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

[Orbitus]

They should have stayed frozen considering the current make up of their government and their hatred of the US. Which has not changed fundamentally since they took control decades ago. And why was it paid in cash?

We lost a court case that said we had to pay them. We couldn't transfer them money since they were still under sanction, so it had to be in cash, and had to be in anything other than dollars. You would know this if you did some fucking research.

[Slant]

I mean, to put this simply, if "aggression" or "war mongering" has been defined down to "fly spy drone in international airspace, on border of hostile country", I don't know what to tell you. Maybe we should devote the whole of human energy to develop some kind of technology that'll knock rival nations temporally out of phase of each other, so "aggressive contact" is impossible. Because really, the idea that even doing cross-border survellience like that (not that this type of drone, being a maritime patrol aircraft, was likely even doing that) is now outside the realm of what is acceptable, is a farcical proposition. Everyone does it to everyone else. Hell the US intercepts the Russians doing this to European countries basically every weekend.

Which is the point. This statement you made:

"in which case everything is fair game according to the current doctrine of the US. You fly around in their front yard, you risk losing shit. "

Is factually not true.

if it were true, why haven't we shot down all those Russian aircraft that play games with our and allies borders? Or China's aircraft that shadow US Navy fleets.

The rules of the road of international waters / airspace is you cut eachother a wide berth, and don't engage in any outwardly hostile action that could cause material loss of life of life.

So this thought you have: that Iran was in its rights to shoot down our drone... horseshit. Utter horseshit. You would be singing something quite different, if the US were to start shooting down Russian aircraft that came close to US bases in Europe (though in international airspace) even though, ostensible, it would be following the same principle.

As for launching a counter attack, yes it would be escalatory. But escalate-to-descalate is one of those counter intuitive, entirely useful geopolitical tools. Because much of international affairs between adversaries is based around getting pounds of flesh from each other. Taking it to a point where the costs of going for much more than just a pound, historically has had a highly descalatory effect.

Trump was probably right to not launch an attack that would kill 150 Iranians. That would not be proportionate. A wiser president would use that prudence to weaponize moral authority to drag Iran to the negotiating table. This one won't. In lieu of that, the US should seek alternative retaliatory means that are proportionate. Iran has military storage depots that are mostly just giant equipment garages and are probably pretty empty. Striking those would be proportionate.

Spoken like a true hawk. Antagonizing sovereign nations to induce a casus belli is not normal, it's not diplomacy, it's not accepted practice in modern times. Your company is Russia and China. Those countries do what the US does.

But let's ignore that. Let's talk about the consequences of international air space. The question is if it was international air space or not. Let's assume it wasn't, easiest scenario... Iran had every right to shoot it down. Let's assume it wasn't in international air space and it got shot down. Now what, your response is to start killing people? You call that a reasonable response? After you're flying offensive weapons off the coast of a sovereign nation that you keep accusing of an attack on tankers? The last time you accused someone of something, you invaded pretty soon after. And that your nation fabricated the entire case did not stop you one bit.

I think the US attitude towards other nations is biting you in the ass. And as your friend, ally and NATO partner, I'll tell you that you deserved this. and those 240 million or however much that drone cost? That won't kill you. You should suck it up like a man and stop whinging about it. As a nation, that is. Your adversarial stance towards... well, basically any other nation... it's getting old. Just because Russia and China are assholes doesn't give you the right to be an asshole, too. And the US has been nothing but a dick lately. Even to its allies.

You haven't shot down Russian aircrafts because you know what they were doing. You know they're not part of an impending attack. And most of all, the US is scared of a conflict with Russia as much as anyone else, posturing and machoism aside.

And if the US started shooting shit in European air space, they better have a good reason for it. Europe is not your playground, you're here to do a job. You don't get to play war in Europe anymore. If you shoot here, you shoot to defend Europe.

US "escalate to de-escalate" leads to the destruction of a nation usually. And once you do that, you fuck off because you haven't been able to handle a destroyed nation since WW2. And the US has fucked up geopolitics so much since 2001 that having you talk about "those counter-intuitive geopolitical tools" is not really having a lot of weight. How did you stop Russia from taking Crimea? Oh, you haven't, that's right. But you're good at shooting up goatherders... well done. Like the bully at school that will only pick on the weak. You do realise that's what the world sees the US as by now, right? Nothing but a bully?

