Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Jan 17 21:23:46 PST 2020

Utopia Talk / Politics / IT'S WAR!
FoxNEWS
Member
Tue Jan 07 18:14:41
Ballistic missiles launched!

Remember Trumpicantards believed Hillary would get us into wars.

Trumpicantards rejoice as they cower and refuse to fight!
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Tue Jan 07 18:20:53
"
The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way...and without hesitation!
"
~ moron, 2 days ago

we could have a new 'when keeping it real goes wrong' episode in the works
jergul
large member
Tue Jan 07 18:26:32
CSG Truman is out protecting the Indian Ocean. It will be a while before carriers can enter the Persian Gulf again.
Allahuakbar
Member
Tue Jan 07 18:27:49
http://edi...sions-intl-01-07-20/index.html

Top Iranian official tweets image of Iranian flag following attack

Iran's top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, who is also a politician and representative of the Supreme Leader, tweeted an image of the Iranian flag following reports of attacks on al-Asad air base
jergul
large member
Tue Jan 07 18:33:29


Statement from Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Jonathan Hoffman:

At approximately 5:30 p.m. (EST) on January 7, Iran launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles against U.S. military and coalition forces in Iraq. It is clear that these missiles were launched from Iran and targeted at least two Iraqi military bases hosting U.S. military and coalition personnel at Al-Assad and Irbil.

We are working on initial battle damage assessments.

In recent days and in response to Iranian threats and actions, the Department of Defense has taken all appropriate measures to safeguard our personnel and partners. These bases have been on high alert due to indications that the Iranian regime planned to attack our forces and interests in the region.

As we evaluate the situation and our response, we will take all necessary measures to protect and defend U.S. personnel, partners, and allies in the region.

Due to the dynamic nature of the situation, we will continue to provide updates as they become available.
jergul
large member
Tue Jan 07 18:37:18
Erbil and Al Asad are both drone launching facilities. In case you were wondering about target selection criteria.
jergul
large member
Tue Jan 07 18:44:04
They are also the two closest major bases supporting US operations in Syria.

You know, Syria. Where Iranian special forces are deployed and who incidentally just had their commander assasinated.

I would be very careful up there. The last time they raided a US compound, they got away with 4 US soldiers as prisoners (all of the soldiers were shot during the extraction. One survived).

Habebe
Member
Tue Jan 07 18:56:06
Well regime change is comimg to Iran.
Allahuakbar
Member
Tue Jan 07 18:57:42
Habebe convert to Islam before it's too late and the IRGC will knock on your door.
jergul
large member
Tue Jan 07 19:04:10
I just watched the Fars video of the launches. That was a lot of missiles. I don't think I have ever seen the like.

Habebe
Or regime change in the US. Which is probably more likely given an election coming up soon.

Norway has a contingent at the Erbil base. So there is some skin in the game so to speak.
Allahuakbar
Member
Tue Jan 07 19:06:11
Beware!!!


Iran threatens to attack inside America if US responds to missile attacks

From CNN’s Artemis Moshtaghian

In its Telegram channel, Iranian Revolutionary Guard says the “Pentagon reports that the US will respond to Iran’s attacks.”

IRGC then says in a footnote, “This time we will respond to you in America”
Rugian
Member
Tue Jan 07 19:15:56
jergul

And Iran is facing -9% annualized GDP growth. We'll see which country outlasts the other on those metrics.

Anyway, time to draw up a list of Iranian military targets to destroy in retaliation. I'll start:

* Imam Square, Isfahan
* Imam Reza shrine, Mashad
* Old Bam, Kirman
* Pasargadae
* Persepolis
* Archway of Ctesiphon (Iraq)
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Jan 07 19:19:00
Iran is fucking retarded.
jergul
large member
Tue Jan 07 19:28:15
Ruggy
Look at you learning culture.

Sammy
Your airforce has way too much hardware in Dubai. Maybe you should have built creches instead of the wall?

Lets see how well Iran's conventional deterrent works.
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Jan 07 19:31:45
Ohhh baghdad jergul, you never learn.

The only hope iran has is that none of those scuds actually hurt anyone. Then we might, just might, not have to kill them.
hood
Member
Tue Jan 07 19:33:08
"HILARY WOULD START A WAR!"

"So here are targets that we should attack to start a war."

- hypocritical douchenozzles.
Rugian
Member
Tue Jan 07 19:35:13
jergul

You have of course ruined your whole credibility on this subject when you claimed that Iran was a model of restraint and moderation with its policy of "only" blowing up US servicemens' limbs. Trolling still needs to stay within certain bounds of reason after all, and you blew straight through those into the territory of camp hilarity.

