|
Dante80 posted:It really isn't though. Consider for a moment if the embassy attack had been successful.
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 05:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 17:19 |
|
|
In a world where different things had happened, different responses would be appropriate, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 05:38
|
|
|
WATCH TRUMP START A MOTHERFUCKING WAR
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 05:38
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Consider for a moment if the embassy attack had been successful. So the US response was to a thing that didn't happen?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 05:38
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Consider for a moment if the embassy attack had been successful. Consider that it wasn't?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 05:39
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:It really isn't though. Moreover, what do you think that the accurately proportional reply by Iran should be? They had their tit, we had our tat. In a perfect world we'd be done. I hesitate to give Iran advice, but I'd have some big publicity-generating fleet exercise in the straights, burn some flags, have some chants, and call it a day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 05:41
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Consider for a moment if the embassy attack had been successful. What are you talking about? What embassy attack?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 05:42
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:They had their tit, we had our tat. In a perfect world we'd be done. I hesitate to give Iran advice, but I'd have some big publicity-generating fleet exercise in the straights, burn some flags, have some chants, and call it a day. I don't really think that we have the same definitions for the words "escalation" and "proportional". In any case though, that is some good advice for Iran, hope the situation de-escalates. Personally I'm not seeing it, and I will ONLY have Trump to blame for that, given the particulars. Dante80 fucked around with this message at 05:46 on Jan 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 05:44
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:What are you talking about? What embassy attack? Okay now I'm confused. I'm talking about the attempt to storm the embassy on Tuesday. Dante80 posted:Consider that it wasn't? It doesn't seem to me that it matters much for proportionality. That they tried is relevant on its own, yes?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 05:51
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Okay now I'm confused. I'm talking about the attempt to storm the embassy on Tuesday. So you think that was an “attack” that “failed” after watching the previous weeks’ alternate protests? Really? I expect it was never intended to overrun the embassy and was instead intended to both send a message and possibly cause the US to appear weak and/or overreact.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 05:55
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:So you think that was an “attack” that “failed” after watching the previous weeks’ alternate protests? Really? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 05:56
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:So you think that was an “attack” that “failed” after watching the previous weeks’ alternate protests? Really? Yes and this is the first I've seen that view be taken as controversial. Considering that the protests are largely over Iranian influence in government and basically nobody seems to believe that there's any grassroots component to the embassy siege. For what it's worth I've been out of the country for the past week and only halfway plugged in, but the pictures I've seen don't look like a crowd trying not to break into the embassy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 05:59
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:It doesn't seem to me that it matters much for proportionality. That they tried is relevant on its own, yes? The protests here in Greece during the financial crisis would be called a warzone in comparison. Are you trying to insinuate that the proportional response to an unarmed protest outside the US embassy after air strikes killed dozens of people, a protest that was literally stopped by a glass pane, was assassinating the second Iranian in command on foreign soil? Personally I don't buy it. If the objective was to capture the Embassy instead of creating a fuss, do you think that a paramilitary organization three times the size of the Iraqi Army would be stopped by glass? Are the pictures coming from the protest an indication that this was a planned military operation that failed because no-one thought of bringing a firearm? I'm not trying to be sarcastic btw. It just seems really weird to me for someone to reach that conclusion. Dante80 fucked around with this message at 06:04 on Jan 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 06:00
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Yes and this is the first I've seen that view be taken as controversial. Considering that the protests are largely over Iranian influence in government and basically nobody seems to believe that there's any grassroots component to the embassy siege. For what it's worth I've been out of the country for the past week and only halfway plugged in, but the pictures I've seen don't look like a crowd trying not to break into the embassy. Well, you do not know what you are talking about and clearly have not paid attention to the last several months. Most of that isn’t your fault, but you are completely and utterly out of your element.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 06:03
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/1212937797704642572 Grabbed this from another thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 06:06
