BREAKING: Three US troops killed in drone attack in Jordan, at least two dozen injured

[bunsen82]

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.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Germany was not a focus . . . again are you that dense. Had there been skirmishes, absolutely but again, the US was too scared of getting fully involved in the war. To the point we had not attacked or shot at any German U boat before the incident.

FDR’s speech was prompted by a clash a week earlier in the North Atlantic off the coast of Greenland when the USS Greer crossed paths with a German submarine. As Roosevelt told the country, “the German submarine fired first upon this American destroyer without warning, and with deliberate design to sink her.” The sub’s two torpedoes missed their mark. The Greer dropped depth charges that were equally ineffective, but the attack made it the first American ship to fire on a German vessel.

 

[seminole97]

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."

If I was a French citizen, I wouldn't have wanted the king to spend my taxes to further his war with England.

Then you go and give a defense for it LOL.

I explained why the French King contributed toward a cause he thought would hurt the British Empire.
That's not to say that's what I would have done in his place, I'm just explaining why he did what he did.

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.

The people who opposed NATO expansion did so because they feared it would lead to a war.
They were right.
Should have listened to them.

This wikileak is a Stratfor email from 2008. Talks about Georgia and Ukraine in depth.
Nobody mistakes Stratfor for "Putin apologists".
It's interesting because it approaches the topic from the position of internal discussion, not public consumption, and isn't analysis painted by the events of the last two years:

It is very difficult to imagine that the Georgians launched their attack against U.S. wishes. The Georgians rely on the United States, and they were in no position to defy it. This leaves two possibilities. The first is a massive breakdown in intelligence, in which the United States either was unaware of the existence of Russian forces, or knew of the Russian forces but - along with the Georgians - miscalculated Russia's intentions. The second is that the United States, along with other countries, has viewed Russia through the prism of the 1990s, when the Russian military was in shambles and the Russian government was paralyzed. The United States has not seen Russia make a decisive military move beyond its borders since the Afghan war of the 1970s-1980s. The Russians had systematically avoided such moves for years. The United States had assumed that the Russians would not risk the consequences of an invasion.
If this was the case, then it points to the central reality of this situation: The Russians had changed dramatically, along with the balance of power in the region. They welcomed the opportunity to drive home the new reality, which was that they could invade Georgia and the United States and Europe could not respond. As for risk, they did not view the invasion as risky. Militarily, there was no counter. Economically, Russia is an energy exporter doing quite well - indeed, the Europeans need Russian energy even more than the Russians need to sell it to them. Politically, as we shall see, the Americans needed the Russians more than the Russians needed the Americans. Moscow's calculus was that this was the moment to strike. The Russians had been building up to it for months, as we have discussed, and they struck.

The Western Encirclement of Russia

To understand Russian thinking, we need to look at two events. The first is the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. From the U.S. and European point of view, the Orange Revolution represented a triumph of democracy and Western influence. From the Russian point of view, as Moscow made clear, the Orange Revolution was a CIA-funded intrusion into the internal affairs of Ukraine, designed to draw Ukraine into NATO and add to the encirclement of Russia. U.S. Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton had promised the Russians that NATO would not expand into the former Soviet Union empire.
That promise had already been broken in 1998 by NATO's expansion to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic - and again in the 2004 expansion, which absorbed not only the rest of the former Soviet satellites in what is now Central Europe, but also the three Baltic states, which had been components of the Soviet Union.

The Russians had tolerated all that, but the discussion of including Ukraine in NATO represented a fundamental threat to Russia's national security. It would have rendered Russia indefensible and threatened to destabilize the Russian Federation itself. When the United States went so far as to suggest that Georgia be included as well, bringing NATO deeper into the Caucasus, the Russian conclusion - publicly stated - was that the United States in particular intended to encircle and break Russia.
The second and lesser event was the decision by Europe and the United States to back Kosovo's separation from Serbia. The Russians were friendly with Serbia, but the deeper issue for Russia was this: The principle of Europe since World War II was that, to prevent conflict, national borders would not be changed. If that principle were violated in Kosovo, other border shifts - including demands by various regions for independence from Russia - might follow. The Russians publicly and privately asked that Kosovo not be given formal independence, but instead continue its informal autonomy, which was the same thing in practical terms. Russia's requests were ignored.
From the Ukrainian experience, the Russians became convinced that the United States was engaged in a plan of strategic encirclement and strangulation of Russia. From the Kosovo experience, they concluded that the United States and Europe were not prepared to consider Russian wishes even in fairly minor affairs. That was the breaking point. If Russian desires could not be accommodated even in a minor matter like this, then clearly Russia and the West were in conflict. For the Russians, as we said, the question was how to respond. Having declined to respond in Kosovo, the Russians decided to respond where they had all the cards: in South Ossetia.
Moscow had two motives, the lesser of which was as a tit-for-tat over Kosovo. If Kosovo could be declared independent under Western sponsorship, then South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the two breakaway regions of Georgia, could be declared independent under Russian sponsorship. Any objections from the United States and Europe would simply confirm their hypocrisy. This was important for internal Russian political reasons, but the second motive was far more important.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin once said that the fall of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical disaster. This didn't mean that he wanted to retain the Soviet state; rather, it meant that the disintegration of the Soviet Union had created a situation in which Russian national security was threatened by Western interests. As an example, consider that during the Cold War, St. Petersburg was about 1,200 miles away from a NATO country. Today it is about 60 miles away from Estonia, a NATO member. The disintegration of the Soviet Union had left Russia surrounded by a group of countries hostile to Russian interests in various degrees and heavily influenced by the United States, Europe and, in some cases, China.

