Aborted air strike by Trump

At the last minute, Trump aborted a retaliatory air strike on Iran.
He claimed because "150 civilians would be killed".

Or was it because "ONLY 150 people would be killed"?

The bloke is unstable.

Let's just be relieved that he called off an airstrike. He does seem to have accepted that the shooting down of the drone was not intentionally hostile, and after all, it is only a drone.

I am troubled insofar as the drone fell 3-4 miles INSIDE Iranian waters.
When hit , it was only flying at about 120mph. It then plummeted virtically down to the sea.
Even a bit of forwards momentum would not have carried it 3-4 miles onwards.
My suspicions are that it WAS inside Iranian airspace, and aborting the relatiatory strike was a way of de-escalating a hostile act by the US.

Iran is only the #3 military power in the Middle East (after Turkey and Israel..).

If Iran went to war against the USA it would be a very one-sided event..

America would have Israel, Britain, much of NATO, Australia, maybe Canada and New Zealand, probably Iraq and the Saudi's as well, backing them..

Iran might have Syria, Qatar, Oman, some other marginals, plus some material support from Russia, and token support from North Korea and Venezuela.

Turkey, Egypt and Jordan might not want to be seen supporting either side under current circumstances, but would likely be defending their own borders ?

Even if the USA provokes the hostilities, it would still be a suicidal reaction by Iran to fight back too aggressively.

Andy wrote:I am troubled insofar as the drone fell 3-4 miles INSIDE Iranian waters.
When hit , it was only flying at about 120mph. It then plummeted virtically down to the sea.
Even a bit of forwards momentum would not have carried it 3-4 miles onwards.
My suspicions are that it WAS inside Iranian airspace, and aborting the relatiatory strike was a way of de-escalating a hostile act by the US.

That is also a possibility, or it's possible the drone was there by mistake. Either way, if you're going to have spy planes floating around you should expect a bit of trouble.

There are two incidents the US is wrongfully blames Iran for. One is the Japanese tanker incident in the straits. The US authorities point to an Iranian boat removing an explosive device from the side of the tanker. Trouble is, they were removing the device. It was an Iranian rescue boat, FGS! Moreover, the witnesses on the tanker say it was a missile, not a magnetic mine.

Now there is this drone shot down over Iranian airspace. Not only did the debris fall on Iranian territory, but there is tracking evidence, accurate within 1-meter, that the drone was over Iran. The drone had violated Iranian airspace, as they have many times in the past.

I am troubled by the pattern. Why all of this US-inspired race to damn Iran? The US has used fabricated evidence to start a war before. Remember the WMD's in Iraq…that never materialized?

Now the US is blaming Iranian rescue boats, which are clearly removing the danger, making things safer. Then the US invades Iranian airspace with a drone and blames the other side. Aren't we seeing another attempt to "fake" our way into a war?

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Iran is only the #3 military power in the Middle East (after Turkey and Israel..).

If Iran went to war against the USA it would be a very one-sided event..

America would have Israel, Britain, much of NATO, Australia, maybe Canada and New Zealand, probably Iraq and the Saudi's as well, backing them..

Iran might have Syria, Qatar, Oman, some other marginals, plus some material support from Russia, and token support from North Korea and Venezuela.

Turkey, Egypt and Jordan might not want to be seen supporting either side under current circumstances, but would likely be defending their own borders ?

Even if the USA provokes the hostilities, it would still be a suicidal reaction by Iran to fight back too aggressively.

You are thinking in terms of conventional warfare. Iran doesn't have the assets to fight a conventional war. It will use asymmetrical tactics to fight back. It does control numerous terrorist organizations around the middle east and elsewhere.

https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/gulf-of-oman-incident-latest-intl/index.html

And people are worried over drones?

Lets hope Trump stanbds up to this terrorist regeme controlliong Iran. What is needed for the people to rise up against them. Is taking out the military facilities of Iran with the Republican guard.

phildidge wrote:https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/gulf-of-oman-incident-latest-intl/index.html

And people are worried over drones?

Lets hope Trump stanbds up to this terrorist regeme controlliong Iran. What is needed for the people to rise up against them. Is taking out the military facilities of Iran with the Republican guard.

Trump would be a fool if he did. He's already got most of what he wants via sanctions.

And, if he starts another war in the middle east, he will be voted out of office. Remember 2008?

Original Quill wrote:

phildidge wrote:https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/gulf-of-oman-incident-latest-intl/index.html

And people are worried over drones?

Lets hope Trump stanbds up to this terrorist regeme controlliong Iran. What is needed for the people to rise up against them. Is taking out the military facilities of Iran with the Republican guard.

