What really happened re: Iran?

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
61,239
11,961
0
Interesting that there are no threads about this.

So we have Iran supposedly attacking tankers with drones. They deny it...we show evidence, or at least what we say is evidence. Then they shoot down one of our drones. They say it was over their airspace...we deny that.

Then this morning we were supposedly all set to retaliate, and Trump pulled the plug. Then they tell everybody he did.

What the heck is going on here guys? Do we really believe everything is exactly as we are being told? And were we really about to attack them and Trump thought it would kill 150 people and said never mind?

The thought crosses my mind that had it been a Dem president, there would have been howls of protest from the right, canceling a strike makes us look weak, strong leadership, etc. Or that as a Dem myself, am I just rushing to criticize Trump when this was the right thing to do?

Lots and lots and lots of questions here.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: Duke Silver

The_Major

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Apr 2, 2012
14,426
6,947
0
Austin, Texas
Interesting that there are no threads about this.

So we have Iran supposedly attacking tankers with drones. They deny it...we show evidence, or at least what we say is evidence. Then they shoot down one of our drones. They say it was over their airspace...we deny that.

Then this morning we were supposedly all set to retaliate, and Trump pulled the plug. Then they tell everybody he did.

What the heck is going on here guys? Do we really believe everything is exactly as we are being told? And were we really about to attack them and Trump thought it would kill 150 people and said never mind?

The thought crosses my mind that had it been a Dem president, there would have been howls of protest from the right, canceling a strike makes us look weak, strong leadership, etc. Or that as a Dem myself, am I just rushing to criticize Trump when this was the right thing to do?

Lots and lots and lots of questions here.
Too early to tell. Lets see how it plays out.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: U.S. Bates

fdub206

Member Who Talks
Oct 29, 2008
998
1,794
0
kent, washington
Interesting that there are no threads about this.

So we have Iran supposedly attacking tankers with drones. They deny it...we show evidence, or at least what we say is evidence. Then they shoot down one of our drones. They say it was over their airspace...we deny that.

Then this morning we were supposedly all set to retaliate, and Trump pulled the plug. Then they tell everybody he did.

What the heck is going on here guys? Do we really believe everything is exactly as we are being told? And were we really about to attack them and Trump thought it would kill 150 people and said never mind?

The thought crosses my mind that had it been a Dem president, there would have been howls of protest from the right, canceling a strike makes us look weak, strong leadership, etc. Or that as a Dem myself, am I just rushing to criticize Trump when this was the right thing to do?

Lots and lots and lots of questions here.
Do you have to throw in the "had it been a Dem" in every single post?
 

bilbo t baggins

Member Who Talks
Aug 13, 2018
523
1,015
0
I have a buddy who used to run the ops center for those Global Hawk flights. We know where they are at every moment. I think we did have one break standoff, like 2011-2013 timeframe, and I believe the O-3 in charge of that sortie got ****canned.

But we have played these standoff games with the Iranians for a long time. They've seen those specific UAVs up there for a long time. Them shooting one down now is deliberate, not that I think very many people were on the fence on that point.

This is as bad as the "red line" comment from Obama. And seriously, they gave us the justification to bomb their nuclear material production facilities back 10 years, at least what we can reach. He's talking about it being disproportionate due to loss of life...then come up with a different target deck. They're already prepared, you just need to pick a different one. Just my two cents.
 

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
61,239
11,961
0
I have a buddy who used to run the ops center for those Global Hawk flights. We know where they are at every moment. I think we did have one break standoff, like 2011-2013 timeframe, and I believe the O-3 in charge of that sortie got ****canned.

But we have played these standoff games with the Iranians for a long time. They've seen those specific UAVs up there for a long time. Them shooting one down now is deliberate, not that I think very many people were on the fence on that point.

