carlos86
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2011
- Messages
- 8,776
- Likes
- 6,986
I like the outcome but am extremely skeptical of the reasoning. The US has and does kill people all the time in countries who never attacked us. We suddenly got a conscience last night?POTUS states we were going to retaliate but our drone isn't worth the lives of 150 Iranians so he called it off.
Who looks sane and who looks bat shite crazy and trying to start a war to the rest of the world in all that?
I saw a colorized and clear video that literally shows the Iranian navy taking that mine off those boats. Thats enough circumstantial evidence to convince me they are behind it. Also, since most Iranians can't swim its even more damning evidence. If it was a false flag by the US we would have used frogmen, not boats, to attach mines UNDER the water level..I think most people see what's going down. Bolton's approach from the beginning has been to put maximum pressure on Iran, with the ultimate goal of regime change. There is no solid evidence of Iran attacking the tankers, although circumstances certainly give that appearance. Iran may have done it.
The UAV that was shot down, there is no denial, only conflicting accounts. Supposedly Iran is going to present their evidence to the UN that it had crossed into their territory. Seems reasonable to examine it.
Trump did a wise thing. Hopefully he kicks Johnny B out the door.
Trump says he called it off when he was given estimate of 150 casualties. Honestly, in my view, I think his decision to call it off given that was completely reasonable. Based on what we know, I think his decision not to go forward makes sense. So I am giving him credit.
Now, I think we need to ask, who in the administration put together a plan for a retaliatory strike where they shoot down an unmanned drone, and we then kill 150 people ?!?!?!?!?!?! This feels an awful lot like someone (Bolton and Pompeo, or their minions) came up with a retaliatory strike they INTENDED would escalate this to full scale war.
Trump is right. Killing 150 people in response to shooting down a drone would be wholly disproportionate. I think he needs better planners and advisers on this subject and he needs to get rid of Bolton, at least.
I doubt half the EU even has a navy.Well, if the pressure is on the EU, then why didn't any EU nations send in naval assets to Persian Gulf? Looks like we are the only ones that have increased our naval presence there in the last several weeks. And, if Iran and the EU are wanting to trade with each other, what incentive would either have to bottleneck Hormuz?
Trump says he called it off when he was given estimate of 150 casualties. Honestly, in my view, I think his decision to call it off given that was completely reasonable. Based on what we know, I think his decision not to go forward makes sense. So I am giving him credit.
Now, I think we need to ask, who in the administration put together a plan for a retaliatory strike where they shoot down an unmanned drone, and we then kill 150 people ?!?!?!?!?!?! This feels an awful lot like someone (Bolton and Pompeo, or their minions) came up with a retaliatory strike they INTENDED would escalate this to full scale war.
Trump is right. Killing 150 people in response to shooting down a drone would be wholly disproportionate. I think he needs better planners and advisers on this subject and he needs to get rid of Bolton, at least.
Not knowing how many people for in an obscure aircraft is a lie? Wow, you're going to be really busy if that's your baseline for callouts@utvolpj Where are you on calling BS on this "lie"?
Correct, the US is essentially their navy.I doubt half the EU even has a navy.
Trump said the estimate came from military leadership. It could be that Bolton and Pompeo got some of the nuclear facilities on the target list and the military leadership was pointing to that. All speculation. Frankly if we schwak any Republican Guard manning air defenses or radars it sucks to be them. But that number is too high to be military air defense sites.I'm calling bs on the 150 because in a situation like this the targets would have been SAM batteries or a fuel depot. And the strike would have taken place late at night so that to limit civilian casualties.
Flush out? Flesh out? Freudian slip?Correct, the US is essentially their navy.
I guess I'm still trying to flush out this EU angle that @NorthDallas40 brought up.
I'm calling bs on the 150 because in a situation like this the targets would have been SAM batteries or a fuel depot. And the strike would have taken place late at night so that to limit civilian casualties.
I saw a colorized and clear video that literally shows the Iranian navy taking that mine off those boats. Thats enough circumstantial evidence to convince me they are behind it. Also, since most Iranians can't swim its even more damning evidence. If it was a false flag by the US we would have used frogmen, not boats, to attach mines UNDER the water level..