Just throwing my thoughts and 2 cents into this.

1. Iranians shoot down drone.

2. We respond as in the past, blow up radar site and missile launch site. Kill about 100-150 Iranian troops. Iranian leaders would show videos and pics of the dead troops and any other alleged casualties ( you know that school bus of kids who were at the sites for take your kid to work day to their people and the world 24/7 with the generous help of CNN and MSNBC. This would help the Iranian government get support from both their people and the world.
3. Instead the President cancels the strike, increases economic pressure which increases the chances of regrime change from within. For the Iranian leaders it will be a choice of softening their hard lines/changing their government or increasing the number of troops on he death squads and secret police. The first choice would possible delay any type of uprising by the people, the second would almost guarantee an uprising and revolution.

#2 is a short term make you happy action that does NOTHING to change the Iranian leaders or their views. #3 is the chance for regime/government change that at this point could only be for the better.

What are the chances that Bathhouse Barry & John “Jane Fonda” Kerry worked in collusion with the Iranians on this?

The more I study on it, the more I think this was a set up from the first.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
A far simpler military tactic is to target those who control these dumps, their Government leaders and top command staff. I think we have the assets, hardware and technology to do so. And let them know they are targeted. All day, every day. Make it personal. Really personal. And then rinse and repeat for whoever replaces them.

This is what I am in favor of. Instead of blowing up a missile site and killing some poor schmuck who was just following orders, send a bomb through the bedroom window of the guy who ordered the shoot-down.

Crap would stop really quickly when THEIR necks are on the line. . .

I think that's called "the Ryan Doctrine".

quote:

Originally posted by maximus_flavius:
What are the chances that Bathhouse Barry & John “Jane Fonda” Kerry worked in collusion with the Iranians on this?

The more I study on it, the more I think this was a set up from the first.

I don't doubt that Kerry was involved. He should be prosecuted under the Logan Act for his treachery in Iran recently.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
A far simpler military tactic is to target those who control these dumps, their Government leaders and top command staff. I think we have the assets, hardware and technology to do so. And let them know they are targeted. All day, every day. Make it personal. Really personal. And then rinse and repeat for whoever replaces them.

This is what I am in favor of. Instead of blowing up a missile site and killing some poor schmuck who was just following orders, send a bomb through the bedroom window of the guy who ordered the shoot-down.

Crap would stop really quickly when THEIR necks are on the line. . .

This should happen simultaneously across the region, to everyone over the rank of Captain in their forces and all of their political leaders

I've been saying this for years. We screwed up by "agreeing" to play nice against state leaders. Shit bags should just disappear, mysteriously and regularly...

Today's update:

“We are putting major additional Sanctions on Iran on Monday,” Trump tweeted.

“I look forward to the day that Sanctions come off Iran, and they become a productive and prosperous nation again – The sooner the better!”

Earlier, before heading to Camp David for meetings with his advisors on the situation, Trump said he would be Iran’s “best friend” and that the Islamic republic could be a “wealthy” country if it renounced nuclear weapons.

“We’re not going to have Iran have a nuclear weapon,” Trump told reporters outside the White House.

“When they agree to that, they’re going to have a wealthy country. They’re going to be so happy, and I’m going to be their best friend.

I hope that happens.” “Let’s make Iran great again,” he added, tweaking for the occasion his main domestic political mantra. LINK

Sounds to me like the Korea strategy, too.

Even so, a military response has not been ruled out.

For now, it's "cinch tighter."

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
[QUOTE] Originally posted by YooperSigs:
A far simpler military tactic is to . . .

Tactic versus strategy?

Aren't tactics chosen in light of the strategy?

As said earlier, we don't know 10% of what went into the decisions.

Could Abe have called as a back channel? Was there some other contact route, leaving the President encouraged that the pressure is leading to discussion? There are reports of a rogue Iranian General and the Mullahs being upset.

So much is not known to us.

President Trump has accomplish a lot because he is a "management by objective" business type.

He sets goals, then makes decisions based on what will help achieve those goals - at least that's the way he seems to me.

Select a tactic to pursue a strategy to achieve a goal.