That having been said, I can say with all seriousness that I am way more a fan of Iranian history, and its resultant output in the architectural sphere, than you are. You cretin.
jergul
large member
Tue Jan 07 19:42:11
Sammy
Fateh-110s now that I got a good look at one of the launches.

Get a grip. I did not think Saddam stood a chance in 1991, let alone 2003.

I was firmly against the invasion for reasons that were fully validated and warned that the cost would be far, far, beyond what the white house was suggesting at the time.

I am also not saying you cannot missile the crap out of Iran. I am just not sure that you are willing to risk it.

Iran has a conventional deterrent that potentially puts a lot of US hardware at risk.

You got it backwards. The more effective this attack was, the less likely the US would like to see it happen elsewhere. Say for example in Dubai.

You really do have a godaweful number of unprotected aircraft stationed there.
Habebe
Member
Tue Jan 07 19:45:04
Well,On the upside Saudia arabia will be the unquestioned Islamic power in the region.
jergul
large member
Tue Jan 07 19:46:22
Ruggy
I guess you crossed a red line. Who would have thought? Oh, every administration before Trump thought killing Suleimani might be a red line.

I guess they may have been right.
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Jan 07 19:46:47
Lol baghdad jergul. Ok.
jergul
large member
Tue Jan 07 19:49:47
Habebe
You do know your carrier group withdrew to the Indian Ocean, right?

There are pretty rigid operation constraints in play.
jergul
large member
Tue Jan 07 19:52:16
Sammy
You are gas-lighting again. Still butthurt over my thinking invading Iraq was a horrible idea. lulz.
jergul
large member
Tue Jan 07 19:54:56
Incidentally, who still thinks assassinating Suleimani was a good idea?
jergul
large member
Tue Jan 07 20:01:09
Damn, I got distracted. gn :).
Habebe
Member
Tue Jan 07 20:08:59
Allah, I refuse to bend the knee to a new god. I'm Budhist so ill just try to stay positive and ill be glad Trump will eliminate the threat of a nuclear Iran.

Jergul, Wishful thinking. Iran attacked the US military the most popular bipartisan institution in this country.

In the short term Trump will be popular for this....if it becomes a long drawn out war he will not but.

As much as I dislike long drawn out wars Iran started this by continual escalation of attacks.
Habebe
Member
Tue Jan 07 20:19:10
Jew God*
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Jan 07 20:44:26
War doesnt need to be long or costly
murder
Member
Tue Jan 07 20:45:25

The Big Dumb Cheeto is unusually silent tonight. It's been 7 hours since his last tweet. He's probably in shock that Iran told him to shove his stupid threats.

He has to respond because he can't afford to look like a punk.
murder
Member
Tue Jan 07 20:46:46

lol! He just tweeted ...


-----------------------------------------------
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
· 1m

All is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow morning.

-----------------------------------------------
murder
Member
Tue Jan 07 20:48:55

Apparently if you speak his true name, he tweets. :o)

Rugian
Member
Tue Jan 07 21:00:01
murder

"Apparently if you speak his true name, he tweets. :o)"

I'm confused. Where did you call him "God Emperor" again?
kargen
Member
Tue Jan 07 21:32:21
Turns out they fired a few missiles into the desert near the bases. Either they can't hit shit or they didn't want to. I'm guessing they launched some missiles for propaganda use in Iran but had no intention of escalating by actually hitting something.
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Jan 07 21:51:51
Iranian air defenses just shot down an american plane.

A boeing 737-800.

owned by a Ukrainian airline.

On a flight from tehran to kiev.

With 180 passengers on board.

Rofl@jergul!!!!
Dukhat
Member
Tue Jan 07 21:59:17
It crashed according to news reports. Samantha is so dumb.
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Jan 07 22:16:08
Lol@cuckhat!!!!!
Arab
Member
Wed Jan 08 00:22:45
If trump doesn't carpet bomb Tehran than he's a coward.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 08 00:26:08
Looks like war is cancelled. But the launches were quite spectacular.

Nice to see two old faces again. Hi old faces :).
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 08 00:44:50
"Iran took & concluded proportionate measures in self-defense under Article 51 of UN Charter targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens & senior officials were launched.

We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression."

================

Yah, I called that: "Erbil and Al Asad are both drone launching facilities. In case you were wondering about target selection criteria."

Seems fair. From a perspective where you remember that Suleimani was actually killed by drone.

Any war hysteria now would have to be fuelled by visions of Imperial grandeur.

Iran has demonstrated it can and will use its conventional deterrent.

I guess we will have to see if a conventional deterrent is enough. There is no doubt in my mind it is the only thing stopping Trump from whacking 52 targets in Iran.

