. As to putting troops in Israel, just sitting here now, that seems good. But I truly think we need to start acting like the baddest dude in town, because we are. But, in the end, my beliefs tells me there will NEVER be a solution this side of Heaven.
With the combination of a theocracy and a nuclear weapons program, the sad truth is the world has no choice but to deal with Iran. If anyone here thinks the USA can walk away from the threat that is Iran, your mistaken.
When your theology craves for the world to be in the throngs of destruction in order to bring your messiah, and you teach children that being suicide bombers is better than becoming doctors, lawyers, business people, cops bus drivers or even mothers and fathers. You then add nuclear weapons to the mix and these people hate the USA, you can't walk away.
Iran has plans to attack USA targets, in the region and around the world. We have hard intelligence on this and we shared it with the USA.
Regarding the deal obama made with Iran, my friends father was the Israeli Ambassador to IAEA and he told me that the deal would give Iran the bomb 100%.
When we took 1000 pounds of documents from Iran, it became evident they had switched from an overt nuclear weapons program to a covert one. But it was still going forward.
Israel has been and is still fighting a covert war to shut down or at least slow down the program.
The correct course of action for the USA is too shown our might and also to tighten sanctions even more. Choke the country.
Riots in Iranian cities are an on going thing, the people are fed up. So make it even worse the them, they will blame the leadership and try to over throw the government. These same people if it becomes a shooting war will line up at recruiting offices to be cannon fodder.
Instead of covert, why not a real actual war?
US can’t be Israel’s foreign legion all the time
What would be the goal and or the win?
Nothing but debt, death, and a bigger vacuum in SWA
Riots in Iranian cities are an on going thing, the people are fed up. So make it even worse the them, they will blame the leadership and try to over throw the government. These same people if it becomes a shooting war will line up at recruiting offices to be cannon fodder.
With the combination of a theocracy and a nuclear weapons program, the sad truth is the world has no choice but to deal with Iran. If anyone here thinks the USA can walk away from the threat that is Iran, your mistaken.
When your theology craves for the world to be in the throngs of destruction in order to bring your messiah, and you teach children that being suicide bombers is better than becoming doctors, lawyers, business people, cops bus drivers or even mothers and fathers. You then add nuclear weapons to the mix and these people hate the USA, you can't walk away.
Both of these are important points. A war with Iran won’t be like Iraq. That whole country has been taught to hate America far more than Iraq ever was. I don’t think our COIN strategy is that great to begin with (hard to ever have a good one though) but I do think Iran would turn into a tremendous insurgency fight. And Russia would absolutely get involved.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You know a little over 40 years ago they were our best allies and the only people we trusted with F-14s which were a new hotness.
Pity.
Iran has plans to attack USA targets, in the region and around the world. We have hard intelligence on this and we shared it with the USA.
Regarding the deal obama made with Iran, my friends father was the Israeli Ambassador to IAEA and he told me that the deal would give Iran the bomb 100%.
When we took 1000 pounds of documents from Iran, it became evident they had switched from an overt nuclear weapons program to a covert one. But it was still going forward.
Israel has been and is still fighting a covert war to shut down or at least slow down the program.
The correct course of action for the USA is too shown our might and also to tighten sanctions even more. Choke the country.
Riots in Iranian cities are an on going thing, the people are fed up. So make it even worse the them, they will blame the leadership and try to over throw the government. These same people if it becomes a shooting war will line up at recruiting offices to be cannon fodder.
Israel is the only friend we've got in the region; they understand Iran better than we do. We should be in sync with Israel on a strategy to first starve them out, and if that doesn't work, drive them out with a ground war. I don't like thinking of another long war--I have 1 nephew from the midwest in service and 3 more of draft age. But there is real evil in the world and sometimes it's necessary. Yeah yeah, I know: Who are you to decide what qualifies as 'evil' and a 'just war'? Well, for starters, I think planning to kill me and my countrymen when we haven't personally or directly done anything to harm you, is evil. So there's that. Sitting around and waiting for them to build out their total plan to bring us down is crazy.
ramairthree
05-09-19, 09:34
A country with the capability to produce nuclear power has the capability to become a nuclear power.
They can increase uranium enrichment from reactor grade to weapons grade.
They can reprocess waste plutonium.
So, you can accuse any country with nuclear power of having a potential weapons program.
Because they do.
With the combination of a theocracy and a nuclear weapons program, the sad truth is the world has no choice but to deal with Iran. If anyone here thinks the USA can walk away from the threat that is Iran, your mistaken.
IMO, theocracies, or parliamentary democracies that give members of one religion rights over other citizens are anathema to American values. Either type of government armed with nuclear weapons gives me cause for concern.
The way I see it, if the U.S. disengaged from the middle-east, as Coal-Dragger posits:
Realistically our need to be involved in the Middle East is inversely proportional to our capacity to produce our own oil for energy, and industrial applications.
The balance of the equation has changed in the last 10 years, but our foreign policy hasn’t caught up. It’s long overdue for a serious review.
I suspect that we could probably ignore the entire region and still survive. With that in mind I see no compelling reason to commit US forces to conflict in the area that do not affect our economic interests or security. The economic interests portion dwindles everyday, and with it the national security interests.
There would be an unacceptable risk of Israel using nukes in a preemptive strike. I think that thought alone will always be enough to keep the United States involved in the region. That is why, in my ideal administration:
Israel would have to accept the stationing of U.S. troops in sufficient numbers to maintain order in the disputed areas (until a two-state agreement is brokered) edit: as a condition of our continued support. Edit: The force would also need to be large enough to provide a credible deterent to any Nations set on Israel's destruction. Under my doctrine, to attack Israel would be to attack the U.S. and result in full scale war. As a result, Israel could begin to play nicer with it's neighbors.
I believe the grim facts are that absent U.S. support, and the nuclear threat, Israel would be in dire straits.
The_War_Wagon
05-09-19, 11:38
You know a little over 40 years ago they were our best allies and the only people we trusted with F-14s which were a new hotness.
Pity.
We'd need a military governor the likes of MacArthur in there, AFTER the nuking.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-09-19, 13:55
Nothing but debt, death, and a bigger vacuum in SWA
Iranians killing Iranians in Iran. Them reaping what they have sown globally for four decades. Let’s see how the mullah snare viewer when 700 missiles a day fall on their country.
Burn their oil infrastructure to the ground. Tell the greenies that we are doing it to save us from global warming.
Let our Asian allies know that we are still the biggest and baddest and will smote people when needed.
MountainRaven
05-09-19, 14:10
Meanwhile, the country that gave us UBL, al-Qaeda, and 9/11 is low-key developing nuclear power with an eye toward developing nuclear weapons and our president is only too happy to bend over for them.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-09-19, 14:38
Double
Doc Safari
05-09-19, 14:39
Did you really just type "smote?"
sundance435
05-09-19, 15:33
IMO, theocracies, or parliamentary democracies that give members of one religion rights over other citizens are anathema to American values. Either type of government armed with nuclear weapons gives me cause for concern.
The way I see it, if the U.S. disengaged from the middle-east, as Coal-Dragger posits:
There would be an unacceptable risk of Israel using nukes in a preemptive strike. I think that thought alone will always be enough to keep the United States involved in the region. That is why, in my ideal administration:
Israel would have to accept the stationing of U.S. troops in sufficient numbers to maintain order in the disputed areas (until a two-state agreement is brokered) edit: as a condition of our continued support. Edit: The force would also need to be large enough to provide a credible deterent to any Nations set on Israel's destruction. Under my doctrine, to attack Israel would be to attack the U.S. and result in full scale war. As a result, Israel could begin to play nicer with it's neighbors.
I believe the grim facts are that absent U.S. support, and the nuclear threat, Israel would be in dire straits.
You and I usually jibe, but U.S. troops in Israel? Even if that is the swiftest way to bring about some semblance of "peace" (to the extent non-Israelis understand the concept) is a bridge WAY too far. Yes, I agree that us withdrawing from the Middle East will make Israel's behavior, and that of others, more erratic. I would never support putting U.S. troops over there for something that has only a nebulous connection to our national interest, as opposed to just keeping a lid on things, and something I do not care that much about to begin with. Honestly, I don't believe many Israeli politicians want real peace, either. Their (the politicians') existence, like many here, is rooted in having a perpetual enemy and the Israelis keep voting them into office (as do we).
Obama was the only president in recent history to try to disengage somewhat from the Arabian Peninsula. If he and his team weren't inept and aloof, who knows what might have been. The "Pacific-pivot" was the right call, though never implemented. It does boggle my mind, though, as to how we are endlessly involved in a godforsaken piece of real estate entangled with people (other than Israelis) we have nothing in common with. I do not have answer to that, but I'm sure putting U.S. troops there is not the right move for our country. The second we pulled out, it'd be biz as usual and we'd either be constantly sending troops there to enforce the peace, or not and demonstrate that our word means nothing. It's a Morton's Fork.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-09-19, 16:39
Did you really just type "smote?"
Yes, time to get.... biblical.....
I think my spell check was even surprised.
Let's all not drop to our knees for Barry because he wasn't pro-Saudi. He was just more pro-Iranian than pro Saudi, so I don't know how that is that much better. At least we get oil from the Saudis when we drop some cash on them.
Straight Shooter
05-09-19, 17:12
With the combination of a theocracy and a nuclear weapons program, the sad truth is the world has no choice but to deal with Iran. If anyone here thinks the USA can walk away from the threat that is Iran, your mistaken.
When your theology craves for the world to be in the throngs of destruction in order to bring your messiah, and you teach children that being suicide bombers is better than becoming doctors, lawyers, business people, cops bus drivers or even mothers and fathers. You then add nuclear weapons to the mix and these people hate the USA, you can't walk away.
THIS is what I try to explain to people- that we are not dealing with rationale minded people who have ANY sense survivalism...they worship death..who dont care about any consequence of nuke war..as long as their demon god is
appeased", EVERYONE, THEMSELVES INCLUDED, can die today as far as they care. They cannot be rationally dealt with like ordinary people or nations.
Overwhelming violence & their deaths are the only two things that will ever stop them. No treaty, NO negotiation, NO envoy, NO deal, NO threat..only action.
They are feral, like wild barn cats...and should be treated as such..SOON.
I am not a big one to advocate a war, and I'm NOT advocating one with Iran without sufficient provocation mind you, BUT......if there's one country who's had one coming for a l-o-n-g time it is those f*****s.
Dr. Bullseye
05-09-19, 19:22
Let's see, Mexico invades our country so we are going to war with Iran? Sounds as stupid as 9/11 and then attacking Iraq.
I would only support war with Iran if we can glass parking lot the House of Saud and the Wahhabi mullah beforehand.
It wouldn’t break my heart if Saudi Arabia got Hiroshima’d like that one scene from Terminator 2
IMO, theocracies, or parliamentary democracies that give members of one religion rights over other citizens are anathema to American values. Either type of government armed with nuclear weapons gives me cause for concern.
The way I see it, if the U.S. disengaged from the middle-east, as Coal-Dragger posits:
There would be an unacceptable risk of Israel using nukes in a preemptive strike. I think that thought alone will always be enough to keep the United States involved in the region. That is why, in my ideal administration:
Israel would have to accept the stationing of U.S. troops in sufficient numbers to maintain order in the disputed areas (until a two-state agreement is brokered) edit: as a condition of our continued support. Edit: The force would also need to be large enough to provide a credible deterent to any Nations set on Israel's destruction. Under my doctrine, to attack Israel would be to attack the U.S. and result in full scale war. As a result, Israel could begin to play nicer with it's neighbors.
I believe the grim facts are that absent U.S. support, and the nuclear threat, Israel would be in dire straits.
I pray to G-D, that not 1 American soldier will ever be used to secure Israel. We don't need American soldiers in any scenario that is likely to happen in the next couple of decades.
