100 Marines to Baghdad (Iran conflict discussion)(Reopened & Merged) (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

We’re gonna try to stay on point in this one - .

After the Iranian admission of shooting down the Ukrainian 737, which was carrying 82 Iranian passengers, protests against the Supreme Leader have broken out.

The UK ambassador to Iran has been arrested for talking photos of the protests. President Trump has tweeted support for the protesters in English and Farsi.

 

[JimEverett]

First of all, I think the bombing of cultural sites was one of the dumbest things Trump has said. That was really stupid and is, at worst, fodder for our enemies and anyone who wants to disassociate close relationships with us.

Second, while I think there should be a very very high bar for war the reality is that these days the major powers engage in conflicts that really are not "existential" for lack of a better word. So, I would not want to see the Vatican, for instance, bombed during WW2. But it if had been extensively damaged but not targeted for some messaging or punishment then I wouldn't think there was some sort of war crime.

The U.S. or NATO going in and bombing mosques or historical sites in Muslim countries during a conflict that is regional - as opposed to threatening the U.S.'s existence or that of NATO states seems totally different. Perhaps there is a cultural aspect as well. Meaning there seems to be less or no criminal aspect when a western/Christian nation destroys culturally significant Christian and western works vs. destroying significant works that lie outside its cultural history.

 

[efil4]

First of all, I think the bombing of cultural sites was one of the dumbest things Trump has said. That was really stupid and is, at worst, fodder for our enemies and anyone who wants to disassociate close relationships with us.

Second, while I think there should be a very very high bar for war the reality is that these days the major powers engage in conflicts that really are not "existential" for lack of a better word. So, I would not want to see the Vatican, for instance, bombed during WW2. But it if had been extensively damaged but not targeted for some messaging or punishment then I wouldn't think there was some sort of war crime.

The U.S. or NATO going in and bombing mosques or historical sites in Muslim countries during a conflict that is regional - as opposed to threatening the U.S.'s existence or that of NATO states seems totally different. Perhaps there is a cultural aspect as well. Meaning there seems to be less or no criminal aspect when a western/Christian nation destroys culturally significant Christian and western works vs. destroying significant works that lie outside its cultural history.

huh? Im so lost - how would the Vatican have been damaged without targeting yet send a message/punishment? If one is looking to send a message, then that entails planning. Planning entails targeting.

And lets not get lost on what Trump truly meant here. Targeting cultural sites was a jab at the Muslim religion ( and what he views as its ideology ). And it was incendiary. Meant to incite Iran.
Its in the same vein of when he talked about being sued...attack back. Hard. Call them every name in the book, disparage and attempt to demean/discredit as best you can.

This is our POTUS.

 

[JimEverett]

huh? Im so lost - how would the Vatican have been damaged without targeting yet send a message/punishment? If one is looking to send a message, then that entails planning. Planning entails targeting.

The Vatican was damaged by bombing in WW2. But it was not targeted.

 

[superchuck500]

Interestingly, things are moving toward de-escalation quickly today. Iran has stated that their "operation" is over and they will take no further action unless in response to new US action. Trump is reportedly welcoming the chance for the two nations to move beyond this exchange.

Will there be a new push to negotiations, or will we return to status quo ante, where it will only be a matter of time before the next exchange? Also, how will the air crash play in the situation if evidence comes out that it was an Iranian missile?

 

[efil4]

The Vatican was damaged by bombing in WW2. But it was not targeted.

Ok and how far have we come since 1942~ regarding targeting ? specific to guided munitions

I could understand if we still employed "dumb" bombs dropped from a b17 using an azimuth and a bombadier.

this isnt nearly the same. Today, we can put a cruise missile thru a 4x6 window of a building 1000 miles away. Never leaving the ops room.

So his comment was deliberate and beneath everything the US has ever stood for.

 

[efil4]

Interestingly, things are moving toward de-escalation quickly today. Iran has stated that their "operation" is over and they will take no further action unless in response to new US action. Trump is reportedly welcoming the chance for the two nations to move beyond this exchange.

Will there be a new push to negotiations, or will we return to status quo ante, where it will only be a matter of time before the next exchange? Also, how will the air crash play in the situation if evidence comes out that it was an Iranian missile?

I for one am glad he slept on it. Forget the "weak" look argument ( which will now probably come from warhawks). You traded blows, now glove each others hands and meet in the middle.

 

[Joe Okc]

what are AA guns used for?

Really?

 

[JimEverett]

Ok and how far have we come since 1942~ regarding targeting ? specific to guided munitions

I could understand if we still employed "dumb" bombs dropped from a b17 using an azimuth and a bombadier.

this isnt nearly the same. Today, we can put a cruise missile thru a 4x6 window of a building 1000 miles away. Never leaving the ops room.

So his comment was deliberate and beneath everything the US has ever stood for.

I am not sure if you even read what I wrote.

 

[Archies Ghost]

The Iranian missile attack was clearly designed to not provoke the US by avoiding US casualties while saving face and giving them a propaganda opportunity internally.

Iran claims 80 Americans killed in missile strike: Here is all you should know about the attack

The attacks came hours after US Defense Secretary Mark Esper said the US should expect retaliation over the US killing of Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani in a drone strike in Iraq on Friday. Iran says 80 "America terrorists" were killed in the missile strikes, but US president Donald...

economictimes.indiatimes.com

I would expect the President to strike a "wait and see" tone at this point.

