PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: bflynn on June 20, 2019, 05:31:06 AM
-
Iran just shot down a 180 million dollar drone which was in international airspace.
Did they just commit an act of war?
-
Iran just shot down a 180 million dollar drone which was in international airspace.
Did they just commit an act of war?
Yes
The question is whether the US or Saudi Arabia will decide to act
-
It was more an act of war when the Iran Navy took one of our vessels and held the crew hostage under Obama. What did we do? Reward them with CASH, and a nuclear program.
We don't need another war. Just smack them a bit, even if it covert. Send a message.
-
I say "yes", it was an act of war.
But the more important question is how the press and the American people feel.
If Trump reacts as if it were an act of war, then the press and the sheeple will say NO and Trump was unjustified in responding as if it were.
If Trump does nothing, then the press and the sheeple will say YES, it was and trump failed in his duty to protect us.
-
You can bet your ass our progressive friends are working in conjunction with Iran and prodding them into acting out.
-
It was more an act of war when the Iran Navy took one of our vessels and held the crew hostage under Obama. What did we do? Reward them with CASH, and a nuclear program.
We don't need another war. Just smack them a bit, even if it covert. Send a message.
Operation El Dorado Canyon is precedence. Reagan shut up Gadaffi for decades.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/15/reagan-bomb-libya-april-15-1986-1272788
-
Waiting for the left to blame Trump for this, saying he provoked the attack.
-
Waiting for the left to blame Trump for this, saying he provoked the attack.
The Left has already done that insinuating we were behind a false flag attack possibly perpetrated by Israel on our behalf. No way Trump sanctioned this.
-
Waiting for the left to blame Trump for this, saying he provoked the attack.
Do you mean like this:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-calls-iran-tensions-self-inflicted-disaster-after-us-drone-shoot-down
-
Do you mean like this:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-calls-iran-tensions-self-inflicted-disaster-after-us-drone-shoot-down
Yep. That.
-
Obama and Biden attempted to appease Iran with cash, and going along with their nuclear weapons program. Appeasement never works with these fascists. Now Biden is basically saying Trump should be rewarding them for terrorism. Biden is a traitor, and a imbecile.
-
Operation Praying Mantis kept Iran quiet for a long time.
-
And the president chooses not to act.
Not a good thing. Iranians are over there thumping their chests and cheering each other how they're able to say screw America and next time they'll get worse. They didn't make a mistake, they did this intentionally and Trump is being a pussy.
-
And the president chooses not to act.
Not a good thing. Iranians are over there thumping their chests and cheering each other how they're able to say screw America and next time they'll get worse. They didn't make a mistake, they did this intentionally and Trump is being a pussy.
Or perhaps he is giving them rope. He was right when he said that downing an unmanned drone doesn't warrant an attack that his generals told him will kill ~150 people. But if they make another, even more aggressive move, then he will have sufficient motivation to order a crippling attack. IMNSHO.
Funny thing is, if he had gone on with the attack, the same people that are criticizing him now would still be criticizing him. And you KNOW that is true.
-
Now, if it turns out the Iranians had anything to do with the massive refinery explosion in PA, then Iran should become a gleaming glass lake.
-
Haven't listened to any news, are there Democrats going to microphones today to say the President should not have called off the attack?
-
What the hell is Iran up to, and why?
-
Iran is stroking their own ego. This is what their culture does, they dominate those that present themselves as weak. That isn't judgement, it's just what they do. They've done it for centuries. Not asking for them to change, we just deal with them as they are.
The right way to deal with them as they are is not to avoid an attack because you are afraid of killing 150 people. 100% chance that the because the president didn't act, Iran now believes he is weak and submitting to them and there WILL be 150 or more casualties caused by future attacks by Iran. Trump didn't save lives here, he delayed the killings and changed the victims.
How can I be sure? Because I've studied them and this is what they do. The United States has been dealing with this attitude since the Barbary Pirates when 10 Marines marched to the Shores of Tripoli and helped defeat the local prince. The people dancing on the street are not so much hating on America (some are) as they are celebrating their strength.
-
And the president chooses not to act.
Not a good thing. Iranians are over there thumping their chests and cheering each other how they're able to say screw America and next time they'll get worse. They didn't make a mistake, they did this intentionally and Trump is being a pussy.
I disagree. I’m sure it was no accident that our aircraft were enroute, and then recalled. That’s called a show of force. They know we are capable of crippling them, but didn’t need to give Iran (and their accomplices in the UN) an excuse to escalate.
All in due time. As Joe said, he gave them rope.
-
Waiting to see how Iran reacts. In their minds, they've gotten pulled one over on the US and now they know the president will hesitate. Not strength.
Hope I'm wrong.
-
This is why we have special forces. Send a message my taking out a few missile sights not to kill people but to show Iran we can do this anytime we want, and the next time we will go after THEM not just stuff.
-
Iran is stroking their own ego. This is what their culture does, they dominate those that present themselves as weak. That isn't judgement, it's just what they do. They've done it for centuries. Not asking for them to change, we just deal with them as they are.
