Tensions with Iran

[Chance]

From BBC News (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48245204):


Four commercial ships were targets of a "sabotage attack" off the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Sunday, the country's foreign affairs ministry has said.

The incident reportedly took place near Fujairah port, just outside the Strait of Hormuz, but caused no casualties.

Saudi Arabia confirmed that two Saudi oil tankers sustained "significant damage". One of the other two vessels targeted was Norwegian-registered.

Iran, which borders the strait, has called for a full investigation.

Tensions are high in the region, through which about a fifth of oil that is consumed globally passes.

Last month, Iran threatened to "close" the Strait of Hormuz if it was prevented from using the waterway following a US decision to end exemptions from sanctions for major Iranian oil importers.

The US has deployed warships there in recent days to counter what it called "clear indications" of threats from Iran to its forces and maritime traffic in the region. Iran dismissed that allegation as nonsense.

[blues]

Anyone got a match?

[hufnagel]

just light it already.

[TAZ]

Hmmm. Someone getting tired of low oil prices or what???

[Jason M]

Hmmm.... IRGC?

[jetfire]

Anyone got a match?

If we could hold off on Shitty Desert War Volume 4 until AFTER I come back from the region that would be great.

[blues]

If we could hold off on Shitty Desert War Volume 4 until AFTER I come back from the region that would be great.

I'll be pullin' for ya, brother.

[Lester Polfus]

If we could hold off on Shitty Desert War Volume 4 until AFTER I come back from the region that would be great.

It'll be different this time...

[LockedBreech]

I grew up learning about the just-happened Gulf War and knowing a bunch of folks that went. Then I watched 9-11 happen and knew a ton of people who served in Afghanistan or Iraq. So my entire conscious life we've been at war or just coming back from war in that cursed sand bucket in some fashion.

I really, really, really hope we can avoid doing this dance again.

[jetfire]

It'll be different this time...

Well hell in that case, let's also invade Russia during the winter! It'll be different this time!

[Lester Polfus]

Well hell in that case, let's also invade Russia during the winter! It'll be different this time!

We might as well occupy Afghanistan too, because that'll work out differently for us than the British and Russians.

Oh. Wait...

[4gallonbucket]

This smells fishy... I don't know it seems like there are folks that have been wanting a conflict with Iran for a long time and recently have been begging for an excuse.

[Nightvisionary]

False flag operation.

[Hambo]

Well hell in that case, let's also invade Russia during the winter! It'll be different this time!

Definitely. We don't have 99 divisions to send like Ze Germans did.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Hey, let's send the carriers within range of all the Chinese area denial forces! Why not do it big? Oh, wait, one of our members says the Pentagon has magic plans not to be clobbered if we do that.

We shouldn't criticize war provoking actions because we got Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court to save gun rights. Follow my twisted thought patterns here. Hey, my portfolio is worth tanking for Kavanaugh!

[Chance]

From BBC News (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48279203):


The US state department has ordered the departure of "non-emergency employees" from Iraq, amid rising tensions between the US and Iraq's neighbour Iran.

Staff at the embassy in Baghdad and the consulate in Irbil must leave as soon as possible on commercial transport.

Meanwhile, the German and Dutch armies have suspended training Iraqi soldiers.

The US military said on Tuesday that the threat level in the Middle East had been raised in response to intelligence about Iran-backed forces in the region.

[jetfire]

From BBC News (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48279203):

Yeah, I saw that this morning. Filled me with warm fuzzies. I was also talking to a friend of mine who's over in the potential boogaloo zone about basewide restrictions and shit that they're dealing with. Yeehaw.

[GardoneVT]

If we could hold off on Shitty Desert War Volume 4 until AFTER I come back from the region that would be great.

But muh Boeing Defense shares!

[HCM]

https://m.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Blast-heard-in-central-Baghdad-close-to-US-Embassy-Reuters-witnesses-590120

KATYUSHA ROCKET FALLS NEAR U.S. EMBASSY IN CENTRAL BAGHDAD, NO INJURIES


"A Katyusha rocket fell in the middle of the Green Zone without causing any losses, details to come later," the military said in a brief statement.

[FNFAN]

I grew up learning about the just-happened Gulf War and knowing a bunch of folks that went. Then I watched 9-11 happen and knew a ton of people who served in Afghanistan or Iraq. So my entire conscious life we've been at war or just coming back from war in that cursed sand bucket in some fashion.

I really, really, really hope we can avoid doing this dance again.


"Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia."

[Chance]

From BBC News (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48619771):


Dozens of crew members have been rescued after abandoning two oil tankers hit by explosions in the Gulf of Oman.

Iran said it had rescued the 21 crew members on board the Kokuka Courageous and the 23 on the Front Altair.

The cause of the explosions in one of the world's busiest oil routes remains unclear and both vessels are still afloat.

The incident comes a month after four oil tankers were attacked off the UAE.

The cause has not been confirmed.

The Norwegian-owned Front Altair had been "attacked", the Norwegian Maritime Authority said, leading to three explosions on board.

Wu I-fang, a spokesman for Taiwan's state oil refiner CPC Corp, which chartered the Front Altair, said it was carrying 75,000 tonnes of naphtha and was "suspected of being hit by a torpedo", although this has not been confirmed. Other unverified reports suggested a mine attack.

38983

[ralph]

Couple of articles about this over at zero hedge..price of crude shot up to $62 a barrel. So far, nobody seems to know who exactly attacked these tankers, One of the tankers is Japanese owned, and Iranian leaders were supposed to be meeting with members of the Japanese goverment either today, or yesterday. I have my doubts at this point, that the Iranians were involved. Myself, I suspect this could be a false flag operation, IMO, these attacks were pretty half assed, I suppose it's possible they hit a mine, that anybody could've laid, article at ZH said ships were torpedoed. Anyway, War with Iran, in 3, 2, 1, Oh, and watch the price of gas shoot above $3.00 a gallon again...What's the best way to take peoples eyes off a failing economy, that this time the fed can't fix?? Start a war...

[Bart Carter]

...What's the best way to take peoples eyes off a failing economy, that this time the fed can't fix?? Start a war...

Compared to the 8 years preceding this President, we have a booming economy. Are you saying our government is starting a war? For what purpose?

[Wake27]

Couple of articles about this over at zero hedge..price of crude shot up to $62 a barrel. So far, nobody seems to know who exactly attacked these tankers, One of the tankers is Japanese owned, and Iranian leaders were supposed to be meeting with members of the Japanese goverment either today, or yesterday. I have my doubts at this point, that the Iranians were involved. Myself, I suspect this could be a false flag operation, IMO, these attacks were pretty half assed, I suppose it's possible they hit a mine, that anybody could've laid, article at ZH said ships were torpedoed. Anyway, War with Iran, in 3, 2, 1, Oh, and watch the price of gas shoot above $3.00 a gallon again...What's the best way to take peoples eyes off a failing economy, that this time the fed can't fix?? Start a war...

Wait, what? Iran’s leadership meeting with the Japanese at the exact same time means they didn’t do it, but instead it’s our federal government trying to start a war with Iran because the economy is failing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ralph]

Compared to the 8 years preceding this President, we have a booming economy. Are you saying our government is starting a war? For what purpose?

Well, like it or not, our goverment/MIC, has been trying to start a world wide hegomony for years..right now, only 3 countries stand in the way..Russia, China, And Iran, get rid of these three and you control the whole world..Booming ecomony? 2-3% annunal growth is not booming, it's treading water.. Auto and retail sales have been slowing for awhile now.. From what I've been reading at different sites we're heading into another recession, I mean, the Fed is now talking about lowering rates and going back to Q.E. T- bills are paying just over 2%, just how far can you lower rates? What happens when you hit zero? The reality about the economy is, nothing was fixed after the real estate market crash in 2008..It was just papered over..

[TGS]

Couple of articles about this over at zero hedge..price of crude shot up to $62 a barrel. So far, nobody seems to know who exactly attacked these tankers, One of the tankers is Japanese owned, and Iranian leaders were supposed to be meeting with members of the Japanese goverment either today, or yesterday. I have my doubts at this point, that the Iranians were involved. Myself, I suspect this could be a false flag operation, IMO, these attacks were pretty half assed, I suppose it's possible they hit a mine, that anybody could've laid, article at ZH said ships were torpedoed. Anyway, War with Iran, in 3, 2, 1, Oh, and watch the price of gas shoot above $3.00 a gallon again...What's the best way to take peoples eyes off a failing economy, that this time the fed can't fix?? Start a war...

Our economy is failing?

I'm not stating that in an argumentative way due to political orientation, I'm legitimately asking because our investments have been doing great....something that doesn't occur in failing economies.

[ralph]

Wait, what? Iran’s leadership meeting with the Japanese at the exact same time means they didn’t do it, but instead it’s our federal government trying to start a war with Iran because the economy is failing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I did'nt exactly say that, but starting wars to divert attention is a time honored tactic.. Look at the Falklands war for example, Argentina's economy was in dire straights (again) So, what did their goverment do? Take over the Falklands..problen was, they did'nt expect the response the got from the UK.. And after it was over, their economy collasped. Funny how that works isn't it?Go over to zero hedge and read for yourself, yes the Iranians were in a meeting with the japanese, Why would they attack a japanese ship when they were meeting with the japanese? Rather embarrassing no? My point is something stinks about this whole thing, you've got people in our goverment who've been pining for a war with Iran for years, and just wanting an excuse to start one..They just might have it.

[ralph]

Our economy is failing?

I'm not stating that in an argumentative way due to political orientation, I'm legitimately asking because our investments have been doing great....something that doesn't occur in failing economies.

Well, some investments will do good even when thing aren't that great, so good for you, But like I said in my post above, the Fed has reversed course, and is talking about cutting rates and possibly more QE, so, they know a slowdown is coming.The important thing to remember is, this time around the Fed dosen't have alot of tools in the toolbox to work with this time around, All I could say is keep your eyes open..

[LittleLebowski]

Well, like it or not, our goverment/MIC, has been trying to start a world wide hegomony for years..right now, only 3 countries stand in the way..Russia, China, And Iran, get rid of these three and you control the whole world..Booming ecomony? 2-3% annunal growth is not booming, it's treading water.. Auto and retail sales have been slowing for awhile now.. From what I've been reading at different sites we're heading into another recession, I mean, the Fed is now talking about lowering rates and going back to Q.E. T- bills are paying just over 2%, just how far can you lower rates? What happens when you hit zero? The reality about the economy is, nothing was fixed after the real estate market crash in 2008..It was just papered over..

Failing economy?

https://media.giphy.com/media/blPpTGDhn6hEI/giphy.gif

[TGS]

Well, some investments will do good even when thing aren't that great, so good for you, But like I said in my post above, the Fed has reversed course, and is talking about cutting rates and possibly more QE, so, they know a slowdown is coming.The important thing to remember is, this time around the Fed dosen't have alot of tools in the toolbox to work with this time around, All I could say is keep your eyes open..

So what you're saying is that it's an economy, doing economic things, in flux, like economies normally do?

That's not what a failing economy is.

[ralph]

Failing economy?

https://media.giphy.com/media/blPpTGDhn6hEI/giphy.gif


I know, those are words nobody likes, but like I tell people, do your own research, and draw up your own conclusions..

[psalms144.1]

We might as well occupy Afghanistan too, because that'll work out differently for us than the British and Russians.

Oh. Wait...And Alexander the Great - who couldn't "pacify" Afghanistan even though he slaughtered about 67% of the population to bring them to heel. I'm SURE everything will work out for us!

[ralph]

So what you're saying is that it's an economy, doing economic things, in flux, like economies normally do?

That's not what a failing economy is.

Then why is the Fed backtracking on rates and considering more QE? That's not exactly what a booming economy is.. Before this get out of hand, this is just my opinion based on what I've read..It's worth exactly what you paid for it.. IMO, something stinks in the M.E. I don't know who hit those tankers.. but, it's clear to me somebody is trying to get a war started..While I have no doubt the U.S. could easily steamroll the Iranian military, there are a couple things to think about..Like do the Iranians have nuclear weapons, and will they use them? Would the Russians, Chinese be willing to step in? Lot of things going on here, and it could easily get out of hand..

[TGS]

Then why is the Fed backtracking on rates and considering more QE? That's not exactly what a booming economy is..

When did I say booming economy?

Are you projecting or responding to someone else?

[ralph]

When did I say booming economy?

Are you projecting or responding to someone else?

Sorry my bad, you did'nt..I did. Call it projecting if you want. However word usage aside, The question I asked is still valid.. I could be wrong, but I don't think they'd be planning on doing what they're doing, if the economy was as strong as people think it is..

[ralph]

Over on zerohedge latest update from the Saudis, suggests that Houthi rebels may have attacked the tankers.. interesting..

[LittleLebowski]

This was an attack, not sabotage, right?

[Bart Carter]

Well, like it or not, our goverment/MIC, has been trying to start a world wide hegomony for years..right now, only 3 countries stand in the way..Russia, China, And Iran, get rid of these three and you control the whole world..Booming ecomony? 2-3% annunal growth is not booming, it's treading water.. Auto and retail sales have been slowing for awhile now.. From what I've been reading at different sites we're heading into another recession, I mean, the Fed is now talking about lowering rates and going back to Q.E. T- bills are paying just over 2%, just how far can you lower rates? What happens when you hit zero? The reality about the economy is, nothing was fixed after the real estate market crash in 2008..It was just papered over..

Notice that the countries you claim are standing in our way are part of the axis of evil. As far as hegemony, we have been the leader of the free world since before WWI. We aren't trying to control the world, we are trying to look out for ourselves for a change. Countries that are based on socialism/communism can't compete with us. That is there problem, not ours.

Trump was always vocal about the Fed raising the rates. He is finally being listened to. Lower rates mean business growth. You are right, nothing was fixed from 2008 to 2016. Businesses are finally getting a better climate. 2018 had a 3% growth overall. Trump haters predicted a collapse. Now 3% is suddenly not enough. Now they are predicting a recession. :rolleyes:

Give me a break.

[Bart Carter]

...you've got people in our goverment who've been pining for a war with Iran for years, and just wanting an excuse to start one..They just might have it.

And all these years I've been thinking that we were the ones that kept Israel from protecting itself against Iran with use of force. :p

[TGS]

Over on zerohedge latest update from the Saudis, suggests that Houthi rebels may have attacked the tankers.. interesting..

Houthi Rebels?

Off the Gulf of Oman?

They're on the other side of the Arabian Peninsula, about 800 miles from where they should be.

[Borderland]

As long as the price of diesel stays around $3/gal I don't care what those middle eastern countries do.

They're going to jack each other around anyway and blame the US for all their problems. Let them starve and live in the rubble. Blowing shit up seems to be the only thing they know how to do.

[Kyle Reese]

Houthi Rebels?

Off the Gulf of Oman?

They're on the other side of the Arabian Peninsula, about 800 miles from where they should be.My money is on the IRGC.....