Costs of war? Deescalatory effect? On fucking fanatics like the leader of Iran? You know, the dude that still talks about tossing Israel into the Mediterranean? Has Afghanistan and Iraq taught you nothing about those people in the Middle East? They detest you. Even the Saudis detest you. Everyone down there detests you. The only way for you to "win" anything down there is to literally kill every single last person that's not tightly aligned (ie. bribed) with the US. Because whatever you tend to do down there will make them detest you even more. Attack Iran now and you'll have turned them into such a hardcase fundamentalist state that you'll have fun fighting them and their offspring for decades. How is that benefitting the US in any way?

"Probably" right not to kill 150 Iranians? If they had a car bomb in NYC killing 150, you'd probably have to fight Trump for the nuke button... you don't even have a concept for proportionality at this point. It's just a drone, man. Just. A. Drone. Just a piece of expensive metal junk that nobody gives a toss about. 150 people? They're people. With families. And friends. It's not even a contest... "probably".

Don't know why you're going on about a negotiation table with Iran. You had them there. You managed to have them sign something that was better than anything before. All you had to do was stand still and let it play out before gaining more trust and doing some more detente at the next round of negotiations. You just had one job. And you blew it.

If this comes to blow, you'll be on your own just like in Iraq. Don't come whinging to us about how mean everyone is to you.

[Wyrt]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...one-airstrikes

"Trump: I'll be Iran's 'best friend' if it acquires no nuclear weapons"

uhh the reason they are making nuclear weapons is because you pulled out of the deal and sanction them...jesus who voted for this guy again?

Does he have dementia or something? Because seriously, WTF?

[Ahovv]

Does he have dementia or something? Because seriously, WTF?

It's an unfortunate rewriting of history when Trumptards say Iran violated the agreement.

[Wyrt]

It's an unfortunate rewriting of history when Trumptards say Iran violated the agreement.

Watch, it'll end up with Trump and Iran signing a near identical agreement for Iran to not get nukes and then the Trumpers will praise Trump for avoiding war with Iran and preventing them from getting nukes. They'll conveniently ignore that Trump caused the current tensions. No room for facts with Trumpers.

[Edge-]

I mean, can we take a second to appreciate something here?

Per Trump's telling, he had to ask what the civilian casualties would be a scant 10 minutes before the strike took place.

That means one of a few likely scenarios -

1. Civilian casualty estimates were not a part of the initial briefing presenting him options. This is insane to the Nth degree and dangerous as all hell. That's crucial information that's needed to help inform the Commander-in-Chief of their options and the consequences thereof.

2. Trump literally forgot in the short period of time after green lighting the attack. This speaks more to his unstable mental condition and inability to remember important information. This is not any better.

3. This is all a whole bunch of bullshit because we can't trust anything Trump says, ever, given how he loves to lie about literally everything.

None of these are good options.

[draynay]

Watch, it'll end up with Trump and Iran signing a near identical agreement for Iran to not get nukes and then the Trumpers will praise Trump for avoiding war with Iran and preventing them from getting nukes. They'll conveniently ignore that Trump caused the current tensions. No room for facts with Trumpers.

I don't know why Iran would sign anything when the current administration has demonstrated they'll break agreements on a whim.

[Deus Mortis]

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-vows-mo...174003277.html
Looks like the USA will be putting more sanctions on Iran come Monday.

President Donald Trump, warning that military action is still "on the table," said Saturday that the United States will place additional sanctions on Iran on Monday in an effort to force them to give up their nuclear efforts.

"We are putting major additional Sanctions on Iran on Monday," Trump said in a tweet on Saturday shortly after leaving the White House for an Iran-focused working trip to Camp David.

[caervek]

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-vows-mo...174003277.html
Looks like the USA will be putting more sanctions on Iran come Monday.

What this time? Banning Iran from importing sand? They've sanctioned everything else lol.

[Dontrike]

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-vows-mo...174003277.html
Looks like the USA will be putting more sanctions on Iran come Monday.

