BREAKING NEWS Donald Trump gave 'initial approval' for Iran strikes

[Skroe]

@Skroe I’m fairly confident they shot down a drone. What type it was, and whether they accurately identified it is incidental.

Oh they certainly did. And it certainly was the RQ-4 BAMS-D.

There is some question right now though as to if what they're displaying is that RQ-4 BAMS-D.

I think it is, but I think WHAT they're displaying is the dead give away. Medium sized, mostly flat pieces that could have floated to their shores and not sunk to the bottom of the Persian Gulf.

The thing going around the aviation enthusaist community at the moment though is a general thought that even for a destroyed aircraft, the parts on display are too small, and the contours don't match an RQ-4 as well as they do an MQ-9, and so what they're displaying on TV is just something else they had in lieu of having not recovered anything from the RQ-4.

I personally, don't think that's the case. I think its the RQ-4.

[Edge-]

I disagree. You know, when you get attacked, blood boils and its quite normal for a lightning fast decision to be taken. Was it just the drone? Are they hitting anything else in the area? I mean, countless and countless facts need to be taken in consideration.

No, you don't make decisions while your blood is boiling. That's how you make stupid fucking decisions. That's why there are processes in place for this kind of thing. The president receives briefings from experts on the available options with a range of possible responses that scale up and down in severity.

This isn't one man operating in a vacuum. This is one man surrounded by experts whose job is to keep their heads cool and be god-damn good at what they do and provide excellent advice.

Also, it's a god-damned drone. Why would your "blood boil" over a drone?

The fact that Trump pulled back from the attack, even in the last minute, really honors him simply because it shows that logic had a precedence over emotions. I am not sure if Clinton or Bush (for example) would give a flying fack about those 150 or their families.

This is literal fiction. Trump is making a big to-do specifically because people will believe this kind of horse shit.

Plus you need to take in consideration the obvious here. A war in Iran might not be won and will cost thousands of American lives.
+ USA will be proxied as hell by Russia and China in there.

Which is why it's so ludicrous that the strike was authorized so quickly in the first place.

Well, with some, when it comes to Trump, it is damn if he does, damn if he doesn't.

No, that's horse shit. He's damned because he ordered it, apparently with either bad briefings or because he forgot the contents of the briefings. It's bad that he's trying to make a big to-do about rescinding the order (which he's claiming he didn't do now because of course he fucking is) because he either wasn't told or didn't pay attention to his briefings.

He's damned in both those situations. Do you know when he isn't damned? If he got the briefing and didn't order the strike because he genuinely believed that the 150ish projected casualties wasn't worth it. Either because the processes were in place to get him good information or because he actually fucking paid attention.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

You would think you would already have responses prepared and ready. I mean.. its pretty likely when you are orbiting a nation with drones that are skimming the very edge of territories if not occasionally direct penetrating them at times that such a drone might get shot at or shot down. If the on the table response to this was a full scale carrier strike along with vessels launching cruise missiles than at the very least a few generals/admirals need to be sacked. Was a piss poor option for that level of escalation. But I get the feeling that certain political members in the administration that have been thirsty as fuck for a war with Iran pushed the option up the pipe and good old Trump probably didn't even read what he was signing. Then suddenly someone busts into the room with the reading rainbow version of the report/order that was cliff noted and a verbal video tape and Trump finally figure out what was actually going on an decided to call it off.

After all he has a reality TV show he is trying to run here. Producing and participating is a lot of work in one of those things.

[Slant]

I'm not sure how many more times and how many more ways I can say that I think the US going to war against Iran would be the stupidiest, most self defeating, most outrageous thing it possibly could do. I've only been saying on it at this spot, in this place, for years. I even said it in the post you quoted, #124 (https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post51331582), twice (scroll down in my reply to Saninicus, which you should read).

Then why is your President doing everything he can to pick a fight with Iran? After it was him that basically walked away from an agreement that was supposed to be the basis for a peaceful resolution? I'm not talking about what YOU would do. I'm talking about what your nation IS doing.

And yet, I still get called a "hawk". I mean... what? Is that a joke? Maybe I should just be that guy if that's what prudence gets me, rofl.

No joke. You justify the attack on 150 people with an unmanned drone. If that's not a hawkish viewpoint, I don't know what is. Prudence? Paranoia more like it.

I mean really, just read my reply to Saninicus. It's basically a retort to half your argument here. The problem is I'm offering a rather nuanced, but also extremely real world message - that there are degrees between peace and war, degrees of aggression and reconcillation, and more than just one route to a peaceful outcome, whereas you and several others are basically advocating this extraordinarily naive, and not to mention *entirely fictional*, pure fantasty, alternative realtiy where things which are not considered to be substantively aggressive or acts of war, suddenly are.

You've got it backwards. I don't mind you swimming around wherevery you want, pissing in everyone's pool and shit. But since you are out there, don't start whinging when your shit gets shot down. You're not at home. You're in basically other people's backyard. Don't be a peeping tom where you're not wanted if you don't want your shit get shot down. And if it's shot down, man up and take the loss instead of throwing a temper tantrum because someone dared to shoot one of your drones down.

But the chances of a $200 million non-stealthy RQ-4A variant, specifically one designed to monitor MARITIME conditions, flying into Iranian airspace is farcical. I mean is there a massive body of water in the middle of the Iranian plateau or something? Good grief. RQ-4A variant was sent there in the last week probably just after or just before the tanker attacks, to provide, you know, high resolution situational awareness as to what was going on in the Strait of Hormuz. In other words exactly what you'd use a maritime subservience aircraft for.

To observe things.

On the water.

:|

See, if I was Iranian, I wouldn't care what you think it is. US drones have been responsinble for a metric ton of civilian deaths. More so than terrorists, I'd wager. I wouldn't presume it was a nice spy drone, either. I'd shoot that thing down and deal with the repercussions later. That the US has no concept of a measured response and instantly starts air strikes to targets with 150 people that only gets blown off at the last second is not the Iranian's being unreasonable. That's the US going maximum escalation. That's on you.

I know it makes it easy for the argument - the easy route you took like a pro without addressing the alternative - if it was somehow not a maritime-centric platform. In fact it was one of two prototype variants of the RQ-4A made entirely as a proof of concept for the dedicated MQ-4C Triton it was originally reported as, which is intended to JUST be maritime patrol aircraft.

I know it makes it easy for the argument if this water-looking aircraft was somehow in Iranian air space doing nefarious things, where there is, you know, no water. Funny then the Navy just released a video showing the shoot down. Over international waters.

If a country feels threatened, it's not their job to write you about their feels and emotions. They can just shoot that drone down and that's that.

The fact is, the argument you made actually makes my argument. This thing you state - that the US doesn't shot down aircraft because it KNOWS what they are doing. Not quite. More often the opposite is true. Yeah for the "show of force" patrols, it's all an old ritual. They come up to a border, we intercept, the aircraft salute and they leave. But often also does the US encounter Russian and Chinese Aircraft that are doing spy missions. That we don't know what they're doing. Did you know the Russia flies spy aircraft and sails ships into international waters off the US East Coast on a regular basis. I bet you didn't. They've been doing it for decades, just soaking up whatever electronic signals they can coming from sites of interest in the US. But beyond the generalities of "it's a Russian ship, doing something", we don't know exactly what.

That you and the Russians like to spy on each other is your thing, I honestly don't see why any country has to allow any other country to spy on them. And since the Russians did shoot your spy plane down and you've got SAM launches on your spy planes as a regular occurance over the decades, I don't think this concept is entirely alien to you. Albeit, I understand that it fucks your argument up in a rather inconvenient way right now. Spying like this? Not normal. It is an aggressive move and you would do well not to downplay this, because it's you that's whinging about the drone. Not the Iranians, who haven't said much about the entire issue so far.

So what do countries do? They don't fire on each other. This norm you're trying to establish, where merely having military aircraft (or ships) in international commons off the coast of countries we're hostile with is now defined down as aggression and Iran has a right to respond the way they did, is horse shit. And you insisting it is so does not make it any less horse shit, because factually, countries do not regularly shoot at each other period. And they don't do so for exactly the reason I describe. Because the most conservative thing to do when you don't know, is to do nothing.

Of course they do. Russia, Lybia, Korea, Vietnam... US planes have been shot at so often that your statement is rather comical. Having your assets near a country is an aggressive move. Why do you think NATO is planting assets around the Russian border? It's to send them an aggressive signal as to where the line in the sand is. Russians are not happy about it, why do you think that is? Because it's accepted international practice?

Now, unlike you, I'm quite okay with saying it's an aggressive act and the US is fine being the aggressor. But they should stop behaving like children and deal with the fact that if you play with flames, sometimes you get burned. Toughen up and take the hit without crying like a girl. This is embarassing.