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:They had their tit, we had our tat. In a perfect world we'd be done. I hesitate to give Iran advice, but I'd have some big publicity-generating fleet exercise in the straights, burn some flags, have some chants, and call it a day. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/iran-loses-qassem-soleimani-its-indispensable-man/604375/ This is not tit-for-tat. The embassy in Baghdad is not the diplomatic outpost at Benghazi, staffed by a skeleton crew at a temporary compound. It is a vast fortress in country where we have been at war for longer than a decade. There have been no fatalities during the current attack, it was unlikely there would be fatalities, and there was zero chance the embassy would be overrun. This isn't even the first time the embassy has been attacked in the last few years, and it's weathered mortars and rockets just fine. That's how the game has generally been played; low stakes, minor provocations that everyone can move past after a few days or a week. In response we killed one of the most important people in Iran. Soleimani had contacts all over the Arab world and, from past reporting, was running essentially all of Iran's regional activities. Imagine if Iran had killed the defense secretary in response to some provocation of ours. And not the current lackey; someone with real institutional power and respect, like Mattis or Colin Powell. That's not something you just wave the flag over. If a contractor or a couple privates get killed, that sucks but it's not significant in the strategic picture. But when someone at the equivalent of the cabinet level or chief of staff level is killed, there will be a real response, if nothing else because the establishment will demand it. Killing Soleimani moves this out of the realm of "proxy war" and into hot war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 06:25
|
|
|
tangy yet delightful posted:https://twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/1212937797704642572 All of those C-5s landed at Dover. They're not transiting. Yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 06:26
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Yes and this is the first I've seen that view be taken as controversial. Considering that the protests are largely over Iranian influence in government and basically nobody seems to believe that there's any grassroots component to the embassy siege. For what it's worth I've been out of the country for the past week and only halfway plugged in, but the pictures I've seen don't look like a crowd trying not to break into the embassy. There's zero chance the attacks were intended to overrun or probably even breach the embassy. The US embassy in Baghdad is massive; it is a fortified compound covering over a hundred acres, thousands of people work there, there is a large security contingent of uniformed US military and armed contract security. I'm sure the crowd looks good in news photos, as that's certainly what it was designed to do. If the PMF wanted to break in you would not be seeing crowds of civilians with molotovs, you would be seeing armored vehicles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 06:33
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:So you think that was an “attack” that “failed” after watching the previous weeks’ alternate protests? Really? ding ding ding Platystemon posted:
If you mean uniformed leadership, I doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 07:02
|
|
This is what U.S. high command actually believes.
|
Godholio posted:If you mean uniformed leadership, I doubt it. uninformed* leadership, however * political
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 08:07
|
|
|
So just how hard is it to detect an obsolescent diesel sub in the gulf or med before it gets fish away?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 09:13
|
|
|
According to the documentary down periscope really hard unless you go full active and then you can just drive it between the screws of a tanker if you can't pretend you're a fishing boat
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 09:31
|
|
|
My experience in CMANO indicates that the skipper will quickly get bored of trying to get into torpedo range of anything worthwhile at the single digit loving knots you'll be doing on battery and he'll react by closing the scenario and scrolling through the list for one with nukes instead. Wait.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 10:00
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/CivMilAir/status/1212998607927947264
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 12:05
|
|
|
hypnophant posted:Muhandis wasn't officially in the chain of command.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 13:35
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:The point is that we don't appear to be leapfrogging the level of seriousness. Embassy gets attacked, guy purportedly behind it gets waxed. It's basically proportional. Escalation on our part would be killing him in Iran by blowing up his office building or something. Captain von Trapp posted:The point is that we don't appear to be leapfrogging the level of seriousness. Embassy gets attacked, guy purportedly behind it gets waxed. It's basically proportional. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 13:44 on Jan 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 13:39
|
|
|
hypnophant posted:In response we killed one of the most important people in Iran. Soleimani had contacts all over the Arab world and, from past reporting, was running essentially all of Iran's regional activities. Imagine if Iran had killed the defense secretary in response to some provocation of ours. And not the current lackey; someone with real institutional power and respect, like Mattis or Colin Powell. That's not something you just wave the flag over. If a contractor or a couple privates get killed, that sucks but it's not significant in the strategic picture. But when someone at the equivalent of the cabinet level or chief of staff level is killed, there will be a real response, if nothing else because the establishment will demand it. Killing Soleimani moves this out of the realm of "proxy war" and into hot war. If Mattis were living in Iran, directing the killing of Iranians, for years, and they blew him up… I'd have to say I couldn't blame them. As far as moving into hot war, we've been in a, I dunno, warm war for as long as Iran has been killing our soldiers in Iraq. We haven't really emphasized it for political and diplomatic reasons, but it is what it is. It is not an unreasonable escalation to kill the guy that's killing you. Hopefully Iran will say "Ok, they're serious" and back off. Hopefully we're serious when we say we don't want a hot war with Iran. I don't think Trump or his advisors do, and Bolton is safely sacked. But we'll see. It is a dangerous time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 13:44
