Remember the Maine!!

[SLD]

FFvC just blinked. I wonder how this will play with the base? I wonder if Bolton is out?

SLD

 

[Derec]

Iran is definitely pushing more and more aggression. Attacks on the tankers, having Houthis attack targets (desalination plants, pipelines, airports) within Saudi Arabia itself, now attack a US drone flying in international airspace. The only language the weird beards know is strength. Unfortunately, US is displaying weakness right now.
The aborted limited attack on Iranian targets makes Trump look very weak. I wonder what happened. Maybe Putin called. He and the Ayatollahs are close allies - they are even fighting together in Syria.

 

[SimpleDon]

It is possible that I missed something. Trump's reason for withdrawing from the Iranian disarmament treaty was that he could negotiate a better deal. That he could get the Iranians to stop enriching uranium for their nuclear reactor and possibly for nuclear weapons forever, not just for ten years.

What happened to negotiating a better deal?

 

[funinspace]

It is possible that I missed something. Trump's reason for withdrawing from the Iranian disarmament treaty was that he could negotiate a better deal. That he could get the Iranians to stop enriching uranium for their nuclear reactor and possibly for nuclear weapons forever, not just for ten years.

What happened to negotiating a better deal?

I'd say that the Iranian's trumped Don the Con, in 'I can out crazy you, so don't push me too far'...

 

[SimpleDon]

It is possible that I missed something. Trump's reason for withdrawing from the Iranian disarmament treaty was that he could negotiate a better deal. That he could get the Iranians to stop enriching uranium for their nuclear reactor and possibly for nuclear weapons forever, not just for ten years.

What happened to negotiating a better deal?

I'd say that the Iranian's trumped Don the Con, in 'I can out crazy you, so don't push me too far'...

The Blazing Saddles gambit, "Come any closer and I will shoot the boy" while holding a gun to your own head.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It was incredibly stupid of Iran to do this.

View attachment 21946

Award it to yourself.

Iran does not deny shooting down the drone. They presented obviously false evidence it was over their territory when it was shot down. Thus, despite the fact that I wouldn't believe His Flatulence as far as I could throw him I conclude Iran really did it. This wasn't one of the little drones, either, but a strategic recon drone--a very pricey bird.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/...t-u-s-officials-over-explosives-used-n1017556

So today the US made accusations that the attachment was a limpet mine, a magnetic mine that would have been attached below the water line. They released a video of Iranians supposedly coming up to the ship to remove one of the mines, but that shows something that is projecting out that is clearly above the waterline. That is really odd.

Now the crew is contradicting US reports saying that something was flown into the side of the ship just before the explosion.

Very suspicious.

SLD

Limpet mines placed by divers will be below the waterline. Limpet mines placed by boat will likely be above the water line.

 

[bilby]

It was incredibly stupid of Iran to do this.

View attachment 21946

Award it to yourself.

Iran does not deny shooting down the drone. They presented obviously false evidence it was over their territory when it was shot down. Thus, despite the fact that I wouldn't believe His Flatulence as far as I could throw him I conclude Iran really did it. This wasn't one of the little drones, either, but a strategic recon drone--a very pricey bird.

As I have said before, the solution is for Iraq to give the USA carte blanche to shoot down any Iranian drone they find within 1,000 miles of US airspace.

They should also offer to pay the cost of the drone - 80,000bbl of oil should just about cover it. It's not like they don't have that much oil sitting around, unable to be sold due to US sanctions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Obviously the US sanctions are working - The Iranians can't even buy fireworks anymore. If they could, then they would know that you should never try to retrieve a firework that failed to go off.

Seriously, what kind of half-assed mine fails to explode; and the mine having failed, what kind of crazy fools would go collect the unexploded device and put it in their small boat?

A limpet mine isn't exactly advanced technology. Even an Iranian should be able to build one that goes 'bang' when you want it to.

And even an Iranian should know that you are meant to place them below the waterline.