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

[Stephanie B]

This was an attack, not sabotage, right?

I don't know.

My question is the old homicide one: Cui bono? Who benefits from sparking War #3 in the Persian Gulf? Who benefits from the price of crude rising?

I don't see the benefit to the Iranians, not to mention having the most recent tanker attacks/sabotage taking place during the visit of the PM of Japan. Their infrastructure would take a severe pounding.

Bolton's decades-long penchant for war-mongering aside, I don't see a benefit to the U.S. We're not going to be able to put together another Coalition of the (Un)Willing again. None of the secondary Western military powers are frothing at the bit to get into another quagmire in the sandbox. We don't have the military power to occupy a country of eighty million people, not without committing atrocities on a German or Mongolian Horde scale.

It doesn't benefit the Chinese, for they import a lot of oil.

So who benefits from (a) causing instability in Iran and (b) running up the price of oil?

For category (a): Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Boltonite neo-cons, who have a wet-dream of an American Empire.

For category (b): Russia, Saudi Arabia, and other oil exporters. I can't see Canada, Mexico, Venezuala or Norway pulling this off. Elements of the American oil industry would benefit, as the price of crude has to be high to make fracking profitable. But the political ramifications of being found out would wreck the petroleum industries in any democracy, so we can rule out those guys. (Though maybe somebody might want to see what Eric Prince has been doing of late.)

Seems that the Saudis check both boxes. Means, motive and opportunity, yep. Not to mention the deep personal relationship between the First Son-in-Law and Prince Bone Saw.

Doesn't mean they did it. But if I were writing the novel......

[NEPAKevin]

Doesn't mean they did it. But if I were writing the novel......

Funny. In one of the post Vince Flynn Mitch Rapp novels, it's the Russians who plot to drive up the price of oil by starting a war in the sand box. Meanwhile in Norway... "You were right Ole, dey never suspect us. He he he. "

[LittleLebowski]

I don't know.

My question is the old homicide one: Cui bono? Who benefits from sparking War #3 in the Persian Gulf? Who benefits from the price of crude rising?

I don't see the benefit to the Iranians, not to mention having the most recent tanker attacks/sabotage taking place during the visit of the PM of Japan. Their infrastructure would take a severe pounding.

Bolton's decades-long penchant for war-mongering aside, I don't see a benefit to the U.S. We're not going to be able to put together another Coalition of the (Un)Willing again. None of the secondary Western military powers are frothing at the bit to get into another quagmire in the sandbox. We don't have the military power to occupy a country of eighty million people, not without committing atrocities on a German or Mongolian Horde scale.

It doesn't benefit the Chinese, for they import a lot of oil.

So who benefits from (a) causing instability in Iran and (b) running up the price of oil?

For category (a): Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Boltonite neo-cons, who have a wet-dream of an American Empire.

For category (b): Russia, Saudi Arabia, and other oil exporters. I can't see Canada, Mexico, Venezuala or Norway pulling this off. Elements of the American oil industry would benefit, as the price of crude has to be high to make fracking profitable. But the political ramifications of being found out would wreck the petroleum industries in any democracy, so we can rule out those guys. (Though maybe somebody might want to see what Eric Prince has been doing of late.)

Seems that the Saudis check both boxes. Means, motive and opportunity, yep. Not to mention the deep personal relationship between the First Son-in-Law and Prince Bone Saw.

Doesn't mean they did it. But if I were writing the novel......

Awaiting Stephanie’s updated version of the best Clancy novel (https://amzn.to/2WI45z6).

[Bart Carter]

Iran did it!

[Stephanie B]

Awaiting Stephanie’s updated version of the best Clancy novel (https://amzn.to/2WI45z6).

I'd need some people to run the wargames.

[Chance]

1139301939731148801

[Edster]

My afternoon background reading today was wikipedia links to false flag attacks.

Reading this thread, it seems I'm not the only person who would like to see some evidence to go with accusations.

Has the last 20 years started to make more of us skeptical about some things?

[Lester Polfus]

My afternoon background reading today was wikipedia links to false flag attacks.

Reading this thread, it seems I'm not the only person who would like to see some evidence to go with accusations.

Has the last 20 years started to make more of us skeptical about some things?

20 years? Do you even Gulf of Tonkin bro?

[ralph]

Houthi Rebels?

Off the Gulf of Oman?

They're on the other side of the Arabian Peninsula, about 800 miles from where they should be.
That's what the Saudi's are supposedly saying..go over to zerohedge and check it out.. Who knows what's going on over there..

ETA:
latest update from zero hedge, U.S. is saying Tehran to blame for attacks...there it is folks...Let's see what happens next..article is over azero hedge if you want to read it yourself..

[Borderland]

Where's Saddam Hussein when you need him?

[blues]

Where's Saddam Hussein when you need him?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/image/4580084-3x2-940x627.jpg

"Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in."

[ralph]

Where's Saddam Hussein when you need him?

I thought he got his neck stretched..but who really knows, him and Bagdad Bob could have a stand up act in Vegas..::rolleyes:

[Chance]

From CNN (https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/06/13/politics/us-images-iranian-boat-removing-mine/index.html):


The United States has video and photos that show an Iranian navy boat removing an unexploded mine attached to the hull of the Japanese-owned chemical tanker Kokura Courageous, four US officials tell CNN.

....

One of the officials said a US military aircraft overhead recorded a full motion video of an Iranian boat moving alongside one of the stricken tankers and removing an unexploded limpet mine from its hull. The official said the imagery shows a person on board that small boat grabbing the unexploded mine.

The boat made the move even after the USS Bainbridge, as well as a US drone and P-8 aircraft, had been on the scene for four hours. US defense officials believe that the Iranians were seeking to recover evidence of their involvement in the attack.

CNN has not independently seen the video. The officials described the photos and video to CNN on the condition they not be identified discussing sensitive military information. It is not clear if the imagery will be publicly shown.

[blues]

It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma...

[Borderland]

I thought he got his neck stretched..but who really knows, him and Bagdad Bob could have a stand up act in Vegas..::rolleyes:

Trump and Saddam would have been great buddies. We would have had a big wonderful beautiful golf course in Bagdad. Instead we left a billion dollars worth of military hardware there for the Taliban. Just doesn't seem right.

[ralph]

Trump and Saddam would have been great buddies. We would have had a big wonderful beautiful golf course in Bagdad. Instead we left a billion dollars worth of military hardware there for the Taliban.

Ain't it the truth..

[HCountyGuy]

Blues’s picture made me remember this gem:

Rock, Paper, Saddam (http://daryld.com/rock-paper-saddam/)

[Wake27]

I did'nt exactly say that, but starting wars to divert attention is a time honored tactic.. Look at the Falklands war for example, Argentina's economy was in dire straights (again) So, what did their goverment do? Take over the Falklands..problen was, they did'nt expect the response the got from the UK.. And after it was over, their economy collasped. Funny how that works isn't it?Go over to zero hedge and read for yourself, yes the Iranians were in a meeting with the japanese, Why would they attack a japanese ship when they were meeting with the japanese? Rather embarrassing no? My point is something stinks about this whole thing, you've got people in our goverment who've been pining for a war with Iran for years, and just wanting an excuse to start one..They just might have it.

Literally nothing that you said has anything to do with this incident. I never claimed stuff like that doesn’t happen but if you don’t think Iran had anything to do with it, you might want to find better sources.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Caballoflaco]

20 years? Do you even Gulf of Tonkin bro?

Remember the Maine!

[blues]

Remember the Maine!

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts...

[Borderland]

Literally nothing that you said has anything to do with this incident. I never claimed stuff like that doesn’t happen but if you don’t think Iran had anything to do with it, you might want to find better sources.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Honestly, I don't have an opinion about what Iran is up to in the straight because I don't know. I remember the adm said that there were WMD in Iraq. Totally fabricated to justify bombing the shit out of them and putting troops on the ground. All a bunch of BS from Bush and his adm. So, I'm not listening to this adm either.

The facts are Iran is being squeezed with sanctions. Their economy is in the toilet. Something has to change in Iran soon or there will be blood running in the streets. I used to work with two Iranians who left the country before the US backed gov't was overthrown. Both were well educated engineers from privileged families. One had an uncle who was SAVAK. His uncle put him on a plane in the middle of the night and told him he could never return to Iran. He still talks to relatives there and they all tell him the situation is extremely bad. My other friend was in the construction business and his family had close ties to the Shaw and US interests. He had to leave the country also.

Both of them told me that things have deteriorated dramatically ever since the Islamic Republic took power. Sometimes it's better to have a dictator who keeps things in order than a country ran by religious extremists. I think that was proven in Iraq.

[Gray01]

One of the tankers is Japanese owned, and Iranian leaders were supposed to be meeting with members of the Japanese government either today, or yesterday.

Well, it was not that long ago when something similar happened, except in a sort of about face...

"MEMORANDUM HANDED BY THE JAPANESE AMBASSADOR (NOMURA) TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE AT 2:20 P.M. ON DECEMBER 7, 1941
1. The Government of Japan, prompted by a genuine desire to come to an amicable understanding with the Government of the United States in order that the two countries by their joint efforts may secure the peace of the Pacific Area and thereby contribute toward the realization of world peace, has continued negotiations with the utmost sincerity since April last with the Government of the United States regarding the adjustment and advancement of Japanese-American relations and the stabilization of the Pacific Area..."

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/WorldWar2/memo.htm

[Gray01]

Also, regarding the Tonkin references, Admiral James B. Stockdale is on record saying that he flew the Gulf of Tonkin missions and that he personally saw the NV boats attacking the US vessels.

[Drang]

Not enough tin foil in the world.

[BehindBlueI's]

Honestly, I don't have an opinion about what Iran is up to in the straight because I don't know. I remember the adm said that there were WMD in Iraq. Totally fabricated to justify bombing the shit out of them and putting troops on the ground. All a bunch of BS from Bush and his adm. So, I'm not listening to this adm either.

"Totally fabricated" isn't really fair or accurate. You can argue how much was willful ignorance and how much was legitimately being fooled by Saddam, but both the US and UK's intel reports were based on actual intelligence from Iraq. You know how North Korea releases those propaganda tapes pretending to have tech they don't? Saddam had a pretend WMD program. It was largely to keep Iran on their side of the fence. He didn't think the US would buy it, and believed if they did the result would simply do a limited bombing campaign in retaliation. So, not "totally fabricated" even if ultimately incorrect.

As far as what does Iran have to gain? Well, off the top of my head they are demonstrating that they aren't powerless. A country that has the capability and the will to damage the energy supply to a given country gets that given country's attention and increases their power at the negotiating table. It also gets the attention of the economies affected by that given country, etc.

[Borderland]

"Totally fabricated" isn't really fair or accurate. You can argue how much was willful ignorance and how much was legitimately being fooled by Saddam, but both the US and UK's intel reports were based on actual intelligence from Iraq. You know how North Korea releases those propaganda tapes pretending to have tech they don't? Saddam had a pretend WMD program. It was largely to keep Iran on their side of the fence. He didn't think the US would buy it, and believed if they did the result would simply do a limited bombing campaign in retaliation. So, not "totally fabricated" even if ultimately incorrect.

As far as what does Iran have to gain? Well, off the top of my head they are demonstrating that they aren't powerless. A country that has the capability and the will to damage the energy supply to a given country gets that given country's attention and increases their power at the negotiating table. It also gets the attention of the economies affected by that given country, etc.

It was well documented that US intelligence at the time tried to tell the adm that they weren't certain there were WMD's in Iraq. And they for sure didn't know because there were none. How's that for good solid intelligence? You don't commit a military operation of that magnitude without good solid intelligence, which they didn't have.

[Lester Polfus]

"Totally fabricated" isn't really fair or accurate. You can argue how much was willful ignorance and how much was legitimately being fooled by Saddam, but both the US and UK's intel reports were based on actual intelligence from Iraq. You know how North Korea releases those propaganda tapes pretending to have tech they don't? Saddam had a pretend WMD program. It was largely to keep Iran on their side of the fence. He didn't think the US would buy it, and believed if they did the result would simply do a limited bombing campaign in retaliation. So, not "totally fabricated" even if ultimately incorrect.

As far as what does Iran have to gain? Well, off the top of my head they are demonstrating that they aren't powerless. A country that has the capability and the will to damage the energy supply to a given country gets that given country's attention and increases their power at the negotiating table. It also gets the attention of the economies affected by that given country, etc.

One thing I've always wondered is if Saddam actually believed he had a WMD program. If The Fearless Leader calls you up and says "I want a 1,000 barrels of nerve gas by Friday!" I would imagine that explaining to him in technical detail about how that simply isn't possible wouldn't be life-enhancing. Instead, you show up next Friday with a 1,000 barrels of distilled water and enough real stuff to kill a couple of hapless victims in case he wants a demonstration.

[TGS]

It was well documented that US intelligence at the time tried to tell the adm that they weren't certain there were WMD's in Iraq. And they for sure didn't know because there were none. How's that for good solid intelligence? You don't commit a military operation of that magnitude without good solid intelligence, which they didn't have.

That's a pretty drastic simplification of what happened, and ignores the other half of the equation: regardless of whether they actually had WMDs or not, they broke UN sanctions they had agreed to.....sanctions which carried the penalty of war. I've always thought we did a terrible job of "marketing" the invasion of Iraq. The Coalition was well within their right to invade, but we had a guy that was really bad behind the microphone.

__________________________________________________ ___________

If anyone doesn't know what NIE stands for without having to google it, the same individuals should probably not open their mouths on the subject of our intelligence that led us into the war. There were mistakes made as a result of "poor workmanship" and political influence, but to then grossly simplify the situation as "outright fabrication" or that the war was conducted on a whim with weak intelligence is pretty bogus.

[BehindBlueI's]

One thing I've always wondered is if Saddam actually believed he had a WMD program. If The Fearless Leader calls you up and says "I want a 1,000 barrels of nerve gas by Friday!" I would imagine that explaining to him in technical detail about how that simply isn't possible wouldn't be life-enhancing. Instead, you show up next Friday with a 1,000 barrels of distilled water and enough real stuff to kill a couple of hapless victims in case he wants a demonstration.

It's been awhile since I read any of this, but I don't think he was duped. At least according to him. He faked having a weapons program because he thought Iran was his most likely threat and wanted them afraid. He figured if the US bought into it, they'd bomb him for a couple of days and then move on. His plan was to start a real weapons program after the bombing figuring the US would be unlikely to repeat another bombing campaign immediately.

I wonder if he wasn't concerned with the Kurds as well, but I don't think he ever mentioned them in his interviews or trial.

[Wake27]

"Totally fabricated" isn't really fair or accurate. You can argue how much was willful ignorance and how much was legitimately being fooled by Saddam, but both the US and UK's intel reports were based on actual intelligence from Iraq. You know how North Korea releases those propaganda tapes pretending to have tech they don't? Saddam had a pretend WMD program. It was largely to keep Iran on their side of the fence. He didn't think the US would buy it, and believed if they did the result would simply do a limited bombing campaign in retaliation. So, not "totally fabricated" even if ultimately incorrect.