Shooting down things you "don't know" what they're doing? That's how you get MH17 by the way. My prefered theory for the past 5 years, that Dutch prosecutors just backed up, was that MH17 was shot down largely due to incompetence. Because Russia and its proxies were spending two months shooting down Ukrainian helicopters and cargo aircraft in order to keep the fight on the ground, where Russian forces could more easilly tilt the outcome towards the proxies. When they shot at MH17, they thought it was just another Ukrainian cargo aircraft, like the one they downed the month before. They didn't know, so they pulled the trigger. It wasn't nefarious. It was stupidity and recklessness.

Not sure what MH17 has to do with this. The Iranians don't have a history at shooting SAM missiles indiscriminantly at stuff. They have targetted a very specific target. As an alternative to the P-8 Poseidon that was flying nearby. I mean, that point hasn't been refuted yet, has it? I'd call that a very specific message, a slap on the wrist if you like. Understand the message. Understand that Iran may be a bit smarter about shit than you think they are.

And that's what normalizing the thing you're describing would lead to. If aircraft's intentions weren't known, they'd be free to get shot down. And what happens when they do make their intentions known and the voice on the other side doesn't believe them, and fires anyway?

Now a few more things I want to address specifically.

Then perhaps you don't fly in that area. You don't get to make global policy rules by force. You get everyone to agree with you and then you enforce them. Otherwise, we're back at why the fuck did you intervene in WW2? Germany was just making policy. No reason for you to get involved... wait what? Hypocrisy you say? Yeah, it is. You still want to maintain the point that the US should be world ruler? There's not many faster ways to lose the little rest of credibility you still have left.

But fundamentally, Trump is saying stupidly something Americans have been saying for years. European defense is not sufficient for EVEN European defense. You have Typhoons - great aircraft, but most of them cannot fly. You don't have enough AIM-120Ds or MBDA Meteors to actually shoot things down in using them. Germany makes great tanks and artillery - some of the best in the world really - and then keeps so few that they would be largely wiped out in the first few hours by Russian artillery and aircraft. The UK goes and retires ships less than halfway through their service life. And then goes and buys other ships that don't have air defense missiles to defend them from the thing most likely to blow them up.

I'm not saying a conflict with Russia where you need all those AIM-120Ds or tanks is exceedingly likely. But the act of not having them, and then claiming "Europe is not our playground" is farcical. You don't have those things, because you expect the US taxpayer to fill in the gaps. Like we did in Libya when the UK and France started to run out of things to drop and shoot. Because it'll be US F-22s and F-35s that protect Berlin from Russian cruise missiles, not Eurofighters that can't fly, and have nothing to shoot.

You want harsh truths? These are harsh truths. Donald Trump's a moron, and the US commitment to European security is unwavering. But European passivity, merely annoying in the 2000s, is downright dangerous in this new era of Great Power competition most of you folk haven't fully accepted we're now living in. Really. Fuck your history. Buy a lot of guns (so to speak), and become proficient at using them. Then we can start having a conversation about European security more on the level of a true partnership.

In fact, it's going to have to happen, because while Europe is more important than the Middle East to American security in the 21st century, it's a distant second to the Indo-Pacific region, which is getting our best platforms and our newest technologies soonest.

We don't have those things, because we don't feel threatened. Russia isn't going to attack Europe. That's a hawkish dream of reestablishing the cold war doctrines of the 80s, but really... Russia is an impotent player in global politics. They are a regional power on their best day and most of us are ignoring them and quietly extending sanctions, like we just have once more. Unlike the US, now that I come to think of it. How's the US sanctions going? See, all that posturing has little effect than strengthening Putin's position. But what hurts him actually are sanctions.

But please, tell me how we need to buy more American war toys.

Really. What would have been your response if Obama did what I wanted, and sent as many weapons to kill Russian troops as possible to Ukraine and utterly fuck with the Russian military? Or if he did what I wanted and mined the NATO-Russian border. Or if the CIA murdered every Russian internet agency operative involved in the 2016 election attacks in their bed?

My response would be "Oh, look, the US still know a just fight and don't just go blow up random countries in the Middle East." The Crimea Crisis was more akin to Kuwait than the second Iraq war. Yet, you were still busy fucking up other countries at the time, so I get it, you can't play with your toys everywhere, you have to pick your playgrounds.

This isn't the first time the US dropped the ball, btw. And more often than not, recently, they are dropping balls all over the place. The US is clueless, without orientation and more anger than every before. You need to calm the fuck down. Fast. You're literally pissing the whole world off. And if that continues, in 50 years you will be alone, telling yourself that you're the only country "doing it right".

I generally speaking, agree with part of what you're saying in a way that will likely horrify you. The US has presumed it's superpower-hood isolates it from consequences of aggressive action by adversaries to a much greater degree than it actually does. The US CHOOSES to not act because it presumes that acting - the sleeping colossus bestriding the world once again - would disrupt a status quo that generally favors it. I have long believed that this position ignores the cumulative corrosion on that status quo brought on by inaction. The few times in recent history the US has reminded the world of deterrence, it brought positive effects to US, regional and global stability.

We very much live in a "give an inch, and they'll take a mile" kind of world. Deterrence is to make disruptive actors not even wanting to take that inch, because they'd be afraid of losing a mile.

We actually live in a "Look, everyone can see you talk bullshit live on the internet" kind of age. The US is horribly incompetent in espionage, warfare and diplomacy. They make up for it by throwing money at the problems, but the more you observe the US, the more you realise the chain of disasters folloing in your wake. And you begin to wonder... what's worse, an ageing dictator oppressing his own people slightly or the US fucking up the region so millions of people are displaced and one or two new generations of super hardcore terrorists is bred inflicting lasting damage to the European political landscape, one of the few allies the US has.

The US is not isolated because of it's superpower-hood, it's isolated because the US is the most arrogant nation on the planet at the moment. Think British Empire at its height. That's you. The pushback is inevitable. And Europe will let it happen. We've seen it before. Most of our nations have done it before. We know how this works, and we know you'll learn the lesson eventually. All we're doing is attempt to make sure it doesn't need a world war for you to learn. That's how good a friend we actually are, despite the abuse we get from the US on a regular basis.

Fortunately, the US is getting very much back in the conventional deterrence game. The two strikes on Syria since 2017 showed that. Wiping out 300 Russian paramilitaries last year showed that. The US sailing larger flotillas through the South China Sea on a regular basis shows that. And stuff we don't talk about here - like how the US just quietly let out its has been working on two different conventional prompt global strike air launched cruise missiles for the last few years and is flight testing them both - engenders a response from its target audience, Russian and Chinese defense ministries, that encourages deterrence.

And we're back to cold war speech. Who are you deterring? Fanatical terrorists? No, you're not. They were defeated in a long and unnecessary ground war by mostly not-us forces. You did jack shit except of course create the problem in the first place... but we'll talk about that later.

Now let's briefly address this "geopolitics" claim you make. I mean that's a matter of perspective. The US position relative everyone EXCEPT China is significantly enhanced since 2000. The gap has widened as our economic, technological and military power has increased, despite (or in response) to the War on Terror and the financial crisis. The US economy is, after all, in the 10th year of its expansion. Meanwhile Russia's GDP has been cut in half and Europe's been in and out of recession, currency / debt crisis, and now a political crisis. The emerging global order is one where there is the US and China as near peers, then about ten light years of space, then everyone else. In "fucking up geopolitics", I mean, again, it depends what you're referring to. I've personally said repeatedly I view the War on Terror as every bit the "imperial disaster" as Napoleon's Russian adventure. I think historians will view it like that. America killed its post-Cold War unipolar moment, because of "goatherders" as you put it. But a funny thing happened on the way to a multipolar world. Everyone not named China managed to (relatively) screw it up harder, and were not positioned to exploit the end of the unipolar moment, and then the US rebounded, and it was too late to lock in gains. And low and behold, here we are - the emerging return to dual-superpower conflict.

The balls to come here and boast about your economy? Europe was doing fine. Our biggest mistake was being too closely linked to the US, because all our problems, ALL OF THEM, have been caused by the US. Economic crisis? 2008 crash originating in the US, thanks for that... refugee crisis? US invading Iraq against our advice and warnings. Gee, thanks for that.. MATE. The current political crisis? That's the backlash to refugees coming from the area the US destabilised. And you should ask what duping Tony Blair into following you into your mad adventure did for the British landscape... I won't go as far as saying the US aided Brexit, but don't make me look for it, because I'm sure I'll find enough US actors pushing for Brexit, your bloody President being one of them.