Tactics.... Strategy... Semantics. Target the leaders and command staff and let them know it.
Threaten, order hostile acts or harm Americans? Suck up a cruise missile!
Want to engage us in meaningful diplomacy and dispute resolution? Then lets talk.

I just meant that the President chooses the strategy and, in some circumstances such as this, the tactic employed to achieve the goal.

There doesn't have to be anything "wrong" with a given tactic to not approve it as a response to provocation.

A certain palace in Libya got a message like you seek. It's not a wrong tactic - just one that hasn't been chosen for the economic strategy being employed at this time. 2 cents off

By the way, what about ship rammings and near misses by the Soviets and the Russians and the Chinese?

What about the 2001 P-3 incident where the Chinese pilot hot dogged too close and brought down both planes?

Do we let front line hot dog commanders or pilots now pick our foreign policy because we must act to decapitate at each afront?

Should not the strategy be chosen by our President? "Commander-In-Chief" should mean something.

It doesn't seem like mere semantics to me.

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
Tactics.... Strategy... Semantics.

Maybe from the cheap lazyboi seat, but that's a nope to even the remotely learned in the ways of conflict.

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:
I just meant that the President chooses the strategy and, in some circumstances such as this, the tactic employed to achieve the goal.

There doesn't have to be anything "wrong" with a given tactic to not approve it as a response to provocation.

A certain palace in Libya got a message like you seek. It's not a wrong tactic - just one that hasn't been chosen for the economic strategy being employed at this time. 2 cents off

By the way, what about ship rammings and near misses by the Soviets and the Russians and the Chinese?

What about the 2001 P-3 incident where the Chinese pilot hot dogged too close and brought down both planes?

Do we let front line hot dog commanders or pilots now pick our foreign policy because we must act to decapitate at each afront?

Should not the strategy be chosen by our President? "Commander-In-Chief" should mean something.

It doesn't seem like mere semantics to me.

It's not remotely semantics.

The uncomfortable truth of being at the front lines is you are expendable and while you are important, we aren't going to light off a bench clearing war for 1, 10 or even 50 Americans.

Sure, we'll likely crack some skulls for them, but there is nothing to be gained by being simpletons and starting a conflict that could kill hundred, thousands, or even millions because some idiots at the front lines got jumpy trigger fingers.

Lazy Boi??? You a Sk8er Boi?? Freudian slip or KOOL kids spellcheck

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
Lazy Boi??? You a Sk8er Boi?? Freudian slip or KOOL kids spellcheck

Your posts in this thread come across like you are one of the cranky members of Bushwood pissed off that Jack Hartounian bought the club.

I thought the "cheap Lazy boy seat" comment was unnecessarily snarky, thus my remark. Perhaps you disagree. Besides, RHINO is quite capable of constructing a response if he so wishes.

They started out hissing and insulting each other but Kim Jong-Un received a letter from President Trump today.

One report stated:

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has received a personal letter of 'excellent content' from President Donald Trump, the country's state news agency said Sunday.

Kim 'said with satisfaction that the letter is of excellent content,' Korean Central News Agency reported.

'Appreciating the political judging faculty and extraordinary courage of President Trump, Kim Jong Un said that he would seriously contemplate the interesting content,' KCNA said. LINK

So, no missiles have hit us and they are talking. President Trump ignored some short-range missile provocations to get there.

It seems that our President Trump is pursuing a strategy that leads to talking rather than killing.

Maybe he is on to something given the last administration's bribeaholic approach to international affairs.

To me, it's what leadership looks like in the face of past failed strategies.

Is it that he is hoping for a similar result in Iran?

quote:

Originally posted by Ackks:
...come across like you are one of the cranky members of Bushwood pissed off that Jack Hartounian bought the club...

Maybe he'll get a free bowl of soup with his hat.

THanks Rhino. YOU never disappoint!!! How are things at command central in Fightertown???

OK, guys

This hasn’t gotten a lot of play. On 12 June six Iranian ships burned. Could some special operations units, from various countries be involved? Could it happen again?