They would try to retrieve it because it's evidence. Yes, retrieving it is risky, but leaving behind evidence is risky to the regime, not merely to the people doing it.

And while beneath the waterline would be more damaging that requires divers and takes a lot more time. It also makes it harder to detonate them by remote control. Underwater limpets are usually done by timer.

Furthermore, you're assuming the objective is to sink the tankers. Iran doesn't care if the tankers sink, what Iran wants (listen to their own words--if they can't export oil they don't want to let anyone export oil through the Persian gulf) is to scare the tankers out of the gulf.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Personally I think the Iranians are the ones who did the shit until I see better evidence that they didn't. That video is pretty damning. I want to know everything about that video I can. it could have been collected years ago, just like all those videos we had of Saddam's WMDs.

Again, americans are gullible, flag-waving, xenophobic, frightened assholes for the most part.

I don't care about the video, it could be staged. What is damning in my book is the Iranian reaction. They knowingly engaged in an act of war against the US with a fairly major SAM system, not an idiot soldier with a MANPAD. There has to be some important benefit to Iran--and since it was a recon drone the first thought is that they didn't want the drone to see something nefarious they were doing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Iranian navy helped to extinguish the fires on these damaged tankers.

That seems like strange behaviour for an organisation that was allegedly trying to sink them.

My gut feeling is that this could be the work of Yemeni rebels, using Iranian munitions (without the direct support of the Iranians) as part of a guerrilla campaign against Saudi interests. Iran's actions are consistent with wanting to avoid blame for the (unauthorised) actions of their less stable allies.

When you arm guerrillas, it isn't particularly unusual for them to get out of control. A war between the US and Iran would be disastrous for both countries, but would likely also harm Saudi Arabia, and reduce both Saudi and American influence in Yemen.

The American insistence that this could not be the work of non-state actors is pure, premium-grade, class A bullshit. Mining an oil tanker using a small boat from Yemen at night - and making a half-arsed job of it - is something you could easily imagine a bunch of hooray-heros taking on as part of a guerrilla campaign. Those waters are warm, calm, and shallow. They are not a major challenge to navigate.

And mines that don't go off when they are supposed to scream 'improvised device' rather than 'professional munitions'.

If the Iranian Navy wanted to attack those tankers, then they would be on the bottom of the sea. They're not the world's greatest Navy, but they're not a bunch of amateurs, either. And the Iranian Navy wouldn't be helping to put out the fires if they had started them.

I would buy this if the drone hadn't been shot down. That, however, is the direct action of the Iranian government. They wouldn't have done that to cover up for the rebels.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The question all the pundits are asking is 'Was it in Iranian airspace at the time?' - under international law, if it was, the Iranians had every right to shoot it down.

They presented fake evidence it was in Iranian airspace. That says to me they perfectly well knew it wasn't. I think they screwed the pooch on this is not realizing we would be able to track the SAM.

And shooting down an unmanned aircraft is hardly a big deal - it's not like anyone was killed. If they'd shot down an airliner, that would be a big deal. But apparently Iran managed to restrain itself from bombing the USA when they did that, so maybe similar restraint is called for now.

Iran knew it was attacking the Vincennes when the incident happened.

 

[bilby]

The Iranian navy helped to extinguish the fires on these damaged tankers.

That seems like strange behaviour for an organisation that was allegedly trying to sink them.

My gut feeling is that this could be the work of Yemeni rebels, using Iranian munitions (without the direct support of the Iranians) as part of a guerrilla campaign against Saudi interests. Iran's actions are consistent with wanting to avoid blame for the (unauthorised) actions of their less stable allies.

When you arm guerrillas, it isn't particularly unusual for them to get out of control. A war between the US and Iran would be disastrous for both countries, but would likely also harm Saudi Arabia, and reduce both Saudi and American influence in Yemen.

The American insistence that this could not be the work of non-state actors is pure, premium-grade, class A bullshit. Mining an oil tanker using a small boat from Yemen at night - and making a half-arsed job of it - is something you could easily imagine a bunch of hooray-heros taking on as part of a guerrilla campaign. Those waters are warm, calm, and shallow. They are not a major challenge to navigate.