The right way to deal with them as they are is not to avoid an attack because you are afraid of killing 150 people. 100% chance that the because the president didn't act, Iran now believes he is weak and submitting to them and there WILL be 150 or more casualties caused by future attacks by Iran. Trump didn't save lives here, he delayed the killings and changed the victims.
How can I be sure? Because I've studied them and this is what they do. The United States has been dealing with this attitude since the Barbary Pirates when 10 Marines marched to the Shores of Tripoli and helped defeat the local prince. The people dancing on the street are not so much hating on America (some are) as they are celebrating their strength.
I don't disagree with much of that at all. Maybe just a little.
At the rate we are going, there are going to be much more than 150 casualties. If we slapped them on the wrist, they would retaliate and we would slap them on the wrist again, and they would thump their chest and retaliate again.
I could be wrong, but I suspect that we are either going to go ahead with a delayed response, or we are going to let them "try" to escalate, then we can retaliate in force.
Right now, Liberals are beside themselves because they HATE to agree that Trump did the right thing. So they are formulating an attack strategy (on Trump) based on the way he called the attack off, even though they agree calling it off was the right thing to do.
btw, I read a good book on the Barbary Pirates a few years ago:
"Thomas Jefferson and the Tripoli Pirates; The forgotten war that changed American History" by Brian Kilmeade
-
Waiting to see how Iran reacts. In their minds, they've gotten pulled one over on the US and now they know the president will hesitate. Not strength.
Hope I'm wrong.
I hope you are wrong too, for the same reason you do. Trying to figure out the Arab brain with Western logic has been an exercise in failure for thousands of years.
-
Last night republican and democrat leadership were briefed on the intel. The President told them he was prepared to retaliate. The dems ran to the nearest microphone and condemned Trump “he’s going to start a war!”
This morning he called it off, and now the dems are trashing him for not starting a war. They are even bashing him using Obama by saying he was weak just like BHO.
Now the rest of the story. After the drone shoot down the war mongers and their MIC were salivating a new war. Trump said “wait a minute, we don’t have all the facts”. Never mind the facts, they need a new war.
Early this morning intelligence confirmed that the shoot down was ordered by a low level commander and that the Iranian leadership was furious.
So, do we start a full fledge war over what some numbskull did? Of course not.
Also, China receives a huge portion of their oil supply from Iran. A military strike not only would take us into a full blown war, but it would cripple China which would adversarially affect us. Again, one must look at the big picture.
The Iranians hate Trump and want him gone. Under BHO they got whatever they wanted, and they desperately want someone in the WH who will be another Obama. Right now Trump has squeezed them tight with sanctions and they are feeling the effect. The sanctions are working, but this won’t resolve overnight.
And rest assured, the progressive left is right in there with the Iranians trying to stir shit.
-
Liberal friends on facebook are all screaming how Trump and Fox News want a war with Iran. Simple minded fools.
-
Liberal friends on facebook are all screaming how Trump and Fox News want a war with Iran. Simple minded fools.
It's just great to see the Democrats, and their weak minded Progressive supporters are on the side of Iran, our enemy. Trump played them yet again, signaling the strike, then calling it off. Now they are the ones criticizing Trump for NOT going to war. Amazing.
-
https://www.independentsentinel.com/report-obama-officials-backchannel-with-iran-to-defeat-trumps-foreign-policy/
-
Or perhaps he is giving them rope. He was right when he said that downing an unmanned drone doesn't warrant an attack that his generals told him will kill ~150 people. But if they make another, even more aggressive move, then he will have sufficient motivation to order a crippling attack. IMNSHO.
Funny thing is, if he had gone on with the attack, the same people that are criticizing him now would still be criticizing him. And you KNOW that is true.
I can't say that I am in full support of Trump, but this is one thing I think he handled well.
-
https://www.independentsentinel.com/report-obama-officials-backchannel-with-iran-to-defeat-trumps-foreign-policy/
How is this not treason?
-
How is this not treason?
And how does this not violate the Logan Act?
And why is a former President and his associates negotiating behind the backs of the current administration?
-
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2019/06/24/trump-dodged-an-ambush-by-avoiding-war-with-iran-n2548787
-
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2019/06/24/trump-dodged-an-ambush-by-avoiding-war-with-iran-n2548787
the notion that we might wish to avoid being drawn into open conflict today does not mean these mullah bastards don’t deserve to be hanged from the very cranes they use to murder gays, women who refuse hijab oppression and people who like freedom
Yes. I had a friend from Iran who saw this. They didn’t just hang them; they tied their feet to the ground and pulled them apart with the crane, their intestines spilling on the ground and they made the people watch it.
-
Trump lost out on this - he gives the appearance of being afraid to engage with the military. And now Iran is back to chest thumping and psyching themselves up for another attack.
-
Trump lost out on this - he gives the appearance of being afraid to engage with the military. And now Iran is back to chest thumping and psyching themselves up for another attack.
He was in a no win situation, and made the Democrats criticize him for NOT attacking Iran. If Iran does attack us again, then he will have no choice, and the Democrats won't be able to reasonably complain. He played this as well as he could have.
