I get that...but they should have been vetting targets once the attacks started. They've had 4 months and had to have known something like this would happen eventually.
BREAKING: Three US troops killed in drone attack in Jordan, at least two dozen injured
- Thread starter binsfeldcyhawk2
- Start date
Tell me you haven't heard of the USS Greer, USS Kearny, and USS Reuben James, without telling me.
The French king helped us because he saw a chance to hurt the British king. They kept that rivalry up for a few hundred years, until they decided they'd better team up against Germany.
How do you rationalize it?
Last edited:
I’m not in the know. But perhaps it could be multiple targets on multiple fronts. A little shock and awe on proxies could go a long way as well. The missile attacks in Yemen haven’t been particularly effective. Maybe don’t want to repeat that. The slow steady knife does the most damage.
Last edited:
Whatever we choose to do it needs to actually hurt the Iranians this time.
It looks like direct strikes against Iran are off the table. I hope we hit some Iranian assets supporting these groups.
Up till know we've been hitting those types of targets.
Wouldn't mind seeing this sunk...
Wasn't his problem wasn't his war.
Thank god he looked at the implications and how it could help his country. LOL and some retribution for the Seven Year War.
Kind of similar to Ukraine. But no need to get into that since you support Russia and all.
Last edited:
And what makes your statement against him any more hypocritical LOL
You're aware that French and British empires had been fighting for several centuries before they started fighting each other in North America, right?
Familiar with the Seven Year's War, or perhaps the actions therein in North America that are called the French and Indian War? It was kind of WW1 before WW1, with action in N.America, Europe, and Asia (India).
It's really impossible to examine why France assisted the Colonies in gaining their independence if you're unaware of the historical context.
So how does no other country think of the implications, relationships, and oversight. You are willing to let Russia overrun Ukraine - have countless war atrocities, concentration camps ect with hostages. What is the benefit in letting them take over a country and embolden them? You want to say its not our war not our problem but like WW2 it can become our problem. So why not help Ukraine punch them in the mouth and defend their nation then allow them into Nato?
Here is my take, Russia has been a constant nuisance for decades, similar to France we saw the Ukraine war similar to France during the revolutionary war, not only as a proxy war to weaken Russia which it has, but to also defend a budding democracy in Ukraine which we have been building relationships with. If we can foster an additional democratic nation it continues to help our influence in the area. No we are not perfect and we have issues, but I do see Ukraine as something worth fighting for. Ultimately this all comes down to that.
So yes I do think you are hypocritical, defending France getting involved with the Revolutionary War, while not acknowledging the exact same implications of us assisting Ukraine with Russia.
Last edited:
When you ask me how to fix the latest neocon ****up my genuine response is to say, "I don't think we can, I think we need to focus on not creating the next one."
Russia invaded Ukraine because the neocons ignored the advice of experts that reality has proven were correct. Germany, France and others didn't oppose the NATO expansion to Ukraine because they're beholden to Putin, they just had a more accurate understanding of how the Russians would react.
Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia have been silent. Jordan isn't even confirming that an attack occurred on their soil. Egypt is suffering from the attacks in the Red Sea. Saudi Arabia has been trying to lessen the strife with Iran. All of them could be key players, but without them it's the US (With a hand from some Western allies), out on a limb by themselves. The US needs Arab allies to make a move that hurts Iran.
No offense but we already have, we have stopped Russia dead in their tracks and set them back 2 decades.
A
anon_b29nm7v7dwp6r
Guest
Well news just said Biden has made his decision and sources say the response will be limited to the Iranian proxies and their launch facilities….it appears Biden lacks the fortitude to resolve the issue.
Just going to be different proxies from different places next time. I am a Democrat Biden supporter, but he looks pretty weak with this…
Just going to be different proxies from different places next time. I am a Democrat Biden supporter, but he looks pretty weak with this…
The Hashemite King enjoys our protection so much, he can’t mention it to his people, lest they rise up and slit his puppet throat. Another of our great ‘regional allies’ that enable neocon adventures.
On the campaign trail, Joe Biden vowed that the United States would finally teach dictators a lesson by punishing Saudi Arabia. “We were going to, in fact, make them pay the price, and make them, in fact, the pariah that they are,”
*****
The Iran-Saudi agreement to restore diplomatic ties with the involvement of China is a sign of ongoing change in both countries, the broader Middle East and other global dynamics. The agreement provides important wins for each country, with Iran and Saudi Arabia clearly choosing to give China a considerable diplomatic victory. The two regional rivals have conducted talks in Oman and five rounds in Iraq in the past two years. They could have chosen either country to get to the finish-line, but instead chose China, shortly after the Xi's recent visit to Saudi Arabia, where he also met with other Gulf and Arab leaders.