Weird, he isn't crying like a bitch about these sanctions, but when it comes to Russia sanctions he'll flail on the ground until he gets his way.

[Ulmita]

Spoken like a true hawk. Antagonizing sovereign nations to induce a casus belli is not normal, it's not diplomacy, it's not accepted practice in modern times. Your company is Russia and China. Those countries do what the US does.

But let's ignore that. Let's talk about the consequences of international air space. The question is if it was international air space or not. Let's assume it wasn't, easiest scenario... Iran had every right to shoot it down. Let's assume it wasn't in international air space and it got shot down. Now what, your response is to start killing people? You call that a reasonable response? After you're flying offensive weapons off the coast of a sovereign nation that you keep accusing of an attack on tankers? The last time you accused someone of something, you invaded pretty soon after. And that your nation fabricated the entire case did not stop you one bit.

I think the US attitude towards other nations is biting you in the ass. And as your friend, ally and NATO partner, I'll tell you that you deserved this. and those 240 million or however much that drone cost? That won't kill you. You should suck it up like a man and stop whinging about it. As a nation, that is. Your adversarial stance towards... well, basically any other nation... it's getting old. Just because Russia and China are assholes doesn't give you the right to be an asshole, too. And the US has been nothing but a dick lately. Even to its allies.

You haven't shot down Russian aircrafts because you know what they were doing. You know they're not part of an impending attack. And most of all, the US is scared of a conflict with Russia as much as anyone else, posturing and machoism aside.

And if the US started shooting shit in European air space, they better have a good reason for it. Europe is not your playground, you're here to do a job. You don't get to play war in Europe anymore. If you shoot here, you shoot to defend Europe.

US "escalate to de-escalate" leads to the destruction of a nation usually. And once you do that, you fuck off because you haven't been able to handle a destroyed nation since WW2. And the US has fucked up geopolitics so much since 2001 that having you talk about "those counter-intuitive geopolitical tools" is not really having a lot of weight. How did you stop Russia from taking Crimea? Oh, you haven't, that's right. But you're good at shooting up goatherders... well done. Like the bully at school that will only pick on the weak. You do realise that's what the world sees the US as by now, right? Nothing but a bully?

Costs of war? Deescalatory effect? On fucking fanatics like the leader of Iran? You know, the dude that still talks about tossing Israel into the Mediterranean? Has Afghanistan and Iraq taught you nothing about those people in the Middle East? They detest you. Even the Saudis detest you. Everyone down there detests you. The only way for you to "win" anything down there is to literally kill every single last person that's not tightly aligned (ie. bribed) with the US. Because whatever you tend to do down there will make them detest you even more. Attack Iran now and you'll have turned them into such a hardcase fundamentalist state that you'll have fun fighting them and their offspring for decades. How is that benefitting the US in any way?

"Probably" right not to kill 150 Iranians? If they had a car bomb in NYC killing 150, you'd probably have to fight Trump for the nuke button... you don't even have a concept for proportionality at this point. It's just a drone, man. Just. A. Drone. Just a piece of expensive metal junk that nobody gives a toss about. 150 people? They're people. With families. And friends. It's not even a contest... "probably".

Don't know why you're going on about a negotiation table with Iran. You had them there. You managed to have them sign something that was better than anything before. All you had to do was stand still and let it play out before gaining more trust and doing some more detente at the next round of negotiations. You just had one job. And you blew it.

If this comes to blow, you'll be on your own just like in Iraq. Don't come whinging to us about how mean everyone is to you.

Amen .... (#morechars)

- - - Updated - - -

I mean, can we take a second to appreciate something here?

Per Trump's telling, he had to ask what the civilian casualties would be a scant 10 minutes before the strike took place.

That means one of a few likely scenarios -

1. Civilian casualty estimates were not a part of the initial briefing presenting him options. This is insane to the Nth degree and dangerous as all hell. That's crucial information that's needed to help inform the Commander-in-Chief of their options and the consequences thereof.

2. Trump literally forgot in the short period of time after green lighting the attack. This speaks more to his unstable mental condition and inability to remember important information. This is not any better.

3. This is all a whole bunch of bullshit because we can't trust anything Trump says, ever, given how he loves to lie about literally everything.