As far as what does Iran have to gain? Well, off the top of my head they are demonstrating that they aren't powerless. A country that has the capability and the will to damage the energy supply to a given country gets that given country's attention and increases their power at the negotiating table. It also gets the attention of the economies affected by that given country, etc.

Well said. And while we never found nukes in Iraq, they absolutely had chem weapons which still fall under the same umbrella. Plus, there's really no such thing as really solid intelligence on that scale.

[Stephanie B]

Commander Salamander, who is hardly a leftie, is recommending everyone calm the frak down (http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2019/06/everyone-just-calm-frack-down.html).

His main point is that this only becomes our problem if we so choose to make it our business.

If you want to sink a ship with a limpet mine, you place it under the ship's waterline. Blowing a small hole in the side of a ship well above the waterline, at a part of a ship where nobody is expected to be, seems more like a provocation.

The tar baby is beckoning. Pompeo and Bolton seem eager to fall into its embrace.

[ralph]

Literally nothing that you said has anything to do with this incident. I never claimed stuff like that doesn’t happen but if you don’t think Iran had anything to do with it, you might want to find better sources.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't need better sources..I want to see the proof first.. we got the last gulf war started based on a lie that Iraq has WMD, How'd that work out? Now since you wrote your post, video has surfaced that shows what appears to be an unexploded mine off of one of the ships.. Is that enough evidence to start a war over? Hmmm, I don't know, we went to war for less, as the Iraq war proved..IMO what needs to happen now is to greatly increase the pressure on Iran.. That seems to be working, let the people of Iran overthrow their own goverment, We don't need to do it for them..

[Duelist]

Well said. And while we never found nukes in Iraq, they absolutely had chem weapons which still fall under the same umbrella. Plus, there's really no such thing as really solid intelligence on that scale.

They definitely had chemical weapons, so I’m always a bit perplexed when people say Iraq had no WMDs. No nukes =/= no WMDs. And they had actively used chemical weapons on the Kurds in Iraq and on Iranian military and civilians in the past, under Saddam’s leadership. No real indication that his willingness to do so again in the future had changed.

[hufnagel]

Notice that the countries you claim are standing in our way are part of the axis of evil. As far as hegemony, we have been the leader of the free world since before WWI. We aren't trying to control the world, we are trying to look out for ourselves for a change. Countries that are based on socialism/communism can't compete with us. That is there problem, not ours.

Trump was always vocal about the Fed raising the rates. He is finally being listened to. Lower rates mean business growth. You are right, nothing was fixed from 2008 to 2016. Businesses are finally getting a better climate. 2018 had a 3% growth overall. Trump haters predicted a collapse. Now 3% is suddenly not enough. Now they are predicting a recession. :rolleyes:

Give me a break.

Am I the only one who thinks interest rates are TOO low?
Fiscal conservatism is best when you're on the sweet spot for interest rates; it's not TOO expensive to borrow money, but it's still expensive enough that it forces people to make wiser decisions with their money, and it also promotes savings, which in turn promotes a degree of stiffness to disaster when it comes to personal economic incidences.
Personally, I think that somewhere between 6% and 8% on a mortgage is the right interest rate, if we needed to pick something as a bellwether.

[Chance]

This was posted on the article Stephanie linked to.

1139346296341508096

[Wake27]

I don't need better sources..I want to see the proof first.. we got the last gulf war started based on a lie that Iraq has WMD, How'd that work out? Now since you wrote your post, video has surfaced that shows what appears to be an unexploded mine off of one of the ships.. Is that enough evidence to start a war over? Hmmm, I don't know, we went to war for less, as the Iraq war proved..IMO what needs to happen now is to greatly increase the pressure on Iran.. That seems to be working, let the people of Iran overthrow their own goverment, We don't need to do it for them..

Well, nobody actually has the right to see any proof besides congress. As much as I dislike them, and not that I’m at all advocating or expecting this to go to war, there is no responsibility on the government’s part to give the American public any proof. Congress declares war, not the public. Plus, the last several decades have obviously proven that conflict without a declaration is common practice. And as much as I think a certain level of transparency is necessary, there is plenty of info that the American public should not have access to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BehindBlueI's]

They definitely had chemical weapons, so I’m always a bit perplexed when people say Iraq had no WMDs. No nukes =/= no WMDs. And they had actively used chemical weapons on the Kurds in Iraq and on Iranian military and civilians in the past, under Saddam’s leadership. No real indication that his willingness to do so again in the future had changed.

Because the very little chemical weapons they had were things like old mortar rounds that were dated to the Iran-Iraq war and most were degraded to the point they were inert. The only yellowcake found was already known and accounted for by international monitoring. The intel said they had an ongoing WMD program that was capable of producing a host of bad things on the bio/chem side, had mobile labs, etc. None of that turned out to be true. It's the equivalent of me writing a search warrant for your house for machinegun manufacturing, finding an old Colt SA revolver, and declaring I was right because you did have a firearm.

[Bart Carter]

Saddam was his own problem. All he had to do was let the inspectors inspect. Talk about a bad decision. :p

[Bart Carter]

Am I the only one who thinks interest rates are TOO low?
Fiscal conservatism is best when you're on the sweet spot for interest rates; it's not TOO expensive to borrow money, but it's still expensive enough that it forces people to make wiser decisions with their money, and it also promotes savings, which in turn promotes a degree of stiffness to disaster when it comes to personal economic incidences.
Personally, I think that somewhere between 6% and 8% on a mortgage is the right interest rate, if we needed to pick something as a bellwether.

Well, for me, the lower the interest rate the more profit. The more profit, the more I spend. The more I spend, the better the economy.

I also am able to put the additional profit into into growing my business, paying my employees more and plan for retirement.

Even the government wins because I pay more taxes.

Win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win...I could go on. :p

[LittleLebowski]

Well hell in that case, let's also invade Russia during the winter! It'll be different this time!

I know of an organization that has succeeded at that. #TeamMongol (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=TeamMongol)

[Chance]

I'm also starting to join the chorus of "it doesn't make sense that this would be Iran." Over the past several decades, Iran has established a very successful track record being a thorn in the side of the world, and they've done so in ways that rarely make the news. The Shamoon 1 attack against Saudi Aramco back in 2012 is a great example of how they can wreak havoc without drawing much attention to themselves (...probably - nothing's been publicly shared that proved Iran was responsible, but that's how cyber goes).

Anyone that pays attention to the region knows the kind of threat Iran poses, so I'm at a loss as to why they would want to do something this flashy.

[Bart Carter]

I'm also starting to join the chorus of "it doesn't make sense that this would be Iran." ...

U.S. law requires the Secretary of State to provide Congress, a full and complete report on terrorism with regard to those countries and groups meeting criteria set forth in the legislation. This annual report is entitled Country Reports on Terrorism. Guess what, Iran remained the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.

Would it make sense that the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism would be behind this terrorism?

FWIW, a Revolutionary Guard patrol boat pulled alongside the ship and removed the remaining evidence (unexploded mine).

[blues]

U.S. law requires the Secretary of State to provide Congress, a full and complete report on terrorism with regard to those countries and groups meeting criteria set forth in the legislation. This annual report is entitled Country Reports on Terrorism. Guess what, Iran remained the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.

Would it make sense that the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism would be behind this terrorism?

FWIW, a Revolutionary Guard patrol boat pulled alongside the ship and removed the remaining evidence (unexploded mine).

Unfortunately, this administration has a penchant for doing its best to circumvent what the law may require vis a vis congress. (Not to say other administrations may or may not have been guilty of same.)

Who do you trust when you can trust no one?

[JAD]

Unfortunately, this administration has a penchant for doing its best to circumvent what the law may require vis a vis congress. (Not to say other administrations may or may not have been guilty of same.)

Who do you trust when you can trust no one?

Mssrs. Smith et Wesson.

[blues]

Mssrs. Smith et Wesson.

That's a start...

(You trust your mother but you still cut the cards.)

[Ed L]

Commander Salamander, who is hardly a leftie, is recommending everyone calm the frak down (http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2019/06/everyone-just-calm-frack-down.html).

His main point is that this only becomes our problem if we so choose to make it our business.

If you want to sink a ship with a limpet mine, you place it under the ship's waterline. Blowing a small hole in the side of a ship well above the waterline, at a part of a ship where nobody is expected to be, seems more like a provocation.

The tar baby is beckoning. Pompeo and Bolton seem eager to fall into its embrace.

To me the mining thing looks like a false flag job. Maybe Saudi Arabia trying to drag us in there in a bigger way against Iran.

Unless Iran does something blatant and more dramatic, I would urge the president against involvement. Among other things, I don't think he has the popularity among congress or much of the general population to stand behind him, and they would likely blame Trump for the whole thing and turn it into a huge crusade against Trump.

I also suspect that Iran has some Chinese YJ-18 anti ship missiles that can be launched from land, sea or air. These are copies of the Russian Klub anti ship missile, the 3M-54 Kalibr. The Chinese version is called the YJ-18. Both are sea-skimming anti-ship missiles with a range of between 140 and 340 miles (depending on the source of the info and the version of the missile). They carry a 333-660 lb warhead and can be launched from submarines, surface ships, airplanes, and shore batteries. They travel at just below mach 1 for most of their trip, then accelerate to mach 2.5-3 for the last 25 miles. I think they would be a problem for most of our current ship defense systems.

Further, the chinese have a version that can be launched out of a shipping container--which would be perfect for moving around on land and launching it.

The Persian Gulf would be an excellent place to employ this missile since it is long and relatively narrow. A target ship would not have as much warning against a land launched version of this missile since the geograpics would allow it to be launched from closer distances.

We have seen similar missiles employed in the Mideast when one hit an Israeli frigate off Gaza and another his a UAE shipping catamaran near Yemen..

I would not be surprised if the CHinese had sold Iran a bunmch of these nissiles.

[trailrunner]

If you want to sink a ship with a limpet mine, you place it under the ship's waterline. Blowing a small hole in the side of a ship well above the waterline, at a part of a ship where nobody is expected to be, seems more like a provocation.


Maybe, but consider these issues:

a) Placing a mine under the water line isn't that easy.
b) Even if you could place a mine under the water line, it's doubtful that one of those mines would sink a ship that size.
c) Placing an explosive charge next to large fuel tanks could be an effective way to multiply damage.
d) Maybe they didn't want to sink it. An uncontrolled fire that spreads can cause a lot of damage, including complete loss of ship. Even if the fire is controlled, a flaming ship that's shown over and over in the news gives your organization credibility and sends ripples through the worldwide economy.

[Borderland]

They definitely had chemical weapons, so I’m always a bit perplexed when people say Iraq had no WMDs. No nukes =/= no WMDs. And they had actively used chemical weapons on the Kurds in Iraq and on Iranian military and civilians in the past, under Saddam’s leadership. No real indication that his willingness to do so again in the future had changed.

They did have chemical weapons. They had nerve gas in 55 gal drums they dumped on the Kurds from helicopters. They didn't have a missile delivery system. They didn't even have a missile defense system. Almost every tomahawk missile that was launched by the US hit its target and there were hundreds.

So a WMD was nerve gas. US troops found a lot of nerve gas in artillery shells but none of that was a threat to the US.

That entire war was shooting fish in a barrel. Not much of a threat to anyone but Kurds and Shiite Muslims.

[Duelist]

They did have chemical weapons. They had nerve gas in 55 gal drums they dumped on the Kurds from helicopters. They didn't have a missile delivery system. They didn't even have a missile defense system. Almost every tomahawk missile that was launched by the US hit its target and there were hundreds.

So a WMD was nerve gas. US troops found a lot of nerve gas in artillery shells but none of that was a threat to the US.

That entire war was shooting fish in a barrel. Not much of a threat to anyone but Kurds and Shiite Muslims.

IIRC, a SCUD was a (not very good) missile. Once upon a time, I got to wear MOPP gear while a couple of them missed me.

[HCM]

This is gold...

39091

[Ed L]

Maybe, but consider these issues:

a) Placing a mine under the water line isn't that easy.
b) Even if you could place a mine under the water line, it's doubtful that one of those mines would sink a ship that size.
c) Placing an explosive charge next to large fuel tanks could be an effective way to multiply damage.
d) Maybe they didn't want to sink it. An uncontrolled fire that spreads can cause a lot of damage, including complete loss of ship. Even if the fire is controlled, a flaming ship that's shown over and over in the news gives your organization credibility and sends ripples through the worldwide economy.


This is a very good point. Just because the mines were not employed in a manner that I might consider best practices doesn't mean that it is a red flag operation.

[BehindBlueI's]

Maybe, but consider these issues:

a) Placing a mine under the water line isn't that easy.
b) Even if you could place a mine under the water line, it's doubtful that one of those mines would sink a ship that size.
c) Placing an explosive charge next to large fuel tanks could be an effective way to multiply damage.
d) Maybe they didn't want to sink it. An uncontrolled fire that spreads can cause a lot of damage, including complete loss of ship. Even if the fire is controlled, a flaming ship that's shown over and over in the news gives your organization credibility and sends ripples through the worldwide economy.

I'm much more familiar with land mines than sea mines, but a cursory search shows that sea mines also have (or can have) anti-handling devices. As such, I'd add that into the equation. An anti-handling device touches off the mine if you, well, handle it. Seeing those guys just pluck the unexploded one off the side makes me think they are pretty familiar with the mine, or they are suicidal. On land, anti-mine operations when they mine can't be blown in place is a time consuming and laborious task since mistakes tend to be rather costly. Even in training and handling an AT mine that *I* rigged the anti-handling device on and buried myself it wasn't what I'd consider an easy task.

[Chance]

From Military.com (https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/06/14/iran-fired-missile-us-drone-prior-tanker-attacks-defense-official.html):


An Iranian small attack craft fired a surface to-air missile (SAM) at a U.S. MQ-9 Reaper drone this week, a senior defense official said on background Friday. The incident happened in the general area where explosions crippled two tankers in the Gulf of Oman Thursday, the official said.

The official also confirmed a report from CNN that a SAM allegedly fired by the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen shot down an MQ-9 over the Red Sea earlier this week.

The two alleged attacks against U.S. assets by Iran and an Iranian proxy group are the first against the U.S. military to be confirmed since the U.S. began building up forces in the region last month. The White House accelerated the dispatch of an aircraft carrier to the Gulf region in May, charging that Iran was planning an offensive against U.S. forces and interests in the region.

"There was an MQ-9 in the vicinity" overhead where the tankers Front Adair and Kokuka Courageous were proceeding in the Gulf Thursday, the official said. The SAM that missed the Reaper was fired from an Iranian patrol craft, the official added.

[Chance]

From BBC News (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48700965):



The IRGC said its air force shot down the US drone in the early hours of Thursday after the unmanned aircraft violated Iranian airspace near Kuhmobarak in the southern province of Hormozgan.