When Iran committed piracy, took our U.S. Navy boat, and then held the crew hostage, what did Obama do? Rewarded Iran with cash and allowing the nuke program to continue officially. That was an act of war, and we should have lit them up like a Christmas tree.
-
Trump lost out on this - he gives the appearance of being afraid to engage with the military. And now Iran is back to chest thumping and psyching themselves up for another attack.
Anyone who hates Trump will spin whatever he does as bad. If he does nothing he’s weak, if he takes action he’s a warmonger. I don’t see him as afraid to engage with the military. I see him as biding his time. He’s not going to engage until Iran does something unequivocally unforgivable. This country can’t stomach another Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq - where our kids die and we have no complete victory to show for it. I think Trump senses that. The public would not be behind a military action right now. Unfortunately it is going to take a Pearl Harbor or a 9/11 to get the public behind going to war; a direct attack on our soil.
-
Trump lost out on this - he gives the appearance of being afraid to engage with the military. And now Iran is back to chest thumping and psyching themselves up for another attack.
::)
We need an emoji for sour grapes.
-
Rush is talking about there being, unverified, information that a Democrat came out of the meeting with the President about what his plan was for Iran to tell them what was going to happen and give them time to move civilians into harms way.
Not our of the realm of possibility if you go back to the Leahy leak about an operation Reagan was planning back in the day and the recent reports of Kerry meeting with Iranians leaders to advise them on how to deal with Trump.
Why do Democrats love dictators so much?
-
Why do Democrats love dictators so much?
Same ideology.
-
(snipperooo)
Why do Democrats love dictators so much?
To be fair, there have been plenty of dictators supported by Republican administrations
A better question would be why do the "intellectuals" hate anything Trump so much.
-
::)
We need an emoji for sour grapes.
Sour grapes because I was right when I didn’t want to be?
Maybe it would help of you took off your Trump colored glasses and looked at what happened objectively. I know it’s hard, I’ve been there too. But Trump got owned on this. Meanwhile, Iranians blame us for starting everything...not surprising...and they see Trump as crazy and the US as weak.
You and I know they’re wrong - the US military would roll through Iran slightly slower than they did in Iraq. But so what?
-
Sour grapes because I was right when I didn’t want to be?
Maybe it would help of you took off your Trump colored glasses and looked at what happened objectively. I know it’s hard, I’ve been there too. But Trump got owned on this. Meanwhile, Iranians blame us for starting everything...not surprising...and they see Trump as crazy and the US as weak.
You and I know they’re wrong - the US military would roll through Iran slightly slower than they did in Iraq. But so what?
just to clarify: you aren't blaming President Trump because the Iranians are wrong, are you?
-
Sour grapes because I was right when I didn’t want to be?
Maybe it would help of you took off your Trump colored glasses and looked at what happened objectively. I know it’s hard, I’ve been there too. But Trump got owned on this. Meanwhile, Iranians blame us for starting everything...not surprising...and they see Trump as crazy and the US as weak.
You and I know they’re wrong - the US military would roll through Iran slightly slower than they did in Iraq. But so what?
I have a different take. Trump NEVER was going to attack Iran. The planes never launched, and were never going to. He said he was going to attack to play both the Democrats and Iranians. The Democrats took the bate, then when Trump announced that for HUMANITARIAN reasons (casualties) was not going to attack, the Democrats attacked him for not going forward, making them look like the warmongers they were going to call Trump. Brilliant.
Also, it put Iran on notice that a military response was on the table, unlike with Obama for some reason he never would consider that option. So I think you got played just like the Democrats and are wrong.
-
He’s not going to engage until Iran does something unequivocally unforgivable.
So keep giving them rope until....
We run out of rope?
I listen to how Iran is talking. Culturally, they can't back down, but politically, there's no reason to back down. They smacked Trump in the nose and got away with it. Ok, they got more sanctions on top of the sanctions they already had, but the sanctions don't have world wide support, so it's not really that much more. Russia is propping them up, Iran will survive without us.
I don't hate Trump - I think he made a mistake here. I am very willing to say when he's done well, but I don't see that he has a strong track record. Yes, he has strong opposition, but judging on results...which is how HE judges people...there are many things he hasn't done.
-
just to clarify: you aren't blaming President Trump because the Iranians are wrong, are you?
I blame the president for calling off the attack and not showing Iran the strength of our military. He looks like a wuss to people that don't value weakness.
It's what I opened with:
The right way to deal with them as they are is not to avoid an attack because you are afraid of killing 150 people. 100% chance that the because the president didn't act, Iran now believes he is weak and submitting to them and there WILL be 150 or more casualties caused by future attacks by Iran. Trump didn't save lives here, he delayed the killings and changed the victims.
-
I blame the president for calling off the attack and not showing Iran the strength of our military. He looks like a wuss to people that don't value weakness.
It's what I opened with:
Even if he had gone along with the plan and killed 150 people, they still would have laughed at the pathetic response. They put no value on their citizens lives. They would have just bandied them about as martyrs to enrage the rest of the people. THAT would have been playing into their hands. Little piddly strikes against little piddly targets are not going to change them. One way or the other, it is going to take massive military attacks to do that. But the time wasn't right for such an attack. Let them get a little bolder and try to take out an AWACS or one of our ships and then let's see what the response is.