Riyadh needed a new approach to deal with what seemed to be an unstoppable and expanding Iranian regional agenda, which included widening and deepening Iran’s direct and indirect influence in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and beyond. The Saudis and other Middle East countries feel U.S. security guarantees have not been sufficient, as critical Saudi and UAE infrastructure has been attacked while the United States has been seen as recalibrating its role in the region. Rather than buying expensive U.S. defensive weapons systems, the Saudis believe that China’s and Russia’s influence over Iran can help bolster their security.
I think you added this in an edit I missed.
I want to clarify, when I’m explaining the French king’s motivations it isn’t me supporting or agreeing with the French king’s decisions. He was trying to build and maintain an empire. I want us to go back to being a republic, and give up the empire dream. I thinks it’s expensive, immoral, and counterproductive. But it makes some people rich, and too many people would rather watch Masked Singer than learn about it, much less turn it out of government. So here we are.
People make this same dumb mistake when I point out (from a diplomatic cable sent by the then Russian ambassador, now CIA director!) Putin’s motivations.
When you read a history book and it mentions Hitler pursued lebensraum, do you think that means the author supported the Nazi drive for lebensraum? It’s such a dumb take I can’t believe how many people do it. But it’s the ‘go to’ instead of discussing any of antebellum study of how we got here.
Biden has to deal with a second war he didn’t want. His task is to contain it
US policy in the Middle East can no longer be described as an attempt to stop the Israel-Gaza conflict from triggering a bigger regional war. That hope died weeks ago.
The critical task now for President Joe Biden — as he mulls retaliation over the deaths of three Americans in an attack by suspected Iranian proxy forces in Jordan Sunday – is to prevent that region-wide war from tipping out of control.
The president told reporters on Tuesday that he had made a decision on how to respond to the attack and warned he held Tehran responsible “in the sense that they’re supplying the weapons to the people who did it.” But expressing the balancing act he faces in seeking to punish the perpetrators, downgrade their capabilities and restore deterrence, he added: “I don’t think we need a wider war in the Middle East. That’s not what I’m looking for.”
But it is indisputable that the United States is already embroiled in a war in the wider Middle East, less than three years after Biden officially decreed the end of a two-decade-long combat mission in Iraq that exhausted the US and caused deep political trauma.
It is also clear that the Biden administration’s effort to prevent an escalation is not working. US strikes against Iranian-backed militia throughout the region, which followed more than 160 attacks on American military facilities, did not deter Sunday’s drone strike. And missile and drone attacks against commercial shipping in the Red Sea haven’t stopped despite rolling US airstrikes against their launch sites and infrastructure in Yemen.
So Biden has now arrived at the unenviable position that presidents often face when all potential options before them are bad and the very task of seeking to slow a deepening crisis may end up exacerbating it.
The catalogue of violence that has erupted outside Gaza – where tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed after 1,200 Israelis died in Hamas terror attacks on October 7 – underscores the grave potential of the war.
— Hezbollah, a pro-Iranian group based in Lebanon, has been waging a low-grade war against Israel. On Monday alone, it said it had launched 13 attacks on targets in northern Israel. The Israel Defense Forces said that evening it carried out airstrikes on Hezbollah targets in Lebanon.
— Two months of Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping have disrupted global supply chains and raised the cost of the cargo trade, risking a major economic impact. The US is leading a coalition of nations to protect trade.
— The US and Britain launched strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen this month and Washington has carried out multiple follow-ups. But even Biden has admitted that the strategy has not stopped Houthi attacks.
— The US also launched strikes against targets linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Syria.
— The Biden administration has also carried out attacks on Iran-backed groups in Iraq, severely straining relations with the Baghdad government and raising concerns that US troops in the country to fight terrorism could be asked to leave.
— Israel expanded its own war by carrying out a drone strike that killed a senior Hamas leader in Beirut, according to US officials, fueling tensions in Lebanon – a nation beset by severe economic, political and security crises.
— Iran has blamed Israel for an attack that killed a number of Revolutionary Guard officers in Damascus, Syria.
