‘CLEAR MESSAGE’
Iran warns ‘it’s ready for war’ after shooting down US drone as Middle East tensions rise
IRAN says it's "ready for war" after shooting down a US "spy" drone today as tensions continue to rise in the Persian Gulf.
The Islamic Republic's state-run IRNA news agency has insisted the country's Revolutionary Guard hit the drone when it flew over Iran in a "clear message" to Washington.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9334596/ir...ions-gulf/
Not a big deal. Iran is taking care to throw tantrums without endangering lives. Ships and unmanned aircraft are just things. They know once blood is spilled there will be serious military consequences, so they’re being careful to toe the line between belligerence and bellicosity.
They are claiming this attack.
They did not claim the tanker attacks.
I think that's interesting. Why not claim both if they did both?
(06-20-2019, 09:18 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]They are claiming this attack.
They did not claim the tanker attacks.
I think that's interesting. Why not claim both if they did both?
Remember, they are still trying to get International support for the BS nuclear deal. They can also claim they were defending themselves. Simple...International versus U.S. condemnation.
(06-20-2019, 09:18 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]They are claiming this attack.
They did not claim the tanker attacks.
I think that's interesting. Why not claim both if they did both?
I don’t know if they did the tanker attack or not, but assuming they did, they certainly wouldn’t own up to it. They’re trying to get international support, and they wouldn’t get it admitting to the tanker attacks. They can claim victim status on the drone because they’re being spied on.
So there are three possibilities:
1. Iran downed a US drone that was violating Iranian airspace.
2. Iran downed a US drone over the water.
3. lolwut, there was no drone you numbskulls!
It seems like option one was the right answer. So, um, what were we doing flying a drone in Iranian airspace? I suppose we had their permission to violate their borders?
(06-20-2019, 03:51 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]So there are three possibilities:
1. Iran downed a US drone that was violating Iranian airspace.
2. Iran downed a US drone over the water.
3. lolwut, there was no drone you numbskulls!
It seems like option one was the right answer. So, um, what were we doing flying a drone in Iranian airspace? I suppose we had their permission to violate their borders?
It was downed over international waters which violates international law and can be considered an act of war.
What if it wasn't a drone but an actual pilot flying over international waters? We have tons of aircraft flying around the Persian gulf over international water.
We are lucky it was a drone, but that doesn't down play the threat that was shown.
Like it or not, we are about to blow some [BLEEP] up.
(06-20-2019, 03:51 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]So there are three possibilities:
1. Iran downed a US drone that was violating Iranian airspace.
2. Iran downed a US drone over the water.
3. lolwut, there was no drone you numbskulls!
It seems like option one was the right answer. So, um, what were we doing flying a drone in Iranian airspace? I suppose we had their permission to violate their borders?
And you know this how?
I've seen so many leftists saying that they believe the Iranians more than our own military. It's pretty sad really.
(06-20-2019, 06:01 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (06-20-2019, 03:51 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]So there are three possibilities:
1. Iran downed a US drone that was violating Iranian airspace.
2. Iran downed a US drone over the water.
3. lolwut, there was no drone you numbskulls!
It seems like option one was the right answer. So, um, what were we doing flying a drone in Iranian airspace? I suppose we had their permission to violate their borders?
And you know this how?
I've seen so many leftists saying that they believe the Iranians more than our own military. It's pretty sad really.
Iran also lies.
But it would be nice if our leadership hadn't been caught telling such obvious lies 16 years ago, and it would be nice if some of those same people weren't in power today.
It seems to me that if you find yourself in the middle of an argument between two completely untrustworthy people, over a topic that they have both blatantly lied about in the recent past, you should avoid taking a side.
(06-20-2019, 06:01 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (06-20-2019, 03:51 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]So there are three possibilities:
1. Iran downed a US drone that was violating Iranian airspace.
2. Iran downed a US drone over the water.
3. lolwut, there was no drone you numbskulls!
It seems like option one was the right answer. So, um, what were we doing flying a drone in Iranian airspace? I suppose we had their permission to violate their borders?
And you know this how?
I've seen so many leftists saying that they believe the Iranians more than our own military. It's pretty sad really.
Our President has been harping on Iran since before the primaries. Our National Security Advisor is a hawk who's always looking for a good oil war just so long as he doesn't have to fight in it. He's the more or less de facto Secretary of Defense, because the real Secretary of Defense is a glorified Boeing lobbyist. The two individuals in the administration who were keeping Trump from starting any new wars, Kelly and Mattis, both walked away in disgust. That leaves a President who wants to make Iran pay for...um...existing? And a National Security Advisor who smells oil in the water.
No, I don't believe those two clowns for a second on matters of Iran.
(06-20-2019, 01:08 PM)knarnn Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/06/20/aske...d-out.html
Trump responds - believes the attack was unintentional.
I get the feeling that Trump has learned a lesson here. It was all fun and games while he was just undoing what Obama did out of spite, but I don't think he ever wanted to start a war.