Syria is a basket case, Egypt is too busy trying to maintain the status quo. Saudis and UAE except Qatar like us now. Lebanon is a issue with Hizbullah but when the government in Iran falls so does Hizbullah.
Palestinians, who cares about them? Euro trash and the Democrats, in the near future even the Euro trash will dump them.
So why do I need American soldiers to safe guard Israel?
Covert war and sanctions, will cause the government in Iran to fall.
They are in a strange situation of being very strong from a short term military and terrorism stand point, but they are weak within the country the people no longer support them. As the economics gets worse they will have even less support.
This will be the danger zone which we are just starting to get into. Iran will hit American targets to try and start a war in an effort to have the masses rally around the flag.
We know, they are going to do something and soon.
I pray to G-D, that not 1 American soldier will ever be used to secure Israel. We don't need American soldiers in any scenario that is likely to happen in the next couple of decades.
Syria is a basket case, Egypt is too busy trying to maintain the status quo. Saudis and UAE except Qatar like us now. Lebanon is a issue with Hizbullah but when the government in Iran falls so does Hizbullah.
Palestinians, who cares about them? Euro trash and the Democrats, in the near future even the Euro trash will dump them.
So why do I need American soldiers to safe guard Israel?
Nobody turned down American soldiers in Germany during WWII....
What bemuses me is that everyone in SWA seems to be perpetually stuck in the Bronze Age with their way of thinking.
Honestly this might sound bad but if I didn’t know which religious practices you held; y’all look the same to me
Both sides cannot be the devil and both sides certainly aren’t angels.
Part of me wants to be cheeky and say “y’all need Jesus” but really the rockets and BS need to stop. Folks need to agree to disagree and I dunno....get a life.
All I know is that in my country where I live millions of unnecessary and unneeded people cross over every day and if she can cook, clean, learns to speak English with like a Valley Girl accent, and won’t steal my stuff; I might even wife one up.
A tangent but I’m taking it. My three ethnic turn ons are black chicks with British accents, Latin broads who talk like valley girls, and China Dolls who sound Southern. Maybe even (ugh) Texan.
I dunno.
Anyways each day the case is being made for a New Constantinople.
Really everyone just needs to I dunno, chill.
It’s like that Rick snd Morty episode. “Makes sense if you think about it”
The sun came up today. You know that alone let’s me know the Lord is thinking of me and Im alive and doing fine
Doc Safari
05-10-19, 08:47
I pray to G-D, that not 1 American soldier will ever be used to secure Israel. We don't need American soldiers in any scenario that is likely to happen in the next couple of decades.
Syria is a basket case, Egypt is too busy trying to maintain the status quo. Saudis and UAE except Qatar like us now. Lebanon is a issue with Hizbullah but when the government in Iran falls so does Hizbullah.
Palestinians, who cares about them? Euro trash and the Democrats, in the near future even the Euro trash will dump them.
So why do I need American soldiers to safe guard Israel?
Not that I'd ever get the chance, but I'd fight for Israel before I would the cesspool that is Europe. The day will come when the Muslim governments will finally put aside their differences and decide to destroy Israel once and for all. Ezekiel 38 & 39.
Not that I'd ever get the chance, but I'd fight for Israel before I would the cesspool that is Europe. The day will come when the Muslim governments will finally put aside their differences and decide to destroy Israel once and for all. Ezekiel 38 & 39.
Taking it further, for this prophecy to occur there has to have been peace in the area, everything seemingly settled:
in the latter years thou shalt come into the land that is brought back from the sword, and is gathered out of many people, against the mountains of Israel, which have been always waste: but it is brought forth out of the nations,and they shall dwell safely all of them.
It shall also come to pass, that at the same time shall things come into thy mind, and thou shalt think an evil thought:
11 And thou shalt say, I will go up to the land of unwalled villages; I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates,
So, as I read it, Israel needs to finally be at peace with her neighbors, they will attack, and God (not man) will show his might over Satan:
Thus will I magnify myself, and sanctify myself; and I will be known in the eyes of many nations, and they shall know that I am the Lord.
I'm probably wrong, though.
Doc Safari
05-10-19, 14:11
Taking it further, for this prophecy to occur there has to have been peace in the area, everything seemingly settled:
in the latter years thou shalt come into the land that is brought back from the sword, and is gathered out of many people, against the mountains of Israel, which have been always waste: but it is brought forth out of the nations,and they shall dwell safely all of them.
It shall also come to pass, that at the same time shall things come into thy mind, and thou shalt think an evil thought:
11 And thou shalt say, I will go up to the land of unwalled villages; I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates,
So, as I read it, Israel needs to finally be at peace with her neighbors, they will attack, and God (not man) will show his might over Satan:
Thus will I magnify myself, and sanctify myself; and I will be known in the eyes of many nations, and they shall know that I am the Lord.
I'm probably wrong, though.
No, it's a good analysis.
Nightvisionary
05-10-19, 14:32
Zero Hedge is a pretty unreliable news source. This whole thing about Bolton and the Carrier Air Group is political hot air. U.S. Carriers have been making the Arabian Gulf part of the regular deployments since at least the 1970's. The USS Enterprise conducted Operation Preying Mantis against Iranian naval forces in 1988, destroying several ships and boats. The Enterprise was there again in early 1990. CAG's are always there.
I foresee another failed military excursion.
Business_Casual
05-10-19, 18:02
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?172377-The-End-Game-War-with-Iran
I think I can saw I saw this coming.
Covert war and sanctions, will cause the government in Iran to fall.
They are in a strange situation of being very strong from a short term military and terrorism stand point, but they are weak within the country the people no longer support them. As the economics gets worse they will have even less support.
This will be the danger zone which we are just starting to get into. Iran will hit American targets to try and start a war in an effort to have the masses rally around the flag.
We know, they are going to do something and soon.
Abso-freaking-lutely! A Contra mission on steroids. No need for American boots. [wouldn't it be ironic if we sold TOW missiles to Nicaragua to fund a covert war in Iran?]
Now if they did something overt and obvious, smack the f*****g shit out of them HARD. Otherwise, let their own insurgents kill them by a thousand cuts.
Part of me wants to be cheeky and say “y’all need Jesus” but really the rockets and BS need to stop. Folks need to agree to disagree and I dunno....get a life.
A tangent but I’m taking it. My three ethnic turn ons are black chicks with British accents, Latin broads who talk like valley girls, and China Dolls who sound Southern. Maybe even (ugh) Texan.
I dunno.
I don't know about the Jesus part as I have been shot at by Christian Palestinians. But for sure rockets and terrorism need to stop. I will agree 100% that Israel has made mistakes. But I think an honest assessment of us will show overall we aren't doing a bad job of trying to balance staying alive while responding with the least force possible.
I think if the USA had to endure what we endure, the response would be much more violent and long term.
Black chics with British accents, YEP.
Black chics with British accents, YEP.
I worked with one at JFK after 9-11. YUP.
We've been at war with Iran since the Islamic Revolution began in early 1978. I had Iranian students as neighbors at the University of Arizona. Some had to return home because their student visas were revoked - a few sought asylum in the US. One is now a Doctor in Phoenix and big time Conservative Republican. As a general rule, the secular Iranian People are quite advanced intellectually, and anti-Islamist. Iran/Persia could be a real gem in that part of the world without the radical Islamist government.
There were several Iranian students in my engineering classes in 79-80’ whose families had fled after the Ayatollah revolution. So no friends to the radical Islamists. They all drove Trans Ams, partied and appeared very secular and intelligent and likable. However, even they had a deep, deep unquestioned determination that Israel should be wiped off the map. Made me realize (along with other experiences) there is no negotiating with Arabs or Persians—their ideology is so much a part of their culture they will never concede anything to the contrary.
We should never give a dime to these knuckleheads for oil, we should never give them technology, and we should let them slaughter each other for the most part. When they make direct threats to us or Israel or actual attacks then we should respond decisively and harshly and not be asking for permission from any of them ever.
I foresee another failed military excursion.
You and me both..my gut tells me that somehow, someway, American troops are going to be fighting in Iran at some point.. and just like A- stan, this will be another endless war..
I pray to G-D, that not 1 American soldier will ever be used to secure Israel. We don't need American soldiers in any scenario that is likely to happen in the next couple of decades.
Syria is a basket case, Egypt is too busy trying to maintain the status quo. Saudis and UAE except Qatar like us now. Lebanon is a issue with Hizbullah but when the government in Iran falls so does Hizbullah.
Palestinians, who cares about them? Euro trash and the Democrats, in the near future even the Euro trash will dump them.
So why do I need American soldiers to safe guard Israel?
What if there were no US dollars on top of no US soldiers?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We're all God's children.
And we all suck.
We're all God's children.
And we all suck.
Truth. At times we even suck at sucking.
Let Saudi Arabia attack Iran, they can beat each other to death, for all I care.
We've been at war with Iran since the Islamic Revolution began in early 1978. I had Iranian students as neighbors at the University of Arizona. Some had to return home because their student visas were revoked - a few sought asylum in the US. One is now a Doctor in Phoenix and big time Conservative Republican. As a general rule, the secular Iranian People are quite advanced intellectually, and anti-Islamist. Iran/Persia could be a real gem in that part of the world without the radical Islamist government.
Absolutely agree. All of the Persians I’ve known are staunchly anti-Islamist. And many are politically conservative.
What if there were no US dollars on top of no US soldiers?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
AMEN PLEASE NO AID TO ISRAEL!
But then we would be free to sell anything and everything we make to whom ever.
The American money is corporate welfare to the American defense industry and is also designed to keep Israeli companies from selling arms to who ever wants to buy them.
I think that complete cessation of American Aid and support isn't going to happen. If it did, it would not be to Israel's long term benefit.
I think your view of 'then we would be free to sell anything and everything we make to whom ever' is short-sighted in view of how the U.S. has supported Israel over the years.
Israel has received move U.S. foreign aid, of all types, than any other country in the world. The U.S. has many alliance with nations throughout the world, yet it has used it's UN Security Council veto more for Israel than any other nation.
We got your back, hell, as an individual, I got your back and I'm not a fan of the Israeli Government. Please return the favor and have ours.
Israel has Americas back. Israel sends mountains of intelligence to the USA, intelligence that the USA could not obtain if Israel didn't exist.
Israel improves American weapons and passes that knowledge back to the USA.
If we were free to sell weapons to everyone, we would more than make up the so called aid to Israel. Again this aid has strings attache and most of it must be spent on American weapons, so the aid is corporate welfare for American companies.
I am not a fan of Bibi, but he and he alone brought about the economic revolution in Israel that moved us into a powerhouse. Also 2 Colonels after the Yom Kipper war understood that in the long run Israel can't do too many wars like that, the cost was too high. So they fought to create a new program, that identified the smartest kids in Israel and sent them to learn rather than carry a rifle. It is on the shoulders of this program that Israel became the "Start Up" nation. I thank G-D for this every day, as it puts money in my pocket.
If your not a fan of the current government because we haven't made peace with the Palestinians. It wasn't for not trying on Israels part, Barak at Camp David offered Arafat as a starting point 97% of what he wanted. Israel was turned down.
The leadership of the Palestinians and I don't care if it is Hamas in Gaza or abbas in the so called west bank(happens to be Judea and Samaria heartland of biblical Israel) do not want peace and a Palestinian country.
For then they would have to lead a country, so they couldn't blame the evil Jews for the bad economics, trash not being picked up, raw sewage being dumped just on the land or in the ocean. But the real reason is they might be able to steal as much of the aid money and fill their bank accounts in Zurich.
Israel is not perfect, but if you look at a list of things that have been developed in Israel or by Israelis to make your life better and longer it will blow your mind.
I don't want to be "That Guy" but who does Israel want to sell guns to that they arent already selling guns to?
