Apparently the airliner was at 8000 feet and climbing three minutes after takeoff when it was shot down. No cruise missile operates so high. They try to be stealthy by flying low to the ground, anticipating surface features such as hills and mountains. Airliners also have radar transponders that squawk specific codes.
It's extremely likely they missile operators knew it was a civilian airliner or very much looked like a civilian airliner. Therefore it is a real possibility this was a high level decision to shoot down a known civilian airliner in a plan to then blame it on the USA in some manner -- especially if the USA really did retaliate militarily. They could say -- oh look at the loss of humanity caused by reckless American cowboys sending missiles at Iran. But when nothing came, all they had was a lot of dead innocents and no one around to blame. Sucks to be the mullahs.Let's speculate a bit here. So Iran strikes back and let's say, for sake of argument, dozens of Americans are killed and a few hundred are injured and Iran takes credit for the bombing.
I think this scenario is unlikely, as I do think the Iranians fear him as he is def a wild card in their eyes, as he is in most of the world, but it's certainly plausible so go with it for now.
What should his response then be?
and the Mullahs are not suicidal, if an attack of this magnitude were to happen Trump would be more than justified in declaring all out war against Iran with the full weight of the US Armed Forces behind him. This of course would have to have the backing of Congress as only Congress can declare war, but an attack of this magnitude would force even the likes of Pelosi, Schumer et al to authorize a declaration of war against Iran. To do otherwise would most certainly cost the Dems dozens and dozens of seats in Congress later this year.
What is a LOT more likely is something much smaller and something they might even deny. In THAT case I think that since the Iranians tried to take out the Saudi Oil Infrastructure, I think their own facilities would be fair game. Unless of course a strike came directly from Iran, in which case whatever facility the attack came from should be turned into rubble the very next day with more strikes against their infrastructure to follow.
Keep in mind the Iranian economy is already in shambles, more pressure in that regard by taking out their ability to produce, transport and sell their oil is that fastest way to bring them to their knees.
Killing Americans outright would be crazy- they know they can’t win a war with a superpower much less THE SUPERPOWER. Nor can they do tit for tat. I have to assume that cooler heads in Iran will prevail on this.
Although the DOD stopped reporting the number of contractors in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, the last reported number was around 30,000. Embassy personnel add to that number. Plus there are media and ex pats in Iran itself. Add Israelis to the mix and there is quite a pool that could be kidnaped by militias and moved to Tehran.
We all remember how helpless we were in 1979.
Because Trump has no strategy here but is bumbling along with his crowd of amateurs, he has no plan to deal with this. We see this is the post-assassination directive for Americans to leave Iraq. Um...maybe they should have done first?
But if this happens, all his saber rattling will be absolutely useless. Take hostages, accelerate the nuclear program. If they can do this, we have a real crisis on our hands.
But you didn't attempt to answer my question. Your answer was what IRAN would do, not Trump.
Can you just play along with my scenario? I agree with you that killing Americans would be insane but let's say the "cooler" headed Mullahs overheat and act irrationally.
I am actually interested in your response, unless you are saying, if by implication only, that of course it would lead to war and of course Trump would be justified in doing so.
1. the ballistic missile sites;
2. the nuclear facility sites that are mothballed
Destroying cultural sites is breathtakingly stupid – no strategic value and simply increases the likelihood of a counter strike.
Killing another general or ayatollah or two is almost as bad- they can always be replaced.
Destroying oil infrastructure only hurts the Iranian people,
No, if we must strike, destroy Iran’s ability to hit us beyond its borders. And I see they just fired some missiles – so much for my cooler heads theory.
Trump will now claim the authority to wipe out the Iranian nuke program but he MAY wait until another exchange with them before doing so. This may have been Trump's plan/hope all along.
Iran has done enough to save face, but not enough to elicit much of a response from us. As I said in my earlier post, the targets have all been hardened and so far what Iran has done tonight can be considered VERY "measured" In no way does this greenlight Trump to wipe out anything on a large scale inside the borders of Iran.