This is as bad as the "red line" comment from Obama. And seriously, they gave us the justification to bomb their nuclear material production facilities back 10 years, at least what we can reach. He's talking about it being disproportionate due to loss of life...then come up with a different target deck. They're already prepared, you just need to pick a different one. Just my two cents.
Maybe surprisingly, I agree with you, at least in part. If (and I don't know that any of this is actually true), they really did target tankers and shot down a drone over international waters, a military response is in order. And saying we didn't want to carry it out due to loss of life shows weakness.

But @The_Major is correct, not enough information in yet. What we've been told to date doesn't really add up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eodhorn

padrehorn11

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 27, 2016
2,134
4,233
0
Texas
By definition there were WMD’s in Iraq. I personally destroyed over 150 chemical weapons (Mustard, VX, and GB munitions). Why the Bush administration didn’t get the word out, to their own detriment, is beyond me.
I think they tried, but the media wasn't interested since we already knew they had some of that stuff, hell they'd used some of it before on their own people and against Iraq. I'm not sure what they wanted to see that would have made headlines and given more validation to the claim, but as I recall it was not a secret that we found and destroyed at least some relatively minor amounts....I think, but I could have just assumed, since like a I say, we knew they'd used some before. So maybe it depends on how WMD is defined. I mean, one could argue that though these things are non-conventional arms and could lead to mass destruction it would take a whole lot and they didn't have that (just a guess on my part but I imagine a bit of that we didn't capture may have later been used in Syria.)
 
Last edited:

TEXBTP

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
12,774
4,288
0
By definition there were WMD’s in Iraq. I personally destroyed over 150 chemical weapons (Mustard, VX, and GB munitions). Why the Bush administration didn’t get the word out, to their own detriment, is beyond me.
Regardless, our credibility when it comes back to these things has not been fully repaired.
 

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
61,239
11,961
0
By definition there were WMD’s in Iraq. I personally destroyed over 150 chemical weapons (Mustard, VX, and GB munitions). Why the Bush administration didn’t get the word out, to their own detriment, is beyond me.
With respect, I do believe you, but if there was a way that they could have trumpeted to the world

SEE WE KNEW THEY HAD WMDs

They would have.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: Duke Silver

eodhorn

Member Who Talks
Mar 24, 2018
841
1,677
0
42
Surprise, Arizona
With respect, I do believe you, but if there was a way that they could have trumpeted to the world

SEE WE KNEW THEY HAD WMDs

They would have.
The issue was the difference between the text book definition of a WMD and what @padrehorn11 stated. We knew they had the munitions I refer to. Much was shipped out when invasion was imminent, but Hollywood has the regular population thinking Nuclear Holocaust or Giant Chemical Cloud over a Metropolitan city when they think WMD. The munitions I refer to, if used as designed could cause some serious ****ing chaos and casualties, but they were just 155mm munitions and didn’t look scary enough. 1 155mm GB or VX with a prox fuse could kill a few thousand if detonated over New York. We found and destroyed 100’s of them. But again we knew they were there and population ignorance over WMD definition prevents any real reaction to discovery of these. Hell a few bomb technicians I know went blind from minor Nerve Agent exposure after making small mistakes during disposal.
 

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
61,239
11,961
0
The issue was the difference between the text book definition of a WMD and what @padrehorn11 stated. We knew they had the munitions I refer to. Much was shipped out when invasion was imminent, but Hollywood has the regular population thinking Nuclear Holocaust or Giant Chemical Cloud over a Metropolitan city when they think WMD. The munitions I refer to, if used as designed could cause some serious ****ing chaos and casualties, but they were just 155mm munitions and didn’t look scary enough. 1 155mm GB or VX with a prox fuse could kill a few thousand if detonated over New York. We found and destroyed 100’s of them. But again we knew they were there and population ignorance over WMD definition prevents any real reaction to discovery of these. Hell a few bomb technicians I know went blind from minor Nerve Agent exposure after making small mistakes during disposal.
That’s a damn shame about those text that’s a damn shame about those techs.