Lotsa Israeli weapons littering South America, Africa, Eastern Europe, and South East Asia. You can even buy a Galil and a Tavor in the US and a Tavor in Canada.
I mean that's pretty much the whole world except for the rest of the Middle East who aren't going to buy Israeli weapons anyways.
Israel has Americas back..
That. What people do not understand is that when SHTF for the USA, it won't be NATO that comes running into the fight, it will be Israel. Absolutely NO doubt in my mind. If we were to get into a bare knuckle street fight somewhere with a powerful nation, I'd take Israel in with me over 90% of the NATO members.
sundance435
05-13-19, 10:03
I don't want to be "That Guy" but who does Israel want to sell guns to that they arent already selling guns to?
Lotsa Israeli weapons littering South America, Africa, Eastern Europe, and South East Asia. You can even buy a Galil and a Tavor in the US and a Tavor in Canada.
I mean that's pretty much the whole world except for the rest of the Middle East who aren't going to buy Israeli weapons anyways.
That's what I was thinking. They can't sell the F-16s/15s we paid for and that's about it.
That. What people do not understand is that when SHTF for the USA, it won't be NATO that comes running into the fight, it will be Israel. Absolutely NO doubt in my mind. If we were to get into a bare knuckle street fight somewhere with a powerful nation, I'd take Israel in with me over 90% of the NATO members.
Let's not delude ourselves here. I don't recall any NATO country strafing a U.S. vessel (USS Liberty) and then trotting out every lame excuse possible, including that it was our fault. Israel has always been "Israel First". That's fine, but then we need to have the courage to temper our own support accordingly. Do I think we should shitcan the whole relationship? No. Do I think there's any ally out there who takes more and gives the least? Also no.
Our best "ally" is currently pushing us to the brink of an unnecessary war with Iran (we're just as culpable for taking the bait). If that's a better ally, then "Fortress America" it is.
That. What people do not understand is that when SHTF for the USA, it won't be NATO that comes running into the fight, it will be Israel. Absolutely NO doubt in my mind. If we were to get into a bare knuckle street fight somewhere with a powerful nation, I'd take Israel in with me over 90% of the NATO members.
Give me one concrete example of Israel backing us on anything when it hasn't been in their best interest to do so. Their cooperation generally has to be bought in some way shape or form.
Austrailia, for one, has been in every brawl the U.S. has been in. Understood they are not in NATO. Nonetheless, they have demonstrated a willingness to back us that few nations have. And haven't asked much in return.
Don't be mistaken, the majority of American's are willing to risk all to ensure the continued existence of Israel because of their Christian faith. But I believe God who created us all aptly described Israel in Exodus 32 - they don't always stay loyal to the one that brung them to the dance.
I don't know about the Jesus part as I have been shot at by Christian Palestinians. But for sure rockets and terrorism need to stop. I will agree 100% that Israel has made mistakes. But I think an honest assessment of us will show overall we aren't doing a bad job of trying to balance staying alive while responding with the least force possible.
I think if the USA had to endure what we endure, the response would be much more violent and long term.
Black chics with British accents, YEP.
Naomie Harris is my kryptonite. :p
Nightvisionary
05-13-19, 13:19
https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/explain-war-oceania-eurasia-eastasia-1984-who-499107
Suddenly, in the middle of Hate Week, an event designed to encourage hatred of Eastasia, Oceania switches its enemy. This happens without any warning and, all of a sudden, Oceania is at war with Eurasia and the war with Eastasia never existed. This happens in Part 2, Chapter 9, and brings the realisation to Winston that the entire history of the last five years will need to be rewritten.
But, as Julia notes in Part 1, Chapter 5, the enemy is not really significant: "It's always one bloody war after another, and one knows the news is all lies anyway." In other words, it's not the enemy who matters but rather the fact that Oceania is constantly at war. Whether the war is even happening is another non-issue: again, it is the fact that the party maintains a constant state of war that is truly significant. As Goldstein comments in his book in Part 2, Chapter 9, by keeping the people in this constant state, the party is able to perpetuate an unequal distribution of wealth. It is this unequal distribution which keeps the citizens of Oceania controlled and conquered.
MountainRaven
05-13-19, 14:18
That. What people do not understand is that when SHTF for the USA, it won't be NATO that comes running into the fight, it will be Israel. Absolutely NO doubt in my mind. If we were to get into a bare knuckle street fight somewhere with a powerful nation, I'd take Israel in with me over 90% of the NATO members.
I doubt Israel would do a thing, unless it directly benefitted them.
Of all the countries in the Middle-East, Israel is the only one that isn't a shithole. It's the only one I'd want to live in (if I had to live in the Middle-East) and it's the only remotely secular liberal democracy in the region. For those reasons alone, I'll happily cheer for Israel and don't mind my tax dollars being spent to support them.
But I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that if Israel decided it was better to have America as an enemy than as a friend that Israel would turn on the US with zero hesitation. Or that if Israel could covertly attack the US to get what it wants, it would, with zero remorse.
Israel isn't, "Israel first." Israel is, "Israel first, last, only, and always."
The only countries that will come running to the fight when America gets in trouble are the only countries who have ever come running to the fight when America has gotten into trouble: NATO and the Anzacs.
Israel is like Stifler from American Pie. He’s the “friend” that does far out, wacky, self-aggrandizing stunts and you wonder sometimes why you even bother but you just go with it because nobody else likes him
One incident during war, and it always gets brought up. The NSA totally cleared Israel of wrong intent regarding the Liberty incident.
One incident during war, and it always gets brought up. The NSA totally cleared Israel of wrong intent regarding the Liberty incident.
There’s been other wackiness too. Fjallrafn made some good points. Israel has a sorta democratic republic kind of (if hewn heavily on theology) and I feel like unless I just totally went buck and started painting swastikas and kicking old dudes in the balls; I’d at least get a fair trial and not dismembered or handcuffed and thrown off a rooftop. But, and you have admitted this yourself, their government gets too uppity sometimes and brings some of their problems on themselves with their surrounding neighbors.
To be honest there are more Jews in America than Israel. I feel like if Israel were just a little more flexible about just a few things without harping on 70 plus year old drama (or 4000 year old drama) and had a bit of a renaissance; it would be pretty gucci. Not everyone who says something ill is Hitler or Pharaoh. Not everybody is out to get you.
Israel has some stuff going for it but at the same time they get too up in their feelings over cosmically minor things
Arabs and Islam isn’t going anywhere anytime soon and after a while the “God’s Chosen People” spiel sounds arrogant.
I don’t blame the people just the government. But the point is we can cite “oh Mossad is doing this and working in mysterious ways to help America” but lessee some less mysterious ways and more US flag waving on days aside from Fighter Jet and M4 delivery day.
I would like to think more secularism in Iran is attainable because it already happened once.
That’s the key.
Religious practice should be a very personal and separate thing from governance and to be honest it was super cringe worthy when Bush would bring up stuff about God because he wasn’t even religious. He was playing to the crowd.
I remember once someone saying “We never had an atheist president” and I said “I’m pretty sure we have, several times but people just play to the crowd”
I consider myself a faith based person but not everyone is and you cannot represent only half a country while ignoring everyone else or pretending to speak for them.
Like, honestly Netanyahoo gotta go. He’s really holding you back.
But I’m pretty sure none of this will get sorted in my lifetime. So whatever
But I’m pretty sure none of this will get sorted in my lifetime. So whatever
It's the Fertile Crescent. It won't get sorted in anyone's lifetime.
One incident during war, and it always gets brought up. The NSA totally cleared Israel of wrong intent regarding the Liberty incident.
A lot of folks believe that was covered up for political expedience and that NSA said what LBJ wanted them to say.
A lot of folks believe that was covered up for political expedience and that NSA said what LBJ wanted them to say.
LOL it was only about 10 years ago that the NSA gave Israel a clean bill of health.
vicious_cb
05-14-19, 17:12
Israel is like Stifler from American Pie. He’s the “friend” that does far out, wacky, self-aggrandizing stunts and you wonder sometimes why you even bother but you just go with it because nobody else likes him
Except friends dont steal secret nuclear materials from Savannah river to develop their own nuclear program.
LOL it was only about 10 years ago that the NSA gave Israel a clean bill of health.
Doesn’t change that a lot of what they do is meme tier
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I doubt Israel would do a thing, unless it directly benefitted them.
So then why in every disaster be it earthquake in Haiti or a long list of other disasters the IDF is like over 90% first on the ground to render aid and last out?
You know a lot of you really don't have a clue, about how pro America Israel and her people are.
I have seen many parades that have included groups of non Jews from the USA, walking in the parade and they are showered with affection.
You know some days I think you can divide us Jews into 2 main groups.
Religious not religious, black jews, white Jews, brown jews, it doesn't matter.
Group one, just is tired of being part of our history, as a result they embrace every feel good cause under the sun to try and for a nano second feel loved.
Group two, is just as tired of being part of our history, but as a result we become super hard core about staying alive. We become a little abrasive at times, and for sure we will shoot you in the face at the blink of an eye.
You guys don't know how I wish we could put it all behind us. Let the world see the cancer treatments that are saving lives around the world, the agricultural that is feeding people that would have starved to death, the technology that makes all our lives easier, the 3D printed heart from your own cells coming soon to save your life.
But the problem is, some people just don't want to forget we are Jews, so we must be different and as a result suspect of something.
Most of us are really nice people and then a few of us aren't. Wow just like all groups.
I've been to Israel twice, both times in joint training with the IDF. Once in the Spring of 1996, I personally witnessed rocket attacks coming in from the Golan Heights. Some of the IDF pilots I trained with came to the US as well. I have lots of Israeli friends and I can appreciate Israel as an ally.
My view on globalism is not from the concept of Nation Building, but killing ones enemies before they can do harm to us. The Libertarian view of non-interventionism only works so far, then you have to be proactive and remind the world's bullies and terrorists that their murderous activities will be met with extreme violence. Instead of the world's police force, the US Military should be occasionally the World's executioner. That's what the military does - it destroys things and kills people. Outside of the US, the world is Darwinian.
I have been to over 23 Countries and we're not hated for our military interventions, we're hated because of what we have - our standard of living and freedoms. The rest of the world is either trying to come here, or kill us for their seething resentment of everything American. We have to protect what we have, and if that means going "over there" and killing a lot of "them", so be it.
Diamondback
05-14-19, 22:15
Yoni, there's also the third group common in every demographic... the folks in the middle who just don't care and try to avoid standing out and attracting attention because the nail that stands out gets hammered down. Everybody's got their good guys, their bad guys, and their grays in the middle, ya know?
Personally... bear in mind that as a Christian and not a particularly great one there's much I don't fully have my head wrapped around about the Old Testament and Torah's comparative-theology*, but to my read as an outsider the "God's Chosen" thing is a double-edged sword... He bestows His blessing and favor, but at the same time expects His Chosen to set an example for the rest of the world to follow, much like the mantle of Divine Providence upon the USA. Just a humble layman's two cents. :)
*It's on the To-Do List--to fully understand Christianity requires at least a passing understanding of Judaism, as your faith also provides the foundation upon which ours was built. (My personal pipedream would be to learn Ancient Hebrew, including the idiomatic quirks, and have the chance to do my own translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls from scratch.) Too bad more alleged "Christians" couldn't have realized this about a thousand to fifteen hundred years ago...
Full disclosure... back in my wargaming days, a couple of boardmates were active IDF officers, one of whom was responsible for the advice that let me fit a rifle to my mis-shaped body at all, so I do have a certain affinity there.
But the problem is, some people just don't want to forget we are Jews, so we must be different and as a result suspect of something.
Yoni, I don't think anyone currently able to post has thrown the Jew card at you. I bring up Judaism only to refer to differences in our beliefs. In all other matters I refer to the Israeli government.