He is probably aware that Iran has range now.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 08 01:01:36
(CNN)Iran's defiant volley of ballistic missile attacks on Iraqi bases hosting American forces significantly quickened a cycle of escalation that threatens to erupt into a full blown war with the United States.
In effect, Iran called President Donald Trump's bluff, dismissing his warnings that it should not respond to his own massively provocative move of killing the Islamic Republic's top general.
Iran's attack appeared to shatter the talking points of Trump's political allies that his targeted strike against Qasem Soleimani had reestablished deterrence. Far from stopping a war as Trump promised, last week's attack may have started one.

While the missile strikes represented rare direct fire between Iran and the US, they were not as potent as they might have been given Soleimani's talismanic importance to the Iranian regime. If Trump interprets them that way, it could open an avenue to limit the escalation of the current crisis.
Iran attacks two Iraqi bases housing US forces in 'revenge' for Soleimani's death
Iran attacks two Iraqi bases housing US forces in 'revenge' for Soleimani's death
The question now, is how the President, torn between a hatred of looking weak and a new Middle Eastern war he vowed to avoid but seems to have blustered his way into, will react?
If neither side blinks, America could be on the brink of its first hot war with revolutionary Iran after 40 simmering years of proxy conflicts, bitter rhetoric and short-lived diplomatic thaws.
Or each of the foes could consider their honor preserved after several days of inflammatory exchanges and step back from the cusp of a confrontation that is threatening to spin out of control. Such a step back would not quell tension. It would likely see Iran seek to oust the US from the region and Washington redouble political, economic and diplomatic pressure on Tehran. But it might stop short of the shooting war both sides insist that they don't want.
If it is to be war, it would be one of Trump's own making, and a product of a brash, threatening leadership style carved from an "America First" disdain for traditional US diplomacy by an emotional President who acts on instinct rather than strategy.
It would match Trump -- and his hollowed out national security team, purged of moderating forces who might have stopped him short of this point -- against Iran's theocratic rulers.
It now seems as though Trump's hardline policy towards America's 40-year foe -- triggered by his withdrawal from an Obama-era nuclear deal -- is close to reaching an inevitable result.
The administration says that its "maximum pressure" policy and punishing economic warfare is designed to force Iran back to nuclear talks and to quit its regional misbehavior. It seems to have had the opposite effect.
A war with Iran could further tear the fabric of American political life, amid Trump's impeachment battle, and rebound on the President as he seeks a second term in November's election.
It could set the Middle East ablaze even more so than the Iraq War, unleash assaults by Iranian proxies on American targets and allies and halt the fight against ISIS. Given opposition to Trump's harsh Iran policy among traditional allies, America could find it fighting such a battle alone.
How will Trump respond?
Trump now appears to have two options.
First, he can follow through on his own threats and take another step in the escalatory cycle with what he warned might be disproportionate military force. In this scenario, and given that Iran fired missiles at Americans from its own territory, it seems inevitable the US would target Iranian soil. Islamic Republic pride might dictate another move towards full-on war.
"If Iran does anything that they shouldn't be doing, they're going to be suffering the consequences, and very strongly," the President told reporters in the Oval Office Tuesday.
Esper says US isn't looking 'to start a war with Iran, but we are prepared to finish one'
Esper says US isn't looking 'to start a war with Iran, but we are prepared to finish one'
Much will depend on how the United States evaluates Iran's attacks on the al-Asad air base west of Baghdad and in Erbil in the semi-autonomous Kurdish region of northern Iraq.
Trump could chose to accept Iran's play as its calibrated response to Soleimani's killing and hold back the wrath of the US military. While Tehran did directly fire on American troops, it could have taken steps that were more likely to result in mass US casualties.
But Trump never turns the other cheek. His mantra is when you are attacked, hit back harder -- a philosophy that seems to have informed the stunning shot at Soleimani, which surprised even some members of his own administration.
"Trump has already set a standard that he's going to do a massive retaliation. If he fails to do that I think he looks weak," one source who recently spoke to the President told CNN's Jim Acosta.
A possible pause
Yet the most grave moment of a presidency awash in shallow political controversies also tugs Trump in another direction.
The President's instinct is to withdraw American troops from harm's way everywhere. He sees deployments overseas as a waste of money. He promised the political base to which he remains unfailingly loyal that he was different than predecessors who foundered on foreign entanglements, especially in Iraq.
"We don't want to be there forever; we want to be able to get out. I didn't want to be there in first place, to be honest," Trump said, working through his conflict in the Oval Office.
Defying some expectations, the United States did not immediately retaliate Tuesday.
"Now is the time for patience and restraint," a senior administration official said.
The President seemed to radiate relief that no Americans were killed in the attacks, despite reports of Iraqi casualties.
"All is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow morning," Trump tweeted.
Confirmation that no Americans died could offer Trump running room to avoid large-scale reprisal strikes against Iran.
The evolving US justification for killing Iran's top general
The evolving US justification for killing Iran's top general
The President decided against making an Oval Office address to the nation on Tuesday night after news broke of Iran's attacks. This potentially wise move spared him from immediately investing prestige in a course of action.
Perhaps the pause will give Trump time to reflect.
Retired Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, a CNN military analyst, counseled restraint, passing on a lesson imprinted on the nation's recent history.
"It's very easy to fall into a war and start a war, it's a lot more difficult to extract ourselves from one," Hertling said.
The top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, on Tuesday urged Trump to step back from confrontation before it is too late
"We are at a critical juncture where we still have an opportunity to be responsible and pursue diplomatic channels," Menendez said in a statement.
"The American people are not interested in getting involved in yet another endless war in the Middle East with no clear goal or strategy."
Political consequences
A key question in the coming days is whether a divide-and-rule President can unite the nation behind him if the situation deteriorates further.
Already there are serious rumblings on Capitol Hill about the administration's refusal to reveal the intelligence that Trump says proves Soleimani was planning "imminent" attacks.
Defense Secretary Mark Esper told CNN's Christiane Amanpour that the intelligence was "more than razor thin" but also argued that Soleimani's "time was due" -- appearing to indicate that his record was as important as his intent.
The debate about timing might seem irrelevant given that there is no doubt that Soleimani was a sworn enemy of the United States with American blood on his hands.
But if the administration used inadequate intelligence as an excuse to eliminate him as part of an ideological Iran policy, it will beg the question of whether the cost justified the risk.
Iran is also playing politics
In coordinating its response to Soleimani's killing, Iran took a noticeably political approach -- seeming to consciously pile political pressure on the President, perhaps in the belief he doesn't want to go down in history for starting a war.
The al-Asad air base was familiar to him — it was where he touched down during his only trip to Iraq in December 2018.
The Iranians also stressed, amid a barrage of bellicose commentary possibly aimed at a domestic audience, that their response was proportionate and not intended to spark a war.
"We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression," Foreign Minister Javad Zarif tweeted, in what was possibly a veiled offer of an informal truce.