None of these are good options.

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.

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.

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.

[zorkuus]

Does he have dementia or something? Because seriously, WTF?

That or he's just the worst deal maker, a terrible businessman.

[ati87]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...one-airstrikes

"Trump: I'll be Iran's 'best friend' if it acquires no nuclear weapons"

uhh the reason they are making nuclear weapons is because you pulled out of the deal and sanction them...jesus who voted for this guy again?

Iran is not developing nuclear weapons....sight.

There is no evidence that they do and the only people that think that Iran is developing weapons are the same people that though invading iraq was a good idea.

[ohtlmtlm]

Iran is not developing nuclear weapons....sight.

There is no evidence that they do outside and the only people that think that Iran is developing weapons are the same people that though invading iraq was a good idea.

Ya, but they are doing things with 'nuclear' in its name... that's super aggressive!

[Ghostpanther]

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-vows-mo...174003277.html
Looks like the USA will be putting more sanctions on Iran come Monday.

Good. Keep turning the pressure knobs.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean, can we take a second to appreciate something here?

Per Trump's telling, he had to ask what the civilian casualties would be a scant 10 minutes before the strike took place.

That means one of a few likely scenarios -

1. Civilian casualty estimates were not a part of the initial briefing presenting him options. This is insane to the Nth degree and dangerous as all hell. That's crucial information that's needed to help inform the Commander-in-Chief of their options and the consequences thereof.

2. Trump literally forgot in the short period of time after green lighting the attack. This speaks more to his unstable mental condition and inability to remember important information. This is not any better.

3. This is all a whole bunch of bullshit because we can't trust anything Trump says, ever, given how he loves to lie about literally everything.

None of these are good options.

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

[Felya]

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

Because it costs money to have military operations start, just for you to change your own damn mind, with 10 min to spare. As much as the above tries to make “some” the issue, the reality is that the problem is the guy you voted for.

[Skroe]

Spoken like a true hawk. Antagonizing sovereign nations to induce a casus belli is not normal, it's not diplomacy, it's not accepted practice in modern times. Your company is Russia and China. Those countries do what the US does.

But let's ignore that. Let's talk about the consequences of international air space. The question is if it was international air space or not. Let's assume it wasn't, easiest scenario... Iran had every right to shoot it down. Let's assume it wasn't in international air space and it got shot down. Now what, your response is to start killing people? You call that a reasonable response? After you're flying offensive weapons off the coast of a sovereign nation that you keep accusing of an attack on tankers? The last time you accused someone of something, you invaded pretty soon after. And that your nation fabricated the entire case did not stop you one bit.

I think the US attitude towards other nations is biting you in the ass. And as your friend, ally and NATO partner, I'll tell you that you deserved this. and those 240 million or however much that drone cost? That won't kill you. You should suck it up like a man and stop whinging about it. As a nation, that is. Your adversarial stance towards... well, basically any other nation... it's getting old. Just because Russia and China are assholes doesn't give you the right to be an asshole, too. And the US has been nothing but a dick lately. Even to its allies.

You haven't shot down Russian aircrafts because you know what they were doing. You know they're not part of an impending attack. And most of all, the US is scared of a conflict with Russia as much as anyone else, posturing and machoism aside.

And if the US started shooting shit in European air space, they better have a good reason for it. Europe is not your playground, you're here to do a job. You don't get to play war in Europe anymore. If you shoot here, you shoot to defend Europe.

US "escalate to de-escalate" leads to the destruction of a nation usually. And once you do that, you fuck off because you haven't been able to handle a destroyed nation since WW2. And the US has fucked up geopolitics so much since 2001 that having you talk about "those counter-intuitive geopolitical tools" is not really having a lot of weight. How did you stop Russia from taking Crimea? Oh, you haven't, that's right. But you're good at shooting up goatherders... well done. Like the bully at school that will only pick on the weak. You do realise that's what the world sees the US as by now, right? Nothing but a bully?