-
Even if he had gone along with the plan and killed 150 people, they still would have laughed at the pathetic response. They put no value on their citizens lives. They would have just bandied them about as martyrs to enrage the rest of the people. THAT would have been playing into their hands.
No, that isn't how their culture works. If a man stands up to them and is strong, then they are to be respected.
You know that the Barbary Wars consisted of like 3 battles, right? 1) they captured an old American warship, the Philadelphia 2) we snuck into their harbor at night and burned the ship, plus blew a bunch of stuff up, 3) A large force of Marines and Arabs marched to the shores of Tripoli, kicked the butts of the local warlord's men, after which he surrendered and promised not to attack American shipping again.
This is how you deal with them because this is what their culture teaches. Everyone else in the world is inferior to them and must be subjugated (to the way of Islam). Those who do not are to be killed. Except, if you're stronger, they can't do anything. Peace through superior firepower, aka Shock and Awe.
That demonstration of firepower was withheld.
-
It's always interesting that we have to comply with someone else's culture instead of having them understand us.
-
No, that isn't how their culture works. If a man stands up to them and is strong, then they are to be respected.
You know that the Barbary Wars consisted of like 3 battles, right? 1) they captured an old American warship, the Philadelphia 2) we snuck into their harbor at night and burned the ship, plus blew a bunch of stuff up, 3) A large force of Marines and Arabs marched to the shores of Tripoli, kicked the butts of the local warlord's men, after which he surrendered and promised not to attack American shipping again.
This is how you deal with them because this is what their culture teaches. Everyone else in the world is inferior to them and must be subjugated (to the way of Islam). Those who do not are to be killed. Except, if you're stronger, they can't do anything. Peace through superior firepower, aka Shock and Awe.
That demonstration of firepower was withheld.
...for the moment. The fat lady hasn’t sung yet.
-
...for the moment. The fat lady hasn’t sung yet.
I'll let you know when Stacey Abrams or Oprah arrives.
-
It's always interesting that we have to comply with someone else's culture instead of having them understand us.
Sounds like you're conflating understanding and conforming.
The reason we understand them is because it's their culture and it isn't changing. Understanding them is required to deal with them. If you don't understand, then you're just blundering from action to action with only a random hope of a positive outcome.
You know this is the same thing the Leftists say about the Right, don't you? What's wrong with Conservatives, they need to be like us and then we'll all get along?
-
...for the moment. The fat lady hasn’t sung yet.
But she is ready to start enriching more uranium. That isn't a win.
-
But she is ready to start enriching more uranium. That isn't a win.
Most idiots in the general public do not grasp the significance of that. Trump (or any president) must walk a fine line. He or she doesn’t have dictatorial power in the U.S. which may end up being unfortunate for our long term survival. Too much public sentiment against aggressive military action (which I agree with you is what Iran needs) and it will be doomed to failure, because it will not be backed up with follow-through. Rules of engagement are too soft or walked back or we start charging soldiers with “murder” for just doing their job. Make no mistake I agree with your assessment; but I’m saying unless the public and Congress get completely behind it, anything decisive Trump does will not be allowed to go to “completion”. Haven’t we learned that lesson yet?
-
Yet the Media (and thus general public perception) was fine with Obama's escalation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and getting into Libya and Syria. Also the multiple "drone" attacks where innocent civilians were killed in large numbers. No MEDIA outrage, therefore no Public Outcry.
If Trump were to do that the Media, and hence the public would be screaming for his head! We are severely hampered by the Media. Cronkite did it during Vietnam, and it has only gotten worse.
-
Sounds like you're conflating understanding and conforming.
The reason we understand them is because it's their culture and it isn't changing. Understanding them is required to deal with them. If you don't understand, then you're just blundering from action to action with only a random hope of a positive outcome.
You know this is the same thing the Leftists say about the Right, don't you? What's wrong with Conservatives, they need to be like us and then we'll all get along?
No. Bob Noel is spot on. Fuck their culture and what they respect. We will chose the time and place of our response, and kudos to Trump for not being baited by them.
“If they want peace, nations should avoid the pin-pricks that precede the cannon shots.”
Napoleon Bonaparte
-
Sounds like you're conflating understanding and conforming.
The reason we understand them is because it's their culture and it isn't changing. Understanding them is required to deal with them. If you don't understand, then you're just blundering from action to action with only a random hope of a positive outcome.
You know this is the same thing the Leftists say about the Right, don't you? What's wrong with Conservatives, they need to be like us and then we'll all get along?
It sounds like you're the one who is conflating understanding and conforming.
-
It sounds like you're the one who is conflating understanding and conforming.
Probably not as I'm not an advocate of conforming to other's cultures, so we're agreeing on that. Neither do I expect Iran to conform to our standards. They have a way of living and we have a different way of living.
We are different cultures. What works in the US and in Europe and in China will not work in the Middle East. Iif you don't have a true understanding of their cultures, then you don't know what is valued and influence is random. That is not conforming, that's comprehending and then acting on knowledge.
I don't get the feeling the president really understands the Middle Eastern culture.