No, you don't get to boast. Because you're ruthlessly riding to success on the back of your allies. A bit of humility and fucking self-reflection wouldn't hurt you. Your geopolitical influence is dwindeling. But you'll find out about that once the economic network the EU is weaving these days is further along.

The US has had bad decades before Slant. Nothing the US has been through in our life times is likely to compare to the geopolitical calamity that was the 1950s, as far as US geopolitics fuckery is concerned. You realize that was probably the worst decade for US security (World War II aside) in US history? It was basically 12 years (with the "1950s spilling out into the first few years of 1960s) of constant losses.

Anyway, you're likely to get your wish. The US won't be taking on much in the way of goat herders anymore. I doubt the European response will be more encouraging.

I'm not interested in US losses or winnings. This isn't a zero sum game. You can win by improving the world for everyone. And not bulllying everyone into accepting you as world ruler is probably a good first step. So yes, I'd be delighted if you stopped messing with the Middle East. Because by now, honest to god, you've inflicted more damage than the British in that region. And that's saying something...

The Iranian regime is highly rational. They're religious fundamentalists in ideology, but politically, but they are not a cult. That's the kind of thing folks who want us to be Israel's eternal shield say. That they can't be bargained with or talked to.

They absolutely can.

I firmly believe a more productive relationship with Iran is possible.

How about you don't walk out of the first useful deal they have then?

I'm not overly concerned with the lives of enemy troops, particularly IRGC troops.

You do realize the IRGC was directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths and maiming of many US troops during the occupation of Iraq right? The UN authorized, entirely legal multinational peacekeeping and stability force. Much of the Shia-side of the insurgency were Iranian proxies, backed by Quuds force. You think those EFPs were made in garages? They were stamped out in factories in Iran in secreted across the border.

So no. Not particularly concerned with the lives of 150 Iranian troops, beyond the fact that killing them may be too escalatory in order to de-escalate. 5 or 10? Yeah that's probably more proportionate. 150, and we'd be asking for IRGC agents to retaliate by blowing up a jetliner somewhere, rather than pushing the situation to a de-escalation direction.

Oh, so you occupied a nation illegally and now you're actually whinging to me about your soldiers being harmed? Do you even have any sense of morality? Don't invade other countries, don't get killed. It's really simple.

I didn't want the US to withdraw from the Iran deal. I thought we should stay.

Don't get me wrong. I though the deal was ENTIRELY insufficient and Obama never should have agreed to it without it going for at least 20 or 30 years, and including Ballistic Missile technology. I think Obama wanted it too badly as a legacy item. I think the way he acted as Iran's lawyer was disgusting. Perhaps most offensive to me is how domestically his staff tried to portray an executive agreement as a treaty with their use of language.

But an imperfect deal is better than no deal, and a deal is a deal, and the US made a massive mistake leaving it.

But that boat has sailed, and now we need to push Iran to a new negotiation, and this time their ballistic missile program has to be part of it.

And yet, you walked out on the deal. Whether you like it or not, that's what happened. You may regret it, but really, I don't judge Americans as individuals. As a collective entity, you all bear responsibility. That's how the cookie crumbles. Make sure you fix that mistake in 2020.

I've really never cared about that. It's been clear for years the world at large hasn't a clue as to the right way to address global security concerns. That's why proposals to expanding the UN Security Council has always been a joke. It should be the US, Germany, Japan, India, China, Russia, France, the UK, Brazil, Egypt, South Africa and nobody else.

Global security is not a democracy.

And now we come to the bit I'm really here for. "The right way"? What's that? Whatever the US says? No mate, you don't get to rule the world like that. The main security of the world is not Russia, because frankly, Crimea is not important enough. It's not China, because... again, Taiwan is not important enough. The main concern? It's the US rampaging through the world whenever they feel like creating a distraction or just want to vent their paranoid anger at something. Nothing like a good and righteous war for a just cause... You are turning into the baddies, mate. You need to calm the fuck down. I've said it before, I will say it again.

And no, global security is not a democracy. That's why we won't follow you into Iran. Because at this stage, I have little doubt about US intentions. I expect a war or conflict to break out before 2020. Yes, the US is that predictable these days. And you're not nearly as clever as you think you are. We're just too polite to point it out every single time.

- - - Updated - - -

Russia was so scared of Hillary, they got Trump elected. Trump isn’t acting on fear, but greed and flattery getting you everywhere. Before Trump, we had no issue kicking out Russian spies and enforcing sanctions. In fact, wasn’t the fear that Hillary would start WW3, still a major talking point?

Only among Americans... which says a lot about Americans, I guess...

[Slant]

Your European is showing.

Fuck. This is exactly what is wrong with Europe. We are the actual center of the world and when hard choices that affect the security balance of the entire world come up we act like a class of school children when the teacher asks who wants to do their presentation first. Everyone just stares at their desk and when someone steps up we call them a nerd.

The US is absolutely in need of a memento mori, but they are not wrong in their desire to fight fire with overwhelming fire. If the drone was in international air space when it was fired upon, the US has every right, and should, retaliate against a military target. Otherwise next time it won't be an unarmed drone that gets targeted.

The only thing the US is doing, is drag out ideological wars. If you got a problem with Iran, and you don't give a fuck about international laws, just go in and destroy Iran. Everyone knows it would be a piece of cake for the US. So what's this dancing around for then? Oh right, the guilty conscience. Because it wouldn't be right to just go in.

Because fuck knows what else they're doing there except look for a fight. They sure as hell can't prevent tankers from being attacked, it seems. So you tell me, what good is intelligence on a far inferior opponent the US pretty much knows all about already? Do you really think a few pictures of the joke that the Iranian Navy is is going to be of much advantage to a conventional army bigger than the next 5 countries combined have?

Do you actually think the US needs to know if there's 3 or 5 ships in the straits if they're going to pretty much win the war within a week, plus two more to mop the remains up?

And most importantly, do you actually think the US gives a shit about a Japanese and a Norwegian tanker? No, I don't, either. The US is bullying, is all. And for what? Iran didn't walk out of the deal, the US did. It's like speaking to ISIS terrorists... why do you blow up people in Paris? No reason, we just want to do it. What can we do to stop you from doing it? You can stop existing.

So, USA... why are you antagonising Iran? No, reason other than we can do it. And what do you want to get out of it? We want them to stop existing and turn into the US pet country they used to be.

And don't give me that pretentious new world order bullshit.

[Slant]

You can't be that fucking naive, that you don't recognize what value that Intel gathered by such drones is. Yes, the US needs to know how many ships the joke of an Iranian navy has. Only an idiot doesn't take everything that is available. The US nor the EU needs to be so fucking humble as EU likes to pretend.

I'm not saying that US needs to invade Iran over a drone. I'm saying that if Iran shot down US drone in international airspace/waters, the US needs to blow up some Iranian military asset in return. A balance must be maintained.

And guess what? Answering military actions with appropriate force fucking works. Remember how everyone was shitting themselves over Turkey blowing Russian fighter the fuck out of the sky and thinking it was going to escalate into war? Remember what happened? Fucking nothing except Russia stopped violating Turkish airspace.

Oh, go right ahead and blow up an Iranian drone over international waters. That'd be a respectable response. And much preferable over this whining. But attacking facilities with 150 people in them? If you think that's an equal response, I've got a lecture about people regarding other people as subhumans coming for you, friend.

[Skroe]

Then why is your President doing everything he can to pick a fight with Iran? After it was him that basically walked away from an agreement that was supposed to be the basis for a peaceful resolution? I'm not talking about what YOU would do. I'm talking about what your nation IS doing.

My nation is doing basically nothing. Donald Trump is ranting on twitter, but we're not doing anything particularly unusual. The Iran deal (with regards to the US) has been defunct for over a year now. Trump's on this thing because he's losing on all fronts at home, lost on North Korea. Is underwater for re-election. He doesn't know what the hell to do.

But what has the US actually done? Nothing unusual. It was Iran that attacked those foreign (not American) tankers that precipitated that. It was Iran that shot down our drone in international waters. And the US response so far has been a cyber attack that disabled Iranian command and control.

I'd really take it down a notch. As I said, this is all going to be a distant memory by the time WoW Classic is out. This isn't even a crisis. It's an exciting few days in current events.

No joke. You justify the attack on 150 people with an unmanned drone. If that's not a hawkish viewpoint, I don't know what is. Prudence? Paranoia more like it.

And that's simply because you don't accept escalate-to-descalate and seem to completely thing deterrence is illegitimate as a principle (which no offense, is nutty and flies in the face of about 120 years of military history), which is squarely a "you" thing. Definitionally, a hawk would be looking for expanding a conflict. I'm explaining and advocating for an avenue out of one. And yes, it is a solution to give someone a hard shove before you start breaking bones.