Costs of war? Deescalatory effect? On fucking fanatics like the leader of Iran? You know, the dude that still talks about tossing Israel into the Mediterranean? Has Afghanistan and Iraq taught you nothing about those people in the Middle East? They detest you. Even the Saudis detest you. Everyone down there detests you. The only way for you to "win" anything down there is to literally kill every single last person that's not tightly aligned (ie. bribed) with the US. Because whatever you tend to do down there will make them detest you even more. Attack Iran now and you'll have turned them into such a hardcase fundamentalist state that you'll have fun fighting them and their offspring for decades. How is that benefitting the US in any way?

"Probably" right not to kill 150 Iranians? If they had a car bomb in NYC killing 150, you'd probably have to fight Trump for the nuke button... you don't even have a concept for proportionality at this point. It's just a drone, man. Just. A. Drone. Just a piece of expensive metal junk that nobody gives a toss about. 150 people? They're people. With families. And friends. It's not even a contest... "probably".

Don't know why you're going on about a negotiation table with Iran. You had them there. You managed to have them sign something that was better than anything before. All you had to do was stand still and let it play out before gaining more trust and doing some more detente at the next round of negotiations. You just had one job. And you blew it.

If this comes to blow, you'll be on your own just like in Iraq. Don't come whinging to us about how mean everyone is to you.

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).

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.

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.

Yes, if the US flew a drone into Iranian air space, it would be in its rights to shoot it down. Any country would do the same.

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.

:|




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.



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.



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.

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.

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.

You haven't shot down Russian aircrafts because you know what they were doing. You know they're not part of an impending attack. And most of all, the US is scared of a conflict with Russia as much as anyone else, posturing and machoism aside.

Scared? No. Simulations have shown the US could take them for decades. The driving motivation against such a conflict isn't fear. It's cause. The US and Russia have had no reason to go into an open military conflict. If there was a reason, we'd strike first. Without a doubt. If we were "fearful" we wouldn't. But we would because stopping the ability for Russia to counter attack before they launch it (counterforce) is the smart thing to do.

And if the US started shooting shit in European air space, they better have a good reason for it. Europe is not your playground, you're here to do a job. You don't get to play war in Europe anymore. If you shoot here, you shoot to defend Europe.

Bullshit. You know how much of a Europhile I am. How much of a believer I am in the European Union and want it to thrive and be a peer. But ambition and reality at the present are quite different.

The the reality is that a European solution to European defense exists only in theory. Germany's military has been under-resourced for years and it'll be the 2030s before it'll get back to where it was in 1994. We have seen that UK will cut its military forces to the bone on its never ending quest to be nothing more than noun, a verb and the NHS. We have seen that France alone doesn't have the resources for the entire continent given that they, like the UK, basically ran out of munitions in their war of choice in Libya in 2011.

I've mocked Donald Trump's demands for NATO allies to hit the 2% target. I've highlighted that German minister who said that the easiest way to do that (his attempt at showing how stupid a goal like that is) would just be to double the pay of all German troops. I've gone into, in this forum in depth, the extent to which Europe's military issues are in no small part industrial policy in nature.

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.

US "escalate to de-escalate" leads to the destruction of a nation usually. And once you do that, you fuck off because you haven't been able to handle a destroyed nation since WW2. And the US has fucked up geopolitics so much since 2001 that having you talk about "those counter-intuitive geopolitical tools" is not really having a lot of weight. How did you stop Russia from taking Crimea? Oh, you haven't, that's right. But you're good at shooting up goatherders... well done. Like the bully at school that will only pick on the weak. You do realise that's what the world sees the US as by now, right? Nothing but a bully?

And the irony of this statement is that if the US were to actually push back hard on the strong, we'd engender the counter-push of "war mongering" and "pushing us to the brink of World War III".

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?

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.


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.

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 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.

Costs of war? Deescalatory effect? On fucking fanatics like the leader of Iran? You know, the dude that still talks about tossing Israel into the Mediterranean? Has Afghanistan and Iraq taught you nothing about those people in the Middle East? They detest you. Even the Saudis detest you. Everyone down there detests you. The only way for you to "win" anything down there is to literally kill every single last person that's not tightly aligned (ie. bribed) with the US. Because whatever you tend to do down there will make them detest you even more. Attack Iran now and you'll have turned them into such a hardcase fundamentalist state that you'll have fun fighting them and their offspring for decades. How is that benefitting the US in any way?