I predict that despite me just clearly explaining how I'm not mixing understanding and conforming, you will still persist in willfully misunderstanding and others will give you props for doing so.
-
No. Bob Noel is spot on. Fuck their culture and what they respect. We will chose the time and place of our response, and kudos to Trump for not being baited by them.
Fuck their culture, so you have no clue what they're about then and furthermore, you don't care.
You're like a bull blundering through the china shop, just smashing through things without understanding the outcome you're creating. You have no clue where this is going to come out. There is a decent chance Iran comes out of it with a bomb that they will use against us.
-
Fuck their culture, so you have no clue what they're about then and furthermore, you don't care.
You're like a bull blundering through the china shop, just smashing through things without understanding the outcome you're creating. You have no clue where this is going to come out. There is a decent chance Iran comes out of it with a bomb that they will use against us.
There is nothing wrong with "understanding" their culture. It can give you clues in how they will respond. However, maybe they should consider our culture also, especially in light of our ability to surgically remove anything, and anyone we want at anytime we want to do it. If I were them I would have a little respect for the biggest, smartest, fastest guy on the block. And while in general we may be benevolent, and wary of public and world opinion, I have no problem unleashing a shit storm on them if they show any sign of harming us. We can minimize civilian causalities with the technology we have today.
Obama got away with killing thousands of innocent civilians. Trump won't.
-
No, that isn't how their culture works. If a man stands up to them and is strong, then they are to be respected.
Flynn, I think you and I mostly agree on the fact that the Iranians see things differently than us. They respect strength more than they do humanitarianism. This won't be resolved by backing down or honest negotiation.
I just think we disagree on Trump's methods. Everyone expected him to go charging in like a raging bull and he didn't, so everyone is confused. But I think Trump has a longer game in mind. It is not just the Iranians he is dealing with. He has to deal with our allies, the UN, the opposition party (Dems) in this country, and the media (although the last two are basically the same thing).
If he sent in a proportional strike, it would have done NOTHING to deter Iran. It would have forced their hand to strike back again and begin a Vietnam-like escalation with the world choosing up sides and those that were prodding him to attack would be the first to accuse him of failure when thing didn't go our way. This way he can claim the high ground. And when does smite them, they shall stay smited.
-
Probably not as I'm not an advocate of conforming to other's cultures, so we're agreeing on that. Neither do I expect Iran to conform to our standards. They have a way of living and we have a different way of living.
on this we agree.
We are different cultures. What works in the US and in Europe and in China will not work in the Middle East. Iif you don't have a true understanding of their cultures, then you don't know what is valued and influence is random. That is not conforming, that's comprehending and then acting on knowledge.
Doing what the other culture wants isn't always a positive. Generally, I don't advocate compromising my values and integrity because that's what another culture understands, expects, or values.
I don't get the feeling the president really understands the Middle Eastern culture.
Anyone would doesn't bow and worship ME culture doesn't understand the ME culture?
I predict that despite me just clearly explaining how I'm not mixing understanding and conforming, you will still persist in willfully misunderstanding and others will give you props for doing so.
well, as long as you have an open mind ::)
btw - disagreeing with something you say isn't the same as not understanding, no matter how RIGHT you think you are.
-
"You need to take your enemy’s side if you’re going to see things the way they do, and you need to see things the way they do if you’re going to anticipate their actions, respond effectively, and beat them."
Tyrion Lannister, Game of Thrones, Season 7, Episode 6
-
Fuck their culture, so you have no clue what they're about then and furthermore, you don't care.
You're like a bull blundering through the china shop, just smashing through things without understanding the outcome you're creating. You have no clue where this is going to come out. There is a decent chance Iran comes out of it with a bomb that they will use against us.
Listen, dickhead, I’m not an idiot. I get their culture, and after 18 years of war I would say very smart people and the majority of Americans have learned some lessons the hard way about their culture.
That DOESN’T mean you need to allow yourself to get baited into an escalation because they won’t respect us if we don’t. That’s exactly what you’re saying, and that is short sighted and naive.
You also have no fucking clue where this is going to come out. However, I feel extremely confident that a limited strike they would kill 150 people won’t stop Iran from getting the bomb and using it against us. You apparently naively think it would have stopped Iran in their tracks.
-
I'm not suggesting doing what they want. I'm saying influence them by using their own cultural rules because those are the only rules they're going to follow.
Meanwhile, China has decided to buy Iranian oil.
Guess sanctions aren't as powerful as the president thought they would be. Oops.
-
You also have no clue where this is going to come out.
You're correct. I've said as much, so believe it or not, you're agreeing with me.
But I have studied the culture, as a lot of people have. I'm not alone in my opinion that the president messed up his reaction. I also know that you are not alone in your opinion that the president is being masterful, lots of Trumpets share that opinion.
However, I don't think we're winning when Iran has the support of Russia and China and control of the Straits of Hormuz. The president is getting out played and now he has lost the initiative.
-
The utter lack of respect for America and American culture is a reflection for the total lack of respect the tucking left has for the rest of us.
In both cases they scream, whine, cry and whimper about respecting them but the reverse is NEVER true.
Not even a little.