And as always I am very appreciative of the time, sacrifice, and risks you took for us over there.
 

bilbo t baggins

Member Who Talks
Aug 13, 2018
523
1,015
0
The issue was the difference between the text book definition of a WMD and what @padrehorn11 stated. We knew they had the munitions I refer to. Much was shipped out when invasion was imminent, but Hollywood has the regular population thinking Nuclear Holocaust or Giant Chemical Cloud over a Metropolitan city when they think WMD. The munitions I refer to, if used as designed could cause some serious ****ing chaos and casualties, but they were just 155mm munitions and didn’t look scary enough. 1 155mm GB or VX with a prox fuse could kill a few thousand if detonated over New York. We found and destroyed 100’s of them. But again we knew they were there and population ignorance over WMD definition prevents any real reaction to discovery of these. Hell a few bomb technicians I know went blind from minor Nerve Agent exposure after making small mistakes during disposal.
The bolded part.... This dude's dropping truth bombs
 

padrehorn11

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 27, 2016
2,134
4,233
0
Texas
The bolded part.... This dude's dropping truth bombs
Again, I thought that was pretty much common knowledge among people who paid attention to, you know, publicly released credible intel and recon. But I guess nowadays what most people 'know' is mostly the bull**** from social media, leftist propaganda media, and their hair stylist, and so popular belief among the ignorantsia is the "Bush lied, people died" bull****.

But yeah, a lot of it depends on what people were thinking of re WMD's. I think our government really did think they had enough to seriously threaten Israel or the Gulf Nations. Eoither Saddma pulled off a really good bluff, or his military staff were afraid to tell him they didn't have those quantities. I'm not sure whether we'll ever know for sure which of those was true, but whatever, pretty much all the good intel (ours and other countries, including Israel) before the war thought he had more, I think. And while some he shipped out has showed up, I believe, it's still not the large quantities we all thought existed.

Which all goes to show, it's probably not smart to bluff if you're believed and still lose.
 
Last edited:

TexasPalladin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Nov 30, 2008
7,787
12,004
0
The issue was the difference between the text book definition of a WMD and what @padrehorn11 stated. We knew they had the munitions I refer to. Much was shipped out when invasion was imminent, but Hollywood has the regular population thinking Nuclear Holocaust or Giant Chemical Cloud over a Metropolitan city when they think WMD. The munitions I refer to, if used as designed could cause some serious ****ing chaos and casualties, but they were just 155mm munitions and didn’t look scary enough. 1 155mm GB or VX with a prox fuse could kill a few thousand if detonated over New York. We found and destroyed 100’s of them. But again we knew they were there and population ignorance over WMD definition prevents any real reaction to discovery of these. Hell a few bomb technicians I know went blind from minor Nerve Agent exposure after making small mistakes during disposal.
Without going too deep into the weeds.
There was some even more evil stuff that got "spirited" out of the country prior to the invasion....by the Russians.
(I'm going to just leave it at that)
That being said, the items you just talked about in aggregate had the capability of "Salting the Earth" for generations and killing large populations.
(Imagine OBL or ISIS getting their hands on these and smuggling them into the U.S.).

And I have nothing but respect for you my friend....Playing with those things in the condition a lot of them were in?
You have the guts of a Riverboat Gambler and the luck of a Leprechaun.
Along with being borderline certifiable.


Semper Fi
 

padrehorn11

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 27, 2016
2,134
4,233
0
Texas
Without going too deep into the weeds.
There was some even more evil stuff that got "spirited" out of the country prior to the invasion by the Russians.
Let's just say that we had assets "In-country" when this was happening.
(I'm going to just leave it at that)
That being said, the items you just talked about in aggregate had the capability of "Salting the Earth" for generations and killing large populations.
(Imagine OBL or ISIS getting their hands on these and smuggling them into the U.S.).

And I have nothing but respect for you my friend....Playing with those things in the condition a lot of them were in?
You have the guts of a Riverboat Gambler and the luck of a Leprechaun.
Along with being borderline certifiable.