As I said, 150 people is probably too disproportionate, and outside the bounds of escalate-to-escalate. But deterrence must be upheld somehow. Hopefully the damage US Cyber Command inflicted on Iranian command and control is enough deterrence.

You've got it backwards. I don't mind you swimming around wherevery you want, pissing in everyone's pool and shit. But since you are out there, don't start whinging when your shit gets shot down. You're not at home. You're in basically other people's backyard. Don't be a peeping tom where you're not wanted if you don't want your shit get shot down. And if it's shot down, man up and take the loss instead of throwing a temper tantrum because someone dared to shoot one of your drones down.

Shooting down another country's property in international commons is outrageous and exceedingly rare nowdays. I mean I understand the principle you're saying, and even have advocated for that when the US gets involved in difficult situations But the norm that travel through international commons is safe is fundamental to the modern world. This emotive thing you're describing would undermine that.

I don't think you quite understand the broader implications of the statement you're making. We're going to get to that in the next few paragraphs..

See, if I was Iranian, I wouldn't care what you think it is. US drones have been responsinble for a metric ton of civilian deaths. More so than terrorists, I'd wager. I wouldn't presume it was a nice spy drone, either. I'd shoot that thing down and deal with the repercussions later. That the US has no concept of a measured response and instantly starts air strikes to targets with 150 people that only gets blown off at the last second is not the Iranian's being unreasonable. That's the US going maximum escalation. That's on you.

You know what one of the more hilarious parts of this episode is? Everyone who doesn't want a war with Iran seems to think the military of Iran (specifically the IRGC) is unprofessional and its leaderships complete idiots who don't know anything. And everyone who is saying "we need to uphold deterrence and respond in a measured way" is treating the enemy like their rational, intelligent, experienced people.

Iran knows what a goddamn RQ-4A is, lol. They've only been flying for 20 years. They've seen them. At the very least, they have wikipedia and read the article. These are not idiots. They know what an RQ-4A is versus MQ-9 versus a P-8. In fact, that was one of the statements the Iranian government made - that they chose to shoot the unmanned RQ-4A rather than the manned P-8 (the P-8, a 737 derivative, is designed to work in tandem with the RQ-4A BAMS-D and MQ-4C Triton).

They know a RQ-4 isn't armed. In fact, it's very likely as I said at the start, the IRGC probably did this of their own initiative, without informing or asking the permission of the Clerics or the Iranian Government.

If a country feels threatened, it's not their job to write you about their feels and emotions. They can just shoot that drone down and that's that.

That you and the Russians like to spy on each other is your thing, I honestly don't see why any country has to allow any other country to spy on them. And since the Russians did shoot your spy plane down and you've got SAM launches on your spy planes as a regular occurrence over the decades, I don't think this concept is entirely alien to you. Albeit, I understand that it fucks your argument up in a rather inconvenient way right now. Spying like this? Not normal. It is an aggressive move and you would do well not to downplay this, because it's you that's whinging about the drone. Not the Iranians, who haven't said much about the entire issue so far.

Okay you see... this is just like... not right. I don't know what to tell you. You want to know why countries allow each other to spy? Because a full court press to stop that practice by one country would lead to an escalatory spiral.

We know this. Why? It's been tried. Do you know the Hainan Island incident? Short version. Back in April 2001, an un-escorted US EP-3 signals intelligence aircraft was spying on China by soaking up signals in international waters. Pretty routine stuff. Everybody does it. China sends up a couple J-8M fighters to try and intimidate it away. Not the US salute and escort out. Dangerous manuevers to force it out of airspace. One of the Chinese pilots fucks up and collide shis plane with the EP-3, which has to make an emergency landing on Hainan Island where its crew are guests of the Chinese government for 10 days and the aircraft dissected by China for intelligence.

Following the collision, the US sent it's spy aircraft to do the same mission with armed fighter escorts. Message was: try that shit again. China got the message. They could have elected to send more aircraft up and let the escalatory spiral continue, or they could walk it down. They chose to stop harassing US aircraft, rather than risk getting in a confrontation with armed escorts.

So to counter your point,in the real world episode of "not tolerating spying", which China did not, the response on the other side was to spy, but this time with weapons to defend themselves with. So you see, if countries don't tolerate un-armed spying, the resolution isn't the end of spying, it's instead, "armed" spying. And this isn't the first time something like this happened.

But the larger issue is that international commons being a place of safe travel is a modern fundamental standard of international relations, and if countries have to start defending themselves against, let's call it "counter attack", then not only does that standard die and international travel become very dangerous, it also leads to a spiral of hostilities that really, nobody wants. Because the signals the US picks up when they do it, or Russia picks up with then do it, or China picks up when they do it, are not worth getting into a war over, on anybody's part. So call it a gentleman's agreement if you like.


There's more to this, but we're going to get to that shortly.

Of course they do. Russia, Lybia, Korea, Vietnam... US planes have been shot at so often that your statement is rather comical. Having your assets near a country is an aggressive move. Why do you think NATO is planting assets around the Russian border? It's to send them an aggressive signal as to where the line in the sand is. Russians are not happy about it, why do you think that is? Because it's accepted international practice?

Um, actually US aircraft haven't been shot at recently at all. Last time en-masse was really during the Iraq invasion, and before that during the Kosovo War, and before that during the Gulf War. Korea and Vietnam were 50 and 60 years ago, in a very, very different world.

Shooting down each others shit basically does not happen. It does not happen to the point that last year, when Houthi rebels in Yemen launched several anti-ship missiles at US warships in the Arabian Sea, it was the first time a US warship ever needed to engage it's Aegis missile defense system in a real world hostile situation. It's never happened. In 30 years, the US Navy has never had to have an Aegis destroyer or cruiser launch SM-2s or SM-6s to intercept incoming misiles to defend a ship or aircraft, ever. Tens of billions of dollars. The best air defense system in the world. And not used once in an actual defensive situation until this last year.

Because countries do not shoot at each other in international commons. They simply do not do it.

Now, unlike you, I'm quite okay with saying it's an aggressive act and the US is fine being the aggressor. But they should stop behaving like children and deal with the fact that if you play with flames, sometimes you get burned. Toughen up and take the hit without crying like a girl. This is embarassing.

I mean frankly, your latent anti-Americanism is just coming through because the world you think is fair (see above) and the world you're wanting to, in your eyes, defend (see below) are entirely in conflict. The irony is, what I'm saying, is far more in sync with the world you want.

There is no liberal internationalist globalized world, where people can travel freely, trade enriches everyone, and cultures and countries share the bounty of this good earth peacefully, if the norms of the international commons are not upheld. It wouldn't exist. Because the next thing would go would be the UN Law of the Sea, and all of a sudden it would be imperative for all powerful countries to push their defensive perimeters as far out as they can. More on that too in a minute.

The part missing from your bit on why the US should get a bloody nose from this, is that Iran flagrantly violated an international norm to do it and have to be held to account. You don't want this to be the norm. It blows up your entire world, so to speak, in about 10 years if it is.

Not sure what MH17 has to do with this. The Iranians don't have a history at shooting SAM missiles indiscriminantly at stuff. They have targetted a very specific target. As an alternative to the P-8 Poseidon that was flying nearby. I mean, that point hasn't been refuted yet, has it? I'd call that a very specific message, a slap on the wrist if you like. Understand the message. Understand that Iran may be a bit smarter about shit than you think they are.

Then perhaps you don't fly in that area. You don't get to make global policy rules by force. You get everyone to agree with you and then you enforce them. Otherwise, we're back at why the fuck did you intervene in WW2? Germany was just making policy. No reason for you to get involved... wait what? Hypocrisy you say? Yeah, it is. You still want to maintain the point that the US should be world ruler? There's not many faster ways to lose the little rest of credibility you still have left.

And neither did the Russians. And then they did. And neither did the Chinese (with reference to the Hianan Island incident). And then they did.

Perhaps don't fly in that area. You do realize that Russian S-400 air defences, which they are marketing to Iran and countries like it, fire missiles whose radius is the half the Middle East right? You do realize that a US SM-6 with its newer booster has a 300 miles range. You do realize that the US and Germanys next generation tactical missile and air defense systems will have ranges on the order of 800 miles. The range of an SM-3, albeit it a ballistic missile defense weapon, is over 2500 kilometers.

Sudeenly "don't fly into that area" means "don't fly". And that includes up to about 110,000 feet or so too.