The drone was identified by the IRGC as a RQ-4 Global Hawk, but the US military official told Reuters news agency the drone was a US Navy MQ-4C Triton, a maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft based on the RQ-4B Global Hawk.

[Wyoming Shooter]

I'm cogitating an appropriate response. Assuming the drone was in international waters and that there is irrefutable proof of this, something must be done. It seems that whatever choice is made, it will be the best of some mighty poor options. My knee jerk reaction is to select an Iranian war ship that was involved in the minings and/or the shoot down, give the crew 20 minutes to abandon ship, and then send it to the bottom. Perhaps cooler heads will prevail.

[wvincent]

I'm cogitating an appropriate response. Assuming the drone was in international waters and that there is irrefutable proof of this, something must be done. It seems that whatever choice is made, it will be the best of some mighty poor options. My knee jerk reaction is to select an Iranian war ship that was involved in the minings and/or the shoot down, give the crew 20 minutes to abandon ship, and then send it to the bottom. Perhaps cooler heads will prevail.

Isn't one of the added benefits of using UA's is that there is no loss of life in a shoot down? No need for a strike back out of honor or spite? Eff em, send them the bill, sue for damages, whatever.

It's up to us to restrain from kicking over the next domino in this stupid game.

[Stephanie B]

I'm cogitating an appropriate response. Assuming the drone was in international waters and that there is irrefutable proof of this, something must be done. It seems that whatever choice is made, it will be the best of some mighty poor options. My knee jerk reaction is to select an Iranian war ship that was involved in the minings and/or the shoot down, give the crew 20 minutes to abandon ship, and then send it to the bottom. Perhaps cooler heads will prevail.
I'm not seeing the need to go to war because the Iranians killed a fucking robot.

[trailrunner]

I'm cogitating an appropriate response. Assuming the drone was in international waters and that there is irrefutable proof of this, something must be done. It seems that whatever choice is made, it will be the best of some mighty poor options. My knee jerk reaction is to select an Iranian war ship that was involved in the minings and/or the shoot down, give the crew 20 minutes to abandon ship, and then send it to the bottom. Perhaps cooler heads will prevail.

The response will likely be some air-to-ground weapons hitting the SAM battery that launched the missile that shot down the GH.

ETA: May not be air-to-ground. Could be Tomahawks.

[Chance]

At present, this has been an exercise in shouting and wasting money. I hope we don't tit for tat our way into someone getting killed, because then we've got real problems.

[TGS]

The response will likely be some air-to-ground weapons hitting the SAM battery that launched the missile that shot down the GH.

ETA: May not be air-to-ground. Could be Tomahawks.

This is more prudent than committing to a ground war at this point.

We have some pretty amazing munitions these days that can actually autonomously navigate their way around EW/ECM threats. We could definitely deliver a wakeup call to them. Shit, we could virtually neutralize their entire military C&C apparatus without actually putting a human over Iranian skies. Add humans and we could wipe out their entire ability to project in a single night, nearly unopposed.

Just think about the absolute steam-rolling that Iraq got in 1991 just from the air, and then think about the fact that Iran is virtually at the same capability they were in the 80s yet our tech in 1991 is no comparison to what we have now. It's a complete overmatch vs Iran.
__________________________________________

The difference between Iraq and Iran is that if we destabilized Iran, we wouldn't be destabilizing a relatively progressive country that would then find seedier factions trying to fill power vacuums in the aftermath. Iran is the seedy faction to begin with.

As for whether retaliating is worth it, I don't think appeasing Iran is a better solution. I'm under the impression that we really can't use diplomatic or economic sanctions any stricter than we already are, and I'm generally of the opinion that we should've bombed the country into the stone age in 1980, anyway. Iran is the 800lbs Gorilla of the Middle East that Germany was to Europe in the late 19th Century/Early 20th Century, so I'm unsure as to whether pulling back from the Persian Gulf area in order to quell our run-ins with Iran would be wise, too.

[Sensei]

This is more prudent than committing to a ground war at this point.

We have some pretty amazing munitions these days that can actually autonomously navigate their way around EW/ECM threats. We could definitely deliver a wakeup call to them. Shit, we could virtually neutralize their entire military C&C apparatus without actually putting a human over Iranian skies. Add humans and we could wipe out their entire ability to project in a single night, nearly unopposed.

Just think about the absolute steam-rolling that Iraq got in 1991 just from the air, and then think about the fact that Iran is virtually at the same capability they were in the 80s yet our tech in 1991 is no comparison to what we have now. It's a complete overmatch vs Iran.
__________________________________________

The difference between Iraq and Iran is that if we destabilized Iran, we wouldn't be destabilizing a relatively progressive country that would then find seedier factions trying to fill power vacuums in the aftermath. Iran is the seedy faction to begin with.

As for whether retaliating is worth it, I don't think appeasing Iran is a better solution. I'm under the impression that we really can't use diplomatic or economic sanctions any stricter than we already are, and I'm generally of the opinion that we should've bombed the country into the stone age in 1980, anyway. Iran is the 800lbs Gorilla of the Middle East that Germany was to Europe in the late 19th Century/Early 20th Century, so I'm unsure as to whether pulling back from the Persian Gulf area in order to quell our run-ins with Iran would be wise, too.

There are 1 million people of Iranian decent in America. If just 100 of them were committed and decided to go on soft-target rampages, it would be a disaster. Look at what 2 dipshits did to the city of Boston. Then, there is our porous Southern boarder. Having already been on the receiving end of what was likely an Iranian made IED, I’m not confident of our ability to keep their ordinance and WMD capability off of our streets.

[Stephanie B]

This is more prudent than committing to a ground war at this point.

We have some pretty amazing munitions these days that can actually autonomously navigate their way around EW/ECM threats. We could definitely deliver a wakeup call to them. Shit, we could virtually neutralize their entire military C&C apparatus without actually putting a human over Iranian skies. Add humans and we could wipe out their entire ability to project in a single night, nearly unopposed.

Just think about the absolute steam-rolling that Iraq got in 1991 just from the air, and then think about the fact that Iran is virtually at the same capability they were in the 80s yet our tech in 1991 is no comparison to what we have now. It's a complete overmatch vs Iran.
__________________________________________

The difference between Iraq and Iran is that if we destabilized Iran, we wouldn't be destabilizing a relatively progressive country that would then find seedier factions trying to fill power vacuums in the aftermath. Iran is the seedy faction to begin with.

As for whether retaliating is worth it, I don't think appeasing Iran is a better solution. I'm under the impression that we really can't use diplomatic or economic sanctions any stricter than we already are, and I'm generally of the opinion that we should've bombed the country into the stone age in 1980, anyway. Iran is the 800lbs Gorilla of the Middle East that Germany was to Europe in the late 19th Century/Early 20th Century, so I'm unsure as to whether pulling back from the Persian Gulf area in order to quell our run-ins with Iran would be wise, too.
So, bomb then back to the Stone Age. Then, what?

[Chance]

From BBC News (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48714414):


President Donald Trump approved retaliatory military strikes against Iran on Thursday before changing his mind, US media report.

The New York Times, citing senior White House officials, says strikes were planned against a "handful" of targets.

They say the operation was allegedly under way "in its early stages" when Mr Trump stood the US military down. The White House has so far made no comment.

[Eric_L]

https://warontherocks.com/2019/06/the-reaganesque-approach-to-iran-embrace-the-moderates/

I found this interesting. Iranian people are as a rule moderate and fairly secular. They are also pro west. The mullahs on the other hand are NOT. obviously.

But I hear the war drums.........

[Chance]

Iranian people are as a rule moderate and fairly secular. They are also pro west.

Of the folks I know that have traveled to Iran and know the people, the consensus seems to be that far more of the population hates the government than would ever admit publicly (for understandable reasons). And the people are pretty progressive for that region. For instance: Iran has one of the highest rates of plastic surgeries in the world, which is probably something you wouldn't expect to see from an ultra-conservative country.

[Stephanie B]

From BBC News (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48714414):

AP is reporting (https://apnews.com/2a3e1adab1c243a49ba789bd2934e902) that Trump pulled the strikes after being told that over 100 people would be killed. Trump's tweeted that such an action would not be proportional for shooting down a flying toaster.

I agree with Trump. (You guys on Team Trump might want to circle today on your calendars.)

(I don't know why the projected casualty figure wasn't briefed to him earlier, I'm guessing that Bolton, et al, probably glossed over that point. )

[Stephanie B]

Of the folks I know that have traveled to Iran and know the people, the consensus seems to be that far more of the population hates the government than would ever admit publicly (for understandable reasons). And the people are pretty progressive for that region. For instance: Iran has one of the highest rates of plastic surgeries in the world, which is probably something you wouldn't expect to see from an ultra-conservative country.
So, we'll be greeted as liberators?

[Wondering Beard]

I think you guys might find this interesting: Our tricky peace (https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/our-tricky-peace/)


Extracts:
"Securing the shipping lanes in a region as large and important as the Persian Gulf is no easy feat. How does the U.S. do it, especially if Iran is determined to harass tankers?"
But that ignores the fact that Iran only gains by raising tensions in the Strait, upping the price of oil. But actually closing the Strait would be political, if not national suicide."

"our calculus changed on closing the Straits, not just due to domestic fracking output, but because China now consumes vast amounts of ME oil. 20 years ago, closing the straits hurt mainly our Asian allies. Now, it hurts our rival."

[Chance]

So, we'll be greeted as liberators?

I'm just suggesting most Iranians would like to see the Ayatollah gone. I wouldn't venture to speculate beyond that.

[TGS]

So, bomb then back to the Stone Age. Then, what?

Are you asking if we bombed then to the Stone Age in 1980?

[RevolverRob]

I agree with Trump. (You guys on Team Trump might want to circle today on your calendars.)

Ditto. On both counts.

It wasn't a proportionate response. I'm of the opinion we should take out the SAM battery that hit our drone. Eye for an eye in that realm. Minimize human causalities and make it clear to Iran, targeting us begets targeting back.

[Stephanie B]

So, bomb then back to the Stone Age. Then, what?

Are you asking if we bombed then to the Stone Age in 1980?
No, I'm asking if that's your recommendation, now, and if so, what comes next?

[TGS]

No, I'm asking if that's your recommendation, now, and if so, what comes next?

I didn't recommend that to the current situation.

[blues]

Clearly, if we bomb them back to the stone age we will have to regulate their access to sticks and other such weapons of future mass destruction.



/s

[Zincwarrior]

I'm just suggesting most Iranians would like to see the Ayatollah gone. I wouldn't venture to speculate beyond that.

Where have we heard this before...

[RevolverRob]

At the end of the day, the goal will never be to topple Iran and replace the Ayatollah, it is to get Iran to think a few times and pull back, giving breathing room in the Gulf. Look, we're not going to be committed to a war as a country or culture. Look at the half-assed/half-finished jobs we've done in Iraq and A-Stan. You can't topple ideology, you can only wipe it off the face of the Earth. We aren't committed to that as a solution right now, I wonder if we ever will be as a society, ever again (I don't think we will).

So the goal is to check Iran. Let them know Big Brother is Watching so to speak. If they start pushing buttons, we do what we need to. But in the meantime, a clear statement that attack the US even a robot of ours - will result in military action.

I think a missile strike sends the message. Though putting a SEAL team on the ground and blowing it up, old school, sends a different, more distinct message. "Fuck with our shit in our yard, we'll come into your yard and fuck your shit up and burn your house down too." - I just don't want a SO element endangered on what is effectively a saber rattling mission. So, send the missile and let's get it done.

[Zincwarrior]

At the end of the day, the goal will never be to topple Iran and replace the Ayatollah, it is to get Iran to think a few times and pull back, giving breathing room in the Gulf. Look, we're not going to be committed to a war as a country or culture. Look at the half-assed/half-finished jobs we've done in Iraq and A-Stan. You can't topple ideology, you can only wipe it off the face of the Earth. We aren't committed to that as a solution right now, I wonder if we ever will be as a society, ever again (I don't think we will).

So the goal is to check Iran. Let them know Big Brother is Watching so to speak. If they start pushing buttons, we do what we need to. But in the meantime, a clear statement that attack the US even a robot of ours - will result in military action.

I think a missile strike sends the message. Though putting a SEAL team on the ground and blowing it up, old school, sends a different, more distinct message. "Fuck with our shit in our yard, we'll come into your yard and fuck your shit up and burn your house down too." - I just don't want a SO element endangered on what is effectively a saber rattling mission. So, send the missile and let's get it done.

What if they send their own response with a few suicide bombers?

[RevolverRob]

What if they send their own response with a few suicide bombers?

What if they escalate and send a few suicide bombers to attack our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan...oh wait...

At the end of the day - if we want/need to play on the world stage as a super power, we run the risk of losing citizens/soldiers to attacks. That is how the game is played, like it or not.

I appreciate that Trump wants a proportionate response. I also recognize that there must be a response. Iran is like that kid on the playground who needs to get punched a few times to figure out he isn't the biggest and meanest kid on the block. If Iran wants to escalate, it can get on like Donkey Kong.

A properly targeted, proportionate, response that carries a good dialogue with it - will present Iran with limited options. They aren't so stupid as to think things will go unchecked. It's a game of chess. They took a pawn with a rook, we take their rook with a knight, they contemplate if they want to bring a bishop in knowing we're going to take everything with our queen.

But if we don't respond, what next?

[Zincwarrior]

No I mean, like Los Angeles.

Why do you want to be a superpower?

[TiroFijo]

I'm not seeing the need to go to war because the Iranians killed a fucking robot.

Is there a way to discern if the drone was flying over Iranian waters?

Or we have to believe whoever we want to?

[wvincent]

Is there a way to discern if the drone was flying over Iranian waters?

Or we have to believe whoever we want to?

Radar track, data stream would have been recorded, will show INS position, apply to chart, mystery solved.

[TiroFijo]

Radar track, data stream would have been recorded, will show INS position, apply to chart, mystery solved.

Of course someone knows, should be pretty easy.

But is this unalterated data available for simpletons like us or a knowledgeable, independent third party? Or is it "trust me"?

[Stephanie B]

Is there a way to discern if the drone was flying over Iranian waters?

Or we have to believe whoever we want to?
Apparently, there may have been more than one drone in the area and there is also some question as to where that drone actually was.

[TiroFijo]

Well, an unauthorized foreign military drone over your own territory is fair game...

[ralph]

Well, an unauthorized foreign military drone over your own territory is fair game...

Yup, that's my understanding about drones..one gets shot down, no big deal..crack open another crate, put one together and send it up..OTOH, if the Iranians manage to shoot down one of our aircraft, accidently or otherwise, and capture, kill the pilot, crew, then it's game on..A dangerous game of chicken is being played here, Gas where I live shot up $.030 a gallon overnight, I don't know if the price raise is related to this, or the refinery fire in Phila, I read about this AM..