If there is an upside to this spiraling military activity it’s that, as serious as it is, it’s unfolding as a set of controlled escalations that has yet to acquire its own destructive momentum. Some worst-case scenarios haven’t occurred — for example, a massive onslaught of missile attacks by Hezbollah against Israeli cities. The group has a far greater capacity to hurt Israel than Hamas does.
And while the weekend attack that killed the three Americans is tragic for their families and their nation, there has not so far been a large-scale attack on US interests — for instance, catastrophic damage to a US naval ship with huge loss of life — that could multiply the intensity of the conflict on multiple fronts. The calibrated escalations have fueled an impression in Washington that Iran doesn’t want a full-scale regional conflagration any more than its arch-enemy the United States does.
But if the progression of the conflict has been steady, rather than sudden, it’s not a given that it will stay that way.
“I think it’s very important to note that this is an incredibly volatile time in the Middle East,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Monday, before adding: “I would argue that we have not seen a situation as dangerous as the one we’re facing now across the region since at least 1973, and arguably even before that.”
Aaron David Miller, who spent years as a Middle East peace negotiator for presidents of both parties, is even less hopeful. He told CNN’s Jim Acosta on Sunday: “It’s going to get worse before it gets worse, I suspect.”
Biden’s impossible choices
As the country absorbed the loss of Sgt. William Rivers, 46, Specialist Kennedy Sanders, 24, and Specialist Breonna Moffett, 23, on Monday, Biden shared on social media a photo of him in the Situation Room after receiving a national security briefing.He doesn’t lack for advice outside the White House. Hawkish Republicans like South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham are demanding he attack Iran on Iranian soil. GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley says he should target leaders of the IRGC. Biden’s likely 2024 election foe Donald Trump is simultaneously blasting Biden as weak and accusing him of dragging the US into another Middle Eastern quagmire. The ex-president is not that different from some progressives in voicing that fear. Also on the left, however, is dismay from some at Biden’s refusal to demand a ceasefire in Gaza.
Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, said on CNN’s “The Lead” Monday that Iran understood that there was always the risk of fatalities when its proxies attacked US bases. “A lot of us have spent time thinking what happens when there are fatalities and now we are in that world,” said the Connecticut lawmaker. “(The) response is going to be important and hopefully calibrated to send a very strong signal without increasing dramatically the odds that we get into a shooting war with Iran.”
Many politicians, experts and commentators have repeatedly speculated about the options in the last 24 hours, often citing the idea that the US needs to send a tough message but must also avoid sending the conflict into an even worse place. But one lesson from the last few months, and indeed the disastrous last 20 years of US policy in the Middle East, is that formulations and assumptions that make sense in Washington rarely play out as anyone expects in that treacherous region.
This is why Biden’s dilemma is so acute. How exactly does he find the sweet spot between deterrence and disastrous escalation? Will the reprisals he does take put US forces at even greater risk? Or will Iran just ignore them? Whenever a president takes military action, they must consider what’s next — not just how an adversary will respond immediately but in months to come and how the US is prepared to counter those reactions.
the rest...
GOP critics have long accused Biden of appeasing the Islamic Republic and see recent events as the result. “The only answer to these attacks must be devastating military retaliation against Iran’s terrorist forces, both in Iran and across the Middle East. Anything less will confirm Joe Biden as a coward unworthy of being commander-in-chief,” said Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton.
Haley called on Biden to directly take aim at the IRGC leadership. “Find one or two of them that are making the decisions. It will chill all of them when you do that,” the former US ambassador to the United Nations said on Newsmax.
The rationale for attacking Iran would be that incremental and calibrated attacks on Iranian proxies haven’t worked and that Iran is a mortal threat to the United States and its allies and could only be deterred by direct military action. Still, the lesson from Trump’s assassination of Iranian intelligence chef Qasem Soleimani in 2020 is that it didn’t prevent Iran from expanding its regional threat. Indeed the network of proxies threatening the US and its allies were the brainchild of Soleimani. And Trump didn’t dare to strike him inside Iran. The attack took place in Baghdad.
There’s no sign the US will attack Iranian soil. The White House’s top national security spokesman John Kirby told reporters repeatedly on Monday the US has no interest in a war with Iran or its clerical regime. And the consequences of American strikes on Iran would likely be so escalatory — probably unleashing Tehran proxies like Hezbollah with full bore attacks on Israeli and US interests and a consequential major US-Iran war — that it’s an unthinkable possibility. It’s easy for Republicans – especially those like Haley, whose path to the White House looks dim — to advise hitting Iran. It’s Biden who will be responsible for the fallout. And on a purely strategic level, risking a major Middle East war that could cause massive US casualties to avenge the deaths of three soldiers, as terrible as their deaths are, would not represent a sound equation.