And mines that don't go off when they are supposed to scream 'improvised device' rather than 'professional munitions'.

If the Iranian Navy wanted to attack those tankers, then they would be on the bottom of the sea. They're not the world's greatest Navy, but they're not a bunch of amateurs, either. And the Iranian Navy wouldn't be helping to put out the fires if they had started them.

I would buy this if the drone hadn't been shot down. That, however, is the direct action of the Iranian government. They wouldn't have done that to cover up for the rebels.

Sure; But it's just a response to US escalation. They don't like those drones flying around on the borders of their territory - who would? But they make a handy target for showing that they are uncowed by US declarations of Iranian responsibility for the tanker attacks.

Whether or not the drone strayed into Iranian airspace, it's not manned, so it's highly questionable whether shooting it down justifies a military retaliation (as we see with the confused US response) - nobody wants to be the first to kill one of the other side's people.

If any other nation was flying recon drones along the border of US airspace, you can bet they would get shot down. It's not a matter of doing something you don't want them to see - it's a matter of not wanting to be challenged over your level of influence in international waters immediately on your own border.

A buildup of military assets close to your borders is a provocation. The drone is a part of that - and it's a part that can be attacked without anyone trying to avenge the pilot's tearful widow and children.

The USA weren't concerned about the neutrality of international waters, nor the sovereignty of other nation states, when there was a buildup of potentially threatening military force close to US territory in 1962. Why do you imagine that the Iranians would be any happier about the buildup of US forces in the gulf, than the US was about Soviet forces in Cuba?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Perhaps a more salient question, when considering not the minutiae of international law, but the specific question 'Should this lead to war?' would be 'Was the drone closer to Iranian airspace than it was to US airspace?'. It's a military drone. It has no need to be flirting with the Iranian national border to begin with.

My understanding is that, during the Cold War, Soviet aircraft routinely breached US airspace. US aircraft did the same (Francis Gary Powers, anyone?) but none of these incursions led to war. They were basically accepted as part of the game.

Now, the Soviet Union had - at one point - north of ten thousand nuclear warheads pointed at the United States. Somehow, we managed to avoid a shooting war with them.

Yet the current administration is telling us that we might need to get involved in a shooting war over the downing of one unmanned drone by a country that doesn't have a single nuclear weapon?

Lets look more carefully at those incidents you are comparing this to.

1) Neither side ever sent armed aircraft into the other's airspace. (Subs, yes, because it's not so simple to send them out without weapons.)

2) Neither side ever fired on a craft that wasn't within it's own space.

Both sides were very careful to keep incidents under control. Shooting down this drone is going well beyond anything that happened in the cold war.

 

[Ford]

Iran does not deny shooting down the drone. They presented obviously false evidence it was over their territory when it was shot down. Thus, despite the fact that I wouldn't believe His Flatulence as far as I could throw him I conclude Iran really did it. This wasn't one of the little drones, either, but a strategic recon drone--a very pricey bird.

Of course they don't deny it, and if you're going to claim "obviously false evidence" you'd have to back that up.

Yes, it's a surveillance drone. Chances that US surveillance drones are not penetrating Iranian airspace, and are instead dutifully patrolling international waters? Slim to none. Especially when one considers that there's an element in the regime - the American one, not Iran - that is openly itching for war. Trump's National Security Advisor has been advocating war with Iran for decades, and is one of the architects of the "Don't have an excuse? Then make one up" strategy which led us into Iraq.

Which brings us to the price of the bird. Bolton thinks that the Iraq War, which cost us north of a trillion dollars and over four thousand soldiers' lives, was a relative bargain. If you think he's worried about the loss of one expensive drone, I've got a degree from Trump University I'd like to sell you.

 

[bilby]

Perhaps a more salient question, when considering not the minutiae of international law, but the specific question 'Should this lead to war?' would be 'Was the drone closer to Iranian airspace than it was to US airspace?'. It's a military drone. It has no need to be flirting with the Iranian national border to begin with.