Days after a senior State Department official told reporters that -- by killing Soleimani -- the US was talking to the regime in Tehran in language it understands, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei seemed to slip into Trump-speak in a statement.
"I said during a speech at the time (of Barack Obama's presidency) that the time for hit-and-run is over. If you hit, you get hit back," the Ayatollah said in an undated video released in Tehran.

CNN

kargen
Member
Wed Jan 08 01:03:36
I think you completely missed jergul. President Trump through his actions has been really clear that the line is when Americans die. This attack by Iran was nothing more than giving them something to shove at viewers in Iran on state run television. They didn't want any casualties in these attacks and President Trump doesn't want another prolonged war when one of his campaign platforms was reducing our presence in the area.

President Trump will continue to say the US will respond to all terrorist attacks and Iran will continue to say they are only defending themselves. Iran will continue to not honor an agreement they haven't been honoring for a very long time now and President Trump will continue to say Europe needs to do more.

Iran fucked up killed an American contractor and paid for it. That is basically all that happened.

And maybe Iran accidentally shot down a plane?
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Jan 08 01:12:07
"President Trump through his actions has been really clear that the line is when Americans die"

nope... Trump specifically said if they attack a base, we'd retaliate... but i agree he's a liar & won't do it


"Iran will continue to not honor an agreement they haven't been honoring for a very long time now"

Trump's own people concluded Iran was complying w/ the Iran Deal agreement... but you keep buying the bullshit

Trump knew nothing about the deal & continues to know nothing... only ever says 'we gave $150 billion' which is false & he got out only because Obama was involved & what he heard on Fox News
Paramount
Member
Wed Jan 08 01:16:44
” This attack by Iran was nothing more than giving them something to shove at viewers in Iran on state run television. They didn't want any casualties in these attacks and President Trump doesn't want another prolonged war when one of his campaign platforms was reducing our presence in the area. ”

My thoughts too. Diplomatic talks between US and Nato and EU, and then between EU and Iran. They agreed that Iran would be allowed to strike these sites and the US could evacuate beforehand so that the conflict wouldn’t escalate.


” And maybe Iran accidentally shot down a plane?”

More likely it was the US who shot down the airliner. The US has a history of shooting down civilian airliners.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 08 01:25:20
Kargen
How was I missing the point?

If Iran feels it responded proportionately and you feel that it did not respond disproportionately, then where is the problem?

The point you are understating is that Iran has demonstrated a willingness to use its conventional deterrent.

You mean a group Iran supports fired some rockets and a contractor got killed?

You might want to be careful about attributing blame to state actors any time a group they sponsor kills someone.

This forum will be full of threads about the US killing people.
Dukhat
Member
Wed Jan 08 01:27:13
Kargen is trying to toe the line between trumptard and just conservative but he always turns into a trumptard because he believes in the same lies.