MH17 is the bellweather of the type of episode you may think is irrelevant but it is the entire point of why the saftey of international commons, for whatever traffic, has to be upheld. This time the IRGC expertly picked a drone. Next time, it may be some idiot who doesn't know the difference between a RQ-4A and a B-52, or a B-52 and a 777. This thing you think is "fair" - that firing on perceived "hostile" aircraft to ward off spying, which you define as a level of aggression it simply is not - will lead to more MH17s as soon as some goon with an itch trigger figures fires as something he thinks is a bomber but is really a jetliner.

And with the range of missiles now, and moreover in coming years, that pretty much means you don't get to fly through the Eastern Mediterranean anymore. Or central Europe to anywhere out east.. I hope you like trains.

And to your second point in this quote, the US has underwritten the rules based international order since World War II, and largely allowed it to operate through a Western and later global consensus. We don't press the things that benefit us that, by right of power and desire, we could.

Should we?

Because here's the thing. The US in good faith has worked to build an enduring international system that mitigates the risk of a World War III (nuclear or non-nuclear) between its greatest powers. And it's record is quite clear. 70 years, and no more global wars. Hell, not even conflicts between powers on the scale of what went on between them in the 120 years before World War I. The system works. We built it. It is our legacy to the world. The world certainly does not agree with all the things we've done in it, or how we built it. But the fact the fact is, there has been no global war, and that is our victory.

So we can take the cheap shots you offer about things like "the credibility you still have left". Yes. Oh those zingers. Such currency. Until serious things start happening. Until all you little people.... you little countries of 20 to 80 million whose GDPs are the size of US states start to realize that individually you don't have the resources to respond to something, and collectively you don't have the infrastructure or will to act. and then it falls to us again.

So enjoy your zingers Slant. It's really all our Europeans friends have ever and will ever have when the chips are down.

We don't have those things, because we don't feel threatened. Russia isn't going to attack Europe. That's a hawkish dream of reestablishing the cold war doctrines of the 80s, but really... Russia is an impotent player in global politics. They are a regional power on their best day and most of us are ignoring them and quietly extending sanctions, like we just have once more. Unlike the US, now that I come to think of it. How's the US sanctions going? See, all that posturing has little effect than strengthening Putin's position. But what hurts him actually are sanctions.

No. You don't have those things because you're cheap. You dress it up in a bunch of nonsense about how you don't feel threatened. But you go back over a decade, when Rumsfeld was proposing to move the bulk of US forces to Eastern Europe, and all of a sudden "Old Europe" as he ridiculous and insultingly called it started to wake up in a cold sweat at the mere thought of having to spend taxpayer dollars on things which kill people from other countries rather than domestic social spending. The fear of abandonment was palpable. Heaven forbid you have to buy your own toys and have your own chilldren play with them.

It's not like you folks don't make them. You're enthusiastic military exporters. Germany hasn't maintained its position as one of the world's top tank, artillery and tank gun makers just by sitting on a 40 year old rep from the late Cold War.

It's that your political leaders don't want to spend the political capital to forge a political consensus to push military expansion. It's that's, Germany aside, most European countries are having a hell of a time keeping their budgets remotely balanced between their social programs and high tax rates as is, and don't have much flex in the way of paying for military expansion.

You may not feel threatened. Europe does. Your political leaders keep pushing for more and more from the US as part of buttressing European defense. The F-35, after years of being maligned, seems to be finding a lot of fans in Europe. Hell last week a mock up of a Eurofighter successor that looks like the son-of-F-22 was debuted. You don't need stealth if you're doing civil air patrols, Slant. You can buy some 3rd hand F-5Es for that job. You need stealth if you're going to fly into Russia and shoot at Russians, or defend against Russians coming to you.

The tell tale sign of how wrong you are about how Europe feels really comes down to what they're buying. They're all buying things to defend against high-level threats. Missiles, and bombers and submarines. Not terrorists. The problem is, they're buying at like 50% and calling it quites. It's the half assed nature of it that's the tell. Like the UK replacing their current frigates with half the number of Global Combat Ships? Or Germany having dozens of Eurofighters (producing jobs while buying them) but having a handful only flyable despite them being young aircraft?

Don't get me wrong, the US shouldn't change one thing about European defense. But, and I say this basically chuckingly, Europeans never get to lecture the US on security issues. You folks are perennially 10 steps behind and fourteen days late to the game. And we've long since accepted that. And we truly value what you offer, really. But we live in a world where the US could send two "Rapid Raptor" packages to Germany (each one being a C-17 + four F-22s) and suddenly Germany would double its number of advanced tactical fighters. That's ridiculous. Get your shit flying, lol.

But please, tell me how we need to buy more American war toys.

No. You need to buy more European war toys. In fact, America needs to buy more European War toys (chances are, our new frigate will be a European design).

But more than that, you need to just repair the shit you already have and give them some legs. Is it so much to ask you people to have enough bombs and missiles to not run out of a few days of fighting? I don't think it is. I'm not asking you to build an aircraft carrier. I'm saying, a situation where you have dozens of Eurofighters, like five can fly, and you have basically no ordinance for them, is the dumbest thing.

Like for fucks sake, this isn't even asking all that much. One year. Just buy a lot of bombs and missiles and put them in a warehouse somewhere. And get those Eurofighters flying. It'll at least *show* seriousness.

If it's any consultation, it'll be enriching German and French arms makers more than anyone.

My response would be "Oh, look, the US still know a just fight and don't just go blow up random countries in the Middle East." The Crimea Crisis was more akin to Kuwait than the second Iraq war. Yet, you were still busy fucking up other countries at the time, so I get it, you can't play with your toys everywhere, you have to pick your playgrounds.

I mean, the US was pretty much doing nothing at that point besides its little ISIS War hobby. It was mostly about Obama not wanting to do it. It was not a popular decision stateside.

This isn't the first time the US dropped the ball, btw. And more often than not, recently, they are dropping balls all over the place. The US is clueless, without orientation and more anger than every before. You need to calm the fuck down. Fast. You're literally pissing the whole world off. And if that continues, in 50 years you will be alone, telling yourself that you're the only country "doing it right".

I mean, frankly, we look at the world, and it's hard to say you people are "doing it right". You're German. Germany mostly has its shit together. It's like the exception. Most of the world is not Germany. Most of Europe does not have its shit together. Brexit. The Italian, Greek and simmering Turkish financial crisises. China under Xi Jinping, which is running actual fucking Stalinist reeducation camps. Russia... well.... being Russia.

Where's this wisdom in the world? I have nothing but respect for all the peoples and cultures in the world, but seriously, don't think for a moment that outside of like six or seven countries on Earth, there is a political class that has something remotely resembling an informed opinion on global affairs. Germany is one of those five, so you're privleged. But what the government of Argentina thinks on global security doesn't really matter.

The US will always drop the ball somewhere. We're the colossus astride the world. We fuck up. Our failures having impacts are a consequence of being big.

We actually live in a "Look, everyone can see you talk bullshit live on the internet" kind of age. The US is horribly incompetent in espionage, warfare and diplomacy. They make up for it by throwing money at the problems, but the more you observe the US, the more you realise the chain of disasters folloing in your wake. And you begin to wonder... what's worse, an ageing dictator oppressing his own people slightly or the US fucking up the region so millions of people are displaced and one or two new generations of super hardcore terrorists is bred inflicting lasting damage to the European political landscape, one of the few allies the US has.

Yeah not a word you wrote here is actually serious. Really. I've heard this exact crap going back to the 1990s.

And then the US invades Iraq or bombs Libya over a damn weekend and everyone forgets their zingers for a few months.

The US is not isolated because of it's superpower-hood, it's isolated because the US is the most arrogant nation on the planet at the moment. Think British Empire at its height. That's you. The pushback is inevitable. And Europe will let it happen. We've seen it before. Most of our nations have done it before. We know how this works, and we know you'll learn the lesson eventually. All we're doing is attempt to make sure it doesn't need a world war for you to learn. That's how good a friend we actually are, despite the abuse we get from the US on a regular basis.

Been hearing this one forever too. History went in the other direction. The push back never came. You all retrenched.

And we're back to cold war speech. Who are you deterring? Fanatical terrorists? No, you're not. They were defeated in a long and unnecessary ground war by mostly not-us forces. You did jack shit except of course create the problem in the first place... but we'll talk about that later.

China. The only plot line of the 21st century that matters is the US-Chinese fight for the shape of the international order heading into the 22nd century.

The War on Terror... these brushfire wars and dumb spats. Meaningless. It's the US and China, and everyone else is the studio audience watching what is going to be one of the biggest fights between two peer level powers in human history.

It is going to be worse, and harder, than the US-Soviet Cold War. And it's already changing the world in ways nobody who grew up in the 1990s and 2000s is going to feel comfortable.