-
The utter lack of respect for America and American culture is a reflection for the total lack of respect the tucking left has for the rest of us.
I'll take that quote on a little different path:
The lack of respect for America is a direct result of the anti-American actions of the "tucking" left, up to and including the actions of Obama, Hillary and John Kerry.
Flynn is right that they won't respect us until we show them WHY they should respect us. But attacking some piddly-shit site and killing a few hundred innocents isn't going to do that. Taking out their leadership and their military is the only way to do that, and while the timing might be right, the justification isn't there. Yet.
I have known quite a few Iranians. They are intelligent, educated, hard working and sincere. But they have been misled into thinking we are the enemy. Killing a few hundred innocent civilians here and there will only reinforce that. We need to take an action that will ensure that they have access to the truth.
On second thought, WTF is the truth any more? Is it what we hear on CNN? Therein lies another problem that Trump is facing.
-
I'll take that quote on a little different path:
The lack of respect for America is a direct result of the anti-American actions of the "tucking" left, up to and including the actions of Obama, Hillary and John Kerry.
Flynn is right that they won't respect us until we show them WHY they should respect us. But attacking some piddly-shit site and killing a few hundred innocents isn't going to do that. Taking out their leadership and their military is the only way to do that, and while the timing might be right, the justification isn't there. Yet.
I have known quite a few Iranians. They are intelligent, educated, hard working and sincere. But they have been misled into thinking we are the enemy. Killing a few hundred innocent civilians here and there will only reinforce that. We need to take an action that will ensure that they have access to the truth.
On second thought, WTF is the truth any more? Is it what we hear on CNN? Therein lies another problem that Trump is facing.
This. When we do take action we need to take out the regime. No dicking around. It’s what the Iranian people want.
-
However, I don't think we're winning when Iran has the support of Russia and China and control of the Straits of Hormuz. The president is getting out played and now he has lost the initiative.
How does Iran control the Straits of Hormuz? Guess what will happen to them if they continue to attack the shipping, or the U.S. Navy? We ultimately control the Straits of Hormuz. Our Navy says so. If justification is needed to strike Iran with significant force, further attacks in the Straits are a sure way to get it.
-
How does Iran control the Straits of Hormuz? Guess what will happen to them if they continue to attack the shipping, or the U.S. Navy? We ultimately control the Straits if Hormuz. Our Navy says so. If justification is needed to strike Iran with significant force, further attacks in the Straits are a sure way to get it.
Spot on.
-
Study naval power. It cannot stand against a concerted attack from shore units. On the ground you have nearly unlimited missiles, planes and mortars. On top of that, they do not need to sink US warships to deny passage, they need to sink tankers.
If they want to stop passage, they can. If we want to keep it open and safe, we cannot. That is control.
-
Study naval power. It cannot stand against a concerted attack from shore units. On the ground you have nearly unlimited missiles, planes and mortars. On top of that, they do not need to sink US warships to deny passage, they need to sink tankers.
If they want to stop passage, they can. If we want to keep it open and safe, we cannot. That is control.
Study modern naval power. My high school classmate was the vice admiral in charge of the 5th fleet before he died in December 2018. The Fifth fleet covers the entire Middle East including the straight of Hormuz. I feel quite confident that a USN battle group could keep any straight open on this globe.
By the way the Straight of Hormuz is 53km wide at its narrowest point. As a point of reference the Straights of Gibraltar is 14km
Wide. I’m quite sure Iran cannot and will not close down Hormuz. They can try, but this would never, ever succeed.
-
Study naval power. It cannot stand against a concerted attack from shore units. On the ground you have nearly unlimited missiles, planes and mortars. On top of that, they do not need to sink US warships to deny passage, they need to sink tankers.
If they want to stop passage, they can. If we want to keep it open and safe, we cannot. That is control.
As Stan said, our Navy is strong enough to keep any strait open. Plus we have a great military presence in the two countries on either side of Iran, which as you know is Afghanistan, and Iraq, but yes our Navy alone controls that strait, and any other one they'd want.
-
Strait. Just sayin'
-
Strait. Just sayin'
What are you saying? You should know by now that I am strait!
-
Strait. Just sayin'
Damnit! I’m blaming autocorrect on my iPhone, and I’m sticking to it! You’re right of course.
-
This. When we do take action we need to take out the regime. No dicking around. It’s what the Iranian people want.
Didn't we already try that once??
IIRC, our new friends toppled the regime of our "friend" the Shah and led to the issues we have now.
(Including why almost all F-14s were crunched, rather than being preserved for history.)
-
Study modern naval power. My high school classmate was the vice admiral in charge of the 5th fleet before he died in December 2018. The Fifth fleet covers the entire Middle East including the straight of Hormuz. I feel quite confident that a USN battle group could keep any straight open on this globe.
By the way the Straight of Hormuz is 53km wide at its narrowest point. As a point of reference the Straights of Gibraltar is 14km
Wide. I’m quite sure Iran cannot and will not close down Hormuz. They can try, but this would never, ever succeed.