 

[Soundwave]

Saw on CNN earlier that Iranian State news is reporting inside Iran that the missiles did kill Americans. Of course we know this to be false. I'm just gonna take it as this whole exercise was done to save face and look strong for their own people. Also, we obviously shouldn't trust all news that comes from Iran state media. A portion is nothing more than propaganda.

Edit: Damn you @Archies Ghost for posting this right before me.

 

[efil4]

First of all, I think the bombing of cultural sites was one of the dumbest things Trump has said. That was really stupid and is, at worst, fodder for our enemies and anyone who wants to disassociate close relationships with us.

Second, while I think there should be a very very high bar for war the reality is that these days the major powers engage in conflicts that really are not "existential" for lack of a better word. So, I would not want to see the Vatican, for instance, bombed during WW2. But it if had been extensively damaged but not targeted for some messaging or punishment then I wouldn't think there was some sort of war crime.

The U.S. or NATO going in and bombing mosques or historical sites in Muslim countries during a conflict that is regional - as opposed to threatening the U.S.'s existence or that of NATO states seems totally different. Perhaps there is a cultural aspect as well. Meaning there seems to be less or no criminal aspect when a western/Christian nation destroys culturally significant Christian and western works vs. destroying significant works that lie outside its cultural history.

I am not sure if you even read what I wrote.

Maybe i misunderstood.

What i read and understood was that you equating the damage to the Vatican "collateral damage" to damage to Muslim Holy sites being "collateral" as well. I also understood you to say that if there was an AA emplacement just next to a Mosque, that was targeted, and damage occurred, that wouldnt be a war crime. I agree.

Trump didnt say that, allude to that in any statement. He specifically said "target cultural sites". When a country at war places its defense armament in/around Holy sites, that is to be expected and planned for accordingly ( which has been the case for decades now from the US ).

His statement was a clear departure from that.

As to the last part, i understood that to mean that when Christians ( perceived ) do it to Christians, there tends to be a pass on. Well, are you targeting Muslim holy sites because they are Muslim ( as the tweet clearly seemed to indicate ) or are you targeting because there is clear intelligence that armament is positioned there? Thats the question.

was i right in my understanding?

 

[superchuck500]

The Iranian missile attack was clearly designed to not provoke the US by avoiding US casualties while saving face and giving them a propaganda opportunity internally.

Iran claims 80 Americans killed in missile strike: Here is all you should know about the attack

The attacks came hours after US Defense Secretary Mark Esper said the US should expect retaliation over the US killing of Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani in a drone strike in Iraq on Friday. Iran says 80 "America terrorists" were killed in the missile strikes, but US president Donald...

economictimes.indiatimes.com

I would expect the President to strike a "wait and see" tone at this point.

It will be interesting to see if negotiations gain any momentum through all of this. That's clearly Trump's end-game and there's much to believe that Iran is open to it. Of course, negotiations are unlikely to be meaningful, Trump hasn't been very effective to date (he's likely going to want them to commit to no nukes, which they're not going to do). But even getting to the table would be tremendously positive.

 

[efil4]

Really?

defense. not aggression.

Thats the point i was making to you.

 

[Joe Okc]

Saw on CNN earlier that Iranian State news is reporting inside Iran that the missiles did kill Americans. Of course we know this to be false.

I am quoteing this because with this propaganda coming out.. I doubt we would be getting reports of Happy Dancing Iranians due to Somaninli getting killed coming out of Iran...

 

[Archies Ghost]

Saw on CNN earlier that Iranian State news is reporting inside Iran that the missiles did kill Americans. Of course we know this to be false. I'm just gonna take it as this whole exercise was done to save face and look strong for their own people. Also, we obviously shouldn't trust all news that comes from Iran state media. A portion is nothing more than propaganda.

Edit: Damn you @Archies Ghost for posting this right before me.

My humble apologies

 

[JimEverett]

Maybe i misunderstood.

What i read and understood was that you equating the damage to the Vatican "collateral damage" to damage to Muslim Holy sites being "collateral" as well. I also understood you to say that if there was an AA emplacement just next to a Mosque, that was targeted, and damage occurred, that wouldnt be a war crime. I agree.

Trump didnt say that, allude to that in any statement. He specifically said "target cultural sites". When a country at war places its defense armament in/around Holy sites, that is to be expected and planned for accordingly ( which has been the case for decades now from the US ).

His statement was a clear departure from that.

As to the last part, i understood that to mean that when Christians ( perceived ) do it to Christians, there tends to be a pass on. Well, are you targeting Muslim holy sites because they are Muslim ( as the tweet clearly seemed to indicate ) or are you targeting because there is clear intelligence that armament is positioned there? Thats the question.

was i right in my understanding?

It probably was because I wasn't being clear. In fact, in my first sentence I meant to say "at best" not "at worst"

I think we agree.

I was making more of a general point about cultural sites in war - and what should or should not be criminal. I was not in any way trying to justify anything Trump said about targeting them.

 

[Joe Okc]

I want to throw this out... (I can;t figure out how to copy a tweet)

Omar said this: "Rep. Ilhan Omar tweeted Monday that President Trump could draw the U.S. into war with Iran if it seek to harm properties owned by the Trump Organization around the world. "

I had never thought of this.. Iranian targeting personally owned properties own by Trump... Is that not giving the enemy ideas?

What if terrorist attacks start happening at Trump owned properties... Is this not treason her giving our enemies ideas and information?

 

[Beach Friends]

I wonder to what degree the face saving firing of missiles into the sand was telegraphed to the U.S. and/or Iraq.