[Stephanie B]

Yup, that's my understanding about drones..one gets shot down, no big deal..crack open another crate, put one together and send it up..OTOH, if the Iranians manage to shoot down one of our aircraft, accidently or otherwise, then it's game on..a dangerous game of chicken is being played here, Gas where I live shot up $.030 a gallon overnight..
That refinery fire in Philly may have had something to do with that.

[ralph]

That refinery fire in Philly may have had something to do with that.

Figures..I've been in a couple refinery fires..In one, for a few minutes, I wasn't sure if me, and my partner were going to make it.. I've never been so scared in my life..

[TiroFijo]

Yup, that's my understanding about drones..one gets shot down, no big deal..crack open another crate, put one together and send it up..OTOH, if the Iranians manage to shoot down one of our aircraft, accidently or otherwise, then it's game on..a dangerous game of chicken is being played here, Gas where I live shot up $.030 a gallon overnight..

Technically, any unauthorized foreign military drone/sub/plane/boat/boots over your own territory is fair game... even more in unfriendly situations.

I'm not sure international law requieres warning shots, plane interceptions, or things like that.

[ralph]

Technically, any unauthorized foreign military drone/sub/plane/boat/boots over your own territory is fair game... even more in unfriendly situations.

I'm not sure international law requieres warning shots, plane interceptions, or things like that.

I'm sure you're right, However my gut feeling is, if that had been a manned aircraft, we'd be at war with Iran, now..

[TiroFijo]

I'm sure you're right, However my gut feeling is, if that had been a manned aircraft, we'd be at war with Iran, now..

That's for sure... but this is the "law of the bully", not international law.

Likewise, if tensions arise with Russia and a pilot gets shot down over their territory, the reaction is different simply because they have bigger fangs.

[RoyGBiv]

Yup, that's my understanding about drones..one gets shot down, no big deal..crack open another crate, put one together and send it up..OTOH, if the Iranians manage to shoot down one of our aircraft, accidently or otherwise, and capture, kill the pilot, crew, then it's game on...
Oil tankers?

[ralph]

Oil tankers?

So far, none has been sunk...yet.. I'm not so sure the Iranians want to sink one..the enviromental damage alone, would be enormous, I'd guess that alot of crude would wash up on their beach.. They get alot more milage out of it simply by attaching a mine to the side, above the waterline, and blowing a hole in the hull. That sends a message.. If the Iranians wanted to sink a tanker, it could be easily done, and they have the capabilty to do so. Whether they will or not remains to be seen, If they do then yeah, that would probably be a good enough excuse to start a war with them.. And, I guess if that happens, we might just find out if they have any operational nuclear weapons or not... Things could get really ugly here..

[rayrevolver]

Yup, that's my understanding about drones..one gets shot down, no big deal..crack open another crate, put one together and send it up..

These were $200 million each. And we had 4 of them in total. Not 40 or 100. We are down to 3 vehicles. There are no crates laying around and no replacements we can field quickly. Just sayin...

These are numbers reported by the media, which may or may not be accurate. Bottom line, this was a BAMS-D and not a USAF Global Chicken or Triton, like first reported.

[ralph]

These were $200 million each. And we had 4 of them in total. Not 40 or 100. We are down to 3 vehicles. There are no crates laying around and no replacements we can field quickly. Just sayin...

These are numbers reported by the media, which may or may not be accurate. Bottom line, this was a BAMS-D and not a USAF Global Chicken or Triton, like first reported.

Well, wasn't the whole idea of a unmanned drone, that it was expendable? If they don't want to chance getting them shot down, then don't fly them in areas where they can.. $200mil apeice sounds like the MIC, Military, pissing away more taxpayer money on expensive toys to me.. But think about this...If the Iranians have a operational nuclear missle,(and, at this point in time nobody really knows what they have) what's the cost going to be if they manage to set one off over a carrier group?

[trailrunner]

Well, wasn't the whole idea of a unmanned drone, that it was expendable?

Not necessarily. The way to look at it is that if one is shot down, there won't be any casualties or POWs, but they are not expendable. Another big advantage for an unmanned platform is that by making it unmanned, it frees up SWAP that would otherwise be required for a manned pilot. It also facilitates long-endurance missions - just swap out the ground crew every 8 or 12 hours. Pilot training is probably cheaper, but I'm not sure about that.


If they don't want to chance getting them shot down, then don't fly them in areas where they can

They're not very useful flying over Nebraska.


$200mil apeice sounds like the MIC, Military, pissing away more taxpayer money on expensive toys to me

It's probably cheaper and a lot better performance than a U-2, and it's cheaper and more versatile a satellite.

[ralph]

Not necessarily. The way to look at it is that if one is shot down, there won't be any casualties or POWs, but they are not expendable. Another big advantage for an unmanned platform is that by making it unmanned, it frees up SWAP that would otherwise be required for a manned pilot. It also facilitates long-endurance missions - just swap out the ground crew every 8 or 12 hours. Pilot training is probably cheaper, but I'm not sure about that.



They're not very useful flying over Nebraska.



It's probably cheaper and a lot better performance than a U-2, and it's cheaper and more versatile a satellite.

That sounds like they don't have anything to complain about when they get shot down.. And, you're right they're not very useful flying over Nebraska, But, how useful are they if you're worried about losing one everytime you send one up? Problem is as I see it, they're too expensive for the job, by that I mean, due to it's expense, people are going to be more worried about losing the aircraft than getting the intel they're looking for. When this one got shot down, I'd guess someone got busted down a rank or two, another hazard of flying uber expensive spy aircraft. If the military is'nt prepared to lose some of these things in the role they were designed for, then keep them on the ground, and save us taxpayers some money..

[trailrunner]

That sounds like they don't have anything to complain about when they get shot down.. And, you're right they're not very useful flying over Nebraska, But, how useful are they if you're worried about losing one everytime you send one up? Problem is as I see it, they're too expensive for the job, by that I mean, due to it's expense, people are going to be more worried about losing the aircraft than getting the intel they're looking for. When this one got shot down, I'd guess someone got busted down a rank or two, another hazard of flying uber expensive spy aircraft. If the military is'nt prepared to lose some of these things in the role they were designed for, then keep them on the ground, and save us taxpayers some money..

-- deleted --

[BehindBlueI's]

That sounds like they don't have anything to complain about when they get shot down..

Someone steals ammo from your range bag while you are down range checking a target. It's expendable and you took it to the range. Nothing to complain about. You should probably just give the thief a nice back massage and apologize for having ammunition where he could reach it.

[RJ]

These were $200 million each. And we had 4 of them in total. Not 40 or 100. We are down to 3 vehicles. There are no crates laying around and no replacements we can field quickly. Just sayin...

These are numbers reported by the media, which may or may not be accurate. Bottom line, this was a BAMS-D and not a USAF Global Chicken or Triton, like first reported.

That might be the price but it also might not be the cost.

— The dude that works in Aerospace for a living.

:cool:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ralph]

Someone steals ammo from your range bag while you are down range checking a target. It's expendable and you took it to the range. Nothing to complain about. You should probably just give the thief a nice back massage and apologize for having ammunition where he could reach it.

Whatever, dude.. Like I said, if they're not prepared to lose the damn things, then don't fly them where there's a good chance they'll get shot at..They took a chance and they lost, they knew exactly what they were doing. and it cost you, me, and everybody else that pays taxes $200mil. If you're good with it, then drive on.. Me? I'm not..I'm not good with this "lets start a war with Iran" shit.. We've got enough problems in our own country..

[BWT]

The problem is they keep projecting force in the region.

Similar to N. Korea - the difference is they’re screwing with international stability of fuel.

Hate to say this, but when does Iran cross the line?

I like the scale the repercussions to the threat. But I feel that what’s happening is they’re emboldened by inactivity.

I don’t like this situation as obviously I don’t think they’re worth American lives, but what I’m concerned about is if this isn’t handled meaningfully soon. It’s going to cost American lives.

[ralph]

The problem is they keep projecting force in the region.

Similar to N. Korea - the difference is they’re screwing with international stability of fuel.

Hate to say this, but when does Iran cross the line?

I like the scale the repercussions to the threat. But I feel that what’s happening is they’re emboldened by inactivity.

I don’t like this situation as obviously I don’t think they’re worth American lives, but what I’m concerned about is if this isn’t handled meaningfully soon. It’s going to cost American lives.

It will cost American lives, and soon If I had to guess,, we'll be at war with Iran, by the end of this summer....If we go in, I'd like to know why, and it better be damn good reason other than oil..

[BehindBlueI's]

Whatever, dude.. Like I said, if they're not prepared to lose the damn things, then don't fly them where there's a good chance they'll get shot at..They took a chance and they lost, they knew exactly what they were doing. and it cost you, me, and everybody else that pays taxes $200mil. If you're good with it, then drive on.. Me? I'm not..I'm not good with this "lets start a war with Iran" shit.. We've got enough problems in our own country..

Your difficult to follow if we should be upset or just shrug it off. Yes, it's expensive and it's *our property*, that's why you should be upset. As far as "don't put it where it can be shot at" that's pretty nonsensical. The whole point of owning intelligence gathering equipment is gathering intelligence.


It will cost American lives, and soon If I had to guess,, we'll be at war with Iran, by the end of this summer....If we go in, I'd like to know why, and it better be damn good reason other than oil..

I doubt it, but what reason is there for war other than resources? You go to war to gain resources for yourself or to deny them to your enemy. The rest is just window dressing. We didn't go to war in Korea because we just fucking love kimchee. We went to war to contain (ie, deny resources to) Communists, and did so *mostly* with a cold war.

Similarly, we don't give a shit about the Middle East, we care about the energy they sit on and, potentially, the strategic value of the land they sit on. I get that it's easier to market "spreading democracy" because "denying cheap energy to those who would work against us and our values thereby indirectly protecting our own freedoms by projecting military force into *insert warzone here*" isn't very catchy. I get "no blood for oil" makes a nice bumper sticker argument against the morality of resource wars, but without any understanding of *why* resource wars are fought and the consequences of not fighting them. Note that fighting does not have to be a shooting war, again referencing the containment of Communism.

[HCM]

It will cost American lives, and soon If I had to guess,, we'll be at war with Iran, by the end of this summer....If we go in, I'd like to know why, and it better be damn good reason other than oil..

No war for oil sounds fashionable and moralistic, till one of your loved ones dies due to second or third order effects of no oil. It is the life blood of our current way of living. Should we be looking for tech to ween us off oil in the long term ? Yes, absolutely, but for the moment it is what it is.

[mtnbkr]

No war for oil sounds fashionable and moralistic, till one of your loved ones dies due to second or third order effects of no oil. It is the life blood of our current way of living. Should we be looking for tech to ween us off oil in the long term ? Yes, absolutely, but for the moment it is what it is.

Last I heard we're a net exporter of oil, which means we don't *need* ME oil.

Chris

[Chance]

From BBC News (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48735097):


The US launched a cyber-attack on Iranian weapons systems on Thursday as President Trump pulled out of air strikes on the country, US reports say.

The cyber-attack disabled computer systems controlling rocket and missile launchers, the Washington Post said.

It was in retaliation for the shooting down of a US drone as well as attacks on oil tankers that the US has blamed Iran for, the New York Times said.

There is no independent confirmation of damage to Iranian systems.

....

The attack had been planned for several weeks, the sources told US media outlets, and was suggested as a way of responding to the mine attacks on tankers in the Gulf of Oman.

It was aimed at weapons systems used by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which shot down the US drone last Thursday and which the US says also attacked the tankers.

Both the Washington Post and AP news agency said the cyber-attack had disabled the systems. The New York Times said it was intended to take the systems offline for a period of time.

On Saturday the US Department for Homeland Security warned that Iran was stepping up its own cyber-attacks on the US.

Christopher Krebs, the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, said "malicious cyberactivity" was being directed at US industries and government agencies by "Iranian regime actors and their proxies".

They were using "destructive 'wiper' attacks", he said, using tactics such as "spear phishing, password spraying and credential stuffing" in a bid to take control of entire networks.

Iran has also been trying to hack US naval ship systems, the Washington Post reported.

[ralph]

No war for oil sounds fashionable and moralistic, till one of your loved ones dies due to second or third order effects of no oil. It is the life blood of our current way of living. Should we be looking for tech to ween us off oil in the long term ? Yes, absolutely, but for the moment it is what it is.

So what I get from what you and Behind Bluels is saying is, you're good with war for oil? What gives us the right to do this? No wonder a large part of the world hates us.. I understand desert storm for example, and we had a large number of countries invloved and supporting it...Since then, that support has evaporated.. I don't understand what, for example, we're still doing in A-stan..or why are we still in Iraq, Saddam is gone, they've got a new gov't and they can run their own show.. Reading online a few weeks ago, their gov't has asked us to leave (don't know if we are or not) so, why are we still there?

I understand the riff between the U.S. and Iran, that goes back to the 50's when we, (the U.S.) helped put the Shah in power, my understanding is, he was great to the U.S. but he did'nt treat his people all that well, this lasted until the late 70's when he got sick, came to the U.S. for treatment ( or got run out of town, whichever story you like) and died..By that time there was a new sherieff in town, and U.S. influence wasn't part of the plan.
The point is, we helped create this mess by installing the Shah, and when he died, the whole thing blew up.. Now, at this point, Trump is putting more sanctions on Iraq, which is the right move, rather than get a shooting war started, economically at some point they're going to crack, and their own people will take matters into their own hands.. When this happens, we need to step back, and let the Iraqui people put someone in charge that THEY choose..

[RoyGBiv]

I don't understand what, for example, we're still doing in A-stan..or why are we still in Iraq, Saddam is gone, they've got a new gov't and they can run their own show.. Reading online a few weeks ago, their gov't has asked us to leave (don't know if we are or not) so, why are we still there?
Because it's easier and less costly to keep some troops there than it would be to leave a vacuum and let the place become the harbor it was for terrorism again...


The point is, we helped create this mess by installing the Shah, and when he died, the whole thing blew up.. Now, at this point, Trump is putting more sanctions on Iraq, which is the right move, rather than get a shooting war started, economically at some point they're going to crack, and their own people will take matters into their own hands.. When this happens, we need to step back, and let the Iraqui people put someone in charge that THEY choose..
Iran.

Hopefully, when the Mullahs are deposed the Iranian people will choose more wisely than the Palestinians did. Or the Egyptians. Or the....

[Chance]

I understand the riff between the U.S. and Iran, that goes back to the 50's when we, (the U.S.) helped put the Shah in power, my understanding is, he was great to the U.S. but he did'nt treat his people all that well, this lasted until the late 70's when he got sick, came to the U.S. for treatment ( or got run out of town, whichever story you like) and died.

If by "whichever story you like," you mean, "The Iranian Revolution," then sure... whichever story you like.

[hufnagel]

Last I heard we're a net exporter of oil, which means we don't *need* ME oil.