“As the strategic port of Shahid Rajaee, north of the Strait of Hormuz, was still dealing with the effects of a huge fire that caused serious destruction, Iranian media reported2 that six Iranian ships were ablaze in several ports in the southern part of the country.3

The Iranian Republic News Agency reported that on June 7, 2019, four merchant ships caught fire in the port of Nakhl Taqi (Taghi) in the Asaluyeh region of Bushehr Province. Three ships were burned entirely, while two others in Asaluyeh suffered major damage. While the governor of Asaluyeh claimed the fires were extinguished without anyone harmed, the head of the emergency rooms in Bushehr Province said that several civilians and sailors had been injured and brought to hospitals in the region. The mayor of the town of Delvar, near the port of Bualhir, confirmed that one vessel in the port burned completely.

The Farsi-language broadcasts on Voice of America TV from Washington referred to these cases as a “suspicious event” and noted that it occurred a month after four oil tankers were damaged off the port of Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates.6 Euronews in Persian made the connection between the mysterious fires that hit the Iranian ships and the sabotage on the shores of the United Arab Emirates in the Gulf.7

The mysterious fires occurred one day after the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Norway – whose ships were attacked near the Fujairah port on May 12, 2019 – submitted an initial report to the United Nations Security Council on June 6.8 The document called the tanker attack “sophisticated and coordinated,” and said it was apparently carried out by a “state actor” with “significant operational capacity.” The report – which the United States and France also helped prepare – did not specify the name of the state responsible. Although the UAE and Saudi Arabia initially blamed Iran for the attack, Iran was not mentioned in the document, possibly as part of the effort to calm the winds and enable diplomatic activity to allay U.S.-Iranian tension and perhaps even renew the negotiations between them. At the same time, the Saudi ambassador to the United Nations, Abdallah al-Mouallimi, declared, “We believe that the responsibility for this action lies on the shoulders of Iran. We have no hesitation making this statement.”

U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and other officials expressed confidence that Iran was behind the attack near the Strait of Hormuz. Bolton, while visiting the United Arab Emirates, said, “There’s no doubt in anybody’s mind in Washington who’s responsible for this.” The operation, he added, was carried out with “naval mines almost certainly from Iran.” The American fleet also closely monitored several Iranian ships, from which the attack was apparently conducted by divers from the navy of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGCN).

The United States may choose to reveal the plentiful information accumulated on Iran’s direct responsibility for the oil tanker attacks off the port of Fujairah. At present, it still is not clear whether the burning of the Iranian boats is related, and constitutes, as several foreign media have hinted in Farsi, some kind of retaliation.
https://jcpa.org/mysterious-bl...ps-in-iranian-ports/

quote:

It seems that our President Trump is pursuing a strategy that leads to talking rather than killing.

Crazy idea right? Preservation of life, novel. We know we can literally wipe any country off the face of the planet, MAD assures we aren't going to do it with two countries, besides that we can do what ever we want or need to do at any time. No need to kill hundred+ for us losing a very expensive asset, not a single life was lost. To international community we showed restraint, after an hostial and unprovoked attack after multiple attacks on civilian international mariners. We now have the green light for retaliation should they act up again, and Trump is imposing ever harsher sanctions to beging next week. Those additional sanctions add up to way more than $180m and add more pressure from within.

We are in the driver's seat now, at this point, if we absolutely need to make a point and have a major slap in the dick, disproportional attack that leaves hundreds dead. We are fine, we can say we gave you chance, after chance, after chance to clean up your act, even gave you an out that saved face, you got what you had coming, and international community can't say shit, and politicians/pundits can't call him a war warmonger. He's got Bolton and Pompeo sitting there telling him to attack and he practiced restraint and gets a Get Out of Jail Free card.

I'm A-OK with response so far. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
Crazy idea right? Preservation of life, novel.

The other day when Schumer the cluster Chuck said Trump "may bumble into war," it struck me that Dems have no idea about what to do.

They don't have a plan. They don't have a leader. They not only don't have a strategy, they only have bumbling rhetoric.

"Whatever Trump does is wrong" does not a policy toward Iran make.

Seems to me that Dems could bumble things to war.

I know a few Iranian people and from what I anecdotally understand, there are a lot of folks there who also want peace and prosperity, not war.