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.

 

[wardorican]

That matches up with this map:

That impact flash.. damn. What a horrifying experience to live through, even if only momentarily.

 

[Archies Ghost]

Thanks - I was under the impression painting was a process where a unit in the field (separate from the battery) electronically marked the target.

This video from WWII era gives a good idea of why the term developed.



There are multiple types of internal guidance in the missiles themselves as well as a few different target tracking methods from the ground.

Internal guidance may be radio command, active radar on the missile, infrared seeker or various forms of optical guidance.

The SA-15 does not have active radar on the missile (9M330). It is guided by radio command from the launch vehicle. The vehicle uses it tracking radar primarily for guidance but there is an optical tracking system with laser range finding that can be used if the radar is being effectively jammed.

 

[superchuck500]

This video from WWII era gives a good idea of why the term developed.



There are multiple types of internal guidance in the missiles themselves as well as a few different target tracking methods from the ground.

Internal guidance may be radio command, active radar on the missile, infrared seeker or various forms of optical guidance.

The SA-15 does not have active radar on the missile (9M330). It is guided by radio command from the launch vehicle. The vehicle uses it tracking radar primarily for guidance but there is an optical tracking system with laser range finding that can be used if the radar is being effectively jammed.

You mean like when someone gives you the raspberry?

 

[superchuck500]

Iraq: We would like you to leave.

US: Nah, we staying and you're gonna pay for it.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Iraq: We would like you to leave.

US: Nah, we staying and you're gonna pay for it.

Die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain....Though to be fair, we(America) have been a villain a pretty long time.

 

[superchuck500]

Die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain....Though to be fair, we(America) have been a villain a pretty long time.

It's challenging all around. I mean, from Iraq's standpoint, they don't want to be an active battleground between Iran and the US. Over the course of this most recent episode, a bunch of crap got blown up . . . all in Iraq.

At some point, Iraq is within its sovereign right to determine that it's better off without a U.S. presence than it is with it. That might not turn out to be right, but it's their prerogative.

For the US, it would be a strategic loss, though not as big of one as the critics will make it out to be.

 

[Farb]

I’m getting pretty sick of people saying that the Democrats “like“ Soleimani or think he is some “wonderful shining light”. That’s just a stupid and ridiculous thing to say. It’s insulting.

it’s on par with Trump’s claims that democrats are “pro-crime” and and “pro-gang violence” though.

do you really think that or are you just aping Trump?

I totally agree, but the best way to stop people from thinking that is to have people/CNN/NYT not compare him to Charles DeGualle and Machiavelli and show his 'funeral' and ask if America would ever turn out to a 'funeral' for one of its generals in those numbers.
I am sure a lot of liberals don't agree to that, but we are in a time where everyone paints with a really broad brush on those that disagree with their political stance.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

It's challenging all around. I mean, from Iraq's standpoint, they don't want to be an active battleground between Iran and the US. Over the course of this most recent episode, a bunch of crap got blown up . . . all in Iraq.

At some point, Iraq is within its sovereign right to determine that it's better off without a U.S. presence than it is with it. That might not turn out to be right, but it's their prerogative.

For the US, it would be a strategic loss, though not as big of one as the critics will make it out to be.

I think how big of a strategic loss depends on the context and the aftermath.

If the result is a strengthening embrace of Tehran it becomes notably worse. If it results in a resurgence of ISIS it becomes notably worse. If it has a cascading effect with other near allies in the region, it would be notably worse. If a combo or all happen it would pretty bad. If it just results in greater resentment and a bit of a strengthening with Iran, where we don’t have to leave but the threat is looming, it wouldn’t be too bad.

All of which is prefaced on the assumption that America holding significant sway in the region relative to adversaries is a worthwhile strategic goal. Which the Trump administration sends incredibly mixed signals about but their actions signal they do care(even if Trump himself is incredibly contorted about). Though on a personal level I suspect I am much softer on that position than definitely the military establishment and likely a good chunk of the left. Though I am not a full on isolationist. More of a multilateral collaborator with a soft touch.

 

[Beach Friends]

According to reports, he was given a menu of options and the Soleimani option was the far out option meant to encourage him to choose the more sensible ones.

Discouraged for all the reasons that came about. It wasn’t going to strategically alter Iran’s capacity to operate their statecraft machine, while it risked fallout with our allies while escalating tensions with Iran in a less controllable way.

Sounds like some people who were advising the POTUS need to do the honorable thing and resign.

First, the way that reads is that submitted what they considered a non viable option for the sole purpose of manipulating their Commander in Chief.

Second, they leaked their version of events which would have the affect, if not the purpose, of undermining their Commander.

They are not serving the best interests of the nation by doing either, IMO.

 

[dtc]

The best interest of our nation is to undermine and manipulate this president to keep him from burning the whole world to the ground in order to prove he's got more than a mario shroom in his drawers.

 

[FullMonte]

Sounds like some people who were advising the POTUS need to do the honorable thing and resign.

First, the way that reads is that submitted what they considered a non viable option for the sole purpose of manipulating their Commander in Chief.

That would all depend....is it normal for the president to be presented with a list of options, including the most extreme?

Second, they leaked their version of events which would have the affect, if not the purpose, of undermining their Commander.

They are not serving the best interests of the nation by doing either, IMO.