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:If Mattis were living in Iran, directing the killing of Iranians, for years, and they blew him up… I'd have to say I couldn't blame them. But it's still an escalation, and the question is do you want that, and why
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 13:50
|
|
|
so my current project work is writing a book on Iranian tactics. yesterday I was working on the chapter on quds and terrorism and proxy war. what a bizarre coincidence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 13:50
|
|
|
bewbies posted:so my current project work is writing a book on Iranian tactics. Make sure to leave room for the Iran, Iraq stuck in the middle, U.S. War.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 13:54
|
|
|
The guys who got whacked unquestionably deserved it. They represent the worst parts of the Iranian government and its activities in Iraq and Syria. But it's still an escalation over the failed embassy attack and risking further, unnecessary escalations by Iran.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 14:12
|
|
|
I wonder if we’ll still be on the same AUMF when kids today are grown and fighting in the middle east.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 14:39
|
|
|
AUMF has been used to allow military action in Afghanistan, the Philippines, Georgia, Yemen, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Iraq, and Somalia In July 2019, Cmdr. Rebecca Rebarich, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said the department "does not believe 2001 AUMF can be used against Iran." That position has been affirmed by the Pentagon's top lawyer, Paul Ney Jr. While Pentagon officials do not deny that al-Qaeda has had ties to Tehran, those links are generally seen as limited and nonoperational.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 14:46
|
|
|
The Secretary of State has said he believes the AUMF would work for a war with Iran and presented a briefing making that case to Congress last year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 14:49
|
|
|
The US just assassinated a government official on another countries sovereign territory. As of now the AUMF can mean whatever they want it to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 15:02
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I wonder if we’ll still be on the same AUMF when kids today are grown and fighting in the middle east. I'm certainly still able to post the same Onion articles
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 15:04
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:If Mattis were living in Iran, directing the killing of Iranians, for years, and they blew him up… I'd have to say I couldn't blame them. Here's the thing: there is zero doubt that Iran will retaliate. The stature of the person we killed assures it for reasons of both internal and international politics. Imagine if Iran assassinated the director of CIA; the US would obviously have to respond whether or not the CIA has acted against Iranian interests. I have no idea what form that response will take, but I don't think Iran will shift to a less directly adversarial stance because of it - especially given all the advances they have made in the region over the last three decades. The degree to which this guy was a lovely dude who deserved what he got has almost nothing to do with whether this action was favorable toward our national interests. It will be seen by many other nations as an escalation on our part and Iran will respond in some way that we won't like. How does that weigh against the benefits of this action? Was this guy pivotal to some future action against us that we have now thwarted decisively? I don't know, but it better be something like that because killing this guy probably reinforces the position of Iranian leadership internally rather than diminishing it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 15:40
|
|
|
glynnenstein posted:Was this guy pivotal to some future action against us that we have now thwarted decisively? I don't know, but it better be something like that because killing this guy probably reinforces the position of Iranian leadership internally rather than diminishing it. I dont know enough to have a worthwhile opinion on the right or wrongness of the matter but if he is in fact the head of the "Iranian CIA" it seems on its face the answer is a resounding "Yes!" And when combined with the fact that he was in country meeting with militia leaders at the time of the assassination, it seems like he was actively doing so at the time he was killed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 15:54
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:I dont know enough to have a worthwhile opinion on the right or wrongness of the matter but if he is in fact the head of the "Iranian CIA" it seems on its face the answer is a resounding "Yes!" And when combined with the fact that he was in country meeting with militia leaders at the time of the assassination, it seems like he was actively doing so at the time he was killed. Not for me to speak to speak for glynnenstein but I inferred his comment to mean "Was this guy pivotal to some future action [that actually matters] against us that we have now thwarted decisively?" Not just a violent embassy protest or rocket attack.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 16:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 17:19 |
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:I dont know enough to have a worthwhile opinion on the right or wrongness of the matter but if he is in fact the head of the "Iranian CIA" it seems on its face the answer is a resounding "Yes!" And when combined with the fact that he was in country meeting with militia leaders at the time of the assassination, it seems like he was actively doing so at the time he was killed. I'm not sure a limited decapitation strategy assures all that much organizational disruption for a nation-state actor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 16:04
|
|