This looks like a very weak response by Iran, I think cooler heads have indeed prevailed, "so far" at least. The night is hardly over and they might launch a hundred more missiles before morning, but some how I doubt it. They know full well we could sit off their coast and pounds them with missiles and rockets for months if we so chose without risking a single American life. This type of war is unwinnable for the Iranians and they know it.
I dont think a dozen or more MISSILES being fired at U.S. troops is weak at all and certainly not VERY weak. Is it the max they can do? Certainly not, but being missiles and NOT rockets is a hug difference as missiles carry a much bigger payload.
What we need to find out is what the damage is. Is it mostly damages to hardened bunkers and buildings or or is there significant loss of life? And whose lives? Are they Iraqis or Americans and in what numbers?
Lots to sort through to be sure but I wouldn't call this response "weak" but lets hope YOU are right and I am wrong.
It appears that they chose these targets to make a lot of noise with very little chance for loss of life, ESPECIALLY loss of American lives.
The Iranians knew what they were doing when they picked these targets, if they wanted to kill Americans there were SEVERAL other targets that were much closer, and with many more Americans likely to be killed.
Just remember, Iran killed ONE American contractor and Trump took out the man who was most likely the second most powerful person in Iran a couple of days later with almost no collateral damage. Sorry Mari, but there were no Uber drivers on site. Iran had to know the consequences if they had inflicted major (or any) American casualties tonight.
Apparently not carefully enough. There has been an airliner crash (to Ukraine) near Tehran. Maybe they shot it down.
Yeah, I called that one. The timing was too coincidental. Iran now admits to shooting the airliner down ... which departed from their own country. What a bunch of fuckwits.
Apparently the airliner was at 8000 feet and climbing three minutes after takeoff when it was shot down. No cruise missile operates so high. They try to be stealthy by flying low to the ground, anticipating surface features such as hills and mountains. Airliners also have radar transponders that squawk specific codes.
It's extremely likely they missile operators knew it was a civilian airliner or very much looked like a civilian airliner. Therefore it is a real possibility this was a high level decision to shoot down a known civilian airliner in a plan to then blame it on the USA in some manner -- especially if the USA really did retaliate militarily. They could say -- oh look at the loss of humanity caused by reckless American cowboys sending missiles at Iran. But when nothing came, all they had was a lot of dead innocents and no one around to blame. Sucks to be the mullahs.
can hit the Saudi oil refineries at three times the distance, and can shoot one of our drones out of the sky, its inconceivable that out of a dozen ballistic missiles, not ONE hit the area where Americans would die, when Iran knew what part of the base housed the Americans. I have to believe that this was an "intentional" miss just to save face back home. It was strictly for domestic consumption to show how tough the regime in charge is. If they wanted to actually kill Americans, they had the technology to hit their target from the distance they were at. This was not an "accidental" miss, or a miss due by faulty missiles.
which seems to have been designed to destroy property only and NOT to kill Americans,
would Trump be saying “almost no collateral damage,” or would he be launching a massive counter strike? The Suleiman drone strike killed at least 4 Iraqis, only two of whom have been identified as militia connected to Iran in what I have read.
While as drone strikes go the number of unintended victims in this attack was small compared to some of the Obama era drone strikes (and at least there were no women and children killed as I posted in one of my anti-Obama drone posts that Jack missed) , the bottom line is there were four unintended victims. If we brush that off as “almost no collateral damage” as we always do after a drone strike, why the outrage if the same number of Americans had been unintentionally killed in Iran’s message to the US?
Whether a killing is "acceptable collateral damage" depends on who is being killed.
So how does your position have any logical consistency?
Or would you like to revise your remarks about Trump being one?
This is easy for me. I say neither one are "murderers" with re: to the drone program.
Why is this so difficult for you? Is your TDS so bad you cant be honest?