Trump would be a fool if he did.  He's already got most of what he wants via sanctions.

And, if he starts another war in the middle east, he will be voted out of office.  Remember 2008?

Its what Iran needs, for the people to rise up against the tyrannical totalitarian regeme

No war would be started, as who would back Iran, when most Middle East nations would back the US. Many are looking for an excuse to go to war with Iran

I hope this happens and the people are able to then have proper democratic elections and be freed from such tyranny

phil wrote:Its what Iran needs, for the people to rise up against the tyrannical totalitarian regeme

Muslims don't rise up against their religion. Look at Egypt...the Muslim Brotherhood is in control...always has been.

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:Its what Iran needs, for the people to rise up against the tyrannical totalitarian regeme

Muslims don't rise up against their religion.  Look at Egypt...the Muslim Brotherhood is in control...always has been.

Sunnis do, when the enemy are shias, you muppet and it proves again you know fuck all about the region

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:Its what Iran needs, for the people to rise up against the tyrannical totalitarian regeme

Muslims don't rise up against their religion.  Look at Egypt...the Muslim Brotherhood is in control...always has been.

Also you dont know your history. In ww1 the Ottomans called for a holy jihad and had many Muslims rose up against them. Showing yet again you do not know what you are talking about

phil wrote:No war would be started, as who would back Iran, when most Middle East nations would back the US. Many are looking for an excuse to go to war with Iran

First, that's contradictory.

Second, it's the same thing they said about Iraq and Afghanistan. Still going on...longest wars in US history. Iran would create a protracted war, fought asymmetrically. There would be no endgame.

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Muslims don't rise up against their religion.  Look at Egypt...the Muslim Brotherhood is in control...always has been.

Also know your history. In ww1 the Ottomans called for a holy jihad and had many Muslims rise up against them. Showing yet again you do not know what you are talking about

WTF??? You've obviously posted on the wrong thread.

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:No war would be started, as who would back Iran, when most Middle East nations would back the US. Many are looking for an excuse to go to war with Iran

First, that's contradictory.

Second, it's the same thing they said about Iraq and Afghanistan.  Still going on...longest wars in US history.  Iran would create a protracted war, fought asymmetrically.  There would be no endgame.

Claiming something contradicts without reasoning is just simple bullshit which oftens comes from that idiotic mouth of yours

No Afghanistan was about 911 and terrorist camps and Bin Laden
Iraq was based around weapons of chemiocal weapons
This is about attacks by Iran and Nukes
There would easily be an end game. In recent years the Iranians have risen up in protests and is already at present ready to explode, due to santiions. An attack on its military facilities. Would neither  require an invasion and likely lead to the people rising up. So in no way is this like the previous conflicts

Original Quill wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Also know your history. In ww1 the Ottomans called for a holy jihad and had many Muslims rise up against them. Showing yet again you do not know what you are talking about

WTF???  You've obviously posted on the wrong thread.

Its very correct, because you said Muslims dont rise up against their religion and yet they did in WW1. The Ottomans called for a holy jihad, which mainly fell on deaf ears

Also if the regem of Iran, was to fall, it would have domino effect in Lebanon and Gaaz. Where Hezbollah and Hamas are reliant on the Iranian regeme. The best thing for stability in the middle East is the fall of Iranian regeme

If Trump called off a strike against Iran, I'm betting it's because people talked him out of it. He just seems far too impulsive and egotistical, to me, to have arrived at that decision on his own.

Of course, I could be wrong, and I'm just going by my impressions.

Ben Reilly wrote:If Trump called off a strike against Iran, I'm betting it's because people talked him out of it. He just seems far too impulsive and egotistical, to me, to have arrived at that decision on his own.

Of course, I could be wrong, and I'm just going by my impressions.

Probably the other way around. Bolton is an ass and has been itching to attack Iran for years.

But, Trump seems to be listening to Rand Paul a little on foreign affairs, so maybe the anti interventionists had more sway than the Neo Cons on this issue?

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:If Trump called off a strike against Iran, I'm betting it's because people talked him out of it. He just seems far too impulsive and egotistical, to me, to have arrived at that decision on his own.

Of course, I could be wrong, and I'm just going by my impressions.

Probably the other way around. Bolton is an ass and has been itching to attack Iran for years.

But, Trump seems to be listening to Rand Paul a little on foreign affairs, so maybe the anti interventionists had more sway than the Neo Cons on this issue?    

