Iran would say that, they are probably lying ofc. The US knows how to skirt borders without actually crossing them, they have been doing it near Russia for decades. But unlike Russia, Iran (or some rogue soldier) took the bait and fired first. Now they are pooing themselves because the US doesnt let this stuff slide easily.
Ships under attack in the middle east
- Thread starter XeNoN89
- Start date
Iran would say that, they are probably lying ofc. The US knows how to skirt borders without actually crossing them, they have been doing it near Russia for decades. But unlike Russia, Iran (or some rogue soldier) took the bait and fired first. Now they are pooing themselves because the US doesnt let this stuff slide easily.
Well obviously. I was replying to Robocod who was saying otherwise.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 47,223
Seems like a warning to Iran. The U.S. clearly wanted this to be published. It was definitely a close one this time.
Hmm, some of the maps posted (like on the propoganda video above) I thought it looked like they might have been outside territorial waters (12nm) but perhaps no, these maps need scales ffs.
We'd need the official flight track of course, not someones own PowerPoint creation
Are official flight tracks completely infallible and if so are they potentially easily faked?
If either are correct, then they don't matter, it was or was not in international waters, the US clearly has elements of ******** (Bolton & Pompeo) while Iran has it's own idiots looking for confrontation.
I hope Bolton is especially fuming that he couldn't murder Iranian's today.
If either are correct, then they don't matter, it was or was not in international waters, the US clearly has elements of ******** (Bolton & Pompeo) while Iran has it's own idiots looking for confrontation.
I hope Bolton is especially fuming that he couldn't murder Iranian's today.
Remember the good old days of 'Something something don't vote for Hillary, she's a warmonger who will take the USA to war with Iran'?
I miss those days. They were the days of a gentler, more ignorant time. A time when a laughably significant number of people had convinced themselves that Trump would bring peace.
I miss those days. They were the days of a gentler, more ignorant time. A time when a laughably significant number of people had convinced themselves that Trump would bring peace.
Yeah she just took the US to war with every other country in the area, where as so far Trump hasn't taken the US to war with anyone.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- Uranus
Irans map looks like it was drawn with crayon.
Why are there still troops in those countries then? Why isnt he bringing the bois home?
I don't know about all of the issues regarding the reasons for US troops still being in those countries, I'd imagine they'll be finishing the mission off by supporting the new local government and training Police/Army etc.
And syphoning off some natural resources no doubt.
Academically speaking - rather than identifying the case(s) here - you often can't just quickly remove the military from these situations as a drawdown from an active warzone takes time and results in weaknesses that hostile forces could identify and attack during the process if you rush it costing lives.
And while the US often doesn't seem to care it would be bad form to just abandon partners you've been working with regardless of the reasons why you were in that situation in the first place.
Who are they partnered with in Syria?
They've worked with various groups on the ground there of varying reputability.
Plus all their international allies who have said they will also pull out when the US does as they rely so heavily on the US and have said they can't do the job alone - https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a98cb42f7586
The power vacuum that will exist when the US does leave is something that the US is trying to "pre-fill" with various anti-Assad militia's but the fact is that, once the US/Allies leave, Syria with Russian and Iranian help will crush the anti-Assad forces, something the US military (but no the Government) is desperately trying to avoid.
And when that happens I don't expect any of our resident shills to be scrutinising every Russian/Syrian/Iranian strike like they do coalition precision air strikes. The culling of thousands will probably even be celebrated, regardless of any innocents loss.
It's their country... I thought we were over being imperialist and meddling?
In fairness it's not like missiles teleport (but don't tell Trump that, he'll be sad) so where it was shot down isn't that relevant, I.E when Turkey shot down that Russian plane in Syrian airspace their defence was that it was in their airspace when the missile was launched.
In fairness it's not like floating wreckage lands on the sea then stays anchored in place is it, they found wreckage from MH370 all over the place.
The funny thing is that you're mocking him for his emotive-ness but he's completely correct, if the USA wants to invade Iran then thanks to it's previous warmongering and public opinion being so strong against it (Boris isn't going to become PM then immediately sign his defacto resignation letter) no other countries are going to help them, and they can't make a coalition of one. So if they do launch an illegal war by themselves they may well even end up sanctioned over it (which Trump may even like as it plays into his trade war narrative).
Good point - with the speeds involved quite a lot of ground can be covered very quickly as well.