It does not matter who the president is. Really, you have got to stop looking at everything as a Republican/Democrat disagreement and comprehend what is actually happening. I gave you one Obama Drone strike post, and there are many more on the Board. In fact, for a while I even had my own personal stalker – Dronepilot – who flamed me whenever I made a drone post. Gee, I miss that guy.
Collateral damage is a concept that is part of the laws of war. Drone strikes conducted when we are NOT AT WAR do not have that protection and are simply extrajudicial killings that violate international law when innocent persons just happen to be in the drop zone. Trump is not nearly the offender Obama was, although Obama did tighten up the rules on drone strikes during his term.
In criminal law, this is called the felony murder rule. There is no privilege for a president to kill unintended victims just because he is after the bad guy, unless we are at war. But who is going to prosecute? Time for you to turn in your ACLU card, Jack.
Why the fuck did it take you THIS long to admit it then?
I had to bludgeon you 3 or 4 times to admit Obama was a "murderer", as that was SO slow to drip off your tongue but you rushed with unbridled glee to call Trump one.
It was YOU looking at it through the Republican/Democrat lens and NOT me. I am on record saying NEITHER are "murders."
Have read many of your posts and often your comments are insightful. In this instance, I believe you are referring to the "laws of armed conflict." War need not be declared for us to employ our military instrument of national power, pursuant to international law.
While most administrations consult with our staff judge advocate office within the department of defense, prior to utilizing military force, whenever possible, to make sure our actions are in accordance with international law, this happens seamlessly as part of a well organized/executed plan. Obviously, as a matter of practice, this is often not the case for the current administration.
However the line you attempt to draw in your post is not always clearly defined. When war has not been declared, the use of our military instrument of national power, is most often tied to our national defense. This is our effort to justify collateral damage, as long as these operations follow our fully staffed, rules of engagement. Drone strikes can very easily fall into this category if the conditions are right.
No matter how big of a stretch it may seem to be, you can bet in prior administrations, drone strikes were studied very carefully and the military legal community signed off on our methods and procedures for their employment.
I’m going to back off my statement that collateral damage is only a concept of the laws of war or “armed conflict” as you call it. That was clearly wrong. So how do we justify the killing of innocents in drone strikes?
You kind of had an answer for this as well:
"When war has not been declared, the use of our military instrument of national power, is most often tied to our national defense. This is our effort to justify collateral damage, as long as these operations follow our fully staffed, rules of engagement. Drone strikes can very easily fall into this category if the conditions are right."
What are the rules of engagement for drone strikes? In the Obama administration, these are apparently the rules:
"[L]ethal force will be used outside areas of active hostilities only when the following preconditions are met: First, there must be a legal basis for using lethal force"; "Second, the United States will use lethal force only against a target that poses a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons"; "Third, the following criteria must be met before lethal action may be taken: (1) Near certainty that the terrorist target is present; (2) Near certainty that non-combatants will not be injured or killed; (3) An assessment that capture is not feasible at the time of the operation; (4) An assessment that the relevant governmental authorities in the country where action is contemplated cannot or will not effectively address the threat to U.S. persons; and (5) An assessment that no other reasonable alternatives exist to effectively address the threat to U.S. persons"
Number 2 shows why Pompeo kept insisting the Sulieman danger was imminent. But the NYT reported today that actually there were 9 others killed in the strike. I don’t think Trump can satisfy “Near certainty that non-combatants will not be injured or killed.”
Nonetheless, sign…I think I also have to back off my “murder” characterization for innocents killed in a drone strike, at least where, as you say, these rules of engagement are met.
Thanks for making me think about this in greater detail.
"fog of war." Which does not directly refer to legal, "declared" war but a myriad of operations military or otherwise. We can plan to our heart's content. We can efficiently digest all the intel available (which we know is not always 100% accurate), and still the human factor results in a number of unknown/unexpected factors affecting the execution of our intent.