The balls to come here and boast about your economy? Europe was doing fine. Our biggest mistake was being too closely linked to the US, because all our problems, ALL OF THEM, have been caused by the US. Economic crisis? 2008 crash originating in the US, thanks for that... refugee crisis? US invading Iraq against our advice and warnings. Gee, thanks for that.. MATE. The current political crisis? That's the backlash to refugees coming from the area the US destabilised. And you should ask what duping Tony Blair into following you into your mad adventure did for the British landscape... I won't go as far as saying the US aided Brexit, but don't make me look for it, because I'm sure I'll find enough US actors pushing for Brexit, your bloody President being one of them.

You bet I am. You know, it's rather funny. Just before the Financial Crisis one of the hot economic ideas of the time was this nonsense called "Economic decoupling", short version being, if the US caught a cold, only the US could get sick and everyone else would be fine. The Financial Crisis rapidly laid waste to that idiocy. And idiocy it was because the entire point of globalization was to build a truly global economic system, which includes a global financial systems. That means when one of the two big lungs of it got sick, the entire system got sick.

Do you understand? No whining. You weren't "too closely linked to the US". You were EXACTLY where you people intended to be.

But now why am I boasting? Because we engaged in strongly pro-growth policies - a trillion dollar stimulus, a modest tax cut and three rounds of quantitative easing. Simultaneously Europe decided to create a fiction called austerity. And austerity killed the European promise of the 00s. Almost every miserable thing that Europe is going through - the wipe out of the traditional center right/ center left parties, the political instability, the rise of the far right, the tepid growth, the stubborn unemployment rate, Brexit, the declining international influence - can be linked to continent wide austerity.

You did that to yourselves. The US fucks up. But we never have fucked up like Brexit (which is forever) and austerity.

So yeah, I'm boasting. The Obama Administration and the Fed executed a historically superb recovery policy that'll probably take this period of growth well into its 11th year. Europe's been a pretty shitting roller coaster.

No, you don't get to boast. Because you're ruthlessly riding to success on the back of your allies. A bit of humility and fucking self-reflection wouldn't hurt you. Your geopolitical influence is dwindeling. But you'll find out about that once the economic network the EU is weaving these days is further along.

Europeans love to say this because it makes them feel like they can punch above their own declined weight now that the European project hasn't gone... how shall we say... swell. But the fact is, Europe is not the world and your discontent with us does not reflect the breath of US influence. This is a common mistake Europeans make.

In Latin America, the Venezuelan crisis coupled with continental concerns about Chinese influence has lead to a repproachment between the US and our friends down there.

In the Middle East, Iranian and Russian interference in the Syrian conflict and in Yemen has done much the same. US-Egyptian relations are back to where they were.

In South Asia, our relationship with India is leaps and bounds ahead of where it was a decade ago. We're sharing strategic technologies and building India up to be an offset to China.

In the Indo-Pacific region, the US ambushed China at APEC 2018 with an announcement among its allies of a new strong of base building. The US just sold several Aegis Ashores to Japan and is re-opening a naval base in the Phillipines. It turns out as obnoxious as the US can be, countries in the area legit for China.

You don't like our attitude. I get. But the fact is, there is only one superpower in this world, the United States. And soon there will be a second, China. And the entire world is preparing for what that means. A regional player like the European Union will be important to ensure the liberal international order survives this titanic struggle, but the entire world has seen European dysfunction on display. You've seen my posts on Brexit. You know I'm solidly in Europe's camp on it. And you know I think the European Union has behaved rather brilliantly. But that's a informed person's perspective. Around the world, Brexit has been a warning against transnationalism and bureaucratic dysfunction. You aren't looking so hot.

I'm not interested in US losses or winnings. This isn't a zero sum game. You can win by improving the world for everyone. And not bulllying everyone into accepting you as world ruler is probably a good first step. So yes, I'd be delighted if you stopped messing with the Middle East. Because by now, honest to god, you've inflicted more damage than the British in that region. And that's saying something...

We're not bulling people into accepting us as world ruler. Believe me, if we were going to actually do that you know. And to be blunt, there wouldn't be much the world could do to stop it either.

No. The concern here is norms. The norm against nuclear proliferation in general (though again, I do not believe Iran is building a nuclear weapon or intends to anytime soon), and more pertinently to this crisis, the norm protecting the safety of travel in international commons.

How about you don't walk out of the first useful deal they have then?

We shouldn't have. I agree.


[QUOTE=Slant;51333551]
Oh, so you occupied a nation illegally and now you're actually whinging to me about your soldiers being harmed? Do you even have any sense of morality? Don't invade other countries, don't get killed. It's really simple.[/quote[
Under UN Resolution 1441 the invasion was legal.

Under UN Resolution 1483, passed 14-0-1, the occupation of Iraq was legalized. Germany voted in favor of that by the way. They were on the UNSC in 2003.

The Iraq War was a terrible mistake that never should have happened.

But it was manifestly legal.

And yet, you walked out on the deal. Whether you like it or not, that's what happened. You may regret it, but really, I don't judge Americans as individuals. As a collective entity, you all bear responsibility. That's how the cookie crumbles. Make sure you fix that mistake in 2020.

Oh don't worry, I'm waiting until we have the same old show all over again with President Joe Biden and his show down with Iran.

This isn't really about Trump. Or even the US. Or really even Iran interestingly enough. It's about an international community that's freezes up when upholding international norms.

Do you know why the US acts? Because you people, all 6.5 billion of you, are utterly incapable of it, and when told of this, you offer a littany of excuses.

This should not be hard. Iran shot down a non-stealthy, non-classified, hulking, slow US maritime drone in international airspace over international waters. Rather than confront Iran on doing something exceedingly dangerous and in violation of international norms, you folks have actually and hilariously spent the last few days trying to not say that too loudly and go "you know, maybe Iran is right and it got shot down over land in Iranian airspace, never mind the fact its a martime drone".

Honestly, this is going to keep happening, because the problems not with us. The problems with you people. You folks don't like how we manage global security, so you want to do more of it yourselves. Then the time comes to do it, and you don't know what to do. You're afraid of the risks, so you get caught in mental loops that prevent action. So you do nothing, and act surprise when further norm violations continue.

For fucks sake, just get out of the way, you 6.5 billion profoundly non-serious people who are so far out of their depth you should just stick to your little hamlets and old world cities and not worry too much about things outside of it, lol.

Jesus tap-dancing Christ.

And now we come to the bit I'm really here for. "The right way"? What's that? Whatever the US says? No mate, you don't get to rule the world like that. The main security of the world is not Russia, because frankly, Crimea is not important enough. It's not China, because... again, Taiwan is not important enough. The main concern? It's the US rampaging through the world whenever they feel like creating a distraction or just want to vent their paranoid anger at something. Nothing like a good and righteous war for a just cause... You are turning into the baddies, mate. You need to calm the fuck down. I've said it before, I will say it again.

Yeah that's a good joke. No, the greatest threat to the world right now is what the spill over is going to be from the US-Chinese New Cold War. Again, I really don't think you fully grasp the consequences of this. Do you realize there is a coming cleaving of technologies, just as there was during the US-Soviet Cold War. That international travel to some places is likely to become impossible. That global supply chains are ALREADY completely reorienting and over time will dramatically change the economic fortunes of third party countries.

You realize a global solution to climate change is basically impossible no matter WHAT American President gets elected or democratic Congress, because there is no way the US and Chinese come to terms on things like they did in the Paris Accord, in a very different world?

You realize that illiberalism is going to continue its spread and outright collapse functional democracies in Middle income and developing countries in coming years right? Think Poland or Turkey but worse. And China will make them allies.

Thinking that the US doing X Y and Z is so laughably 2000s, I don't know what to say. Europeans gripping at their pearls, hoping that the sunset of one era isn't truly a sunset but a mere cloud going over the sky is one of the more predictable and frankly, unhelpful features of this transition period we're in.

The US runs the world. China wants to run it and reshape it into an illiberal, Chinese-centric replacement. Welcome to the Thucydides trap. One of us will win and there will be no third party alternative.


[QUOTE=Slant;51333551]
And no, global security is not a democracy. That's why we won't follow you into Iran. Because at this stage, I have little doubt about US intentions. I expect a war or conflict to break out before 2020. Yes, the US is that predictable these days. And you're not nearly as clever as you think you are. We're just too polite to point it out every single time.
There's going to be no war in Iran. Period. It's not going to happen. Chill out. What you're doing is you're projecting. The US isn't anywhere close to war footing.