As far as forgetting your Nation is Jewish, there are a couple of reasons that shouldn't happen.
1) IMO many American Christians support Israel because of their understanding of Biblical Prophecy. If they disregarded the Religious connotation of their support, that support would likely waiver.
2) Many are willing to risk all, including their sons and daughters, to assure that the history of persecution against the Jews does not, once again, result in mass genocide. This is my personal perspective.
Just because one doesn't do handsprings in response to whatever the Israeli Government does, does not mean one is an anti-Semite.
What's that top 10 hit song by John McCain from a few years ago? "bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran ..... bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran .... "
Doc Safari
05-15-19, 10:47
What's that top 10 hit song by John McCain from a few years ago? "bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran ..... bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran .... "
This is the original, and still best version. From 1980
https://youtu.be/zBGPw_LBiRA
Doc Safari
05-15-19, 10:49
If you really must:
https://youtu.be/k9kumiroe6M
DoS telling AmCits and non-essential personnel to pack their trash and split, Germany and the Dutch are suspending training ops in Iraq.
I absolutely don't want a war with Iran, but Bolton is running this show and he's itching for a fight. Tired of war in the ME.
I've been to Israel twice, both times in joint training with the IDF. Once in the Spring of 1996, I personally witnessed rocket attacks coming in from the Golan Heights. Some of the IDF pilots I trained with came to the US as well. I have lots of Israeli friends and I can appreciate Israel as an ally.
My view on globalism is not from the concept of Nation Building, but killing ones enemies before they can do harm to us. The Libertarian view of non-interventionism only works so far, then you have to be proactive and remind the world's bullies and terrorists that their murderous activities will be met with extreme violence. Instead of the world's police force, the US Military should be occasionally the World's executioner. That's what the military does - it destroys things and kills people. Outside of the US, the world is Darwinian.
I have been to over 23 Countries and we're not hated for our military interventions, we're hated because of what we have - our standard of living and freedoms. The rest of the world is either trying to come here, or kill us for their seething resentment of everything American. We have to protect what we have, and if that means going "over there" and killing a lot of "them", so be it.
Amen and Amen!
This is the original, and still best version. From 1980
https://youtu.be/zBGPw_LBiRA
Yes, that is the one I remember from 9th grade (1979-1980).
I do NOT wish a war with Iran or anyone else for that matter, and if possible without acquiescing it is the route that should be followed. That said, if there is one country on this planet who has had an ass-kicking coming in my memory (see above timeframe and forward) it's Iran.
Looks like we're gonna have a big fight on are hands. Iv'e seen discussions about the coming civil war, going to war with china, venezuela, north korea, and Iran. Who else?
BoringGuy45
05-15-19, 22:18
I've been to Israel twice, both times in joint training with the IDF. Once in the Spring of 1996, I personally witnessed rocket attacks coming in from the Golan Heights. Some of the IDF pilots I trained with came to the US as well. I have lots of Israeli friends and I can appreciate Israel as an ally.
My view on globalism is not from the concept of Nation Building, but killing ones enemies before they can do harm to us. The Libertarian view of non-interventionism only works so far, then you have to be proactive and remind the world's bullies and terrorists that their murderous activities will be met with extreme violence. Instead of the world's police force, the US Military should be occasionally the World's executioner. That's what the military does - it destroys things and kills people. Outside of the US, the world is Darwinian.
I have been to over 23 Countries and we're not hated for our military interventions, we're hated because of what we have - our standard of living and freedoms. The rest of the world is either trying to come here, or kill us for their seething resentment of everything American. We have to protect what we have, and if that means going "over there" and killing a lot of "them", so be it.
That's how I feel. The point of war is to get the enemy to surrender unconditionally. You get the loser to give what you want under threat of total destruction, install an interim leader who is (at least somewhat) friendly to you, and warn the country that if they try any more monkey business, you'll come back and hit harder. Then you get the hell out of dodge.
That's how I feel. The point of war is to get the enemy to surrender unconditionally. You get the loser to give what you want under threat of total destruction, install an interim leader who is (at least somewhat) friendly to you, and warn the country that if they try any more monkey business, you'll come back and hit harder. Then you get the hell out of dodge.
Agree totally. Except I would say the goal of war is to destroy the enemy’s military and if necessary it’s political leadership. If they offer to surrender unconditionally before that is achieved then it would include dismantling their military and their political leadership.
Our military has demonstrated repeatedly it can do exactly that in 3-6 months. Then exit and leave a note: live in peace and rebuild and we can be friends and perhaps help you. Try threatening us or attacking our people or allies and we will come back to finish the total destruction. Have a nice day.
MountainRaven
05-15-19, 23:05
The object of war is to get the enemy to do what you are unable (or unwilling) to get them to do using diplomacy.
What do we want Iran to do? And if it's addressing an issue that goes back decades or generations, that's related to regional dynamics based on cultural, religious, geographical differences, how do you keep that ghost from coming back (as it almost certainly will) in a generation or two?
"A government should not mobilize an army out of anger, military leaders should not provoke war out of wrath. Act when it is beneficial, desist if it is not. Anger can revert to joy, wrath can revert to delight, but a nation destroyed cannot be restored to existence, and the dead cannot be restored to life."
-Sun Tzu
sundance435
05-16-19, 08:02
Agree totally. Except I would say the goal of war is to destroy the enemy’s military and if necessary it’s political leadership. If they offer to surrender unconditionally before that is achieved then it would include dismantling their military and their political leadership.
Our military has demonstrated repeatedly it can do exactly that in 3-6 months. Then exit and leave a note: live in peace and rebuild and we can be friends and perhaps help you. Try threatening us or attacking our people or allies and we will come back to finish the total destruction. Have a nice day.
Agree with OH58D that the military itself is a blunt instrument and to an extent should be used "execution"-style, not as a police force. However, war is and always has been an extension of politics (the concept predates Clausewitz). Yes, the military is there to achieve military goals, but they themselves are just an extension of political goals. We have always asked far too much of the military in achieving political goals and the results are less than stellar. Eisenhower and Marshall were the closest modern analogies to a true "strategic" level commander - Grant and Sherman could also be thrown in there. Those guys understood the political aims of military action and acted accordingly. MacArthur grasped the concept, but never rose above operational level. in execution (partly Truman's fault). War will never not be directly tied to politics.
Doc Safari
06-20-19, 09:29
Iran poking the bear with a stick continues:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-20/iran-shoots-down-us-drone-says-ready-war
After reportedly being briefed on the attack, President Trump has weighed in on Twitter to warn Iran that it made a "very big mistake" by shooting down the American drone.
Tensions between the US and Iran flared on Thursday when the Iranian Revolutionary Guard shot down an American drone that was said to have flown into Iranian airspace (the US claims the drone flew over international territory). The drone was reportedly flying over the Strait of Hormuz - that critical chokepoint for the global oil trade - not far from where two oil tankers were recently attacked.
IRGC Commander Hossein Salami said shooting down the drone had sent a clear and strong message for the US: Iran's borders are 'red lines' and though Iran doesn't seek war, Iran is ready for war. The US, meanwhile, denies that the drone crossed into Iran's airspace, and says it was in international airspace the whole time.
You sure you don't want to fill up your gas tank? :jester:
The news sent oil prices surging, with Brent up as much as 3%. President Trump has been briefed on the incident and the White House is "monitoring the situation." The US military has branded the shooting "an unprovoked attack."
Numerous geopolitical experts warned that Thursday's incident "significantly raises" the prospects for international conflict.
Particularly after the US dispatched more troops to the region last week, tensions between the US and Iran just won't subside, with Tehran still furious over US sanctions on oil sales. With Tehran poised to violate its agreements under the JCPOA on enriched uranium stockpiles, many are fearful that a 'hot war' between the US and Iran might erupt.
My take: So regardless of who is right or wrong about where the drone was, does this do anything but ratchet up the chance of going to war with Iran? Do you think people like Bolton are doing their best to make sure we are drawn into a conflict with Iran, or do you think the Iranian regime is an evil that must be dealt with? What say you?
...some of Washington's biggest geopolitical adversaries (Russia and China) could get involved, triggering WWIII.
To me this seems like somewhat of a long shot, unless Russia and China go full retard. More likely I think they will fight a proxy war and try to be as much of an irritant to the US as they can.
It’ll be what it’ll be. No sense stressing cause we can’t do nothing about it.
sundance435
06-20-19, 09:58
There is 0% chance of a major war with Iran. Cruise missiles and MOABs, small maybe, but that's about it. There is still a Congress, like it or not, and if you're familiar at all with the War Powers Act, they would eventually have to sanction it. AUMF won't cut it, either.
BoringGuy45
06-20-19, 11:40
I can't see us going to war with Iran even if they put boots on American soil.
Doc Safari
06-20-19, 12:54
So, it is apparent that the media is trying to spin this that Trump is ready to go to war.
After reportedly being briefed on the attack, President Trump has weighed in on Twitter to warn Iran that it made a "very big mistake" by shooting down the American drone.
Rush Limbaugh played the full content of the recording where he said he thought it was a mistake, and it turns out he is talking it up like it really was a mistake, like someone in the Iranian military did it without authorization or due to incompetence or something. In other words, he was not calling it a "mistake" as a veiled threat.
The point is that Trump is indeed reluctant to go to war and made it clear in the sound bite that he is not in a hurry to blame this on a deliberate act of war by the Iranians.
The actual Tweet is a one-sentence statement. The recording Rush played clarifies things considerably.
Go to war over a drone? Nah, ain't gonna happen (and shouldn't). But it is perhaps foreboding and if it involves a U.S. aircraft with a pilot then the Iranians need their asses handed to them. Overwhelmingly handed to them.
Can I ask a question? Let me preface this by saying I do not want a war with anyone. That said, why has Iran been such a boogeyman that it puts fear into the hearts of people? "OMG, not war with Iran! Oh please, NOOOO!!!" WTF over? This has been going on for decades with a country that has deservedly had a royal ass-kicking coming if anyone has. Do you really think they are such a juggernaut that we'd be stomped? Seriously? They fought Iraq to a standstill for eight friggin' years, and we went through Iraq in three weeks. Or is the problem the inevitable U.S. occupation and the problems that entails? I agree with that part.....if we did go to war with Iran I'd say lay waste to the entire country and infrastructure, unseat their government, destroy their military and those feared "elite" Revolutionary Guards and their Delta-like Quds Force (yes, said with much sarcasm). Then leave and f**k them with a warning that if we have to come back we start genocide.
Go to war over a drone? Nah, ain't gonna happen (and shouldn't). But it is perhaps foreboding and if it involves a U.S. aircraft with a pilot then the Iranians need their asses handed to them. Overwhelmingly handed to them.
Can I ask a question? Let me preface this by saying I do not want a war with anyone. That said, why has Iran been such a boogeyman that it puts fear into the hearts of people? "OMG, not war with Iran! Oh please, NOOOO!!!" WTF over? This has been going on for decades with a country that has deservedly had a royal ass-kicking coming if anyone has. Do you really think they are such a juggernaut that we'd be stomped? Seriously? They fought Iraq to a standstill for eight friggin' years, and we went through Iraq in three weeks. Or is the problem the inevitable U.S. occupation and the problems that entails? I agree with that part.....if we did go to war with Iran I'd say lay waste to the entire country and infrastructure, unseat their government, destroy their military and those feared "elite" Revolutionary Guards and their Delta-like Quds Force (yes, said with much sarcasm). Then leave and f**k them with a warning that if we have to come back we start genocide.
I agree if Iran pens a check for the value of the drone. Some say 180 big ones.
The U.S. can be actively involved in multiple conflicts these days without officially going to war...
The U.S. can be actively involved in multiple conflicts these days without officially going to war...