While Beltway pundits speculated about sinking Iran’s navy or targeting its leadership, the most likely outcome is a range of punishing attacks against the capabilities of its proxies on a scale not yet seen.
But Biden still must wrestle with this unanswerable question: How does he assert US power in a widening regional war in a way that doesn’t make the conflict even more dangerous, expansive and likely to careen out of control?
The political context
Biden’s decision making cannot be divorced from the political context at home. No president can afford to look like he’s lost control when US troops are dead. This is especially the case for Biden with accusations of weakness at the heart of Trump’s 2024 case against his successor.GOP critics have long accused Biden of appeasing the Islamic Republic and see recent events as the result. “The only answer to these attacks must be devastating military retaliation against Iran’s terrorist forces, both in Iran and across the Middle East. Anything less will confirm Joe Biden as a coward unworthy of being commander-in-chief,” said Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton.
Haley called on Biden to directly take aim at the IRGC leadership. “Find one or two of them that are making the decisions. It will chill all of them when you do that,” the former US ambassador to the United Nations said on Newsmax.
The rationale for attacking Iran would be that incremental and calibrated attacks on Iranian proxies haven’t worked and that Iran is a mortal threat to the United States and its allies and could only be deterred by direct military action. Still, the lesson from Trump’s assassination of Iranian intelligence chef Qasem Soleimani in 2020 is that it didn’t prevent Iran from expanding its regional threat. Indeed the network of proxies threatening the US and its allies were the brainchild of Soleimani. And Trump didn’t dare to strike him inside Iran. The attack took place in Baghdad.
There’s no sign the US will attack Iranian soil. The White House’s top national security spokesman John Kirby told reporters repeatedly on Monday the US has no interest in a war with Iran or its clerical regime. And the consequences of American strikes on Iran would likely be so escalatory — probably unleashing Tehran proxies like Hezbollah with full bore attacks on Israeli and US interests and a consequential major US-Iran war — that it’s an unthinkable possibility. It’s easy for Republicans – especially those like Haley, whose path to the White House looks dim — to advise hitting Iran. It’s Biden who will be responsible for the fallout. And on a purely strategic level, risking a major Middle East war that could cause massive US casualties to avenge the deaths of three soldiers, as terrible as their deaths are, would not represent a sound equation.
While Beltway pundits speculated about sinking Iran’s navy or targeting its leadership, the most likely outcome is a range of punishing attacks against the capabilities of its proxies on a scale not yet seen.
But Biden still must wrestle with this unanswerable question: How does he assert US power in a widening regional war in a way that doesn’t make the conflict even more dangerous, expansive and likely to careen out of control?
I understand the administrations pearl clutching over escalation but I think it already escalated. We're not putting the genie back in the bottle with half measures...
Looks like Iran is trying to give us an out.
CNN —
In a surprise move, the most powerful Iran-backed militia in Iraq, Kataib Hezbollah, announced on Tuesday the suspension of its military operations against US forces in the region two days after a drone attack killed three US service members and wounded dozens of others.
“We are announcing the suspension of military and security operations against the occupation forces (US troops) – in order to prevent embarrassment to the Iraqi government,” Kataib Hezbollah said in a statement.
“We will continue to defend our people in Gaza in other ways, and we recommend to the brave Mujahideen of the Free Hezbollah Brigades to [carry out] passive defense (temporarily) if any hostile American action occurs towards them.”
The group is considered the most powerful armed faction in the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, an umbrella group of Iran-backed militias in the country. The US holds Iran broadly responsible for arming and supporting these groups and has specifically singled out Kataib Hezbollah as likely to have carried out the deadly attack on Sunday.
Powerful Iran-backed militia in Iraq to suspend military ops against US forces in region
CNN —
In a surprise move, the most powerful Iran-backed militia in Iraq, Kataib Hezbollah, announced on Tuesday the suspension of its military operations against US forces in the region two days after a drone attack killed three US service members and wounded dozens of others.
“We are announcing the suspension of military and security operations against the occupation forces (US troops) – in order to prevent embarrassment to the Iraqi government,” Kataib Hezbollah said in a statement.