Honestly, I'm not really sure we could. Do we have the capability? Yes. But after reading up on the McCain an Fitzgerald collisions, there is a large manning, and training problem in the Navy. Then there are massive maintenance problems in the Marine Corps air community. Unless we cripple Iran with the first strike, we will lose. And we have elected morons who won't let our armed forces prosecute a war to win it.
-
And we have elected morons who won't let our armed forces prosecute a war to win it.
That has been one of my bitching points since Vietnam. I am still hoping that Trump will break that mold.
-
Honestly, I'm not really sure we could. Do we have the capability? Yes. But after reading up on the McCain an Fitzgerald collisions, there is a large manning, and training problem in the Navy. Then there are massive maintenance problems in the Marine Corps air community. Unless we cripple Iran with the first strike, we will lose. And we have elected morons who won't let our armed forces prosecute a war to win it.
Your last sentence is the only one that really concerns me. Yes we have training, Mx and readiness issues across the services, but those are fixable. But our air assets have a global reach, and we have nearby USAF air bases in the UK, Italy, Germany, Portugal, Turkey, and other places. We can have air superiority in a matter of hours.
I do not see us “losing” to Iran.
-
Your last sentence is the only one that really concerns me. Yes we have training, Mx and readiness issues across the services, but those are fixable. But our air assets have a global reach, and we have nearby USAF air bases in the UK, Italy, Germany, Portugal, Turkey, and other places. We can have air superiority in a matter of hours.
I do not see us “losing” to Iran.
Not losing militarly per se, but not finishing the job once we start, such as Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. That losing. Air superiority is great, but under that resoning we should have been done 17 years ago, not still fighting the same 3rd world camel jockeys since 2001.
-
Not losing militarly per se, but not finishing the job once we start, such as Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. That losing. Air superiority is great, but under that resoning we should have been done 17 years ago, not still fighting the same 3rd world camel jockeys since 2001.
Oh, I agree 100%. Most of the Arlington National Cemetery graves and Walter Reed casualties are due to politicians’ unwillingness to inflict proper punishment on our enemies.
-
Not losing militarly per se, but not finishing the job once we start, such as Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. That losing. Air superiority is great, but under that resoning we should have been done 17 years ago, not still fighting the same 3rd world camel jockeys since 2001.
War is big business. The reason the US has been bogged down in endless wars since VN is purely financial. The Military Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned us about is thriving.
We've spent over $1 Triilion in Afghanistan. That war could have been over in a matter of months, militarily, but that has nothing to do with it. Afghanistan is a treasure trove of contracts, and the MIC wants it to continue. The talks of ending Afghanistan goes against them.
This is yet another reason the deep state and the MIC hate Trump. He's bad for their business. They wanted to crank up a nice "conflict" in Syria and Trump prevented that. Now they are itching to get a full blown war going with Iran, and Trump short circuited that.
"Winning" a war is not in the interest of the MIC, never has been.
-
Oh, I agree 100%. Most of the Arlington National Cemetery graves and Walter Reed casualties are due to politicians’ unwillingness to inflict proper punishment on our enemies.
Those politicians are bought and paid for by the military industrial complex, and they are under strict orders to keep these "conflicts" going. Those soldier's, airman, marines and sailors that lose their lives are just collateral damage in the quest for profits.
-
That has been one of my bitching points since Vietnam. I am still hoping that Trump will break that mold.
You might want to change that to Korea. WWII is the last time the US fought a real war.
-
You might want to change that to Korea. WWII is the last time the US fought a real war.
Korea was legit in that the Chinese and the Russians wanted to take advantage of the peninsula post WW2. Had we sat that one out, the expansion would have been South Korea and would have put Japan into jeopardy.
While maintaining South Korea is a boom for the MIC, we had little choice in that one.
Viet Nam was a boondoggle from the word "go". In the fifties Ho Chi Min had actually wanted the US to come to their aid and help stabilize the country and free them from the French colonialist. The US ignored him. Then the MIC realized what a treasure box VN could become, so then we needed to "protect from the spread of communism".
50,000 lives lost and billions upon billions of dollars made.
-
We couldn't side with North Vietnam against the French. In fact we helped the French in Vietnam before they gave up. We did a lot of covert stuff to help them including flying missions in American aircraft with hastily painted French markings.
-
We couldn't side with North Vietnam against the French. In fact we helped the French in Vietnam before they gave up. We did a lot of covert stuff to help them including flying missions in American aircraft with hastily painted French markings.
Thus the quagmire. Wrong place to fight a war, but it was a great place to profit.
-
Those politicians are bought and paid for by the military industrial complex, and they are under strict orders to keep these "conflicts" going. Those soldier's, airman, marines and sailors that lose their lives are just collateral damage in the quest for profits.
Not sure about strict orders. A big part of it is the pussification and feminization of our populace and in turn our politicians. The idea of enemy collateral damage is vile and unacceptable when we can instead make our soldiers walk the streets of an enemy village.
-
Not sure about strict orders. A big part of it is the pussification and feminization of our populace and in turn our politicians. The idea of enemy collateral damage is vile and unacceptable when we can instead make our soldiers walk the streets of an enemy village.
When the folks in the MIC make big contributions to re-election campaigns, and big donations to PACs, they own that politician. That politician is there to further their interest, and if they don't, they just buy another politician. A well paid politician doesn't bite the hand that feeds him.