Which is BS...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Go to war over a drone? Nah, ain't gonna happen (and shouldn't). But it is perhaps foreboding and if it involves a U.S. aircraft with a pilot then the Iranians need their asses handed to them. Overwhelmingly handed to them.
Can I ask a question? Let me preface this by saying I do not want a war with anyone. That said, why has Iran been such a boogeyman that it puts fear into the hearts of people? "OMG, not war with Iran! Oh please, NOOOO!!!" WTF over? This has been going on for decades with a country that has deservedly had a royal ass-kicking coming if anyone has. Do you really think they are such a juggernaut that we'd be stomped? Seriously? They fought Iraq to a standstill for eight friggin' years, and we went through Iraq in three weeks. Or is the problem the inevitable U.S. occupation and the problems that entails? I agree with that part.....if we did go to war with Iran I'd say lay waste to the entire country and infrastructure, unseat their government, destroy their military and those feared "elite" Revolutionary Guards and their Delta-like Quds Force (yes, said with much sarcasm). Then leave and f**k them with a warning that if we have to come back we start genocide.
The occupation, for me. I don’t think we as a country have the balls to firebomb enemy cities anymore, which means we do the same thing that we’ve done in Iraq and Afghanistan. Except that the Iranian government has been grooming its entire country for an insurgency against America for 40 years. Our military views them as a near peer. It don’t think they quite qualify, though they do have some capabilities on that level. The problem is that they seemed to have done a good job of blending those capabilities with asymmetric threats and therefore will likely be a much more difficult fight than Iraq, both before and after the “cessation of major military hostilities” or whatever the term is.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Which is BS...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes and no. There are some serious cons to it, but some force projection and most SOF operations can’t happen in places that conflict is unlikely. But neither does that need a declaration of war. There is a line, of course.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The occupation, for me. I don’t think we as a country have the balls to firebomb enemy cities anymore, which means we do the same thing that we’ve done in Iraq and Afghanistan. Except that the Iranian government has been grooming its entire country for an insurgency against America for 40 years. Our military views them as a near peer. It don’t think they quite qualify, though they do have some capabilities on that level. The problem is that they seemed to have done a good job of blending those capabilities with asymmetric threats and therefore will likely be a much more difficult fight than Iraq, both before and after the “cessation of major military hostilities” or whatever the term is.
I don't disagree, but to what extent do we avoid smacking the piss out of them if they provoke it? They are NOT Russia or China. As I said above, I don't think we should go looking for trouble with any country but that is one shithole that should make your hand twitch.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/us-military-blames-iran-for-deaths-of-608-american-troops-during-iraq-war
So there's 608. Add in 241 from Oct.23, 1983. How many more in-between? How about this one? https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/01/the_karbala_attack_a.php
Anyone remember that?
If you fought in Iraq during OIF and had buddies killed by EFP's, well, who do you think supplied them?
I guess my question is at what point (like what would it take) for us to grow a pair and decide we've had enough after four decades of their shit? Obviously with their provocation, not suggesting we should. But backing off? No f*****g way.
MountainRaven
06-20-19, 20:23
I agree if Iran pens a check for the value of the drone. Some say 180 big ones.
And if the drone was in Iranian airspace? Does the US write a check to Iran for the value of a SAM?
Dr. Bullseye
06-20-19, 23:36
It is not Syria, Hezbollah, Huthi, or Iran. It is Mexico. Mexico has damaged us more than Al Queda and ISIS put together. I thought we finally had a President who understood this. Bomb the hell out of Mexico and let them know they are a vassal state whose function it is to guard OUR southern border.
The best course of action, is to step up sanctions. Iran is hurting which is why they are attacking the oil tankers and fired on the drone.
They want a war, so that the Iranian people will rally around the flag.
Where if the world steps up sanctions and chokes Iran, the people will within 24 months stag a successful revolution and over throw the government.
24 to 36 months after the new government takes over, Iran and Israel will sign a peace deal that will include embassies.
So please no overt war.
There’s nothing stopping them from staging a 24 hour revolution now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And if the drone was in Iranian airspace? Does the US write a check to Iran for the value of a SAM?
Sure but that drone had no reason to be in Iranian airspace. If it was it was by mistake.
Sure but that drone had no reason to be in Iranian airspace. If it was it was by mistake.Don't be naive. We're conducting surveillance and got caught. Getting a drone downed occasionally is the cost of doing business. No reason to start a war over it unless John Bolton is advising you...
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
Don't be naive. We're conducting surveillance and got caught. Getting a drone downed occasionally is the cost of doing business.
I can guarantee we have had multiple big drones, like this one, over that area, for decades... This was not a one time drone mission in that area to monitor the Straight.
Its not like we flew a U2 over Iran and it got shot down... that would be a "whoops we got caught" type of thing.
Those big drones have no reason to go over somebody else's airspace, they dont need to with their cameras and sensor technology. They can likely gather everything within at least 100 miles of the border while staying outside of the 12 mile airspace limit. I can also guarantee with have multiple satellites parked over Iran 24/7.
Doc Safari
06-21-19, 08:43
Well, if you guys caught the news this morning we DID go to war over a drone...then Trump changed his mind and called the planes back.
Averageman
06-21-19, 08:44
Can I ask a question? Let me preface this by saying I do not want a war with anyone. That said, why has Iran been such a boogeyman that it puts fear into the hearts of people? "OMG, not war with Iran! Oh please, NOOOO!!!" WTF over? This has been going on for decades with a country that has deservedly had a royal ass-kicking coming if anyone has. Do you really think they are such a juggernaut that we'd be stomped? Seriously? They fought Iraq to a standstill for eight friggin' years, and we went through Iraq in three weeks. Or is the problem the inevitable U.S. occupation and the problems that entails? I agree with that part.....if we did go to war with Iran I'd say lay waste to the entire country and infrastructure, unseat their government, destroy their military and those feared "elite" Revolutionary Guards and their Delta-like Quds Force (yes, said with much sarcasm). Then leave and f**k them with a warning that if we have to come back we start genocide.
War should be so terrible and costly to them that they no longer want to play these sorts of games. It's simply the way Iran conducts "Diplomacy" and the threats are getting a little old.
Simply crank up the embargo of goods coming and going and increase the misery, when folks start eating dirt and dying off things will be settled.
Otherwise throw the ROE out the window and start taking scalps.
I can guarantee we have had multiple big drones, like this one, over that area, for decades... This was not a one time drone mission in that area to monitor the Straight.
Its not like we flew a U2 over Iran and it got shot down... that would be a "whoops we got caught" type of thing.
Those big drones have no reason to go over somebody else's airspace, they dont need to with their cameras and sensor technology. They can likely gather everything within at least 100 miles of the border while staying outside of the 12 mile airspace limit. I can also guarantee with have multiple satellites parked over Iran 24/7.
Depending on who's numbers you believe we have between 50 and 75 of the model Iran shot down. They have a 14,000 mile range and can fly for 32+ hours. They have flown one nonstop from Edwards to Australia. With a 60,000+ service ceiling they can probably see further inland than a hundred miles but they were built for maritime use. I still say that if it was in Iran's airspace it wasn't on purpose.
Well, if you guys caught the news this morning we DID go to war over a drone...then Trump changed his mind and called the planes back.Yes, I alluded to that earlier. I don't know if this is Trump being a nutter, Bolton pushing his wet dream, or if this was a calculated attempt to get a bump in the polls. Either way, I'm not sending my sons into another endless foreign war.
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
MountainRaven
06-21-19, 09:13
The best course of action, is to step up sanctions. Iran is hurting which is why they are attacking the oil tankers and fired on the drone.
They want a war, so that the Iranian people will rally around the flag.
Where if the world steps up sanctions and chokes Iran, the people will within 24 months stag a successful revolution and over throw the government.
24 to 36 months after the new government takes over, Iran and Israel will sign a peace deal that will include embassies.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/023/021/e02e5ffb5f980cd8262cf7f0ae00a4a9_press-x-to-doubt-memes-memesuper-la-noire-doubt-meme_419-238.png
Sure but that drone had no reason to be in Iranian airspace. If it was it was by mistake.
Why do you think it was by mistake? Why do you think it wasn't done intentionally to provoke the Iranians? It's not like it would be the first time the US has intentionally violated the airspace or territorial waters of a foreign, potentially hostile country - to include Iran.
Doc Safari
06-21-19, 09:35
More on why Trump changed his mind mid-stream:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-21/trump-backs-down-military-strike-iran-last-minute
"President Obama made a desperate and terrible deal with Iran - Gave them 150 Billion Dollars plus I.8 Billion Dollars in CASH! Iran was in big trouble and he bailed them out. Gave them a free path to Nuclear Weapons, and SOON. Instead of saying thank you, Iran yelled 'Death to America'.
I terminated deal, which was not even ratified by Congress, and imposed strong sanctions. They are a much weakened nation today than at the beginning of my Presidency, when they were causing major problems throughout the Middle East. Now they are Bust!
On Monday they shot down an unmanned drone flying in International Waters. We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General.
10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone.
I am in no hurry, our Military is rebuilt, new, and ready to go, by far the best in the world. Sanctions are biting & more added last night. Iran can NEVER have Nuclear Weapons, not against the USA, and not against the WORLD!"
Glenn Beck this morning seemed to think the game of chicken was a deliberate calculated move to show the Iranians he can attack them anytime he wants to, yet simultaneously show the American public that he's not a warmonger who is eager to go to war.
My take: I don't know the Islamic/Persian mindset, but I'm afraid this will be interpreted as weakness.
Meanwhile, here's one reason I say this "could" eventually escalate into World War 3:
https://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/if-the-u-s-and-iran-go-to-war-tens-of-thousands-of-missiles-will-rain-down-on-israel
last month the Iranian Parliament’s vice-speaker Ali Motahhari specifically threatened this sort of an attack…
Mr Motahhari told FARS news agency: ‘The US military forces’ deployment in the Persian Gulf is more of the nature of psychological warfare. They are not ready for a war, specially when Israel is within our range.’
Today, Iran possesses a highly sophisticated missile arsenal, and some of those missiles are capable of hitting targets up to 2,500 kilometers away. For an in-depth examination of Iranian missile capabilities, I would commend a National Interest article entitled “Iran Has Amassed the Largest Ballistic Missile Force in the Middle East”.
Of course if Iran starts firing missiles at Israel, it is inevitable that Israel will start firing missiles back at Iran. And in such a scenario it is unthinkable that Iran’s proxy Hezbollah would sit quietly on the sidelines.
Remember the 1991 Gulf War, where President George H.W. Bush built a coalition of Arab states allied against Saddam Hussein? Several of those states, including IIRC Saudi Arabia, stated openly that if Israel joined the war, they would switch sides and attack Israel. Of course, Saddam then took every opportunity to lob scud missiles into Israel to try to goad them into attacking.
In the modern era, I realize that the political alliances in the Middle East are not exactly as they were in 1991. Saudi Arabia, for example, has actually softened its stance toward Israel, but others, notably Turkey, have ratched up the rhetoric against the Jewish State.
My take: Only the names have changed. If we attack Iran, Iran will attack Israel, and the Islamic states allied against Israel will quickly join the war on the side of Iran. Because a wider conflict will no doubt threaten oil supplies, Europe will have to get involved. This will most likely cause China and Russia to get involved.
Yes, maybe none of it will happen, but I say it could, as do other people looking at the situation.
sundance435
06-21-19, 09:53
Don't be naive. We're conducting surveillance and got caught. Getting a drone downed occasionally is the cost of doing business. No reason to start a war over it unless John Bolton is advising you...
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
Even Nancy Pelosi says the information on the drone being over international waters is rock-solid. This thing was shot down illegally. I think it's more likely an act by the IRGC on its own than the Iranian government, but Iran made that bed so it owns the consequences.
Well, if you guys caught the news this morning we DID go to war over a drone...then Trump changed his mind and called the planes back.