Semper Fi
I've always worried about what terror could be caused without really doing a whole lot of actual real damage, just because people are so afraid of radiation (for example). I see a scenario where terrorists get just a few barrels full of low level radioactive waste, put it in a truck and blow it up conventionally somewhere near the NYSE with a 'favorable' breeze. It wouldn't have to directly kill many people, but it might cost many billions in economic damage.

Heck, not to make light how truly bad 9/11 was, I imagine if you really added up the true financial 'indirect' costs it's well into the trillions (and I'm not counting the over $1.3 trillion spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor am I counting the realtively temporary stock market losses) and is still costing many billions annually and will for the foreseeable future. We've made the U.S. a lot harder target but no matter what we do, that wasn't and won't be the last attack of that nature.

Still, I'm of the school of thought that even though more will come along, killing terrorists is better than not. The idea that they' woulldn't bothe us if we stopped killing them ignores reality, IMO.


A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the
scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The
frog asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?" The scorpion
says, "Because if I do, I will die too."

The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream,
the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of
paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown,
but has just enough time to gasp "Why?"

Replies the scorpion: "Its my nature..."
 

eodhorn

Member Who Talks
Mar 24, 2018
841
1,677
0
42
Surprise, Arizona
I've always worried about what terror could be caused without really doing a whole lot of actual real damage, just because people are so afraid of radiation (for example). I see a scenario where terrorists get just a few barrels full of low level radioactive waste, put it in a truck and blow it up conventionally somewhere near the NYSE with a 'favorable' breeze. It wouldn't have to directly kill many people, but it might cost many billions in economic damage.

Heck, not to make light how truly bad 9/11 was, I imagine if you really added up the true financial 'indirect' costs it's well into the trillions (and I'm not counting the over $1.3 trillion spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor am I counting the realtively temporary stock market losses) and is still costing many billions annually and will for the foreseeable future. We've made the U.S. a lot harder target but no matter what we do, that wasn't and won't be the last attack of that nature.

Still, I'm of the school of thought that even though more will come along, killing terrorists is better than not. The idea that they' woulldn't bothe us if we stopped killing them ignores reality, IMO.


A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the
scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The
frog asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?" The scorpion
says, "Because if I do, I will die too."

The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream,
the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of
paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown,
but has just enough time to gasp "Why?"

Replies the scorpion: "Its my nature..."
Well said. The one good thing about Iraq/Afghanistan was the amount of terrorists killed, and the fact we forced these organizations to spend lots of blood and treasure (much more blood than us, and a much larger percentage of their funding than we spend) fighting the most effective military in the world for a long ass time, in their own homeland as opposed to ours.
 

TexasPalladin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Nov 30, 2008
7,787
12,004
0
Well said. The one good thing about Iraq/Afghanistan was the amount of terrorists killed, and the fact we forced these organizations to spend lots of blood and treasure (much more blood than us, and a much larger percentage of their funding than we spend) fighting the most effective military in the world for a long ass time, in their own homeland as opposed to ours.
People seem to overlook the fact that the United States conquered two countries simultaneously and completely with the total loss of less than 5,000 of our own. If you add in Desert Storm (approximately 250 kia)?
That adds up to some of the most impressive strategic and tactical victories (militarily) in modern warfare.
The aftermath was a result of our politicians making military decisions based on perceptions, polls and political considerations rather than any failures by our Military to execute the Missions.
Paralysis by Analysis and Politics.....along with trying to micromanage a theater wide war is the greatest danger to victory.


Semper Fi
 

Shane3

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 17, 2015
13,943
4,257
0
Interesting that there are no threads about this.

So we have Iran supposedly attacking tankers with drones. They deny it...we show evidence, or at least what we say is evidence. Then they shoot down one of our drones. They say it was over their airspace...we deny that.

Then this morning we were supposedly all set to retaliate, and Trump pulled the plug. Then they tell everybody he did.