Just look around and see which politicians (R&D) run to the TV and tell us why we need to stay in such shitholes such as Afghanistan, or even better, watch the ones chomping at the bits to get a war going in Iran. Then go look at their contributors.
-
Thus the quagmire. Wrong place to fight a war, but it was a great place to profit.
We seem to love quagmires.
-
You might want to change that to Korea. WWII is the last time the US fought a real war.
I was 13 months old when the armistice ending the Korean conflict was signed. At the time I wasn't bitching about geo-political conflicts or their strategy and tactics. I don't even remember if I was bitching about my Father never returning from that fuster-cluck. He was Killed in Action there and I never even knew him.
-
I was 13 months old when the armistice ending the Korean conflict was signed. At the time I wasn't bitching about geo-political conflicts or their strategy and tactics. I don't even remember if I was bitching about my Father never returning from that fuster-cluck. He was Killed in Action there and I never even knew him.
I’m sorry about that Joe.
-
Study modern naval power. My high school classmate was the vice admiral in charge of the 5th fleet before he died in December 2018. The Fifth fleet covers the entire Middle East including the straight of Hormuz. I feel quite confident that a USN battle group could keep any straight open on this globe.
By the way the Straight of Hormuz is 53km wide at its narrowest point. As a point of reference the Straights of Gibraltar is 14km
Wide. I’m quite sure Iran cannot and will not close down Hormuz. They can try, but this would never, ever succeed.
The strait is 21mi/33km wide.
I’m not talking about a naval control. If Iran tries that, they will be soundly defeated. However, if they use land based missile and guns, they can sink anything in the area. Plus, modern passive/active mines have no real countermeasure.
Would the US counter attack ground forces? Absolutely. The US would take casualties and some of the Iranian sites would be in the middle of untouchable targets. No US commander is going to bomb an orphanage because there’s a missile site inside.
Meanwhile, Iranians do not have to deny all traffic, they only have to sink one or two commercial ships and the traffic stops on its own.
Yes, I think they control the straits if they choose to and if they are smart about it.
-
Korea was legit in that the Chinese and the Russians wanted to take advantage of the peninsula post WW2. Had we sat that one out, the expansion would have been South Korea and would have put Japan into jeopardy.
It was still a war that was run by politicians. If it wasn't, the Chinese would probably be speaking English now.
-
It was still a war that was run by politicians. If it wasn't, the Chinese would probably be speaking English now.
I don't disagree. Just read about MacArthur and his internal fights on executing the war.
Even towards the end of WW2 we started to see politicians inserting themselves into war policy.
-
Reason not to trust a politician during a war.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/51707/do-loose-lips-really-sink-ships
-
Coming back to this - Iran has seized a British tanker in the straits, despite a US led operation to ensure freedom of movement for civilian ships. Th UK says it is seeking a diplomatic solution.
If the US is not ready to shoot, then the whole thing is a farce. The president gave Iran every reason to believe the US will not shoot. If the US is ready to engage, then where are they? Apparently Iran can just run out and take over a merchant ship and nobody can do anything? We don’t want to sink the ship and we won’t put our people on board to be captured in port.
Realistically, the US ability to ensure safe passage requires immediate action, which requires having warships right there to react. A mile or two away is almost too far in naval warfare, especially combatting small boats.
If Iran chooses, they can seize any ship in the straits and there is no action we can take.
-
Coming back to this - Iran has seized a British tanker in the straits, despite a US led operation to ensure freedom of movement for civilian ships. Th UK says it is seeking a diplomatic solution.
Despite our operation to ensure freedom of movement of civilian ships, it WAS a UK ship, and the UK wishes to pursue a diplomatic solution. That does not give us authority to go to war.
Yeah, libs predicted, and are hoping, that Trump would go bullying his way around the world and get us into unnecessary wars, but I am happy that so far he has not done that.
I just hope that if/when he does, he does it for the right reasons, and does it with the intention of winning.
-
Trump will NOT get us into a war unless we are attacked somewhere on U.S. soil or if U.S. people are killed. I also don't think it would be a "war" per se, but a limited military response. Wars do bad things to the economy, energy prices, the stock markets etc because they create economic uncertainty. Trump does not want that as he will run mainly on the great economy to get re-elected.
-
Trump will NOT get us into a war unless we are attacked somewhere on U.S. soil or if U.S. people are killed. I also don't think it would be a "war" per se, but a limited military response. Wars do bad things to the economy, energy prices, the stock markets etc because they create economic uncertainty. Trump does not want that as he will run mainly on the great economy to get re-elected.
I agree. If Trump does initiate a military response to Iran, he will want it to be over and conclusive before 11/3/2020.
I am not going to say that Trump is being played by Iran, like libs always like to say, but I will say that Iran has an idea of just how far they can push Trump without provoking that military response, and they will get as close to that line as possible.
-
The mission of the Navy does not stop at US vessels - the free movement of vessels through international waters is good for the US regardless of who flags the ship.
Operation Sentinel is a dream. You don't get very far in this game wishing with your wisher, it's better to think with your thinker.