As we know only too well; "the best laid plans of mice and men, often go astray." We can almost never plan and then implement, with perfection. No matter how above board our intentions, "life" happens and sometimes, we end up with an outcome we did not expect. That goes for all of us in all of our endeavors.
You are EXACTLY right that "acceptable collateral damage" most definitely depends on who is being killed, and from all reports no "innocent victims" were killed. Not a single tear should be shed for any of those people who were killed while planning to kill Americans.
The Iranians were VERY aware of what would have happened to them if even a single American was killed by "accident" last night, and that's why they were VERY careful to make sure that didn't happen. I know it's hard to admit but Trumps PLAN worked. American lives were saved, Iran now believes the United States when we draw a red line, under this POTUS at least, and things are starting to deescalate if anything. Look at the market today, as of this post oil is $2.50 and the Dow is up over 200 points, I would say this is a SOLID win for the President.
4 fail the others hit dirt/sand in remote areas of the bases.
They had to be careful no one was killed or injured.
otherwise the shit would hit the fan.
This morning the Dow is up oil is down.
Yeah iran saved face .............
2020 = GOP = Trump Re-elected
Tonight's attack is actually more than I expected, but yeah, it's more saber rattling than an effective attack. I would expect they would try to do damage through proxies.
By the way, retired General Petraeus had favorable comments about Trump's actions. Not only was Petraeus a successful commander, but apparently a fellow monger.
The fact that they DIDNT use proxies is quite telling to me. it is a major "fuck you" to Trump.
It's pretty clear from Trump's tweet tonight that no lives were lost and he may actually step back from hitting back. That would be uncharacteristically measured of him and would be a good thing.
...view his lack of a military response as a weakness and then act on that perceived weakness.
Remember, he said if any U.S. interests were hit, he had 52 Iranian targets all lined up and we all know Laffy and other libtards like yourself lost a kidney going off about Trump's comment re: cultural sites.
If they do believe that, the Iranians may forge ahead with their nuke program at an accelerated rate, as they can plainly see the North Koreans have serious leverage by having one.
So the "good thing" may only be temporary and fleeting, but we will see.
Now, Mari will respond. lol
I think the North Korean leverage is that they have massive artillery along their border just 25 miles from downtown Seoul as well as the ability to send waves of soldiers.
Unfortunately liberals are so invested in their claims that Trump is worse than Hitler, etc, they they really pay no attention to his rather obvious disdain for foreign involvements. He's been pretty consistent about that for decades. The chances of Trump launching a ground war in the middle-east are slim, slimmer than under Obama or Hillary for that matter.
I actually like the idea of whacking top dogs rather than hapless cannon fodder. If I was king, that whole policy against targeting leaders would be reversed. I'm pretty sure the only reason there is such a policy is because the leaders want to be the last ones whacked rather than the first. Screw that.
Tyrannies and dictators are more vulnerable to headchopping than republics or democracies where there is a smooth transition of power. We ought to exploit this relative weakness.
and I think he got the Mullahs to believe it to. Hence the very calculated non-attack missile attack last night.
Nothing like seeing the second most powerful person on the military food chain taken off the board in an instant just a day after crossing Trumps red line to sober up everyone else up and down the chain of command. I wonder how often Iran's military leadership looks up at the sky apprehensively for drones since their precious general got what was coming to him.
Quite entertaining to witness a bunch of dunces, pontificating on a topic they know NOTHING about, while they beat their chests as if they knew shit from shinola. When in actuality, they are a bunch of bumbling old men, struggling in the dark to find their Geritol, as they march to the can for their fifth piss of the night.
Guess to some that is the benefit of an online presence. The feeble, who are short on knowledge, can remain experts in their own minds as their written word reveals them for the fools they truly are.
They should pay double TERs monthly rate, for providing them with a platform that gives them the false sense of self worth, they would be unable to find anywhere else.