And again...that would also depend.....Is it in the best interest of the nation for the people to be told that the president will take the most extreme option, when given a list of possible reponses? That he will take that option against the recommendations of the others in the room?

 

[MT15]

Sounds like some people who were advising the POTUS need to do the honorable thing and resign.

First, the way that reads is that submitted what they considered a non viable option for the sole purpose of manipulating their Commander in Chief.

Second, they leaked their version of events which would have the affect, if not the purpose, of undermining their Commander.

They are not serving the best interests of the nation by doing either, IMO.

FWIW Susan Rice doesn’t think that story rings true. She said there can definitely be a menu of options but in her experience none of them are not viable options nor are they presented only to make other options look better. I thought it sounded kinda far out there when I heard that reporting.

She said sure there may be a low, middle and high response presented, but they aren’t trying to manipulate the president.

 

[Port City JJ]

So it appears Pompeo has had a hard-on to kill Soleimani for a number of years and is the driving force behind Trump's decision to "take him off the board."

How Pompeo convinced Trump to kill Soleimani and fulfilled a decade long goal | CNN Politics

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was a driving force behind President Donald Trump’s decision to kill a top Iranian general, sources inside and around the administration tell CNN, a high-stakes move that demonstrates Pompeo’s status as the most influential national security official in the Trump...

www.cnn.com

 

[Beach Friends]

So it appears Pompeo has had a hard-on to kill Soleimani for a number of years and is the driving force behind Trump's decision to "take him off the board."

How Pompeo convinced Trump to kill Soleimani and fulfilled a decade long goal | CNN Politics

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was a driving force behind President Donald Trump’s decision to kill a top Iranian general, sources inside and around the administration tell CNN, a high-stakes move that demonstrates Pompeo’s status as the most influential national security official in the Trump...

www.cnn.com

Good for him if true, because that was a good kill. I think your average Iranians are good folks, better to kill that murderous thug than harm decent people.

Having said that, why would anyone trust CNN's sauces?

 

[Port City JJ]

Good for him if true, because that was a good kill. I think your average Iranians are good folks, better to kill that murderous thug than harm decent people.

Having said that, why would anyone trust CNN's sauces?

IKR? CNN's sauces are not thick enough. Always too runny. Personally I like McCormick's sauces, except for spaghetti sauce, then I prefer ROA's or Classico.

 

[Farb]

So it appears Pompeo has had a hard-on to kill Soleimani for a number of years and is the driving force behind Trump's decision to "take him off the board."

How Pompeo convinced Trump to kill Soleimani and fulfilled a decade long goal | CNN Politics

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was a driving force behind President Donald Trump’s decision to kill a top Iranian general, sources inside and around the administration tell CNN, a high-stakes move that demonstrates Pompeo’s status as the most influential national security official in the Trump...

www.cnn.com

So, its Pompeo that led the entire peaceful world into WWIII. Oh, never mind, its just a normal Friday.

 

[TaylorB]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/10/new-iran-revelations-suggest-trumps-deceptions-were-deeper-than-we-thought/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Weird how they've never mentioned the attempt on Shahlai

Shahlai is in Yemen fighting Kushner's WhatsApp buddies, the Saudis. The whole "imminent threat" part of the initial statement about the strike on Soleimani was a more conspicuous lie than sharpie drawn on a NOAA map.

The inconsistent messaging on this type of thing is such a troubling pattern. No one knew why we suddenly pulled out of NW Syria immediately after Erdogan called Trump. There may have been more military people involved in this decision than in Syria, but all the explanations seem like after-the-fact justifications of something he decided to do unilaterally or at the behest of a very small group (could be US or foreign or both). Ukraine was similar.

When it's reported he ordered the strike to kill Soleimani to appease Senators ahead of impeachment, it's hard not to consider that as a possibility. That's definitely a motivation he couldn't have made the military apparatus aware of before making the call. Who knows for sure whether that's true, but it's as logical as anything else we're being told. At the risk of being accused of mourning the death of a really bad dude (I'm not -- he deserved what he got), I'm frustrated at constantly being lied to.

 

[Beach Friends]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/10/new-iran-revelations-suggest-trumps-deceptions-were-deeper-than-we-thought/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Weird how they've never mentioned the attempt on Shahlai

Shahlai is in Yemen fighting Kushner's WhatsApp buddies, the Saudis. The whole "imminent threat" part of the initial statement about the strike on Soleimani was a more conspicuous lie than sharpie drawn on a NOAA map.

The inconsistent messaging on this type of thing is such a troubling pattern. No one knew why we suddenly pulled out of NW Syria immediately after Erdogan called Trump. There may have been more military people involved in this decision than in Syria, but all the explanations seem like after-the-fact justifications of something he decided to do unilaterally or at the behest of a very small group (could be US or foreign or both). Ukraine was similar.

When it's reported he ordered the strike to kill Soleimani to appease Senators ahead of impeachment, it's hard not to consider that as a possibility. That's definitely a motivation he couldn't have made the military apparatus aware of before making the call. Who knows for sure whether that's true, but it's as logical as anything else we're being told. At the risk of being accused of mourning the death of a really bad dude (I'm not -- he deserved what he got), I'm frustrated at constantly being lied to.

Well, just tune in to MSNBC. Rachel Maddow wouldn't ever lie to you.