We didn't go to war and I doubt the intent was ever really to carry out the reprisals. We made a calculated demonstration of force/resolve. It's chess, not checkers.
We know that the Russians have GPS spoofing capabilities. It’s probably a safe assumption that Iran does too.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Whiskey_Bravo
06-21-19, 10:31
I read that it was a Global Hawk that was shot down which is in the range of a 100 million dollar drone and around the size of a 737(or at least the wing span of one). That is probably why the FAA banned US carriers from the area.
I don't want to go to war over a drone, even if it was in international air space but we should blow something up or stuxnet something of equal value for good measure.
Latest thing it looks like a trigger-happy local "tactical commander" (per source) rather than a sanctioned event, and leadership is pissed because they are afraid it's going to lead to something bigger.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/023/021/e02e5ffb5f980cd8262cf7f0ae00a4a9_press-x-to-doubt-memes-memesuper-la-noire-doubt-meme_419-238.png
Why do you think it was by mistake? Why do you think it wasn't done intentionally to provoke the Iranians? It's not like it would be the first time the US has intentionally violated the airspace or territorial waters of a foreign, potentially hostile country - to include Iran.
When I was there, we used to do it pretty much every night. It was SOP.
Not saying we were doing that with this Global Hawk, but our GPS nav systems are pretty accurate and I doubt we'd "accidentally" enter their airspace.
The next question is one you're unlikely to see thrown about. Does Iran have the capability to hijack a Global Hawk?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incident
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-21-19, 11:18
IRG assets in Syria, a little pressure on anyone working with them on oil, and some other asymmetrical events. A little fire in one of their oil transport facilities. More weapons deals for The Ukraine to get the Russians to focus closer to home.
We know that the Russians have GPS spoofing capabilities. It’s probably a safe assumption that Iran does too.
Not an issue for that type of drone. INS (Inertial nav), etc.
I'm not sure why were you even wasting time over this... for that particular area there's no need to cross international boundaries. And if we need surveillance that those couldn't do it wouldn't be something Iranians could shoot down.
it's also silly to me that some distinguish between the revolutionary guard and Iran itself.
even if they are not a proxy of the Iranian government it's on Iran that they allow them to function. It would be like the USMC doing some action and the US saying "sorry it's the Marines, you know how they are".
What's amazing to me (but not really), this how the press (and some here) is spinning this versus the rational statement from Trump regarding the actual events and that he held back.
Here's the deal: even if Iran was able to shut down the straights (unlikely), gas prices would go up, hugely in Europe, somewhat here.
It's pretty clear who the bad guy would be. You would see consumer pressure to address the issue.
the idea of free transit in international waters has to be preserved. I think even the Euros understand that.
Grand58742
06-21-19, 14:43
I'm pretty happy the POTUS called it off even though I'd dare say some hawkish members of the Cabinet were already banging the war drum. (Here's looking at you Bolton) I'd bet we'll eventually do what needs to be done in retaliation.
Having said that to say this, I get all kinds of tired of the ignorance by the "representatives" of the people.
Democrats, meanwhile, expressed concern about the president’s handling of the Iranian threat, and said that Congress must be consulted on any hostilities.
"The president seems to suggest that he found out about, apparently, the death toll if they had gone through with the strike moments before they conducted the strike. Isn't that something you think he should have known about beforehand?" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters, before urging Trump to "take a deep breath and de-escalate."
Her stupid ass has been screeching about "de-escalation!" for days now and when the President decides retaliation isn't the best course, she goes full potato with snide remarks instead of being supportive of what she wanted in the first place.
I'm pretty happy the POTUS called it off even though I'd dare say some hawkish members of the Cabinet were already banging the war drum. (Here's looking at you Bolton) I'd bet we'll eventually do what needs to be done in retaliation.
Having said that to say this, I get all kinds of tired of the ignorance by the "representatives" of the people.
Her stupid ass has been screeching about "de-escalation!" for days now and when the President decides retaliation isn't the best course, she goes full potato with snide remarks instead of being supportive of what she wanted in the first place.
The only way she can say something good about Trump is to say something bad about him. You have to have your gold colored glasses on to see the difference. ;)
Depending on who's numbers you believe we have between 50 and 75 of the model Iran shot down. They have a 14,000 mile range and can fly for 32+ hours. They have flown one nonstop from Edwards to Australia. With a 60,000+ service ceiling they can probably see further inland than a hundred miles but they were built for maritime use. I still say that if it was in Iran's airspace it wasn't on purpose.
I'm semi aware of what that drone is capable of. Its basically a Global Hawk, but setup a bit differently, from what I gather. We've been flying Global Hawk's since the late 90's.
But the sensor packages are capable of seeing WELL inside the borders of a country from WELL outside of its borders. That was my only point. There was/is no purpose to fly this asset over a country unless its like Russia where your sensor package needs to be flown further than 100-200-XXX miles inland of the border.
I remember watching a documentary on the first Gulf war and talking about the RC135 stuff and they would circle the country and inhale all of the electronic signals, surface scan radar, etc... and within a few weeks then knew almost everything about Iraq without ever having flown over it... and that was in 90-91...
I'm semi aware of what that drone is capable of. Its basically a Global Hawk, but setup a bit differently, from what I gather. We've been flying Global Hawk's since the late 90's.
But the sensor packages are capable of seeing WELL inside the borders of a country from WELL outside of its borders. That was my only point. There was/is no purpose to fly this asset over a country unless its like Russia where your sensor package needs to be flown further than 100-200-XXX miles inland of the border.
I remember watching a documentary on the first Gulf war and talking about the RC135 stuff and they would circle the country and inhale all of the electronic signals, surface scan radar, etc... and within a few weeks then knew almost everything about Iraq without ever having flown over it... and that was in 90-91...
Not questioning your point at all. We are on the same page. You will probably agree that neither of us know what our capabilities really are.
All the wars since WWII have been the result of a political agenda more than a legitimate threat or attack.
BoringGuy45
06-21-19, 19:03
All the wars since WWII have been the result of a political agenda more than a legitimate threat or attack.
The Persian Gulf War was pretty necessary. Saddam had no intention of staying in Kuwait; he wanted pretty much the entire Middle East and wanted to drive Israel into the sea. He, and many "experts" believed that to be a real possibility, and believed that Iraq was a match for the West. And we remembered what happened when we let a dictator march into a neighboring country 50 years prior. We were going to go to war with Saddam at some point or another and everyone knew it.
I'd also say that OEF was pretty justified and obviously was the result of a direct attack. We let politics clog things up over time in Afghanistan, but the original reason for the war was more than understandable.
But for Iran, I would say, if they fire on any US personnel or manned crafts in international waters or airspace, it's on. But I think Iran knows that and is going to avoid it. They don't want a war with us, especially when it's clear that they started it.
MountainRaven
06-21-19, 20:05
The Persian Gulf War was pretty necessary. Saddam had no intention of staying in Kuwait; he wanted pretty much the entire Middle East and wanted to drive Israel into the sea. He, and many "experts" believed that to be a real possibility, and believed that Iraq was a match for the West. And we remembered what happened when we let a dictator march into a neighboring country 50 years prior. We were going to go to war with Saddam at some point or another and everyone knew it.
I'd also say that OEF was pretty justified and obviously was the result of a direct attack. We let politics clog things up over time in Afghanistan, but the original reason for the war was more than understandable.
But for Iran, I would say, if they fire on any US personnel or manned crafts in international waters or airspace, it's on. But I think Iran knows that and is going to avoid it. They don't want a war with us, especially when it's clear that they started it.
Saddam couldn't defeat Iran during eight years of war. Saddam spent most of that war losing to Iran. This with the support of the US, USSR, France, and most of the rest of the Middle-East. And nobody supporting Iran. I don't think he could have realistically believed that his forces were a match for the West.
Not an issue for that type of drone. INS (Inertial nav), etc.
I'm not sure why were you even wasting time over this... for that particular area there's no need to cross international boundaries. And if we need surveillance that those couldn't do it wouldn't be something Iranians could shoot down.
it's also silly to me that some distinguish between the revolutionary guard and Iran itself.
even if they are not a proxy of the Iranian government it's on Iran that they allow them to function. It would be like the USMC doing some action and the US saying "sorry it's the Marines, you know how they are".
What's amazing to me (but not really), this how the press (and some here) is spinning this versus the rational statement from Trump regarding the actual events and that he held back.
Here's the deal: even if Iran was able to shut down the straights (unlikely), gas prices would go up, hugely in Europe, somewhat here.
It's pretty clear who the bad guy would be. You would see consumer pressure to address the issue.
the idea of free transit in international waters has to be preserved. I think even the Euros understand that.
I was more just saying that it’s possible. I doubt they could do much, especially to that platform, but it is a real capability.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I was more just saying that it’s possible. I doubt they could do much, especially to that platform, but it is a real capability.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkYes, and I had a typo, was not referring to you wasting time, meant us (the US).
ThirdWatcher
06-22-19, 06:16
... Either way, I'm not sending my sons into another endless foreign war...
+1. I like the way you think (referring to this post as well as “the cost of doing business” post).
FlyingHunter
06-22-19, 10:53
What does Iran have to gain by provoking us?
Is that a serious question?
What does Iran have to gain by provoking us?
Iran the people, nothing at all and so much to lose.
The leaders of Iran are gambling that they gain a sense of national unity and dependence on the government to protect the people from invasion by the west (USA).
Right now Iran's economy is failing and so is their control over the masses. They would rather rule over a war-torn country with 25% of the population dead than no country at all.
Iran also has 100s if not 1000s of radicalized, trained terrorist cells formed with the intent to attack other countries. No terrorist is going to strap on an explosive vest, yell Allah Akbar, and charge into a checkpoint over economic sanctions. They may happily obliterate an Iranian checkpoint when they get tired of seeing their families starve, though.
Andy
I don't think we are going to war with anyone unless there's some political gain.
There was a damn good reason why Iran didn't shoot down the plane (or try to anyway) with all those Americans on board. They knew it would be time for us to bust a cap on them, and they knew someone like Trump would do it. Shitstain isn't in the White House anymore and they are well aware of that fact. They know what their capabilities are, and they have a pretty good idea what ours are.
Yes, as someone else mentioned a drone getting whacked is the cost of doing business. American lives, on the other hand, are not; that would be a cost needing to be exacted in return ten-fold if it happened.
I think Trump sent a message by "calling off" the dogs of war, just like he ordered the attack on the Syrian airbases (with beaucoup Russians around them to boot) while he excused himself from dinner with President Xi.
MountainRaven
06-22-19, 19:38
What does Iran have to gain by provoking us?
Nothing.
Is that a serious question?
Why would it not be? Always ask who benefits. Follow the money, as they say.
Iran the people, nothing at all and so much to lose.
The leaders of Iran are gambling that they gain a sense of national unity and dependence on the government to protect the people from invasion by the west (USA).
Right now Iran's economy is failing and so is their control over the masses. They would rather rule over a war-torn country with 25% of the population dead than no country at all.
Iran also has 100s if not 1000s of radicalized, trained terrorist cells formed with the intent to attack other countries. No terrorist is going to strap on an explosive vest, yell Allah Akbar, and charge into a checkpoint over economic sanctions. They may happily obliterate an Iranian checkpoint when they get tired of seeing their families starve, though.
Are you proposing that the Iranians do not have maps and are unaware of the fact that the US toppled the government of Afghanistan on one border, the government of Iraq on another less than two years later, has done everything it can to indirectly topple the governments of Iranian allies Syria and Libya - which leaves Iran bordered by NATO-member Turkey, NATO-friendly Azerbaijan, officially US-aligned Pakistan, and the former-Soviet Republic of Turkmenistan (not necessarily an ally, so much as a potential vector for Russian and Chinese support).
The Iranian people would survive a war with the United States.