Well, I was going more on the basis of the whole incident with the MOAB in Syria. To be honest, married life in England has gotten me way more out of touch with what's going on in American politics -- you have to remember, I've been here the majority of this year -- and honestly, it's such a good feeling.

Who knows whether he changed his mind or someone else did? Both show good signs, right?

If he’d forged ahead we’d be saying he was a shit.
He changes his mind and he’s still a shit.

Go figure.

eddie wrote:Who knows whether he changed his mind or someone else did? Both show good signs, right?

If he’d forged ahead we’d be saying he was a shit.
He changes his mind and he’s still a shit.

Go figure.

Well, I wasn't saying he's a shit for calling off the strike -- I actually for once did not call him a shit at all

But from what I've read, there seem to be quite a number of incidences of Trump being talked out of making a rash decision by his aids. That's the only reason I said I would bet that happened this time, as well. He's definitely a ready, shoot, aim kinda guy.

eddie wrote:Who knows whether he changed his mind or someone else did? Both show good signs, right?

If he’d forged ahead we’d be saying he was a shit.
He changes his mind and he’s still a shit.

Go figure.

Based on his past comments, he's not really a military interventionist. He's seen how poorly that has worked during the past 20 years. He is going to bluster and rattle some sabers, but he's less of a hawk than Bill's old lady.

Well, like everything in the media, we simply don’t really know, do we?

eddie wrote:Well, like everything in the media, we simply don’t really know, do we?

No, but on the other hand, where there's smoke, there's usually fire. I for one don't believe the media has ganged up on Trump.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Well, like everything in the media, we simply don’t really know, do we?

No, but on the other hand, where there's smoke, there's usually fire. I for one don't believe the media has ganged up on Trump.

There must be some fire to the Clinton emails then, there was a lot of smoke.

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Well, like everything in the media, we simply don’t really know, do we?

No, but on the other hand, where there's smoke, there's usually fire. I for one don't believe the media has ganged up on Trump.

There must be some fire to the Clinton emails then, there was a lot of smoke.

Totally fair point. In fact, we know there was some fire in those emails, since so many of them were leaked by Wikileaks.

I think there was fire in the talk about Bill Clinton's affairs, Obama's drone strikes, etc.

I'm not the type to just believe whatever I want to believe, because I don't want to believe that global warming is real, for one thing.

Back to Iran: I think the calmer voices got to Trump.  True, he has always said the US shouldn't get into these overseas conflicts, but he also said he would force Mexico to pay for a border wall.  He lies.  Everything is mood and moment with him, so you can't rely on anything he says.

His reasoning, though, on the drone killing is sound (suggesting it was someone else's idea): it was only a piece of hardware, and we can afford it.  If Trump responded with something that cost actual lives, he would be vilified by Europe and the rest of the world.

The real stakes are simple: the sanctions are hurting Iran, badly, and they want them lifted.  By not escalating the contemporary antagonisms, Trump leaves Iran still with its predicament.  Why risk a war when you're already in the catbird's seat?

Or as I said earlier, perhaps he felt the cost of a retaliatory raid couldn't be justified, especially if it would only take out 150 civilians and a few military personnel.
Trump would want a far higher casualty return for his bucks.

I see Quill the antisemite is defending a hateful human riughts absuive regeme in Iran, that funds and supports terrorists. You cannot make it up and would rathe the Iranian people suffer under this regeme. So much for their human rights, he would rather an Islamic totalitarian regeme continues to fuel and fund terrorism, abuse women and homosexuals.

You cannoty make it up and it really shows people dont really give a a shit about the well being of the Iranian people, they would rather they are enslaved under Islamic fundementalism

phildidge wrote:I see Quill the antisemite is defending a hateful human riughts absuive regeme in Iran,

Iran is a beautiful country, filled with kind, intelligent people.  I've been there, as an emissary of the US government.

phil wrote: that funds and supports terrorists.

As does the US.  Economic terrorism is far more dangerous.

phil wrote:You cannot make it up and would rathe the Iranian people suffer under this regeme. So much for their human rights, he would rather an Islamic totalitarian regeme continues to fuel and fund terrorism, abuse women and homosexuals.

And you think that the US starving the Iranian people by sanctions isn't a violation of human rights?  Two different paths of reason: when we do it, it's virtue and justice; when they do it, it's vile denial of human rights.  Yet, in action and tactics, it is the same thing.  

phil wrote:You cannoty make it up and it really shows people dont really give a a shit about the well being of the Iranian people, they would rather they are enslaved under Islamic fundementalism

Why didge...I just realized, you are afraid of me.  Why else would you wander off the point and turn your attention to me, personally?  Don't be scared.  I'm just the messenger...its the message that should shiver you.