- - - Updated - - -

You can't be that fucking naive, that you don't recognize what value that Intel gathered by such drones is. Yes, the US needs to know how many ships the joke of an Iranian navy has. Only an idiot doesn't take everything that is available. The US nor the EU needs to be so fucking humble as EU likes to pretend.

I'm not saying that US needs to invade Iran over a drone. I'm saying that if Iran shot down US drone in international airspace/waters, the US needs to blow up some Iranian military asset in return. A balance must be maintained.

And guess what? Answering military actions with appropriate force fucking works. Remember how everyone was shitting themselves over Turkey blowing Russian fighter the fuck out of the sky and thinking it was going to escalate into war? Remember what happened? Fucking nothing except Russia stopped violating Turkish airspace.

The Turkish-Russian shoot down incident is the perfect example.

Escalate to de-escalate. Both countries took stock at how far a conflict could escalate if they wanted to continue down that path, and both countries decided to find a peaceful settlement.
@Slant, another great example for you

[Slant]

I don't consider any group of humans to be of less value or below others. We are all equally valuable. That being said, every single person who serves in which ever country's armed forces has already accepted that they might be killed in military action. It is actually one thing that I roll my eyes about when anyone laments the loss of soldiers' lives. Like, they made their peace with it the moment they joined or the moment they decided not to run away incase they were conscripted, you do too and get the fuck over it.

Attacking a facility with 150 members of the military would absolutely be fine. Attacking any hard target would be fine.

Conscripts, mate. That's a thing.

- - - Updated - - -

[...]

You do you. But don't expect anyone to cheer you for it.

[Skroe]

Conscripts, mate. That's a thing.

The IRGC almost certainly shot down the drone. And the IRGC probably didn't ask permission of the Clerics or the Government. Iran's government is complicated and the IRGC is power unto itself. The IRGC probably did the same thing with the tankers, as you'll recall my discussion there. They wanted to send a message to Khameni and the government, the same day the Prime Minister of Japan was there.

The IRGC does not have conscripts and is not the Iranian military. It's an ideological force.

In the modern Western world we forget this, largely due to our history since the Napoleonic Wars and the rise of "national armies". But before that, armed forces were largely ideological forces forever... sworn to a cause or a leader, but not the state. A modern example of this is the People's Liberation Army in China. De facto, it is the Chinese Military. We call it the Chinese Military. De jure, it is the military wing of the Communist Party of China, and its first allegiance is to the party, and not the state.

You do you. But don't expect anyone to cheer you for it.

Europeans... sneering at boorish, ignorant, short sighted, unsophisticated Americans since 1770.

No, we won't ever get cheered for anything (nor should we expect that). But again, you people are almost never right on the big picture, global security stuff.

I mean hell, even within NATO this is recognized. Yeah there is all 30 members, but once a week, the leaders of the NATO Quint - the US, France, UK, Germany and Italy - all have a conference call to actually run things.

[Slant]

The IRGC almost certainly shot down the drone. And the IRGC probably didn't ask permission of the Clerics or the Government. Iran's government is complicated and the IRGC is power unto itself. The IRGC probably did the same thing with the tankers, as you'll recall my discussion there. They wanted to send a message to Khameni and the government, the same day the Prime Minister of Japan was there.

The IRGC does not have conscripts and is not the Iranian military. It's an ideological force.

In the modern Western world we forget this, largely due to our history since the Napoleonic Wars and the rise of "national armies". But before that, armed forces were largely ideological forces forever... sworn to a cause or a leader, but not the state. A modern example of this is the People's Liberation Army in China. De facto, it is the Chinese Military. We call it the Chinese Military. De jure, it is the military wing of the Communist Party of China, and its first allegiance is to the party, and not the state.




Europeans... sneering at boorish, ignorant, short sighted, unsophisticated Americans since 1770.

No, we won't ever get cheered for anything (nor should we expect that). But again, you people are almost never right on the big picture, global security stuff.

I mean hell, even within NATO this is recognized. Yeah there is all 30 members, but once a week, the leaders of the NATO Quint - the US, France, UK, Germany and Italy - all have a conference call to actually run things.

"Almost certainly", "probably"... I mean, seriously. This is Iraq all over again. If you have evidence, show it. And I mean more than a video, because that's worthless and on par with the Iranian defense minister showing an actual, hand-drawn map to prove that the drone was over Iranian soil.

This isn't good enough. And if you think this is me sneering or thinking you're ignorant, short-sighted and unsophisticated, I've got another coming for you. You're not ignorant, you just don't give a fuck. You're not unsophisticated, you know how to build killing toys. Short-sighted? Not at all, you know how to provoke any country you like and how to get yourself an excuse to rock some US made toys of freedom into another country. That's what you do. That's what we did. See, what you're doing? It's not new. The only thing you're too silly to do is colonize without actually colonizing. You're consquering a country and then you fuck off again and everyone else is scratching their head why the hell you went in in the first place.

You are, without a doubt, the most aggressive nation on the planet with Russia. If you two like to duke it out, go ahead. Because you're too chicken-shit to duke it out with China. But why mess around with countries that are utterly insignificant to you? Just because they burn a flag once in a while and don't like you? Yeah ok. Hey, why don't you burn Saudi Arabia? Considering everyone who managed to fuck US assets is sponsored by them or actually a Saudi? I mean, your morals are so fucked up, it's not even funny poking you for it...

And who's sneering about Europe not being right almost never? I mean, who's the arrogant prick here right now? You need a lesson in humility.

[jeezusisacasual]

"Almost certainly", "probably"... I mean, seriously. This is Iraq all over again. If you have evidence, show it. And I mean more than a video, because that's worthless and on par with the Iranian defense minister showing an actual, hand-drawn map to prove that the drone was over Iranian soil.

This isn't good enough. And if you think this is me sneering or thinking you're ignorant, short-sighted and unsophisticated, I've got another coming for you. You're not ignorant, you just don't give a fuck. You're not unsophisticated, you know how to build killing toys. Short-sighted? Not at all, you know how to provoke any country you like and how to get yourself an excuse to rock some US made toys of freedom into another country. That's what you do. That's what we did. See, what you're doing? It's not new. The only thing you're too silly to do is colonize without actually colonizing. You're consquering a country and then you fuck off again and everyone else is scratching their head why the hell you went in in the first place.

You are, without a doubt, the most aggressive nation on the planet with Russia. If you two like to duke it out, go ahead. Because you're too chicken-shit to duke it out with China. But why mess around with countries that are utterly insignificant to you? Just because they burn a flag once in a while and don't like you? Yeah ok. Hey, why don't you burn Saudi Arabia? Considering everyone who managed to fuck US assets is sponsored by them or actually a Saudi? I mean, your morals are so fucked up, it's not even funny poking you for it...

And who's sneering about Europe not being right almost never? I mean, who's the arrogant prick here right now? You need a lesson in humility.

The world is starting to question the American military machine as they should, just because you have some clout does not mean others are forced to look the other way the world is not a school yard with bullies and dweebs.

[Skroe]

"Almost certainly", "probably"... I mean, seriously. This is Iraq all over again. If you have evidence, show it. And I mean more than a video, because that's worthless and on par with the Iranian defense minister showing an actual, hand-drawn map to prove that the drone was over Iranian soil.

I mean, I'm not an intelligence analyst. But in the public domain, subject matter experts (not me) think that assigning it as the IRGC acting on its own (starting with the tanker attacks) and not the government or the clerics us a very likely scenario that fits the facts the best.

That should be an encouraging thing. It may be subject matter ignorance as to you not taking it as. If the IRGC did this on its own, it means that Iran's most extreme elements are alone in trying to push Iran torwards further confrontation and that there is not a unified consensus in the country's leadership as what to do.

That means that, with respect to larger issues, a diplomatic solution is possible if we're able to put IRGC activities in a box and say "okay those 'rogue elements' did that... now Clerics and Government, what do you want to do?.

You do understand that pointing to the IRGC as the culpable party, as the US is doing, is de-escalatory, right? It gives both the US and the rest of the Iranian leadership a way out through dialogue.

This isn't good enough. And if you think this is me sneering or thinking you're ignorant, short-sighted and unsophisticated, I've got another coming for you. You're not ignorant, you just don't give a fuck. You're not unsophisticated, you know how to build killing toys. Short-sighted? Not at all, you know how to provoke any country you like and how to get yourself an excuse to rock some US made toys of freedom into another country. That's what you do. That's what we did. See, what you're doing? It's not new. The only thing you're too silly to do is colonize without actually colonizing. You're consquering a country and then you fuck off again and everyone else is scratching their head why the hell you went in in the first place.

