(06-22-2019, 06:10 PM)jagibelieve Wrote:

(06-22-2019, 12:48 PM)TJBender Wrote: There's a difference between someone destroying your car with a sledgehammer and someone racing towards you with a sledgehammer intending to destroy your car. One of those calls for practical revenge followed by a call to the police and your insurance company. The other involves turning the other person into Swiss cheese. You'll get no argument from me on that.

(06-22-2019, 03:11 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: Agreed. Two entirely different things with two entirely different, yet reasonable responses.

One fact that seems to elude you both is that an attack on a military asset operating in international waters is an act of war.  As has been pointed out already, sanctions are hurting Iran and they are looking for a way to get support from the international community.  It's not much different than when North Korea decides to launch missiles into the Pacific, only this time Iran took out a U.S. Military Asset.  They wanted a retaliatory strike and wanted casualties so that they could use it as propaganda and make the U.S. "the bad guy" in all of this.  Ask yourself.  Why would the air fake footage of the drone attack?

A strike against certain targets such as RADAR sites or Anti-Aircraft sites would have been justified.  The casualties not so much.

Face it.  The President made yet another good decision.

That's already been established. As far as the president making a good decision. Yes, he finally did, but the fact that he even considered an air strike is alarming. Whether or not the downed drone was an act of war or not, it did not justify an air strike which would've almost certainly caused casualties. Retaliating with cyber attacks is the right thing to do.

---