Original Quill wrote:

phildidge wrote:I see Quill the antisemite is defending a hateful human riughts absuive regeme in Iran,

Iran is a beautiful country, filled with kind, intelligent people.  I've been there.

phil wrote: Yes the Iranian people are lovely and ruled by a Totalitarian Islamic regeme that oppresses its people, funds terrorism and has voiwed to wipe out all Jews, stones women to death and hangs homosexuals

As does the US.  Economic terrorism is far more dangerous.

phil wrote:Well most of the world is involvd in santions against the regeme, which is not terrorism, in any sense of form

And you think that the US starving the Iranian people by sanctions isn't a violation of human rights?  Two different paths of reason: when we do it, it's virtue and justice; when they do it, it's vile denial of human rights.  Yet, in action and tactics, it is the same thing.  

phil wrote: Its the Iranian regeme that is starving their people, by  refusing to deal with the terms of the international laws regarding nucleur power

Why didge...I just realized, you are afraid of me.  Why else would you wander off the point and turn your attention to me, personally?  Don't be scared.  I'm just the messenger...its the message that should shiver you.

Not afraid of antisemites like you quill, i would rather expose you for the terrorist supporting low life thatt you are. Like I say, personally, people like you on the far left, is what is driving people in droves to vote for the right and you fail to even see that. Canada is next to lose badly to the right, after haveing the worst woke governement in history

phil wrote:Not afraid of antisemites like you quill, i would rather expose you for the terrorist supporting low life thatt you are. Like I say, personally, people like you on the far left, is what is driving people in droves to vote for the right and you fail to even see that. Canada is next to lose badly to the right, after haveing the worst woke governement in history

Not afraid.  Haha...that's a laugh.  Why do you answer within 30-seconds?  Why do you shift the subject from the message, to the messenger?

You're always afraid to debate.  Try it: stay out of personal insults for at least five post.  Betcha can't.

The point: Economic sanctions are just terrorism by another name.  Causing economic hardship, rather than military.  Denying human rights from afar.    It’s terrorism by different means.

The real cause of these scuffles is Trump breaking the word of the US in pulling out of the nuclear treaty.  Things were going fine til he did that.

And watch: he will agree again to the same treaty--call it Obama's treaty 2.0--when he needs it.  It's all Trump's diversion...call it fake noise.

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:Not afraid of antisemites like you quill, i would rather expose you for the terrorist supporting low life thatt you are. Like I say, personally, people like you on the far left, is what is driving people in droves to vote for the right and you fail to even see that. Canada is next to lose badly to the right, after haveing the worst woke governement in history

Not afraid.  Haha...that's a laugh.  Why do you answer within 30-seconds?  Why do you shift the subject from the message, to the messenger?

You're always afraid to debate.  Try it: stay out of personal insults for at least five post.  Betcha can't.

So let me get this staright, you think that by an arbitrary view point in regards to the time it takes to respond. Means I am afraid according to you.

One moment



Funniest load of psychobabble I have ever heard and not going to entertain your stupidity around international law in regards to legal sanctions. As seen, when you super charge words, claiming terrorism, it simple exposes more of your psychobabble

It's a very simple conclusion, given your behavior. Imagine you are playing darts with a dart board. The object is to hit the dart board with some accuracy.

Now, you meet a player who throws one or two darts at the board, and then starts throwing his darts at his opposite player. Isn't it obvious? He's abandoned the game and running scared after his better opponent.

Original Quill wrote:It's a very simple conclusion, given your behavior.  Imagine you are playing darts with a dart board.  The object is to hit the dart board with some accuracy.

Now, you meet a player who throws one or two darts at the board, and then starts throwing his darts at his opposite player.  Isn't it obvious?  He's abandoned the game and running scared after his better opponent.

Its quite simple Quill, I actually think you are quite the radical hateful extremist on many levels. These are not insults but a fair view point based on your really warped and wierd views that you have expressed time and time again. If you cannot take criticism, then that is your loss

It's not about me, didge. I'm just the better dart player. It causes you to abandon the game, and go all squirrely.

Frankly, it's so repetitive that it's boring.

Original Quill wrote:It's not about me, didge.  I'm just the better dart player.  It causes you to abandon the game, and go all squirrely.

Frankly, it's so repetitive that it's boring.  

Like I say, when you declare legal sanctions as terrorism, it shows again you move towards radical extremist thinking, which has no bases in international law. Perosnally I do not agree with santions to a nation, but against the dictators that rule them