Chris

Curious that the PA/Philly refinery just went all fire and brimstone just recently...

[Wake27]

So what I get from what you and Behind Bluels is saying is, you're good with war for oil? What gives us the right to do this? No wonder a large part of the world hates us.. I understand desert storm for example, and we had a large number of countries invloved and supporting it...Since then, that support has evaporated.. I don't understand what, for example, we're still doing in A-stan..or why are we still in Iraq, Saddam is gone, they've got a new gov't and they can run their own show.. Reading online a few weeks ago, their gov't has asked us to leave (don't know if we are or not) so, why are we still there?

I understand the riff between the U.S. and Iran, that goes back to the 50's when we, (the U.S.) helped put the Shah in power, my understanding is, he was great to the U.S. but he did'nt treat his people all that well, this lasted until the late 70's when he got sick, came to the U.S. for treatment ( or got run out of town, whichever story you like) and died..By that time there was a new sherieff in town, and U.S. influence wasn't part of the plan.
The point is, we helped create this mess by installing the Shah, and when he died, the whole thing blew up.. Now, at this point, Trump is putting more sanctions on Iraq, which is the right move, rather than get a shooting war started, economically at some point they're going to crack, and their own people will take matters into their own hands.. When this happens, we need to step back, and let the Iraqui people put someone in charge that THEY choose..

We weren’t even fully out of Iraq when ISIS filled the power void. They can’t run their own show, far from it.

And stating facts about the importance of resources is not the same as being “good” with a war over it. I’m willing to bet you need it just as much as the vast majority of people in this country.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mtnbkr]

Curious that the PA/Philly refinery just went all fire and brimstone just recently...

Can you expand a bit? I'm not sure what point you're working towards.

Chris

[TiroFijo]

Last time the USA went to war in the region (still continuing) it wasn't a great idea... still isn't.

Hopefully this will end up being one of the usual saber rattling constests in which after a few skirmishes both sides declare themselves winners.

[Borderland]

These were $200 million each. And we had 4 of them in total. Not 40 or 100. We are down to 3 vehicles. There are no crates laying around and no replacements we can field quickly. Just sayin...

These are numbers reported by the media, which may or may not be accurate. Bottom line, this was a BAMS-D and not a USAF Global Chicken or Triton, like first reported.

This stuff was left in Iraq when the US left the first time. That was just the big stuff. There were actually new helicopters left there also but I don't see those on the list.

2,300 Humvee armored vehicles @ $70,000 per copy. Total: $161 million
40 M1A1 Abram tanks @ $4.3 million per copy. Total: $172 million
52 M198 Howitzer mobile gun systems @ $527,337 per copy. Total: $27.4 million
74,000 Army machine guns @ $4,000 per copy. Total: $296 million

I don't think the US military is going to sweat a 200M drone.

[ralph]

Curious that the PA/Philly refinery just went all fire and brimstone just recently...

That happens..and for any number of reasons.. I worked in quite a few refinerys, they're dangerous places. Refinerys cannot be run indefinetly, they have to be shut down from time to time for maitenence, the longer you go between shutdowns, the better the chances are of something happening. Alot of refinerys are putting off shutdowns, in order to keep up with demand.. But remember everything in there is flammable, all it takes is a spark, from a cutting torch, or from welding, bad electrical connection, and say a valve in a propane line nearby is leaking..kaboom!

[ralph]

We weren’t even fully out of Iraq when ISIS filled the power void. They can’t run their own show, far from it.

And stating facts about the importance of resources is not the same as being “good” with a war over it. I’m willing to bet you need it just as much as the vast majority of people in this country.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought we were oil indpendent, what happened to that? So, what exactly are we supposed to do with Iraq? Stay there forever? That sounds like a plan.. I'm sure the oil companys love it.

[ralph]

If by "whichever story you like," you mean, "The Iranian Revolution," then sure... whichever story you like.

And there's a reason the Iranian Revloution happened, Maybe if the Shah had'nt treated his own people like shit for 20 years,he would've gotten run out of town.. you reap what you sow.. You tell me what the game plan is here, go in blow the place up, take over, stay there forever? Like we're doing in Iraq? Is there ever going to be a point in time when these people can run their own affiars without our "help"? It's just like Gen. Smedly said after WWI, "War is a racket" he was right..

[TiroFijo]

Blowing up a non peer adversary is easy...

What to do afterwards with the resulting mess, not much so.

[TGS]

Why is there this recurring assumption that we would have to "go in and stay there forever"?

Regime change doesn't require nation building.

The goal in a given war could be drastically different from other wars. OEF/OIF are not the only game plans available.

[JAD]

Depends on how good you are at blowing shit up.

[Sensei]

Last time the USA went to war in the region (still continuing) it wasn't a great idea... still isn't.

Hopefully this will end up being one of the usual saber rattling constests in which after a few skirmishes both sides declare themselves winners.

Actually, all of the wars went pretty well. It’s the post-war “leave it better than you found it” bullshit that is a problem.

I prefer not to kill a bunch of Iranians. However, a nuclear Iran should never be allowed under any circumstances, and I would not lose a bit of sleep if it meant that we had to kill hundreds or thousands of Iranians to keep that from happening. I’d hope that we would leave the country in rubble as a stark reminder to other 3rd world dictators who would aspire to nuclear ambitions.

[ralph]

Why is there this recurring assumption that we would have to "go in and stay there forever"?

Regime change doesn't require nation building.

The goal in a given war could be drastically different from other wars. OEF/OIF are not the only game plans available.

That begs the question, why haven't we left? Because we're afraid that the talaban or isis is going to take over if we leave?

[TiroFijo]

Actually, all of the wars went pretty well. It’s the post-war “leave it better than you found it” bullshit that is a problem.

I prefer not to kill a bunch of Iranians. However, a nuclear Iran should never be allowed under any circumstances, and I would not lose a bit of sleep if it meant that we had to kill hundreds or thousands of Iranians to keep that from happening. I’d hope that we would leave the country in rubble as a stark reminder to other 3rd world dictators who would aspire to nuclear ambitions.

What exactly was achieved with the invasion and occupation of Irak and Afghanistan that could not be better managed by other means?

[Borderland]

The simple truth is in 2018 the US exported more oil than they imported. The US no longer needs ME oil. Neither does Canada.

Iran has plenty of oil also but they have little else. You can't eat oil and if you can't sell it you're in a world of hurt. All one has to do is look at the valuation of Iran's currency on the world market. Iran's devaluing currency is their major problem right now and Trump just made it a lot worse.

Eventually the US will catch the Iranians red handed laying mines or shooting at a manned aircraft or ship. That's going to be a huge mistake because the US will decapitate the Iranian missile defense system along with their AF. They sunk half of the Iranian Navy in the 80's when they caught them laying mines in the straight. Iran would be wise to pay attention to the first war in Iraq when they invaded Kuwait. That didn't end well for Saddam. The "mother of all battles" as he described it.

I personally know an Iraqi, two Iranians and a Jordanian. All good folks. All of them live here now. They just had problems with their former governments.

[ralph]

The simple truth is in 2018 the US exported more oil than they imported. The US no longer needs ME oil. Neither does Canada.

Iran has plenty of oil also but they have little else. You can't eat oil and if you can't sell it you're in a world of hurt. All one has to do is look at the valuation of Iran's currency on the world market. Iran's devaluing currency is their major problem right now and Trump just made it a lot worse.

Eventually the US will catch the Iranians red handed laying mines or shooting at a manned aircraft or ship. That's going to be a huge mistake because the US will decapitate the Iranian missile defense system along with their AF. They sunk half of the Iranian Navy in the 80's when they caught them laying mines in the straight. Iran would be wise to pay attention to the first war in Iraq when they invaded Kuwait. That didn't end well for Saddam. The "mother of all battles" as he described it.

I personally know an Iraqi, two Iranians and a Jordanian. All good folks. All of them live here now. They just had problems with their former governments.

I'm with you on that, I don't blame the people of these countries, I feel sorry for them, they're being put through hell beacuse of their gov'ts..

[Zincwarrior]

Last time the USA went to war in the region (still continuing) it wasn't a great idea... still isn't.

Hopefully this will end up being one of the usual saber rattling constests in which after a few skirmishes both sides declare themselves winners.

Since WW2, which war has really worked out for the US?

[Kyle Reese]

Since WW2, which war has really worked out for the US?Operation Urgent Fury back in '83?

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

[HCM]

Last I heard we're a net exporter of oil, which means we don't *need* ME oil.

Chris

Yet.

And how about our allies in the region who export oil to other allies like Japan ?

[HCM]

What exactly was achieved with the invasion and occupation of Irak and Afghanistan that could not be better managed by other means?

Invading Afghanistan after 9/11 was a matter of national honor.

Leaving that job unfinished to invade Iraq was a grave mistake but that is another discussion.

[TGS]

Since WW2, which war has really worked out for the US?

Urgent Fury, Just Cause, Korea, Desert Storm, Kosovo, and most recently a slew of lower intensity conflicts that most people aren't aware of throughout SE Asia and Africa....Echo Casemate, Observant Compass, Tusker Sand, Juniper Nimbus, Juniper Shield, Justified Seamount, Nimble Shield, Obsidian, et al.

In addition, keep in mind that the invasion of Iraq, and invasion of Afghanistan, were separate military operations from the occupation and nation building effort in each country. Both of those invasions were total successes.

[Zincwarrior]

Urgent Fury, Just Cause, Korea, Desert Storm, Kosovo, and most recently a slew of lower intensity conflicts that most people aren't aware of throughout SE Asia and Africa....Echo Casemate, Observant Compass, Tusker Sand, Juniper Nimbus, Juniper Shield, Justified Seamount, Nimble Shield, Obsidian, et al.

In addition, keep in mind that the invasion of Iraq, and invasion of Afghanistan, were separate military operations from the occupation and nation building effort in each country. Both of those invasions were total successes.

Still in Korea being subject to our people being nuked.
Vietnam
Somalia
Kisovo sent terrorists throughout the region.
Still in Bosnia
Iraq is now an Iraqi protectorate.
Afghanistan is again Taliban.
Libya is chaos
Saudi Arabia sends terrorism throughout the globe and a war with Iran just helps them.

[BehindBlueI's]

So what I get from what you and Behind Bluels is saying is, you're good with war for oil? What gives us the right to do this?

In general? Yes. I'm good with resource wars when it's in our best interests to do so. In this specific instance? Seems awful early for that, especially when sanctions seem to be doing the job. In another thread which I think is members only, I pointed out we could buy all of the iron, steel, and aluminim they import for something like 2-3 weeks of the cost of the Iraq war. We don't need to go to war yet. I would invite you to read my earlier post again.


That begs the question, why haven't we left? Because we're afraid that the talaban or isis is going to take over if we leave?

I'm sure it's multi-faceted, but a big side is a mini-Cold War with Russia. ISIS is a thorn that sucks but is not a serious threat to our interests. Russia, that's a more serious threat. Russian influence in the region is growing, which is why anybody gives a shit about Syria. Russia has been interested in Iraq since early on in the real Cold War. Russia helped Iraq develop oilfields, trained their intelligence personnel, helped smash the Kurds, and had a pretty chummy diplomatic and economic relationship with them for decades with a "treaty of friendship and cooperation". I don't know how old you are, but containing Soviet and post-Soviet Russia (and more recently, China) influence is often the big driver for why we do anything anywhere post WWII. Why do we support the Kurds? Why do we support them but not assist them against Turkey? Why don't we care that Turkey continues to occupy much of Cyprus? Why are we so easy on Saudi Arabia's human rights violations? Because influence and who's the best strategic partner today.


The simple truth is in 2018 the US exported more oil than they imported. The US no longer needs ME oil. Neither does Canada.


You're missing the second half of why wars are fought. Deny resources to your enemies.

[Zincwarrior]

Invading Afghanistan after 9/11 was a matter of national honor.

Leaving that job unfinished to invade Iraq was a grave mistake but that is another discussion.

Al Qaeda smashed but then we stayed.

[HCM]

Al Qaeda smashed but then we stayed.

It’s not that we stayed, it’s that we stayed half assed and squandered a window of opportunity where we had the support of the population and could have to left things better than we found it.

[BehindBlueI's]

Still in Korea being subject to our people being nuked.
Vietnam
Somalia
Kisovo sent terrorists throughout the region.
Still in Bosnia
Iraq is now an Iraqi protectorate.
Afghanistan is again Taliban.
Libya is chaos

What do you suppose the world would look like had we not engaged in resource/containment wars? The world would just be fucking peachy if the US stayed home? What do you suppose our pre-fracking economy would look like if our energy costs were consistently at Arab Oil Embargo levels, the Soviets had the Korean peninsula and Japan's technological gains and industrial base, etc?

[Grey]

What do you suppose the world would look like had we not engaged in resource/containment wars? The world would just be fucking peachy if the US stayed home? What do you suppose our pre-fracking economy would look like if our energy costs were consistently at Arab Oil Embargo levels, the Soviets had the Korean peninsula and Japan's technological gains and industrial base, etc?

Exactly... Not sure what you define as "success" Zinc...

You think the US would have ANY influence in the SEA region if you didn't fight the Korean war?

BTS wouldn't be getting all the kids pumped up right now that's for damn sure. :p

[HCM]

https://www.engadget.com/2019/06/22/us-cyberattack-reportedly-knocked-out-iran-missile-control-syste/?fbclid=IwAR0AwLZcvwsw1-Gcpss-mr8Y8rUk4bqEH5DDp3ygFzM_SWYkFyj2ll2Jn8M&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZmFjZWJvb2suY29tLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAE5UcO6DJBnSmguoDY0RQBzGy6wh aZHct0aNclCHhyTG43G-DryqueEGh8zuz79FQ5B5wHUQTjBd4Hpnf7AJ98G6HsBj8o8U5z Hq9tSKs-DJLW3nzqh3w2FDCYl_2Cbs8IQUFAaFgHs9EH4YrUbKtwZ3LP5m 1QMxjL7QglDtjfPO

US cyberattack reportedly knocked out Iran missile control systems
The President reportedly signed off on the digital strike.


The US may have withheld a physical military response to Iran shooting down a drone, but it might not have shown similar restraint with a digital campaign. Washington Post sources say the President greenlit a long-in-the-making cyberattack that took down Iranian missile control computers on the night of June 20th. The exact impact of the Cyber Command operation isn't clear, but it was described as "crippling" -- Iran couldn't easily recover, one tipster said.

[Borderland]

https://www.engadget.com/2019/06/22/us-cyberattack-reportedly-knocked-out-iran-missile-control-syste/?fbclid=IwAR0AwLZcvwsw1-Gcpss-mr8Y8rUk4bqEH5DDp3ygFzM_SWYkFyj2ll2Jn8M&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZmFjZWJvb2suY29tLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAE5UcO6DJBnSmguoDY0RQBzGy6wh aZHct0aNclCHhyTG43G-DryqueEGh8zuz79FQ5B5wHUQTjBd4Hpnf7AJ98G6HsBj8o8U5z Hq9tSKs-DJLW3nzqh3w2FDCYl_2Cbs8IQUFAaFgHs9EH4YrUbKtwZ3LP5m 1QMxjL7QglDtjfPO

US cyberattack reportedly knocked out Iran missile control systems
The President reportedly signed off on the digital strike.