Iran's goals are simple. Buy time until they can get nukes. In which case the entire Middle East becomes a clusterfuck.

Thanks for electing Trump you stupid shits.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 08 01:34:50
It is pretty effective propaganda.

Anytime anything goes wrong, go into excruciating detail on how misshaps in the process, or perhaps a few rotten apples, are to blame.

Paint with as broad a brush as possible and use any connection, no matter how far-fetched, to attribute both blame and actions personally to government leaders you dislike.

Assad is killing people

Investigation are ongoing into reports that civilians may have died during a military operation in a random afghani provice yesterday.

Powerful stuff.
Paramount
Member
Wed Jan 08 01:44:55
There are reports that 80 terrorists was killed by the Iranian attack.

Ok, if true, maybe the US got angry and DID shoot down the airliner in response.


Or maybe the agreement was that Iran would only be allowed to use missiles at these particular sites. But then as the attack occured the US saw an airplane on their radar and thought it was going to be used in the attack despite that it was not part of the agreement (only missiles) so the USA shot down the airliner.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 08 01:47:48
"The crash of a Ukrainian passenger plane in Iran was the result of an engine failure, not terrorism, the Ukrainian embassy to Iran says."

They know this because radio has been invented I imagine.

But it is a good example of above.

"Rofl jergul. Iran shot down a civilian airliner"

As opposed to the excruciating detail into which we are painfully thrust every time a Boeing aircraft falls out of the sky.
Delude
Member
Wed Jan 08 04:35:42
"I think you completely missed jergul. President Trump through his actions has been really clear that the line is when Americans die. "

Y'know, it is interesting that you portray yourself as some sort of independent thinker as you claim that you do not tow the line; but you're so quick to justify anything Trump does.

But since you're playing semantics--

"Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets..."

"If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way...and without hesitation!"

'Really Clear' indeed.
Paramount
Member
Wed Jan 08 05:53:02
” The crash of a Ukrainian passenger plane in Iran was the result of an engine failure, not terrorism, the Ukrainian embassy to Iran says."”


They have retracted from that. There is also supposedly a video that shows the plane. The clip shows how the sky lights up, followed by a powerful explosion.
Paramount
Member
Wed Jan 08 05:59:21
http://www...-toll-passengers-a9274611.html
Arab
Member
Wed Jan 08 06:24:59
https://twitter.com/alyazdy/status/1214739229701480448?s=21
Arab
Member
Wed Jan 08 06:25:44
http://twitter.com/alyazdy/status/1214739229701480448?s=21
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 08 06:42:52
Para
The Embassy made the call too early anyway.

The only way to know was if the pilots were saying "engine on fire" and even then, an investigation is in order.
murder
Member
Wed Jan 08 07:16:11

Has Trump hit the 52 Iranian targets yet? Or is he all mouth? :o)

murder
Member
Wed Jan 08 07:17:09

btw I too assume that the Iranians downed the airliner by mistake. It seems too coincidental.

jergul
large member
Wed Jan 08 07:59:36
That was my first instinct too until the Ukrainian embassy said different.

But we will be wrong quite often if we always discount coincidence.
Seb
Member
Wed Jan 08 08:06:25
Just after takeoff from a city airport, over urban area at night. No video or reports of missile, video of plane seems to show it in steady flight while on fire, and an air defence SAM would normally cause complete breakup quite rapidly so far engine failure looks somewhat credible if coincidental.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Jan 08 10:03:56
Lol aviation experts seb and jergul have spoken.
Allahuakbar
Member
Wed Jan 08 10:11:06
This was not the full revenge!

http://www...address-IRGC-revenge-Soleimani

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei says Iran’s early Wednesday missile attack on US bases in Iraq following the American assassination of a top general was just “a slap”.

"The talk of revenge and such debates are a different issue. For now, a slap was delivered on their face last night," Ayatollah Khamenei said in remarks broadcast live on national television Wednesday.

"What is important about confrontation is that the military action as such is not sufficient. What is important is that the seditious American presence in the region must end," he said to chants of "Death to America" by an audience in Tehran.
Seb
Member
Wed Jan 08 10:12:28
Satellite footage of the base damage is interesting. Looks like those that did hit were pretty precise (no near misses, tight clustering of craters) and they targeted equipment sheds. So as Jergul says, the message is "we can mission kill your FoBs and cause bajillions in damage in short order".

What isn't clear, and haven't looked exhaustively yet, is whether a lot clearly missed by a long way.

TJ
Member
Wed Jan 08 10:25:28
Just to add flavor and additional speculation.

The 737 could have been sabotaged while on the ground in Tehran. The investigation will remedy all doubts about what happened, hopefully.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 08 10:26:13
Seb
Iran certainly has missiles that are capable of missing by a long way. The missile type used (fateh-110) has 4 blocks and several derivatives.