My understanding is that, during the Cold War, Soviet aircraft routinely breached US airspace. US aircraft did the same (Francis Gary Powers, anyone?) but none of these incursions led to war. They were basically accepted as part of the game.

Now, the Soviet Union had - at one point - north of ten thousand nuclear warheads pointed at the United States. Somehow, we managed to avoid a shooting war with them.

Yet the current administration is telling us that we might need to get involved in a shooting war over the downing of one unmanned drone by a country that doesn't have a single nuclear weapon?

Lets look more carefully at those incidents you are comparing this to.

1) Neither side ever sent armed aircraft into the other's airspace. (Subs, yes, because it's not so simple to send them out without weapons.)

2) Neither side ever fired on a craft that wasn't within it's own space.

Both sides were very careful to keep incidents under control. Shooting down this drone is going well beyond anything that happened in the cold war.

No, it's not. Neither the Soviets nor the Cubans infringed US territorial waters in 1962; But the US used the threat of force against Soviet vessels in international waters to prevent the placing of weapons close to (but outside) US territory.

The drone was an armed US military asset, within close striking distance of Iranian targets. Their use of force to discourage such provocative placement of enemy forces is justified by that precedent.

 

[bilby]

Iran does not deny shooting down the drone. They presented obviously false evidence it was over their territory when it was shot down. Thus, despite the fact that I wouldn't believe His Flatulence as far as I could throw him I conclude Iran really did it. This wasn't one of the little drones, either, but a strategic recon drone--a very pricey bird.

Of course they don't deny it, and if you're going to claim "obviously false evidence" you'd have to back that up.

Yes, it's a surveillance drone. Chances that US surveillance drones are not penetrating Iranian airspace, and are instead dutifully patrolling international waters? Slim to none. Especially when one considers that there's an element in the regime - the American one, not Iran - that is openly itching for war. Trump's National Security Advisor has been advocating war with Iran for decades, and is one of the architects of the "Don't have an excuse? Then make one up" strategy which led us into Iraq.

Which brings us to the price of the bird. Bolton thinks that the Iraq War, which cost us north of a trillion dollars and over four thousand soldiers' lives, was a relative bargain. If you think he's worried about the loss of one expensive drone, I've got a degree from Trump University I'd like to sell you.

The drone costs about $4million. That's about 80,000bbl of crude oil, or about half a supertanker worth.

The Iranians should offer 80,000bbl of crude in compensation. If only to put the US into the embarrassing position of having to refuse to accept it.

It's a win-win for Iran - if the Americans refuse the 'compensation', then they look like they really don't care so much about the 'expensive drone' after all.

If the Americans accept the oil, they make a mockery of their own sanctions, and seriously weaken their diplomatic arguments for other nations to comply with those sanctions.

 

[Ford]

Shooting down this drone is going well beyond anything that happened in the cold war.

Certainly well beyond a Soviet missile downing a U2 during the Cuban Missile Crisis. #sarcasm

 

[Patooka]

Look at where we are now. We are discussing whether invasion is justified because R2-D2's cousin was blown out of the fucking sky. Imagine if Iran tortured and murdered a US college student. A little bit more perspective is required, I think.

 

[SLD]

Iran is definitely pushing more and more aggression. Attacks on the tankers, having Houthis attack targets (desalination plants, pipelines, airports) within Saudi Arabia itself, now attack a US drone flying in international airspace. The only language the weird beards know is strength. Unfortunately, US is displaying weakness right now.
The aborted limited attack on Iranian targets makes Trump look very weak. I wonder what happened. Maybe Putin called. He and the Ayatollahs are close allies - they are even fighting together in Syria.

On this one you may be right. Trump is Putin's bitch. Probably a long compromised asset. They have the goods on him, and keep him on a tight leash. He'll never cross Putin. Possibly they have the peepee tape. Or something else just as damning.

SLD