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.

"Probably" right not to kill 150 Iranians? If they had a car bomb in NYC killing 150, you'd probably have to fight Trump for the nuke button... you don't even have a concept for proportionality at this point. It's just a drone, man. Just. A. Drone. Just a piece of expensive metal junk that nobody gives a toss about. 150 people? They're people. With families. And friends. It's not even a contest... "probably".

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.

Don't know why you're going on about a negotiation table with Iran. You had them there. You managed to have them sign something that was better than anything before. All you had to do was stand still and let it play out before gaining more trust and doing some more detente at the next round of negotiations. You just had one job. And you blew it.

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.

If this comes to blow, you'll be on your own just like in Iraq. Don't come whinging to us about how mean everyone is to you.

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.

[Felya]

What does that have to do with Trump's bullshit lie regarding why he stopped the attack?

I love how Trump flip flopping is ‘damn if you will, damned if you don’t’. John Kerry was getting flip flops tossed at him for rhetoric. Trump flip flops with our military readiness, for the problem to be his critics. The new normal is to say everything, then complain that people are pissed at the the stupid parts and not the ones contradicting them?

[Felya]

And most of all, the US is scared of a conflict with Russia as much as anyone else, posturing and machoism aside.

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?

- - - Updated - - -

The issue is that Trump caused the crisis...

That’s the current issue, but it’s a reflection of the new normal. The current or OP, is Trump started the crisis, but Trump is also the one who ended his own crisis. But, is it that different from a lot of Trump rhetoric and action? The Muslim ban is long expired, but should we cheer him because there is no active Muslim ban? Just yesterday, Trump is going to deport millions, then he isn’t. Are we supposed to cheer him for not deporting millions, because if it were not for Trump, that Trump would have kept his word. Now we have to cheer Trump, because he stopped Trump? WTF?

Okay... I will celebrate Trump stopping Trump from defaulting on national debt, like Trump suggested on the campaign trail. If not for Trump, that Trump would fuck up a lot of stuff... Bizarre...

[Skroe]

Iran's government is showing off parts they're saying is part of the RQ-4A that got shot down.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/...ry-strike.html















Sooooo how legit is this? Iran's been known to... how shall we say... tell stories on their state TV before.

Who can forget the saga of Iran's paper-mache "steath fighter", the Q-313




(look at this entirely not built-in-a-wood-shop cockpit)



Iran did recover an RQ-170 stealth drone that crashed spying on them. Because, you know, when we want to violate hostile air space we ACTUALLY use the stealth drones we have, geniuses. That's not fake.




Then Iran decided to make paper-mache and wood 1/4th scale clones and call it their new stealthy combat drones!





So what's the problem with those allegended RQ-4 fragments? Aviation experts think they're too small. There should be more. A lot more.

The RQ-4A is a big aircraft.





The parts here, particularly the parst that look like the belong on a wing, seem too small to be an RQ-4. Could be just how they were destroyed. Hard to say.

One option is is exactly what they say it is, and the limited amount of wreckage indicates Iran recovered debrie that washed up on their shores. That would also confirm the US story the non-stealthy $200 million maritime patrol drone was in international waters (and not looking for water over Iran).

Another option is that it's not an RQ-4, but an MQ-9 Reaper.



The MQ-9 is a smaller and cheaper drone ($15 million). And the US has lost a lot of them over the years. It's not known if any have ever crashed in Iran, but a bunch have in Syria where Iran has a major presence. It's possible this is the wreckage of an MQ-9 that Iran recovered in Syria sometime in the past 6 years and flew to Iran. The size differences, particularly on the wing, and the conturing of what it looks to be the dome would be a better fit.

My guess is though, it's actually small parts of the RQ-4A, just mangled, and what Iran got is the large-surface area parts that could float and got washed up, because it got shot down in international waters, exactly like the US said it did. I think the 'tell' would be if anyone can find that white trapezoid painted on the exterior of the RQ-4A BAMS-D.

Either way, that's more historical curiosity than anything. It doesn't look like Iran got a lot of whatever they have anyway. But theres the pictures.