The Iranian government would not.
The United States wants to force Iran to return to the negotiating table and to establish stricter controls over Iran's nuclear program and is attempting to use economic pressure to do so.
Iran wants to for the US to accept the previously agreed upon deal, and is seeking to apply economic pressure on American allies (like the EU) to do so.
Apart from Bolton and his Chickenhawk friends, nobody actually wants a war with Iran - including Iran. Although any mistake by the US or Iran in executing their strategies could easily lead to war.
Why would it not be? Always ask who benefits. Follow the money, as they say.
Because it is the same rhetorical beginning as the "false flag" conspiracy theory. Not looking to waste my time unless it's a serious question.
Nothing.
Why would it not be? Always ask who benefits. Follow the money, as they say.
Are you proposing that the Iranians do not have maps and are unaware of the fact that the US toppled the government of Afghanistan on one border, the government of Iraq on another less than two years later, has done everything it can to indirectly topple the governments of Iranian allies Syria and Libya - which leaves Iran bordered by NATO-member Turkey, NATO-friendly Azerbaijan, officially US-aligned Pakistan, and the former-Soviet Republic of Turkmenistan (not necessarily an ally, so much as a potential vector for Russian and Chinese support).
The Iranian people would survive a war with the United States.
The Iranian government would not.
The United States wants to force Iran to return to the negotiating table and to establish stricter controls over Iran's nuclear program and is attempting to use economic pressure to do so.
Iran wants to for the US to accept the previously agreed upon deal, and is seeking to apply economic pressure on American allies (like the EU) to do so.
Apart from Bolton and his Chickenhawk friends, nobody actually wants a war with Iran - including Iran. Although any mistake by the US or Iran in executing their strategies could easily lead to war.
I have to agree 100%.
I still think our best strategy is to foment, supply, and arm an insurgency in Iran.
Just to give Iran the middle finger after smoking our drone, I hope we have replaced it with another flying the same aerial grid sectors. Maybe put more of the things up just to let those crazy Persians know we have plenty of redundancy.
We need to make dirty nuke drones then fly them over the cities and let them shoot them down
My take is that we will not conduct a full scale, boots on the ground, war with Iran and do not agree that war with Iran will destroy the government. History is on my side - we have had military actions in Iran multiple times since the Shah was overthrown without a change. The fact that the Syrian government still stands has to influence Iran.
The rest of the world also knows that Congress will ignore US interests to avoid supporting the current administration. The current situation at our southern border illustrates it perfectly.
Andy
My take is that we will not conduct a full scale, boots on the ground, war with Iran and do not agree that war with Iran will destroy the government. History is on my side - we have had military actions in Iran multiple times since the Shah was overthrown without a change. The fact that the Syrian government still stands has to influence Iran.
The rest of the world also knows that Congress will ignore US interests to avoid supporting the current administration. The current situation at our southern border illustrates it perfectly.
Like what? Eagle Claw? Praying Mantis? Neither of those were designed to upset the applecart in Iran. Both were limited in scope; one was to rescue hostages (and that's it), the other to disallow Iranian naval shenanigans in the same general area we're in now. I don't think either op could have been aiming for the demise of the mullahs.
Then you have to look at the era in which they occurred. They were about eight years apart but both were in the early days of the Islamic regime. Fast-forward 32 years and the population is trending more towards the "evil" ways of the West and not toeing the fundamentalist line like was once more common. A limited op similar to Praying Mantis (which seems most likely if there is one at all) is not going to get it either. Shy of militarily removing their government a heavy infusion of arms to foment problems is the cheapest way to go, both in American blood (the only blood I care about, not Iranian) as well as $$$. I'm talking MANPADS, AK's, RPG's, and most of all EFP's to give them a big taste of their own medicine.
Like what? Eagle Claw? Praying Mantis? Neither of those were designed to upset the applecart in Iran. Both were limited in scope; one was to rescue hostages (and that's it), the other to disallow Iranian naval shenanigans in the same general area we're in now. I don't think either op could have been aiming for the demise of the mullahs.
Then you have to look at the era in which they occurred. They were about eight years apart but both were in the early days of the Islamic regime. Fast-forward 32 years and the population is trending more towards the "evil" ways of the West and not toeing the fundamentalist line like was once more common. A limited op similar to Praying Mantis (which seems most likely if there is one at all) is not going to get it either. Shy of militarily removing their government a heavy infusion of arms to foment problems is the cheapest way to go, both in American blood (the only blood I care about, not Iranian) as well as $$$. I'm talking MANPADS, AK's, RPG's, and most of all EFP's to give them a big taste of their own medicine.
I completely agree with you. I honestly think a Praying Mantis type operation is the most likely reaction (essentially that is what the President just opted out of/delayed). It would greatly but temporarily degrade their military capabilities and Russia would help them build those capabilities back - it would be deja vous all over again.
That's why I say the regime really is not threatened by the USA. It didn't seem to effect a change before.
I damn sure do not want full scale war with Iran. I like your idea of fermenting change from within.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48735097
We are supposedly conducting cyber attacks on the ayatollahs.
Averageman
06-23-19, 11:55
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48735097
We are supposedly conducting cyber attacks on the ayatollahs.
Well there will be some angry ayatollahs trying to log on to Porn Hub this weekend.
FlyingHunter
06-23-19, 17:23
Because it is the same rhetorical beginning as the "false flag" conspiracy theory. Not looking to waste my time unless it's a serious question.
Yep - seriously.
Iran is trying to increase tensions in the hope Europe will fold and pressure the US to ease sanctions. Basically the current sanctions are working, Iran either fears internal unrest or can't economically continue this direction. They don't want to give up on nukes so they will do everything short of what they believe will cause a full war to change the direction.
Give the weak an easy, though short term way out, appeasement.
Iran is trying to increase tensions in the hope Europe will fold and pressure the US to ease sanctions. Basically the current sanctions are working, Iran either fears internal unrest or can't economically continue this direction. They don't want to give up on nukes so they will do everything short of what they believe will cause a full war to change the direction.
Give the weak an easy, though short term way out, appeasement.Gadfly effect. They are trying to get us to retaliate and cause civvy deaths, which would then rally Shite groups everywhere against the US. And then the threaten /attack Israel, and it compounds.
Slightly of topic, but what the hell... (from a couple of years ago)
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190624/7175a96ff06935c742caf3f842a2287c.jpg
An Iranian runner finished his country’s first international marathon while carrying a flag in support of 10 American participants who were reportedly denied visas.
On Saturday, 250 male runners from 35 countries participated in Iran’s first international marathon in Marand.
When 10 registered American athletes were unable to obtain visas, runner Akbar Naghdi decided to finish the race while flying the US flag as a “sign of friendship” according to local news sites BerozNews, Parsine and Davadegan.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rt.com/viral/339645-iran-american-flag-marathon/amp/
I’m glad Trump called off the strike. I’d hate to see civilians like this guys get killed.
Doc Safari
06-24-19, 09:23
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-23/trump-unleashes-uber-hawk-bolton-he-would-take-whole-world-one-time
In a stunningly frank moment during a Sunday Meet the Press interview focused on President Trump's decision-making on Iran, especially last week's "brink of war" moment which saw Trump draw down readied military forces in what he said was a "common sense" move, the commander in chief threw his own national security advisor under the bus in spectacular fashion.
Though it's not Trump's first tongue-in-cheek denigration of Bolton's notorious hawkishness, it's certainly the most brutal and blunt take down yet, and frankly just plain enjoyable to watch. When host Chuck Todd asked the president if he was “being pushed into military action against Iran” by his advisers in what was clearly a question focused on Bolton first and foremost, Trump responded:
“John Bolton is absolutely a hawk. If it was up to him he'd take on the whole world at one time, okay?”
Trump said that he "disagrees" with Bolton "very much" but that ultimately he's "doing a very good job".
Bolton has never kept his career-long goal of seeing regime change in Tehran a secret - repeating his position publicly every chance he got, especially in the years prior to tenure at the Trump White House.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-23/trump-unleashes-uber-hawk-bolton-he-would-take-whole-world-one-time
Trump specifically said to Todd that he had both doves and hawks advising him, because he wanted to hear all sides of the issue before making a decision. Then he identified Bolton as a hawk, which surprises exactly no one who pays attention to politics. So I wouldn't exactly call that throwing Bolton under the bus.
If someone comes to me and says they have a solution to a complex problem and only has positive impacts to list, I know they haven't fully done their homework. There are always cons if the problem is complex and I can't think of anything more complex than a belligerent nation with designs on acquiring WMD's. If Trump has a balanced cabinet that gives pros and cons on various actions, that means he'll automatically be at odds with someone in his cabinet. That's not a sign of dysfunction, its a sign of a healthy system of checks and balances.
Of course that's not how the media wants to spin it. They're currently peddling all sorts of stories saying Trump was reckless in the way he handled the planned attack. That's the narrative they want to sell on everything he does. When the media couldn't say something positive if you held a gun to their heads, that tells me just as much as when someone tries to sell me nothing but sunshine and rainbows. They're full of it.
Doc Safari
06-24-19, 10:03
The point is (to me) that Bolton is the tip of the Deep State spear that wants war with Iran. I hope Trump continues to keep him in check.
The point is (to me) that Bolton is the tip of the Deep State spear that wants war with Iran. I hope Trump continues to keep him in check.
Definitely. It's good to make plans for the worst case scenario, so long as you actively work to prevent needing them.
Doc Safari
06-24-19, 10:10
Definitely. It's good to make plans for the worst case scenario, so long as you actively work to prevent needing them.
In some ways, I'm of the opinion that the entire attempt to get Trump impeached has as much to do with the fact that he's not a hawk as it is that he's a Republican. Remember what a warmonger Hillary was? We would already be at war on multiple fronts if Hillary had gotten elected, and the Deep State actors just can't stand it that Trump is trying to keep a measured approach to international conflict.
Doc Safari
06-24-19, 10:47
FBI Warns of potential attacks inside the US if we go to war with Iran:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/fbi-warns-foreign-actors-sow-discord-wake-mass/story?id=63857763
Houses of worship remain a vulnerable target for attacks and foreign entities could be looking to "sow discord" using the internet, an FBI official warned at a security event with law enforcement officials and faith leaders this week.
The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, urged faith leaders to have a share information with U.S. authorities and to have a "strategic perspective" in thinking about security.
"You need to be thinking about this for the next six months. You need to be thinking about this for the next year. What are the consequences of going to conflict with Iran and Hezbollah, those actors of interest here," the official said.
"You need to be thinking about that right now," the official said.
Doc Safari
06-24-19, 14:06
An interesting perspective:
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2019/06/24/trump-dodged-an-ambush-by-avoiding-war-with-iran-n2548787
Iran and our liberal elite both seemed eager for open war. Since when did either want what was best for Trump, which means what is best for America? Napoleon allegedly said, and I’m paraphrasing, “Don’t do what your enemy wants you to do.” Sun Tzu advised readers to irritate a temperamental enemy into mistakes. This is what they were doing. The Iranians hit those tankers, and their denials were baloney. The Iranians shot down our unmanned drone, and their claim it was in their territory was baloney too. Why would they do that? Drones and recon aircraft had flown that path for decades. Why now?
CARTOONS | STEVE KELLEY
VIEW CARTOON
They wanted to be attacked.
There’s no other reasonable explanation. And these attacks were the perfect provocation because they were not that provocative. No Americans were killed, and we know the Iranians have no qualms about murdering Americans – they were responsible for hundreds of American deaths in Iraq. An attack may have cost them a couple radar sites and missile batteries, but so what? With the sanctions strangling their economy, and the Persian people restless from four decades chafing under these fanatics’ rule, this would be a great way to unify the country against an outside attacker and seize the moral high ground while splitting the US off from its allies and undercutting Trump’s rule.