And that's exactly what will happen if the US decides to hammer their missile defense system. They probably wouldn't even do it with manned aircraft but Tomahawk missiles. So far no middle eastern country has been successful in stopping a Tomahawk missile attack. The reason is their air defenses are inoperative during an attack. They boast that they can do it but it just has never happened. Those missiles just don't miss.

[HCM]

https://www.duffelblog.com/2019/06/iranian-bootleg-dvd-seller-stocks-up-for-huge-influx-of-buyers/?fbclid=IwAR1pVHOeLtUTTx2pZRQ_gQO31GDPJ-7JwFde6Y37WmK-eu5kC0_L9e833Qs

Iranian bootleg DVD seller stocks up for huge influx of buyers


TEHRAN—Iranian merchant and torrent movie DVD burner Farhad Khadem has ordered new inventory in the event of a mass migration of U.S. consumers who happen to be in the military and in his immediate vicinity sometime in the near future.

“I’m no fortune teller,” said Khadem while switching out plastic discs in his computer drive, “but a cousin of mine in Iraq saw a ton of new business come his way in about 2003, 2004 after a political climate a lot like what we’re seeing here in Iran.”

[Eric_L]

[QUOTE=BehindBlueI's;895697]In general? Yes. I'm good with resource wars when it's in our best interests to do so. In this specific instance? Seems awful early for that, especially when sanctions seem to be doing the job. In another thread which I think is members only, I pointed out we could buy all of the iron, steel, and aluminim they import for something like 2-3 weeks of the cost of the Iraq war. We don't need to go to war yet. I would invite you to read my earlier post again.

The corollary to your statement of “ I’m good with that” would be if another country attacks us at some point for the resource reason? We don’t have to be good with it, but we would realize that that is how it works.....?

[mtnbkr]

BTS wouldn't be getting all the kids pumped up right now that's for damn sure. :p

I would be ok with that.

My kids are huge BTS fans (and fans of a bunch of other manufactured Korean pop groups), and have been for several years now. They were early adopters.:rolleyes:

Chris

[mtnbkr]

Yet.

And how about our allies in the region who export oil to other allies like Japan ?

How much of our treasury and soldiers are worth those "allies" having cheap oil?

Chris

[ranger]

https://www.duffelblog.com/2019/06/iranian-bootleg-dvd-seller-stocks-up-for-huge-influx-of-buyers/?fbclid=IwAR1pVHOeLtUTTx2pZRQ_gQO31GDPJ-7JwFde6Y37WmK-eu5kC0_L9e833Qs

Iranian bootleg DVD seller stocks up for huge influx of buyers

I remember the bootleg DVDs and fake watches in Iraq. Smart guy. I remember people buying Dinars hoping for big currency deal too.

[blues]

I remember the bootleg DVDs and fake watches in Iraq. Smart guy. I remember people buying Dinars hoping for big currency deal too.

I'm surprised he didn't sell counterfeit Dinars Club (sic) cards. ;)

[Borderland]

You're missing the second half of why wars are fought. Deny resources to your enemies.

What resources are you talking about? Oil, food, military assets?

I don't think the US cares about their military assets. They'll just destroy them all in a week in a head to head.

[TheNewbie]

Victor Davis Hanson should be read by all, especially those in power.





VDH-"We Hold All the Cards in the Showdown with Iran" - Excellent article below.

https://amgreatness.com/2019/06/19/we-hold-all-the-cards-in-the-showdown-with-iran/

[Zincwarrior]

They can fire missiles or even tubed artillery to close off the strait.

Hezbullah is in the US.

We are an exporter of oil. China and Europe are importers.
None of the countries running oil through the strait are part of NATO nor even democracies.

[trailrunner]

None of the countries running oil through the strait are part of NATO nor even democracies.

A Norwegian tanker was attacked a couple of weeks ago.

[Stephanie B]

That's for sure... but this is the "law of the bully", not international law.

Likewise, if tensions arise with Russia and a pilot gets shot down over their territory, the reaction is different simply because they have bigger fangs.
Well, we've lost about 200 people that way.

[BehindBlueI's]

What resources are you talking about? Oil, food, military assets?

I don't think the US cares about their military assets. They'll just destroy them all in a week in a head to head.

Read my earlier posts. Then think about energy stability, economic stability, nuclear capability, regional influence, capability for the projection of military power into enemy territory, containment of competing ideologies, access to markets, those sorts of assets. We aren't tribals going to war for fertile land and laborers. Think like a modern global civilization and consider who else plays on a global stage. Iran, North Korea, they are currently side shows but let them get nukes, things change. Let the region fall under Russian or Chinese influence unchecked by US interests, things change. Again, we didn't go to war in Korea for kimchee.

[Stephanie B]

Victor Davis Hanson should be read by all, especially those in power.

VDH-"We Hold All the Cards in the Showdown with Iran" - Excellent article below.

https://amgreatness.com/2019/06/19/we-hold-all-the-cards-in-the-showdown-with-iran/

Really? You're citing those guys? They make Fox News and MSNBC look objective.

[Zincwarrior]

Read my earlier posts. Then think about energy stability, economic stability, nuclear capability, regional influence, capability for the projection of military power into enemy territory, containment of competing ideologies, access to markets, those sorts of assets. We aren't tribals going to war for fertile land and laborers. Think like a modern global civilization and consider who else plays on a global stage. Iran, North Korea, they are currently side shows but let them get nukes, things change. Let the region fall under Russian or Chinese influence unchecked by US interests, things change. Again, we didn't go to war in Korea for kimchee.

We went to war because they invaded South Korea and we still had US troops there from the occupation.

[TheNewbie]

Really? You're citing those guys? They make Fox News and MSNBC look objective.

I am citing VDH. He's a brilliant mind.


Oh, and of course they are not objective. That's not their purpose.

[HCM]

39398

[Duelist]

39398

LOL. Thanks, Ben.

[UNM1136]

LOL. Thanks, Ben.

Dayaamn...

Wife and I laughed our arses off.

One of the few times she gets to look at my tablet....


pat

[BehindBlueI's]

We went to war because they invaded South Korea and we still had US troops there from the occupation.

It was, in a vacuum, two dictators fighting over a border drawn by foreign powers (which, of course, is a direct analogy to the recent history of the Middle East). Why did the two superpowers of the Cold War care and each back a horse? Truman's direct quote:

“If we let Korea down, the Soviet will keep right on going and swallow up one piece of Asia after another…If we were to let Asia go, the Near East would collapse and no telling what would happen in Europe.” _ POTUS Truman

"...Truman believed that the Soviets wanted to overrun Iran, gain access to Middle Eastern oil, and find warm-water ports in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean” Source: A Preponderance of Power: National Security, the Truman Administration, and the Cold War


Combat troops had been recalled ahead of the invasion. That removal of combat troops was one reason North Korea decided they could invade. They had the backing of the Soviets and the US wasn't supplying the same level of support to South Korea. Even if we did have a few remaining troops, it would have been much simpler to withdraw them than to hastily reinforce with under-strength and under-equipped divisions, which is what we initially did (well, after resupplying South Korea and some air/naval assets were committed). Both our actions and the words of the decision makers of the time show we didn't go to war because we happened to have some troops there.

[Zincwarrior]

And we are still there.

[Wake27]

And we are still there.

Well yeah, because so is North Korea. And technically that one’s still a war.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jetfire]

Victor Davis Hanson should be read by all, especially those in power.





VDH-"We Hold All the Cards in the Showdown with Iran" - Excellent article below.

https://amgreatness.com/2019/06/19/we-hold-all-the-cards-in-the-showdown-with-iran/

I'm glad that he's eager to get us engaged in a conflict where I can die for my country.

[TheNewbie]

I'm glad that he's eager to get us engaged in a conflict where I can die for my country.

I doubt VDH wants to get us engaged in a war, but I think he lives in reality. Plus I am pretty sure he doesn't advocate for "boots on the ground".

[OlongJohnson]

VDH is a historian. He seems to be pretty good at understanding where we are and how we got here. He's far less good at recommending what to do about it.

[BehindBlueI's]

And we are still there.

Right. We're also still in Germany. What's your point?

[Zincwarrior]

Right. We're also still in Germany. What's your point?

1. Beer.
2. Frauleins.
3. Germany isn't threatening to nuke our troops

[Grey]

1. Beer.
2. Frauleins.
3. Germany isn't threatening to nuke our troopsThats the dumbest thing I have ever heard regarding why we have strategic military assets in places around the globe...

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[Zincwarrior]

Thats the dumbest thing I have ever heard regarding why we have strategic military assets in places around the globe...

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk
You have a problem with beer and frauleins?

[BehindBlueI's]

Thats the dumbest thing I have ever heard regarding why we have strategic military assets in places around the globe...

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

He's just trolling at this point. He can't seriously address the question, doesn't want to challenge his "America sucks" core belief, so it's what is left to him.

[Zincwarrior]

He's just trolling at this point. He can't seriously address the question, doesn't want to challenge his "America sucks" core belief, so it's what is left to him.

Really, I'm trolling because I don't think our wars have been beneficial to the US? I am troll because I don't want to get into another one? I mean we're hitting one war every three years now. Methinks you should look in the mirror sir.

Korea. We are still in South Korea. We are haranging with a dictator who has nukes and starves his own people, backed by a country with a larger GDP than ours. How has that been helpful and why are we the ones doing this with a country thousands of miles away?
Vietnam (lost)
Beirut (200+ marines dead, lost)
Somalia (18 dead)
Bosnia (still there)
Kosova (won war, ended up with a backet case country run by Islamic mafia that sent terrorists into Afghanistan and throughout central Asia)
Iraq (won, stayed, spurred on AQ)
Afghanistan (beat AQ then decided to stay and how did that turn out?)
Iraq II (bailed out, country in three regions)
Libya (now Somalia like failed state)
Iraq III (country now part Sunni with the rest a extraterritorial Iran, and now Iran militia's occasionally firing rockets or drones into Israel)
threatening Iran (drone down, what next. Who's oil goes through there? Where are they???)

Sorry, which of those have turned out well? Other than attacking Al Qaeda, which one was required or an attack on the US, US personnel, or even US interests?

[BehindBlueI's]

Really, I'm trolling because I don't think our wars have been beneficial to the US?

No, you're trolling because it's easier than addressing the questions put to you, such as:


What do you suppose the world would look like had we not engaged in resource/containment wars? The world would just be fucking peachy if the US stayed home? What do you suppose our pre-fracking economy would look like if our energy costs were consistently at Arab Oil Embargo levels, the Soviets had the Korean peninsula and Japan's technological gains and industrial base, etc?

You're trolling because your "facts" such as:
We went to war because they invaded South Korea and we still had US troops there from the occupation. were debunked and you've nothing to fall back on.

You're trolling because you have no real answer for this exchange:


And we are still there. ...
Right. We're also still in Germany. What's your point?

You are part of the "Blame America First crowd" and facts and ideas contrary to that aren't to be seriously considered. You might have to reexamine your world view and it's much easier to toss flippant bullshit answers then it is to critically think about what the world would look like had the US not engaged in some of those wars. I don't think anybody believes wars lead to some Utopian society where once the bullets stop flying everything is optimal for all former combatants, or even the victors. Nations or men, every fight no matter if it's won or lost leaves scars. You fight because not fighting is worse. Not checking the Soviets would have been worse. Those wars needed to be fought. Going into tribal wars for "humanitarian" reasons, much more debatable. Allowing a real threat to develop to our society, regardless of if that's the USSR's political and military machinations or a nuclear capable North Korea or Iran, is worse than fighting wars that leave scars. That's why you're trolling. To avoid those conversations.

[wvincent]

So, just caught breaking news that our allies, UK, France and Germany have reached a trade agreement with Iran which is basically an end run around US sanctions.
Thanks friends.

Will post link when it becomes available.

TGS, anything about what was just agreed to in Vienna that you can publicly share? Not trying to put you on the spot at all, I just expect that you would probably hear any mutterings around the work place.

[TGS]

Really, I'm trolling because I don't think our wars have been beneficial to the US? I am troll because I don't want to get into another one? I mean we're hitting one war every three years now. Methinks you should look in the mirror sir.

Korea. We are still in South Korea. We are haranging with a dictator who has nukes and starves his own people, backed by a country with a larger GDP than ours. How has that been helpful and why are we the ones doing this with a country thousands of miles away?
Vietnam (lost)
Beirut (200+ marines dead, lost)
Somalia (18 dead)
Bosnia (still there)
Kosova (won war, ended up with a backet case country run by Islamic mafia that sent terrorists into Afghanistan and throughout central Asia)
Iraq (won, stayed, spurred on AQ)
Afghanistan (beat AQ then decided to stay and how did that turn out?)
Iraq II (bailed out, country in three regions)
Libya (now Somalia like failed state)
Iraq III (country now part Sunni with the rest a extraterritorial Iran, and now Iran militia's occasionally firing rockets or drones into Israel)
threatening Iran (drone down, what next. Who's oil goes through there? Where are they???)

Sorry, which of those have turned out well? Other than attacking Al Qaeda, which one was required or an attack on the US, US personnel, or even US interests?

You seem to hold a very absolute, zero defect sort of view on our military actions in the world with a very unique definition of what success, "turned out well" looks like. Some of your little descriptions about the actions are also factually incorrect. We didn't "lose" Beirut, it was a peacekeeping operation. In Kosovo, we also didn't create a basket case country run by Islamic mafia that sent terrorists into Afghanistan and throughout central Asia.....the leader of the Republic of Kosova during the Yugoslav wars was internationally respected for his advocation for peace and nicknamed "The Ghandi of the Balkans", and Kosovo is currently run by a pro-West democratically elected president....so whatever the fuck is going on in your head ain't true. The fighting in Kosovo and Bosnia were not due to our military actions either.....they were part of the Yugoslav civil wars, and yeah, I'd say the results of our actions there were pretty successful; if anything we could've gotten involved earlier. Ironically enough related to this thread, you realize the Muslim terrorist aspect in both the Yugoslav Wars and Beirut was Iran's doing right?

tl;dr:

You're an idiot.

[TGS]

So, just caught breaking news that our allies, UK, France and Germany have reached a trade agreement with Iran which is basically an end run around US sanctions.
Thanks friends.

Will post link when it becomes available.

TGS, anything about what was just agreed to in Vienna that you can publicly share? Not trying to put you on the spot at all, I just expect that you would probably hear any mutterings around the work place.

No idea, I was on leave for the last two weeks and came back from leave last week to the "home team". But yeah, you're correct in your thought that anything heard at work doesn't get repeated.