During the art of the deal book tour, he said that Japan should actually be paying the US Treasury a certain amount every year. He has transitioned from there to saying that our allies should be spending a certain percentage of their GDP for their own defense - so long as they spend most of it with us based corporations such as Lockheed and Boeing. As much as I would like our government to cut Saudi Arabia loose, and the Trump worldview the Saudis are model citizens. They buy lots and lots of our military hardware. Stuff that they don't even have the skilled manpower to use properly, some of it.
And the Qataris are also model citizens in the Trump worldview.
But now Saudi and Qatar are in a fight. Trump was ready to jump headlong into that one but fortunately Tillerson and Mattis held him back.
And I think he learned something.
He sat back and did nothing and watched both of them continue to buy our stuff.
He's applying these lessons to Iran, I hope.
(06-20-2019, 03:51 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]So there are three possibilities:
1. Iran downed a US drone that was violating Iranian airspace.
2. Iran downed a US drone over the water.
3. lolwut, there was no drone you numbskulls!
It seems like option one was the right answer. So, um, what were we doing flying a drone in Iranian airspace? I suppose we had their permission to violate their borders?
The answer is #2. That particular UAV and the others in the area are for maritime surveillance and to look 20-30 miles inland at high altitudes. They have no role or reason to fly over Iran’s airspace. Also, we have very limited numbers but very high demand. Therefore they are almost never used in high risk situations. If the US wants to look further inland we use satellites for intelligence that doesn’t require immediate processing and usually a U-2 for more immediate need.
Watch the Iranian SAM launch video and you can see they outed themselves. They gave a location for the launch and you can calculate time of impact versus speed to work out a distanced traveled for the known missile type. They absolutely fired into International airspace and as the UAV was at lower altitude...perhaps returning to base depending on the time.
This provocation is proving that Trumps rightful sanctions are working, where previous policy failed. They're getting desperate, and are now showing it. When the little dog nipped, the big dog didn't flinch. Hard to sell the narrative that we're somehow "bullying" them...
Lesson in policy - pallets of cash (cash that was never going back ever) don't work against people that hate you.
(06-21-2019, 09:03 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]This provocation is proving that Trumps rightful sanctions are working, where previous policy failed. They're getting desperate, and are now showing it. When the little dog nipped, the big dog didn't flinch. Hard to sell the narrative that we're somehow "bullying" them...
Lesson in policy - pallets of cash (cash that was never going back ever) don't work against people that hate you.
The previous policy failed? how so?
Were they attacking tankers and drones in the years 2015-2017?
Were they enriching uranium to levels that could be used to build a nuclear bomb over 10 kilotons?
(06-21-2019, 09:03 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]This provocation is proving that Trumps rightful sanctions are working, where previous policy failed. They're getting desperate, and are now showing it. When the little dog nipped, the big dog didn't flinch. Hard to sell the narrative that we're somehow "bullying" them...
Lesson in policy - pallets of cash (cash that was never going back ever) don't work against people that hate you.
James Mattis wouldn't support this. John Kelly would have backed him up. Therefore, they're both gone and replaced by the draft-dodging architect of the war in Iraq and a Boeing lobbyist as his lackey. Trump gets his jihad against Islam, Bolton gets to continue his battle in the Middle East, Boeing's lackey gets big contract after big contract. We need more F-35 Joint Puke Fighters, after all.
(06-21-2019, 10:48 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2019, 09:03 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]This provocation is proving that Trumps rightful sanctions are working, where previous policy failed. They're getting desperate, and are now showing it. When the little dog nipped, the big dog didn't flinch. Hard to sell the narrative that we're somehow "bullying" them...
Lesson in policy - pallets of cash (cash that was never going back ever) don't work against people that hate you.
The previous policy failed? how so?
Were they attacking tankers and drones in the years 2015-2017?
Were they enriching uranium to levels that could be used to build a nuclear bomb over 10 kilotons?
Imagine this: your neighbor is throwing rocks through your windows. You go over and just hand him $1,000 to stop. He's going to lay off for a while, then start collecting rocks again in hopes of a second payout. That's my best bet for Iran's play in all of this. They won't try to shut down the Strait. They're not interested in a war. They know they'd be turned into a parking lot by the only post-WWII President batty enough to do it. Russia would not support them. Putin is ballsy, but not stupid. They want another payout, if not from us then from Europe. If you give a rat a cookie, right?
(06-22-2019, 09:24 AM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2019, 10:48 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The previous policy failed? how so?
Were they attacking tankers and drones in the years 2015-2017?
Were they enriching uranium to levels that could be used to build a nuclear bomb over 10 kilotons?
Imagine this: your neighbor is throwing rocks through your windows. You go over and just hand him $1,000 to stop. He's going to lay off for a while, then start collecting rocks again in hopes of a second payout. That's my best bet for Iran's play in all of this. They won't try to shut down the Strait. They're not interested in a war. They know they'd be turned into a parking lot by the only post-WWII President batty enough to do it. Russia would not support them. Putin is ballsy, but not stupid. They want another payout, if not from us then from Europe. If you give a rat a cookie, right?
I am pretty sure the answer to both of my questions was no.
In fact I'm pretty sure the answer to the first question was "no" going back as far as 1988..
I think the money is not the issue. I don't think we have any more old seized assets to offer them anyhow. Iran wants sanctions relief.