“We will continue to defend our people in Gaza in other ways, and we recommend to the brave Mujahideen of the Free Hezbollah Brigades to [carry out] passive defense (temporarily) if any hostile American action occurs towards them.”
The group is considered the most powerful armed faction in the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, an umbrella group of Iran-backed militias in the country. The US holds Iran broadly responsible for arming and supporting these groups and has specifically singled out Kataib Hezbollah as likely to have carried out the deadly attack on Sunday.
Why the Biden/Obama_v3 administration always wanted to get cozy with Iran and degrade Israel is one of life’s greatest mysteries.
Biden 'Paralyzed With Fear' Amid Iran Response: John Bolton
Biden "paralyzed with fear" amid Iran response: John Bolton
Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton told Newsweek that the Biden administration is afraid of holding Iran responsible for new attacks.
www.newsweek.com
LolBiden 'Paralyzed With Fear' Amid Iran Response: John Bolton
Biden "paralyzed with fear" amid Iran response: John Bolton
Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton told Newsweek that the Biden administration is afraid of holding Iran responsible for new attacks.
I’m fine if he’s acting cautiously out of concern it would lead to a wider conflict. That’s good, IMO.
Not sure there’s any proof he’s acting cautiously for political reasons.
Feels like Bolton has always seen war as the answer to any question.
Not sure there’s any proof he’s acting cautiously for political reasons.
Feels like Bolton has always seen war as the answer to any question.
Trump said Bolton had made mistakes, including offending North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un by demanding that he follow a “Libyan model” and hand over all his nuclear weapons.Biden 'Paralyzed With Fear' Amid Iran Response: John Bolton
Biden "paralyzed with fear" amid Iran response: John Bolton
Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton told Newsweek that the Biden administration is afraid of holding Iran responsible for new attacks.
“We were set back very badly when John Bolton talked about the Libyan model … what a disaster,” Trump told reporters at the White House.
I’ve read through a bit of the thread and I just don’t understand how the right wing folks can blame the left for being too soft on the terrorist groups backed by Iran and in other places call the left warhawks looking to make as many wars as possible. Is this just a, ‘hey attack the brown folks don’t help the white ones kill the white ones’, thing?
What do you think is the strategy driving our occupation and partition of Syria?
Are we just supposed to do this forever?
They claim publicly it’s to ‘fight ISIS’, but ISIS was beaten in Syria years ago and what remains the Turks are protecting in Idlib, which is the opposite corner of the country we’re occupying.
So what is the plan? What’s this occupation and partition in furtherance of exactly, besides creating targets for jihadists and the opportunity for a wider war with Iran?
LOL, so I didn't insinuate any of those with my previous statement??? Are you that dense. Yes you have great knowledge of history, but you are missing a lot of the conjecture and implications. Hitler was elated with Pearl Harbor, with that euphorbia 4 days later attacked US ships with his U-boats and declared War on the US because he smelled blood in the water of a foe that he knew sooner or later would become part of the fight. However many experts since have declared this as his biggest error during WW2, as he brought in a formidable adversary earlier into the European conflict than necessary. His hubris got to him. I don't see where anything I have said has been wrong here but you continue to nitpick.
Last edited:
The issue is I have insinuated that you would have not supported Frances inclusion into the Revolutionary War - " as a not our War not our problem situation." Then you go and give a defense for it LOL. Would have been a hell of a lot easier to say you don't think they should have help the US, don't you think?
So lets leave it as, powers can see advantages, or even hindering a foe, by getting involved with a war or supporting other allies. YOU may not personally like it, but there are advantages. I think YOUR opinion on Ukraine and Russia is completely misguided, as it is apparant you think most of the boards opinion supporting Ukraine is. We will never come to a mutual ground. You can also understand why many of us feel you have pro Russian stances. Even still be aware of the positions, and don't try to minimize the arguments of supporting an ally.
There’s a big problem with world commerce being attacked. You’d probably yell when prices start going up because the world economy can’t move goods due to attacks.
I mentioned those engagements in response to your assertion, "At that time we were still ignoring Germany and fully focused on Japan."
We were already SHOOTING at Germans at the time you assert we were "ignoring Germany."
I not sure how else to demonstrate how wrong your assertion is.
The Atlantic Charter, Lend Lease - these aren't "ignoring Germany". It's so wrong I struggle with where to begin. The times we traded fire seemed like a good start.