Well it should be an encouraging thing for you then that the US military, in the post-Iraq Iraq, is now largely structured exclusively for breaking other country's military power, and not actually "conquering".

We're not in the invasion/occupation business anymore. Probably won't be again. Not with China on the horizon.

You are, without a doubt, the most aggressive nation on the planet with Russia. If you two like to duke it out, go ahead. Because you're too chicken-shit to duke it out with China.

I mean, this is a silly statement. You do realize that legitimately everything the US has done to prepare for the new era of Great Power Conflict since 2013 is done with largely China in mind? We're not building long range bombers and hypersonic cruise missiles, and 355 ships, and bases in the pacific and all these ultra long range, counter-high tech systems for China. Or Terrorists. Or Al Qaeda. Or Iran. We're building it for China.

The US Navy expects to get into a scrap with China in the next 15 years. It's an open secret both sides are preparing for it. China _will_ try and push the US out of the western Pacific and back to Hawaii. You say the US is too chicken shit? It's preparing for the inevitability of the largest Naval battles since World War II. What do you think it's going to do to global trade when the Strait of Malacca is mined? I hope Europe makes tasty canned goods. Only a bit hyperbolic.

But why mess around with countries that are utterly insignificant to you? Just because they burn a flag once in a while and don't like you? Yeah ok. Hey, why don't you burn Saudi Arabia? Considering everyone who managed to fuck US assets is sponsored by them or actually a Saudi? I mean, your morals are so fucked up, it's not even funny poking you for it...

Because Iran's current status aside, halting, and then rolling back, the spread of Nuclear and ballistic missile technology is a core US foreign policy objective that goes back to the 1950s. It is foundational.

I think the evidence is fairly clear Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons right now. But they are continuing to develop ballistic missile technology. If Iran forswore both in a verifiable manner, the US's issues with it would significantly decrease.

You think the relationship with the Saudis is by comparison is fucked up? It's not. It's highly rational. THe US has to choose. What is the greater danger to US security: islamic fundamentalism or nuclear proliferation. Nuclear proliferation. By far. Terrorists can murder dozens, hundreds and rarely thousands. Nuclear weapons can kill tens or hundreds of thousands per warhead. If the US chooses to stop proliferation, then everything else becomes secondary. And an alliance with the Iranian's chief adversary is useful.

And who's sneering about Europe not being right almost never? I mean, who's the arrogant prick here right now? You need a lesson in humility.

I mean the condescending tone about the US ignorance or lack of care about the consequences of its actions is pretty ridiculous and ahistorical. The US is abundantly clear about it, which is why you're unlikely to see an Iraq War style thing again for many many many years, if ever. But it's particularly ironic when Europe was, to offer an example, blind deaf and dumb about the consequences of austerity - a German policy forced on the rest of Europe that was really good for Germany but pretty terrible for everyone else - to their own countries.

For well over 230 years of our transatlantic romance with each other, Europe has lectured, despite basically destroying their own continent three times in 130 years. The typical retort is that it's the lessons of those horrors that inform that lecture. Wellllllll no. It's mostly B.S. It is mostly European countries and governments wanting something just different, policy wise, and assuming the position that they're in the right on the issue to try and browbeat us to doing things their way.

I mean we see this with Huawei right now, and thank god your companies have more sense than your governments. It's been clear as day for years exactly what Huawei is and what it could be. You folks know it. Your own intelligence agencies agree with ours. But your political class? They're all "ehhhhhhhhh but muh globalization and trade with China! You can't prove it US! " (actually we did, to your intelligence agencies) because of the larger consequences of U-Turning on that.

Now please tell me how ignoring intelligence on the thread of Huawei because it's inconvienent to a set policy directive is any different than the Bush Administration ignoring pre-war Iraq intelligence about their WMD program. It ain't, amigo. It's the exact same. Political classes on a railroad to the place they want to be.

Fortunately in this case, with Iran, there is absolutely no sense in the US the political class here wants war. There is no railroad to war. This is not 2002/2003. This is barely 2006/North Korea.

[Themius]

It is interesting how we are to look at Iran and are to be disgusted for what they do while we are to be allies of Saudi Arabia? The only difference is one is allied with the USA and the other not.

[Adam Jensen]

It is interesting how we are to look at Iran and are to be disgusted for what they do while we are to be allies of Saudi Arabia? The only difference is one is allied with the USA and the other not.

We shouldn't be allied with either of them. In an ideal world, we'd give them both the finger and sanction them.

[Skroe]

It is interesting how we are to look at Iran and are to be disgusted for what they do while we are to be allies of Saudi Arabia? The only difference is one is allied with the USA and the other not.

Actually the difference is that Iran is openly pursuing ballistic missile technology and historically (though probably not in well over a decade and a half now) seriously perused nuclear weapons technology.

The Saudis, at best, have made overtures to try and buy pre-existing systems if need be, but otherwise have never comparatively engaged in proliferation activities.

That is a real and significant difference between Iran and Saudi Arabia. And yes, ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons in the hands of a rogue state are more dangerous than islamic terrorism. It is the greater evil.

[Skroe]

We shouldn't be allied with either of them. In an ideal world, we'd give them both the finger and sanction them.

If the US weren't allied with the Saudis, the Saudis would shack up with the Chinese, and then suddenly one of the world's largest energy providers would be in the enemy camp.

It's been a blessing, given US screw ups in the region the past decade, that the Saudis don't take the Chinese seriously. But that won't be the case forever.

If you don't think there is value in secure access to energy supplies, I'll point you to both World War II, and the Arab Oil Embargo. It is coldly in the US strategic interests to keep a major oil supplier like Saudi Arabia within our camp and out of somebody elses. And it is for oil. And it is very, very smart.

And don't think green energy will change that, until every tank in the world shifts from running on jet fuel or diesel to electricity.

The Saudi Government is the scum of the Earth and one day the royal family will get whats coming to them. But until that day, they're useful to us. Until then, having them in our pocket is essential.

[Themius]

Actually the difference is that Iran is openly pursuing ballistic missile technology and historically (though probably not in well over a decade and a half now) seriously perused nuclear weapons technology.

The Saudis, at best, have made overtures to try and buy pre-existing systems if need be, but otherwise have never comparatively engaged in proliferation activities.

That is a real and significant difference between Iran and Saudi Arabia. And yes, ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons in the hands of a rogue state are more dangerous than islamic terrorism. It is the greater evil.

The Saudis by comparison are not being cornered into extreme actions due to sanctions, nor have they had their government partially destroyed due to United States operations, one should question where would Saudi be if similar operations happened there.

[Wyrt]

Just to slip in between all these short stories...

Trump says 'I don't care about the Europeans' after questions on Iran crisis

"I don't want a war, I just want to bomb the shit out of them"

Um, does he really think that wouldn't start a war?

[zorkuus]

"I don't want a war, I just want to bomb the shit out of them"

Um, does he really think that wouldn't start a war?

"I know more about war than the generals" - draft dodger in chief

[Skroe]

The Saudis by comparison are not being cornered into extreme actions due to sanctions, nor have they had their government partially destroyed due to United States operations, one should question where would Saudi be if similar operations happened there.

If the recourse to sanctions by targeted countries are WMD proliferation, then it means that sanctions are ineffective as prodders of behavioral change (which is something that's been debated), and would by extension mean that sanctions should not be tried and instead the classical approach of negotions or war to settle disputes, should be adopted instead.

Sanctions as we think of them are a historically new phenomenon, meant to incur costs while not leading to military conflict. The fundamental issue here is that WMD proliferation, for whatever rationale, is unacceptable to the US, and countries do it have to change course or face retaliation.

SO giving Iran the excuse of "sanctions pushed them to do it", doesn't let them off the hook. It just means the US recourse should not be further sanctions and instead should be military in nature.

This gets back to an argument that goes back to the mid 1990s when this shit started with North Korea. Hoping sanctions buy time for the issue to go away is not a solution, and countries need to either accept unrestricted proliferation, or decisively deal with countries that do try and proliferate.

There is a compelling argument to be made (sorry for the passive voice) that the US should have done regime change in North Korea in the 1990s, and with the help of the Arabs, in Iran in the 1980s, and that doing so would have resolved larger, worse issues that arose later.

Because the fact is, here we are, we tried sanctions, and now North Korea will build more nuclear weapons forever. And one day Iran will probably decide to try again and actually do it.

The way out of this with Iran is to negotiate a fundamental end to hostile relations, but a big part of that is a full accounting on behalf of the Iranian state as to their activities, ranging from support of terrorism, through nuclear weapons, through ballistic missiles. That goes way beyond the scope of the Obama-era Iran deal. But it is the only way permanently out of this. Otherwise, we're only kicking the can down the curb.