The early blocks have a CEP of 100 m at effective (not max) range. Al-Assad is outside of effective range.

A tactical variant would be to use early blocks as decoys to screen the more presise later blocks.

This would be consistent with how Iran staged their launches.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 08 10:36:41
They are reporting residue from a different missile. Could be. I did not see all the launches. The ones I saw were fateh-110s.
Paramount
Member
Wed Jan 08 10:58:28
” The 737 could have been sabotaged while on the ground in Tehran”

This is the third or the fourth Boeing 737 in a row that is crashing and killing all people. It could be that Boeing is crap.
murder
Member
Wed Jan 08 11:11:07

"Satellite footage of the base damage is interesting. Looks like those that did hit were pretty precise (no near misses, tight clustering of craters) and they targeted equipment sheds."

I'm just wonder where our missile defense was.



swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Wed Jan 08 11:25:23
http://twitter.com/LucasFoxNews/status/1214899237550542848
TJ
Member
Wed Jan 08 11:41:17
Paramount:

I suppose you are a person that throws out the entire bushel of apples because you found a rotten one.

Know the statistics of what airplane you are flying on.

http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm
Seb
Member
Wed Jan 08 12:14:22
Murder:

If this was negotiated - which it in some way may well have been - then why would the US use module defence? It would defeat the purpose of allowing Iran the domestic political cover needed to reverse policy; defeating the US objective. It would also give Iran and other countries confidence about US capabilities and information on how to defeat it.
murder
Member
Wed Jan 08 12:18:27

According to Trump we just spent $2 trillion on military equipment, and we can't afford to protect our troops?

murder
Member
Wed Jan 08 12:24:07

Seb: There is no way that this was negotiated. Forget the domestic audience, Iran needed to show the US that it wasn't going to roll over.

Negotiating a response would be the equivalent of having "Prison Bitch" tattooed over their ass.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 08 12:33:58
The white house reaction last night does not in any way suggest this was negotiated in some way.

The fluster was clearly evident until casualty reports were in. Then Trump went to bed.

Iran is a fascist technocracy and went about the matter in a fascist technocratic way. Of course the response was carefully gauged.

The only real danger was a combined ops in Syria or Iraq aimed at capturing 52 Americans. I am pretty sure that was on the table.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 08 12:35:05
That option* Its a different escalation ladder.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Wed Jan 08 13:00:16
"The only real danger was a combined ops in Syria or Iraq aimed at capturing 52 Americans. I am pretty sure that was on the table."

They must not have a Trump wannabe in charge.
Seb
Member
Wed Jan 08 13:10:29
Murder:

I mean I suspect Iran let it be known which bases they'd be targeting when to allow US to minimise casualties. Not asking permission.

The threat comes from demonstrating accuracy of balistic missiles.

Blood will come later.



Forwyn
Member
Wed Jan 08 13:37:40
"Just after takeoff from a city airport, over urban area at night. No video or reports of missile, video of plane"

You think people are sitting on balconies videoing routine commercial flights take off?
Average Ameriacn
Member
Wed Jan 08 13:40:25
I have several security cams monitoring everything around my house. Since drones have become common I record the sky, too.
Rugian
Member
Wed Jan 08 14:01:18
Well...so much for "IT'S WAR!"

Somewhere in the universe, Aeros is sad right now.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 08 14:06:01
Jergul: "I am also not saying you cannot missile the crap out of Iran. I am just not sure that you are willing to risk it.

Iran has a conventional deterrent that potentially puts a lot of US hardware at risk.

You got it backwards. The more effective this attack was, the less likely the US would like to see it happen elsewhere. Say for example in Dubai.

You really do have a godaweful number of unprotected aircraft stationed there."

I got it mostly right Bagdad Sammy. I did not consider they would do the equivalent of spelling out Suleimani's name with impact craters.

It was an elegant way of demonstrating potency without being unduly provocative.
kargen
Member
Wed Jan 08 14:18:29
"Y'know, it is interesting that you portray yourself as some sort of independent thinker as you claim that you do not tow the line; but you're so quick to justify anything Trump does."

I clearly stated "through his actions."

You shared rhetoric. There is a difference as I have been saying for a couple of years now.
Delude
Member
Wed Jan 08 15:12:37
And "through his actions" in conjunction of your assessment about reducing presence in the region, the opposite effect has/is occurred.

Again 'really clear' indeed.
murder
Member
Wed Jan 08 15:21:43

"Murder: I mean I suspect Iran let it be known which bases they'd be targeting when to allow US to minimise casualties. Not asking permission."

Seb: They had no choice. Those are Iraqi bases on Iraqi soil. They had to inform Iraq ... and if the Iraqis know then the US knows.