What the heck is going on here guys? Do we really believe everything is exactly as we are being told? And were we really about to attack them and Trump thought it would kill 150 people and said never mind?

The thought crosses my mind that had it been a Dem president, there would have been howls of protest from the right, canceling a strike makes us look weak, strong leadership, etc. Or that as a Dem myself, am I just rushing to criticize Trump when this was the right thing to do?

Lots and lots and lots of questions here.
So it bothers you that Trump made the same decision you would have made?
 

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
61,239
11,961
0
So it bothers you that Trump made the same decision you would have made?
I don’t think it is all that smart to be telling people you didn’t. Either do it or keep quiet.
 

UTGrad91

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
13,974
7,023
0
I'm just glad we're (hopefully) not going to get into a war with Iran. I personally think the Mullahs are on the ropes and this attack was done out of desperation. The sanctions are really squeezing Iran. Their economy is projected to shrink 6% in 2019. Combine that with inflation at 40% and its a recipe for civil unrest.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Duke Silver

esskeetit

Member Who Talks
Jul 25, 2018
324
257
0
Make Texas Great Again
Interesting that there are no threads about this.

So we have Iran supposedly attacking tankers with drones. They deny it...we show evidence, or at least what we say is evidence. Then they shoot down one of our drones. They say it was over their airspace...we deny that.

Then this morning we were supposedly all set to retaliate, and Trump pulled the plug. Then they tell everybody he did.

What the heck is going on here guys? Do we really believe everything is exactly as we are being told? And were we really about to attack them and Trump thought it would kill 150 people and said never mind?

The thought crosses my mind that had it been a Dem president, there would have been howls of protest from the right, canceling a strike makes us look weak, strong leadership, etc. Or that as a Dem myself, am I just rushing to criticize Trump when this was the right thing to do?

Lots and lots and lots of questions here.
It is weird. CNN called Trump "smart" for pulling back the attack.

The more I think about it I'm convinced that Iran was setting us up with a trap. They were certainly baiting us to attack and most likely had our troops and expensive gear dead in their sites ready to pounce once we killed 150. They would have killed thousands of troops at one I'm guessing. We might have noticed it and pulled back. Trump gets the credit. We will never know. But Iran seemed to be baiting us imo. The only reason to bait is to attack.
 

mcb0703!

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 6, 2015
13,590
22,728
0
I'm just glad we're (hopefully) not going to get into a war with Iran. I personally think the Mullahs are on the ropes and this attack was done out of desperation. The sanctions are really squeezing Iran. Their economy is projected to shrink 6% in 2019. Combine that with inflation at 40% and its a recipe for civil unrest.

Iran's on the verge of an economic depression that they cannot come out of with current sanctions in place. Complete desperation mode; numerous countries in the ME not buying oil or allowing Iran to borrow $$$

As long as sanctions continue, we will see oil cargo ships within port due to reduction of oil sales, planes will be grounded as the country does not have the resources to maintain all airplanes, & the Mullah's will end up selling off gold (last resort) to help with its nuclear program
 
Last edited:

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
61,239
11,961
0
It is weird. CNN called Trump "smart" for pulling back the attack.

The more I think about it I'm convinced that Iran was setting us up with a trap. They were certainly baiting us to attack and most likely had our troops and expensive gear dead in their sites ready to pounce once we killed 150. They would have killed thousands of troops at one I'm guessing. We might have noticed it and pulled back. Trump gets the credit. We will never know. But Iran seemed to be baiting us imo. The only reason to bait is to attack.
I don’t know if they would have killed thousands of our guys, but I think you are right, they were definitely baiting us.

Now Trump is saying Make Iran Great Again. Maybe we can print up some MIGA hats.

Why do I not feel like we have any idea what we are doing with this?
 

esskeetit

Member Who Talks
Jul 25, 2018
324
257
0
Make Texas Great Again
I don’t know if they would have killed thousands of our guys, but I think you are right, they were definitely baiting us.