And our elite also wanted Trump to attack. Why?
Some are legit patriots who recognize Iran is a threat and want it erased – with them, this is a reasonable disagreement on strategy and tactics. Save your criticisms of Mike Pompeo and John Bolton for someone else – I’m glad they’re in place even if I may not agree with their strategic assessment of this situation. They are doing what they think is good for America, and we can work with that.
But others are more cynical, and less patriotic. They recognize that another war – over a robot plane – would undercut Trump’s own legitimacy with his base, maybe fatally. Trump was hired in significant part because Normal Americans were sick and tired of having their kids sent off to fight wars that our garbage elite has no intention of winning – and we had no intention of winning one with Iran. That means invading and occupying – no dice. This would be more inconclusive Mideast skirmishing. The Democrats would have loudly and proudly opposed this new war and, if they had their way, it would have defined Trump’s presidency like Vietnam did LBJ’s, or Iraq did Bush 43’s.
“Hey, wait,” one might ask. “Weren’t we just talking about one airstrike and that’s it?” Well, the advocates in DC were, but Iran might have had other ideas. After all, the enemy gets a vote, and it could have voted to massacre Americans still in Iraq or elsewhere. Once you jump into war, you lose the ability to jump out when things get ugly.
Let’s talk conspiracy theories. Is it possible that the John Kerry/Ben Rhodes Iranophile faction, still stinging because Trump binned their disastrous Iran Deal and exercising their liberal free pass on the Logan Act, told the mullahs to provoke Trump with some non-fatal pokes in order to weaken him domestically and help restore the rule of people who always put American interests last?
That is, Democrats.
I don’t know, but can we really rule that out? We keep hearing from these people about how Trump is an existential threat to America, and if they really believe that, is it so nuts to think they might canoodle with Tehran to defeat him? If you had told me a few years ago the entire senior DoJ and FBI would conspire to pull off a soft coup to undo an election, I might have advised you to take a deep breath and chill. But then I watched it happen.
So, I don’t know if it this is what went down, but no one can say you’re insane for thinking it could. And that possibility had to enter into Trump’s calculations.
An interesting perspective:
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2019/06/24/trump-dodged-an-ambush-by-avoiding-war-with-iran-n2548787
I want to know one thing.. What chance is there that the Iranians knew they were targeting a US drone and not a manned aircraft? I'd say slim to none. They got lucky killing the drone!!
Slightly of topic, but what the hell... (from a couple of years ago)
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190624/7175a96ff06935c742caf3f842a2287c.jpg
An Iranian runner finished his country’s first international marathon while carrying a flag in support of 10 American participants who were reportedly denied visas.
On Saturday, 250 male runners from 35 countries participated in Iran’s first international marathon in Marand.
When 10 registered American athletes were unable to obtain visas, runner Akbar Naghdi decided to finish the race while flying the US flag as a “sign of friendship” according to local news sites BerozNews, Parsine and Davadegan. Akbar has not been seen since his finish.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rt.com/viral/339645-iran-american-flag-marathon/amp/
I’m glad Trump called off the strike. I’d hate to see civilians like this guys get killed.
FIFY :)
sundance435
06-24-19, 15:08
FBI Warns of potential attacks inside the US if we go to war with Iran:
Might be a good house-cleaning excuse to rid our hemisphere of Hezbollah and IRGC influence.
I want to know one thing.. What chance is there that the Iranians knew they were targeting a US drone and not a manned aircraft? I'd say slim to none. They got lucky killing the drone!!
The flight characteristics, flight path, ceiling, aircraft shape, IFF, and a litany of other factors easily distinguish this particular drone from a manned aircraft. This isn't "Wargames" where every radar signature return is a similar-sized dot. They knew exactly what they were shooting at.
FIFY :)
Right? I actually looked him up on Instagram after I saw that picture to see if he was still alive. I’m following him now. Hope he continues posting! I’m not big fan of athletes making political statements, but this guy really put his nuts on the line!
FBI Warns of potential attacks inside the US if we go to war with Iran:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/fbi-warns-foreign-actors-sow-discord-wake-mass/story?id=63857763
Then by all means we should let them do whatever the f**k they want obviously, huh? My God, a war with Iran is so foreboding as to strike fear in the hearts of even the hardest among us. :rolleyes:
Jesus H. Christ, I'm so sick of hearing this. I will remind those who would fail to remember my previous comments that "I don't want a war with anyone", so keep snide comments to the contrary in check. That said, can we get the f**k over the g-damned Iran Fear? It has permeated this country for nearly 40 years. Hell, even in Reagan's days it was like "Oh God no, you don't want a war with Iran". F**k Iran. They are not some invincible juggernaut, with claws hidden throughout the world to kill you in your sleep if you dare defy them! Screw those cocksuckers if they have it coming. They have HAD it coming for a long long time, but lets say for the sake of discussion that we wipe the slate clean.....the deaths of [any other] U.S. personnel calls for a smackdown of epic proportions, just because.
I'm willing to look at this as we move forward as a "new" dealing with Iran (despite the entirely deserved ass-kicking they've repeatedly asked for over the years), but the deaths of U.S. personnel is COMPLETELY and UNEQUIVOCABLY unacceptable.
Right? I actually looked him up on Instagram after I saw that picture to see if he was still alive. I’m following him now. Hope he continues posting! I’m not big fan of athletes making political statements, but this guy really put his nuts on the line!
That is really nice to know. Hope he stays safe.
Doc Safari
06-25-19, 08:09
You have a valid point, ABNAK. What if we had still been tolerating Hitler into the 1960's. At some point we gotta get it over with.
Right? I actually looked him up on Instagram after I saw that picture to see if he was still alive. I’m following him now. Hope he continues posting! I’m not big fan of athletes making political statements, but this guy really put his nuts on the line!
I've got a lot more respect for him that that Rapahoe chick playing soccer who kneels during the anthem.
Doc Safari
06-25-19, 10:53
Trump's strongest Tweet yet?
Replying to @realDonaldTrump
....Iran’s very ignorant and insulting statement, put out today, only shows that they do not understand reality. Any attack by Iran on anything American will be met with great and overwhelming force. In some areas, overwhelming will mean obliteration. No more John Kerry & Obama!
27.4K
8:42 AM - Jun 25, 2019
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-25/trump-slams-irans-ignorant-insulting-statement-warns-any-further-attacks-will-mean
Iran's ignorant and insulting statement:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-25/new-us-sanctions-mean-path-diplomacy-forever-closed-iran-warns
Then by all means we should let them do whatever the f**k they want obviously, huh? My God, a war with Iran is so foreboding as to strike fear in the hearts of even the hardest among us. :rolleyes:
Jesus H. Christ, I'm so sick of hearing this. I will remind those who would fail to remember my previous comments that "I don't want a war with anyone", so keep snide comments to the contrary in check. That said, can we get the f**k over the g-damned Iran Fear? It has permeated this country for nearly 40 years. Hell, even in Reagan's days it was like "Oh God no, you don't want a war with Iran". F**k Iran. They are not some invincible juggernaut, with claws hidden throughout the world to kill you in your sleep if you dare defy them! Screw those cocksuckers if they have it coming. They have HAD it coming for a long long time, but lets say for the sake of discussion that we wipe the slate clean.....the deaths of [any other] U.S. personnel calls for a smackdown of epic proportions, just because.
I'm willing to look at this as we move forward as a "new" dealing with Iran (despite the entirely deserved ass-kicking they've repeatedly asked for over the years), but the deaths of U.S. personnel is COMPLETELY and UNEQUIVOCABLY unacceptable.
Preface my statement by saying I don't disagree with you. I think the biggest concern is what Russia will do if we went to war with Iran. Russia and Iran have been in bed for decades, and our meddling via war would be bad for Russia. How would they react?
I think anyone with any knowledge of US military or Iranian military would agree that a war would not last terribly long and the war would not end in their favor.
I think anyone with any knowledge of US military or Iranian military would agree that a war would not last terribly long and the war would not end in their favor.
It wouldn’t, but I think it’ll be worse than many expect, especially if we’re talking “nation building” like Iraqistan. It seems like people are on one side or the other - war will either be easy or hellacious. As long as no one else gets heavily involved, I think it’ll be towards the easier side, but not where the last two were.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It wouldn’t, but I think it’ll be worse than many expect, especially if we’re talking “nation building” like Iraqistan. It seems like people are on one side or the other - war will either be easy or hellacious. As long as no one else gets heavily involved, I think it’ll be towards the easier side, but not where the last two were.
Hell no! If we HAVE to cut loose on Iran then destroy it (to include infrastructure like water and electricity), unseat their government, then GTFO. Supply dissident groups with EFP's (first and foremost), MANPADS, and RPG's. Let beaucoup Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Quds Force burn to death in an instant from molten copper. Payback is a bitch.
Hell no! If we HAVE to cut loose on Iran then destroy it (to include infrastructure like water and electricity), unseat their government, then GTFO. Supply dissident groups with EFP's (first and foremost), MANPADS, and RPG's. Let beaucoup Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Quds Force burn to death in an instant from molten copper. Payback is a bitch.
Good ideas or not, do you really see that happening?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-25-19, 19:53
Preface my statement by saying I don't disagree with you. I think the biggest concern is what Russia will do if we went to war with Iran. Russia and Iran have been in bed for decades, and our meddling via war would be bad for Russia. How would they react?
We now have it that it would take a pretty good whack from Iran to get us to act. Shoot down a P8, cruise missile attack on a frigate or if they are really stupid a carrier. You get a USMC Lebanon level of attack and who knows what doom Trump would release- and the Russians will have to sit there and try to figure out how to re-arrange the rubble in Iran. Russia invade the Baltics? Nah. It's summer, so they can't turn off the gas and to Germany and have the best impact. If anything they had better watch out that their Ukrainian operation doesn't become a defensive mess for them. Shutting the Straits would send China's economy completely in the shitter- just when Hong Kong showed how the Commie leaders will bend a bit. That happens on the mainland and holy cow, that would be a mess.
Good ideas or not, do you really see that happening?
I'm not sure I see Trump getting as ruthless as I suggest (like infrastructure) but I can see him take out a LOT of targets and even supplying the "resistance" with weapons. Trump likes things "on the cheap" as a businessman, so fomenting trouble from within seems like a winner.
We now have it that it would take a pretty good whack from Iran to get us to act. Shoot down a P8, cruise missile attack on a frigate or if they are really stupid a carrier. You get a USMC Lebanon level of attack and who knows what doom Trump would release- and the Russians will have to sit there and try to figure out how to re-arrange the rubble in Iran. Russia invade the Baltics? Nah. It's summer, so they can't turn off the gas and to Germany and have the best impact. If anything they had better watch out that their Ukrainian operation doesn't become a defensive mess for them. Shutting the Straits would send China's economy completely in the shitter- just when Hong Kong showed how the Commie leaders will bend a bit. That happens on the mainland and holy cow, that would be a mess.
That won't happen again. If you don't think they've tried like hell for the last nearly 18 years to pull off a big re-do of that one I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Our force protection measures are much better than in 1983, be it on land or sea.
My question is, after Trump’s little speech today, what are the roe in the region for our forces? Are they still weapons tight, or have they been given greater latitude at the commander level?
My question is, after Trump’s little speech today, what are the roe in the region for our forces? Are they still weapons tight, or have they been given greater latitude at the commander level?
I don't think anyone in the know would elaborate on that, OPSEC and all. It would let the Iranians know just how far they can push things, better to keep them guessing.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-26-19, 07:00
That won't happen again. If you don't think they've tried like hell for the last nearly 18 years to pull off a big re-do of that one I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Our force protection measures are much better than in 1983, be it on land or sea.
Agreed on the mode and method not being the same, the level of casualties. How many Pearl Harbors and 9/11s do we need to see that tactics change as the protection changes.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.