"The threat comes from demonstrating accuracy of balistic missiles. Blood will come later."

Yep. Although there's really no sense in trading fire with US forces. We can't operate in the region without hosts, and it would be far more effective to bleed them. It's much easier to protect military units than to protect everything else in the region.

murder
Member
Wed Jan 08 15:24:04

"Somewhere in the universe, Aeros is sad right now."

I feel his pain. I feel cheated. I was really looking forward to more Republican voting morons getting blown to hell.

Maybe next week.

Seb
Member
Wed Jan 08 16:06:06
Murder:

Indeed, that's why I think it's likely. Maybe negotiated is the wrong word. Informal mutual understanding brokered by third parties.

"We will rocket you, but we won't be trying to kill your personnel so unless you want to get them killed"

Similarly, if the US wants to draw a line under this having sent the message RE proxy warfare, it would make sense to withdraw personnel to safe locations and not have anti missile batteries armed and ready.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 08 16:09:09
Murder
I don't think the USMC will be voting republican this election cycle.

The letter sent by mistake was not mistake. The Iraqi PMs office noted a discrepancy between the English and Arabic texts. A new version with the error corrected was sent over.

Cool of them to go out on patrol immediately after the raid at Al Asad. Cool in a due diligence kind of way. They could have been spoiling a complex attack for all they knew.

But they knew what Iran could have done instead of doting Suleimani's initials with rocket craters.

They have to be pissed at the administration.

Yah, I am ambivalent about the USMC.
Seb
Member
Wed Jan 08 16:12:07
As Jergul says, it's about deterrence. Precision of their bms shows that if the US wanted to attack Iran conventionally as with North Korea, it would first need to substantially pull back (particularly aircraft) from Iraqi and other bases (especially the navy base in Qatar) then establish air dominance and suppression of Iranian missiles from carriers and or long range bombers before they can move back in.

I.e. it will be hugely expensive and destabilising.

The US wouldn't be defeated, but it's difficult to see what would be worth the candle. N.b. this has implications for Iran breaking out for a bomb now.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 08 16:25:58
Seb
There was about a 17 minute window from launch to impact for the main strike.

The warning came in the form of the 23-24 minute window the longer ranged ballistic missile fired gave. I see absolute no reason for its use beyond providing a nice early radar signature and trajectory.

The Iranians called the Iraqis after launch, so that would be the worded communique.

Everyone had time to get to the shelters. There are not Patriot systems in Iraq. The ISIS air force is not a threat.

I do not think there were other channels of communication.

What you are seeing is the DoD and State Department inflating a theory and selling it to the president because they really, really do not want to fight Iran.

The US is not currently set up for that at all.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 08 16:33:40
Iran cannot break away and get nuclear weapons. They have their version of Supreme Court rulings that prohibit it.

It can however aim for nuclear ambiguity and nuclear threshold status.

It would make sense to give their conventional deterrent added depth in that way.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 08 16:37:30
It also makes sense for renewing the nuclear deal. If nuclear ambiguity is the alternative to getting the deal up and running, then getting the deal back up and running becomes a lot more attractive.

Rugian
Member
Wed Jan 08 17:39:28
The nuclear deal, which just kicks the can down the road on preventing nuclear ambiguity?

I'm really not sure why you're so gung-ho about that. A nuclear-free Iran in 2020 is nice, but I plan on being alive in 2026 as well and I don't want them to have a nuke then either.

Good on Obama and Merkel for getting it signed though. It was the consummate "we'll be out of office by the time this agreement fails the world" deal.
murder
Member
Wed Jan 08 19:34:03

"Murder: I don't think the USMC will be voting republican this election cycle."

They will. They always do. Putting them in danger will not change that. They signed up for this. These guys knew that they weren't going to defend the US from invasion from Canada or Mexico. They knew that they were signing up to go dominate nations on the other side of the planet.


"They have to be pissed at the administration."

It doesn't matter. Right wing politics in the US is all about white people trying to hold on to what was theirs. It's all about keeping the country from getting browner, and resenting minorities and women for demanding equal rights and equal pay, and trying to keep gays out of bathrooms and inside closets, and feeling victimized when people say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", and resenting not being able to harass/assault/rape women with impunity, and pc culture, and raging at people who rage over cops murdering black people in the streets, getting angry when the government looks out for the poor, and hating clean air and clean water and other socialist conspiracies ... like science.

Unless Trump gives amnesty to illegal immigrants, they will vote for him again and demand a third term.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 09 01:18:38
Ruggy
The deal regains a lot of leverage. Iran would have something to lose if it insisted too hard on narrowing the window to nuclear ambiguity in future negotiations.

I cannot see what leverage you have now at all.