Now Trump is saying Make Iran Great Again. Maybe we can print up some MIGA hats.

Why do I not feel like we have any idea what we are doing with this?
Sounds like they have some pretty sophisticated missiles distributed to all their proxies with quite a bit of range on them. If they fired all of them at all the bases we have, ships, and other military and non-military installations, I'm guessing they could kill thousands. But yeah, maybe not, and we could shoot some of them down. But it could of turned pretty bad quickly for us without an overwhelming force in the region like we're accustomed to.

My bet is we know this will be a very very costly war and we are now politicking for some help. Think-tank military strategy time. They're probably listening to Israel now more than ever on this as Israel is the world expert on Iran tomfoolery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JG

eodhorn

Member Who Talks
Mar 24, 2018
841
1,677
0
42
Surprise, Arizona
Sounds like they have some pretty sophisticated missiles distributed to all their proxies with quite a bit of range on them. If they fired all of them at all the bases we have, ships, and other military and non-military installations, I'm guessing they could kill thousands. But yeah, maybe not, and we could shoot some of them down. But it could of turned pretty bad quickly for us without an overwhelming force in the region like we're accustomed to.

My bet is we know this will be a very very costly war and we are now politicking for some help. Think-tank military strategy time. They're probably listening to Israel now more than ever on this as Israel is the world expert on Iran tomfoolery.
That’s not really how we would handle that situation. If we hit them, it will be a strike they have no clue about, and all of those sophisticated long range systems will be eliminated simultaneously and with the only warning being those sites being destroyed. We are light years ahead of where we were when we hit Iraq in both Gulf War 1 and Post 9/11. In those instances Iraq was the 6th largest military in the world with a very capable Air Force. They never got a plane off the ground.

There are very few countries in the entire world that can effectively counter strike us. Iran is not one of them, North Korea is also not one of them.
 

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
61,239
11,961
0
That’s not really how we would handle that situation. If we hit them, it will be a strike they have no clue about, and all of those sophisticated long range systems will be eliminated simultaneously and with the only warning being those sites being destroyed. We are light years ahead of where we were when we hit Iraq in both Gulf War 1 and Post 9/11. In those instances Iraq was the 6th largest military in the world with a very capable Air Force. They never got a plane off the ground.

There are very few countries in the entire world that can effectively counter strike us. Iran is not one of them, North Korea is also not one of them.
NK doesn’t have to counterstrike us. They can just blow the hell out of Seoul, and kill a ton of civilians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: padrehorn11

eodhorn

Member Who Talks
Mar 24, 2018
841
1,677
0
42
Surprise, Arizona
NK doesn’t have to counterstrike us. They can just blow the hell out of Seoul, and kill a ton of civilians.
Agree on NKs tactic, as we believe it to be. The point is we have the ability to almost completely cripple a countries capability with regards to anything but ground tactics, in our very first strike. When it happens, it happens to multiple targets and it happens in unison.
 

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
61,239
11,961
0
Agree on NKs tactic, as we believe it to be. The point is we have the ability to almost completely cripple a countries capability with regards to anything but ground tactics, in our very first strike. When it happens, it happens to multiple targets and it happens in unison.
I agree, but I don't think this strike was intended to cripple, just to a "teach them a lesson". And if Iran decided to respond with everything they had, they would do some damage before we took out their capabilities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: padrehorn11

eodhorn

Member Who Talks
Mar 24, 2018
841
1,677
0
42
Surprise, Arizona
I agree, but I don't think this strike was intended to cripple, just to a "teach them a lesson". And if Iran decided to respond with everything they had, they would do some damage before we took out their capabilities.
True, but that country as it exists would end. Anything that kills US military members through use of conventional military means will force a response that is pretty much absolute destruction of the machine that made that decision. There is a big difference between a terror attack on military assets, and using your military to kill US Military assets. You cannot claim it was not you (USS Cole etc). It provides clear responsibility to the State.