In other words, my only contribution to society over the last month is shit posting.

[Eric_L]

Well yeah, because so is North Korea. And technically that one’s still a war.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was a police action I was taught I middle school history. We did not declare war.

[BehindBlueI's]

In Kosovo, we also didn't create a basket case country run by Islamic mafia that sent terrorists into Afghanistan and throughout central Asia.....the leader of the Republic of Kosova during the Yugoslav wars was internationally respected for his advocation for peace and nicknamed "The Ghandi of the Balkans", and Kosovo is currently run by a pro-West democratically elected president....so whatever the fuck is going on in your head ain't true.

Wait, so this isn't the work of the Islamic mafia?


https://assets.atlasobscura.com/media/W1siZiIsInVwbG9hZHMvcGxhY2VfaW1hZ2VzL2I3NjZmZjJmY2 IwZWViNWIyN184MDBweC1CaWxsX0NsaW50b25fc3RhdHVlLmpw ZyJdLFsicCIsInRodW1iIiwiMTIwMHg-Il0sWyJwIiwiY29udmVydCIsIi1xdWFsaXR5IDgxIC1hdXRvLW 9yaWVudCJdXQ


Kosovo is such a shit hole that it's currently rated as "Level 2: Exercise Increased Caution" for tourists by the US State Dept, right along such shit holes as England, France, and Italy. I guess that means we lost WWII, too.

[Wake27]

It was a police action I was taught I middle school history. We did not declare war.

I didn’t say it was our war.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BehindBlueI's]

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/07/iran-religious-leader-threatens-uk-capture-oil-tanker-190706091738043.html


British Royal Marines seized the supertanker Grace 1 on Thursday for trying to transport oil to Syria in violation of European Union sanctions


"I am openly saying that Britain should be scared of Iran's retaliatory measures over the illegal seizure of the Iranian oil tanker," Mohammad Ali Mousavi Jazayeri, a member of the Assembly of Experts, a powerful religious body said on Saturday.

Also, Saudi has apparently seized one and is holding it until Iran pays the tow bill:


Iranian officials also say that Saudi Arabia has been holding an Iranian oil tanker in the port of Jeddah since late April after the ship experienced engine failure....sent a distress call before being saved by Saudi Arabia... [the ship has] since [been] fixed..., but Saudis are charging Iranians $200,000 a day. Iran wants this vessel back but the cost is very high, around $20m. Saudi Arabia says they will not release the vessel until Iran pays the bill.

I wonder if there's an international version of a mechanic's lien?

[JAD]

Also, Saudi has apparently seized one and is holding it until Iran pays the tow bill

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190706/c60103592ccdd2b809d571ff75bab191.jpg

[TGS]

"I am openly saying that Britain should be scared of Iran's retaliatory measures over the illegal seizure of the Iranian oil tanker," Mohammad Ali Mousavi Jazayeri, a member of the Assembly of Experts, a powerful religious body said on Saturday.


I hope the CTSFO and Trojan teams have this on the door as they walk into their team rooms.

[hufnagel]

I wonder if there's an international version of a mechanic's lien?

That right there, is funny.

[hufnagel]

I hope the CTSFO and Trojan teams have this on the door as they walk into their team rooms.

That does sound quite eyebrow raising provocative.

[GardoneVT]

Really, I'm trolling because I don't think our wars have been beneficial to the US? I am troll because I don't want to get into another one? I mean we're hitting one war every three years now. Methinks you should look in the mirror sir.

Korea. We are still in South Korea. We are haranging with a dictator who has nukes and starves his own people, backed by a country with a larger GDP than ours. How has that been helpful and why are we the ones doing this with a country thousands of miles away?
Vietnam (lost)
Beirut (200+ marines dead, lost)
Somalia (18 dead)
Bosnia (still there)
Kosova (won war, ended up with a backet case country run by Islamic mafia that sent terrorists into Afghanistan and throughout central Asia)
Iraq (won, stayed, spurred on AQ)
Afghanistan (beat AQ then decided to stay and how did that turn out?)
Iraq II (bailed out, country in three regions)
Libya (now Somalia like failed state)
Iraq III (country now part Sunni with the rest a extraterritorial Iran, and now Iran militia's occasionally firing rockets or drones into Israel)
threatening Iran (drone down, what next. Who's oil goes through there? Where are they???)

Sorry, which of those have turned out well? Other than attacking Al Qaeda, which one was required or an attack on the US, US personnel, or even US interests?


The pragmatic problem is that most of the world solves its problems with violence. If you define "war" as pro-American forces engaging opposite forces, we've been at war by necessity for decades nearly continuously.Most of these conflicts never even see a Wiki page. Secrecy hides both the sucesses and the failures.

Millions of Americans stand safe because of us fighting these necessary and unknown wars. Irans been both an ally and enemy multiple times in recent history, and as with most Middle Eastern nations those roles will reverse. This time next year they may be our allies again........

[whomever]

"Korea. We are still in South Korea. ... How has that been helpful and why are we the ones doing this with a country thousands of miles away?"

I think it's been pretty helpful to the citizens of South Korea, at least, to not be ruled by Kim Jong Whoever all these years.

'why us' is a complicated question. Before I take a stab at that, let me say that in general we have been too ready to go to war in the last several decades. The invasion of Iraq comes to mind as a good example of a pretty dumb war; Bush 1 called it right when he halted Desert Storm.

But about Korea: there was a cold war going on. What should we have done about that? We could have just said 'not our problem', but that might have resulted in the Iron Curtain running along the top of the Pyrenees in Europe, and who knows where in Asia (not to mention Africa and South America). It's pretty hard to say what would have happened, but the worst case scenarios would be pretty bad. You can be too quick to go to war (and we have been at times!), but you can be too slow as well - 'peace in our time' in 1938 in Munich didn't work out that well either.

Anyway, that's part 1 of the answer - would we have had to fight somewhere, and if so was Korea and West Germany the right place to draw the line? Reasonable people can say those lines were too far forward, but reasonable people can also say they weren't. Having NATO on our side was nicer than us and the Brits against a pan-European Warsaw Pact (I guess it would have been called the Paris Pact by then).

Part 2 of the answer has to do with the 'not ruled bu Kim Jong Whoever' part. Life in North Korea is really, really bad. You wouldn't wish that on anyone. There is a hard moral question about what to do when your neighbor mistreats his wife. If he's a cad and cheats on her, other than shunning him most of us would say 'not our business'. OTOH, if he starts working her over with a baseball bat, I think most of us would intervene, even at considerable risk to ourselves. That decision framework applies to helping the South Koreans fight off North Korea. If your estimation of that comes down on the 'his philandering isn't my business' end of things, I can't say that's wrong. My estimate, though, is that North Korea's treatment of its people is more in the baseball bat end of things, and that our defending the South Koreans was a righteous thing to do, in addition to whatever geopolitical benefit we got from not having more of Asia becoming communist.

[Chance]

From BBC News (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48946051):


Iranian boats tried to impede a British oil tanker near the Gulf - before being driven off by a Royal Navy ship, the Ministry of Defence has said.

HMS Montrose, a British frigate shadowing the tanker British Heritage, was forced to move between the three boats and the tanker, a spokesman said.

He described the Iranians' actions as "contrary to international law".

Iran had threatened to retaliate for the seizure of one of its own tankers, but denied any attempted seizure.

Boats believed to belong to Iran's Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) approached British Heritage and tried to bring it to a halt as it was moving out of the Gulf into the Strait of Hormuz.

Guns on HMS Montrose were trained on the Iranian boats as they were ordered to back off, US media reported. The boats heeded the warning and no shots were fired.

[blues]

^^^^...and I ran, I ran so far away...


They should maintain that policy.

[TiroFijo]

I hope the tankers crews have good insurance... talk about a dangerous job right now in this region.

[ralph]

I hope the tankers crews have good insurance... talk about a dangerous job right now in this region.


I suspect they're well paid, often the captian a part owner of the boat..sidenote..I know a guy who went to Iraq as a civilan, doing fiber optics..signed on for one year..came back with enough money to outright buy a log cabin sitting on 40-50 acres..

[HCM]

From BBC News (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48946051):

Though the Iranians are known to do crazy stuff fir no reason, this actually comes after Royal Marines seized an Iranian oil tanker off the coast of Gibraltar last week, which Britain says was violating EU sanctions by carrying fuel to Syria.

[Chance]

From BBC News (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49040415):


President Donald Trump has said the US Navy shot down an Iranian drone in the Strait of Hormuz.

He said the USS Boxer amphibious assault ship "took defensive action" on Thursday after the drone came within about 1,000 yards (914m) of the vessel.

Iran said it had no information about losing a drone. In June, Iran downed a US military drone in the area.

....

Speaking at the White House, he said: "I want to apprise everyone of an incident in the Strait of Hormuz today involving USS Boxer, a navy amphibious assault ship.

"The Boxer took defensive action against an Iranian drone which had closed into a very, very near distance, approximately 1000 yards, ignoring multiple calls to stand down and was threatening the safety of the ship and the ship's crew. The drone was immediately destroyed.

"This is the latest of many provocative and hostile actions by Iran against vessels operating in international waters. The United States reserves the right to defend our personnel, facilities and interests."

[Chance]

1151975734392606721

[Wyoming Shooter]

https://www.c4isrnet.com/unmanned/2019/07/18/marine-jamming-jeep-sends-unknown-drone-to-the-deep/

"According to CNN, U.S. defense officials claim that the drone was disabled not by bullets or missiles (“kinetics,” in the jargon), but rather by jamming. Specifically, it was almost certainly jamming via MRZR LMADIS, or a Polaris MRZR vehicle sporting a Light Marine Air Defense Integrated System. While a Corps official said as early as May that the deployment of the system to the Middle East was winding down, observers online noted that a MRZR LMADIS system was visible on the deck of the USS Boxer, an amphibious assault ship, for its transit through the Strait of Hormuz — a presence revealed in pictures uploaded earlier that day."

[Zincwarrior]

1151975734392606721

I was hoping more for two bubbas hanging out the side of a Seahawk shooting it down with Remington Wingmasters...PULL!

[Spartan1980]

And now the Iranians have seized a UK flagged tanker. The brits need to start sinking stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zincwarrior]

Well we're in it now.

[HCountyGuy]

And now the Iranians have seized a UK flagged tanker. The brits need to start sinking stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Waiting for the SAS guy from Kenya to storm that ship and sort shit out...

[Chance]

From BBC News (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49053383):


A British-flagged oil tanker has been seized in the Gulf by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Iran media say.

The owners of the Stena Impero, which was bound for Saudi Arabia, say they have been unable to contact the vessel and it is "heading north towards Iran".

The company says there are 23 personnel on board and it was approached by "unidentified small crafts and a helicopter" in the Strait of Hormuz.

The Foreign Office is "urgently" looking into the reports.

The government's emergency committee, Cobra, is meeting in Whitehall to discuss the incident.

[ranger]

And now the Iranians have seized a UK flagged tanker. The brits need to start sinking stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A quick internet search on current seapower shows that the British fleet is a mere shadow of its former self. Another example of Europe banking on the "peace dividend" after the end of the Cold War and depending on their Ally to do the heavy lifting.

[Redhat]

A quick internet search on current seapower shows that the British fleet is a mere shadow of its former self. Another example of Europe banking on the "peace dividend" after the end of the Cold War and depending on their Ally to do the heavy lifting.

Do they have any carriers?

[theJanitor]

And now the Iranians have seized a UK flagged tanker. The brits need to start sinking stuff.


Two British Flagged vessels now

[Chance]

BBC is reporting the Iranians have also seized the Mesdar, which is Liberian-flagged but British owned. However, it does not appear any British citizens are on board either vessel.

[LockedBreech]

Do they have any carriers?

Yes, the Queen Elizabeth class, if memory serves one is floating and one is under construction.

[RJ]

Do they have any carriers?

At least one.

https://apnews.com/e28d5ce56956498ebf54dc7190e548a3

:cool:

[ranger]

A quick internet search on current seapower shows that the British fleet is a mere shadow of its former self. Another example of Europe banking on the "peace dividend" after the end of the Cold War and depending on their Ally to do the heavy lifting.

The Royal Navy is the principal naval warfare service branch of the British Armed Forces. As of November 2018, there are 74 commissioned ships in the Royal Navy. Of the commissioned vessels, twenty are major surface combatants (six guided missile destroyers, thirteen frigates and one aircraft carrier), and ten are nuclear-powered submarines (four ballistic missile submarines and six fleet submarines). In addition the Navy possesses two amphibious transport docks, thirteen mine countermeasures vessels, twenty-two patrol vessels, four survey vessels, one icebreaker and two historic warships (Victory and Bristol).

The one aircraft carrier is fairly new and not sure it is deployable or equipped with aircraft yet. Also, 20 surface combatants does not = 20 ships deployed simultaneously, some will be unavailable due to repairs, upgrades, etc.

[blues]

https://static.rogerebert.com/uploads/review/primary_image/reviews/lawrence-of-arabia-1989/hero_Lawrence_Ali2.jpg

"Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in!"

[Chance]

BBC is now reporting the Mesdar was boarded but later allowed to continue.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The QE is not operational. No air wing and in for repairing a leak. No way the U.K. can fight Iran conventionally.

[Spartan1980]

A quick internet search on current seapower shows that the British fleet is a mere shadow of its former self. Another example of Europe banking on the "peace dividend" after the end of the Cold War and depending on their Ally to do the heavy lifting.


Do they have any carriers?



Yes, the Queen Elizabeth class, if memory serves one is floating and one is under construction.


At least one.

https://apnews.com/e28d5ce56956498ebf54dc7190e548a3

:cool:


The Royal Navy is the principal naval warfare service branch of the British Armed Forces. As of November 2018, there are 74 commissioned ships in the Royal Navy. Of the commissioned vessels, twenty are major surface combatants (six guided missile destroyers, thirteen frigates and one aircraft carrier), and ten are nuclear-powered submarines (four ballistic missile submarines and six fleet submarines). In addition the Navy possesses two amphibious transport docks, thirteen mine countermeasures vessels, twenty-two patrol vessels, four survey vessels, one icebreaker and two historic warships (Victory and Bristol).

The one aircraft carrier is fairly new and not sure it is deployable or equipped with aircraft yet. Also, 20 surface combatants does not = 20 ships deployed simultaneously, some will be unavailable due to repairs, upgrades, etc.

Wow. I had no idea the Brits were so "compromised" in their naval capabilities. 74 ships? Damn, that's quite a departure from their history.

[45dotACP]

Well...I'm sure the Brits can sort it out...after all, they're still party to the Iranian nuclear deal so the Iranians definitely won't pull shit like this on them....oh wait.



Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[LittleLebowski]

Iran will secure the Strait of Hormuz and not allow any disturbance in shipping in the key oil transport waterway, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Tuesday during a visit to Paris, the state new agency IRNA reported.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-iran-france-araqchi-idUSKCN1UI2MG