The restraint Iran showed recently does significantly undermine thoughts that the regime is too irresponsible to be allowed nuclear ambiguity.

I was not terribly surprised. They have shown great restraint with their conventional deterrent too. Under very challenging conditions (groups that control the actual launchers have habitually been blown up by Israel).

And look at you learning stuff. Nuclear weapons remain unusable, but yes, they are the only things that could physically stop Iran from gaining nuclear ambiguity if it chooses to do so.

For now, it is simply narrowing the window a bit.

Murder
Part of Semper Fi(delis) is ironic. The USMC is the only branch of the US military that is willing to take losses. This means in part that its esprits de corps is built on the victim's role:

We always pay for the stupidity of others.

Assassinating Suleimani was stupid. And that particular stupid buck stops with Trump. The DoD was very clear on that decision being the president's and only the president's.

The stupid is based mostly on the combo of killing Suleimani in Iraq and insisting on staying in Iraq.

The operational dangers have increased dramatically and their noses are being rubbed in their serving only at the pleasure of the Iranian government.

Sure the US would eventually win. Just like it eventually won in Korea. But the USMC went through hell due to overreach before the balance eventually shifted.

I should mention that the USMC had a good working relationship with groups Suleimani worked with. Their mission in Iraq is to train and equip personnel that generally think Suleimani was a hero.

What a clusterfuck. That letter was not mistake. It was a wagging the dog maneuvre.

The USMC is not particularly white, though it is particularly male dominated.

http://www.cfr.org/article/demographics-us-military.

But you are right. The USMC will mostly vote for the president. If it votes.

But it will do so with far less enthusiasm than before.

Because of where the stupid buck so stupidly stops.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 09 02:04:55
"Starting late Tuesday night and into Wednesday morning, Iran initiated contact with the administration through at least three back channels, including Switzerland and other countries, according to a senior administration official. The message from Iran was clear: This would be their only response. They would now wait to see what the US would do.
As part of its response back, the US conveyed that it was fully aware that Iran controls its proxies in the region, including Hezbollah. The source told CNN that Iran tried to "squeak out of it," saying they are not responsible for those proxies, but the US made clear it didn't buy that argument."

I buy the Iranian argument. They have a lot of influence, but do not control the "proxies".

Or to put it another way. Can anyone name a single Arab group under control of any other country ever?

I ultimately do agree with the underlying sentiment. If you sponsor shit, then you own it.

But that would have to be true for every country, not just Iran. And it would take a long time to get that understanding firmly cemented.
Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 09 02:54:46
Well it's apparently economic war. Or as one pro Iranian callednot tonight " The US deals in economic terrorism" by not trading with them....

Now if you'll excuse me I have plans to go conquer China for the European.
Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 09 03:25:42
So my autocorrect is apparently a whit supremacist cause I typed Wu an it corrected that to European...

Anyway I got fucked anyway, I wanted to kill Liu bei and snatch up zhang fei and Guan Yu for myself and then swing down and take out song Zhou for the win...but Guan yu wasn't captured before Bei died so he was named as successor...
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 09 05:58:11
Habebe
The US views economic embargoes as acts of war.

The problem is not so much that you do not want to trade with Iran as it is that you will let no one else who uses your economic system to trade with Iran.

The embargo becomes pretty comprehensive and is hugely damaging to the Iranian economy.

Its not something that can be legitimately trivialized.

But at least there is always China :D.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jan 09 06:21:13
Jergul
”Or to put it another way. Can anyone name a single Arab group under control of any other country ever?”

Iranian use of Arab proxies goes back to the 6th century with the Lakhmids in Mesopotamia and the conquest of Yemen. The eastern Roman empire employed its’ own Ghassnid Arabs as a buffer client state. You said ”ever” :P so besides the long Iranian tradition of Arab clients, Rome during the 6-7th century.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 09 06:37:08
Nimi
Those are good examples of what I mean. There is only degrees of influence. For control, you would actually need to assert sovereignity.

The greatest and most effective non-arab leader of Arab groups ever? Laurence of Arabia? Did he control the Benduin tribes, or simply have influence enough to point them in the general direction of the Ottomans?

Is the UK responsible for every misdeed those tribes did on their way?
Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 09 17:30:14
Jergul, well others CAN trade with them we just will throw economic sanctions on them as well as is our right...we don't HAVE to trade with anyomse we dont want to.

Europe is big in not wanting to buy fuel that will increase carbon emissions....as is there right. China bans almost all of Google and severely limits Apple two of our largest companies.Europe also severley limits our sales of guns a large industry in the US....why? Because of non - economic reasons they morally oppose these things just as we morally oppose trading with that regime.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jan 09 17:41:03
Dukhat
Member Tue Jan 07 21:59:17
It crashed according to news reports.


Lol
show deleted posts
Bookmark and Share