 

[seminole97]

After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Germany was not a focus . . . again are you that dense.

Wrong.
Strategy was always Germany first.

...the Arcadia Conference, had several significant outcomes. First, the U.S. and Great Britain agreed they would pool their military resources. This was a significant change from World War I. During that conflict, the U.S. never formally joined the Allies but rather "associated itself" with the Anglo-French alliance and maintained its own, separate command structure and supply lines.

In addition, they finalized the United Nations Declaration and agreed to prioritize the war against Germany over all other theaters. Dubbed the "Germany First" policy, it committed the U.S. to the European theater, even though it was already under attack by Japanese military forces in the Western Pacific.

Back in London, the Germany First declaration was seen as a significant triumph for Churchill. That policy, however, had little to do with his efforts. As early as 1940, long before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the Roosevelt administration had already decided to prioritize the defeat of Nazi Germany, even if Japan attacked the U.S.

 

[praguehawk]

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.

Russia invaded Ukraine cause Putin is a land hungry asshole.

 

[bunsen82]

Wrong.
Strategy was always Germany first.

...the Arcadia Conference, had several significant outcomes. First, the U.S. and Great Britain agreed they would pool their military resources. This was a significant change from World War I. During that conflict, the U.S. never formally joined the Allies but rather "associated itself" with the Anglo-French alliance and maintained its own, separate command structure and supply lines.

In addition, they finalized the United Nations Declaration and agreed to prioritize the war against Germany over all other theaters. Dubbed the "Germany First" policy, it committed the U.S. to the European theater, even though it was already under attack by Japanese military forces in the Western Pacific.

Back in London, the Germany First declaration was seen as a significant triumph for Churchill. That policy, however, had little to do with his efforts. As early as 1940, long before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the Roosevelt administration had already decided to prioritize the defeat of Nazi Germany, even if Japan attacked the U.S.

Among the many questions concerning World War II that have fascinated and puzzled historians is why Adolf Hitler declared war on the United States just four days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. He had no foreknowledge of the Japanese attack and he was not obligated to declare war under the terms of the Tripartite Pact he had signed with Japan and Italy in September 1940. The authors of Hitler’s American Gamble seek to uncover the rationale behind what they describe as “Hitler’s greatest strategic error.”

Although ignorant of the Japanese attack, Hitler also was elated. He believed that Germany would be victorious because as he said he now had an ally who had never lost a war. He also believed that American anger at Japan would lead them to concentrate their main effort in the Pacific.

The Story Behind “Hitler’s Greatest Strategic Error”

“…Simms and Laderman have written the definitive study of the four days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.”

kirkcenter.org

Poeple smarter than you say otherwise.

 

[Jimmy McGill]

Bolton is right there with Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld. War hawk. His opinion does not matter to me.

 

[seminole97]

Among the many questions concerning World War II that have fascinated and puzzled historians is why Adolf Hitler declared war on the United States just four days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. He had no foreknowledge of the Japanese attack and he was not obligated to declare war under the terms of the Tripartite Pact he had signed with Japan and Italy in September 1940.

Germany knew an attack was coming. That's why they signed an agreement to go to war with the US with Japan right before the attack:

On 28 November 1941, Ribbentrop confirmed to Hiroshi Oshima, the Japanese ambassador to Germany, what Hitler himself had told Japanese foreign minister Yosuke Matsuoka: that if Japan got involved in a war with the US, Germany would enter the war on Japan's side. When the Japanese asked for written confirmation of this, Hitler provided it, along with Mussolini's consent. This agreement, drafted on 4 December, committed the primary Axis powers to go to war with the United States in the event of a war with Japan, and essentially superseded the Tripartite Pact.

The authors of Hitler’s American Gamble seek to uncover the rationale behind what they describe as “Hitler’s greatest strategic error.”

Although ignorant of the Japanese attack, Hitler also was elated. He believed that Germany would be victorious because as he said he now had an ally who had never lost a war.

"Past performance is no guarantee of future results"

He also believed that American anger at Japan would lead them to concentrate their main effort in the Pacific.

The Story Behind “Hitler’s Greatest Strategic Error”

“…Simms and Laderman have written the definitive study of the four days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.”

kirkcenter.org

Poeple smarter than you say otherwise.

That might have been what Hitler believed, but it wasn't ever part of American strategy.
You're conflating them.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Iran threatens to respond to any US strikes as Biden weighs how to react to a base attack in Jordan​

Iran has threatened to “decisively respond” to any U.S. attack on the Islamic Republic following President Joe Biden linking Tehran to the killing of three U.S. soldiers at a military base in Jordan

Iran threatens to respond to any US strikes as Biden weighs how to react to a base attack in Jordan

Iran has threatened to “decisively respond” to any U.S. attack on the Islamic Republic following President Joe Biden linking Tehran to the killing of three U.S. soldiers at a military base in Jordan

abcnews.go.com

 

[Obviously Oblivious]

Iran threatens to respond to any US strikes as Biden weighs how to react to a base attack in Jordan​

Iran has threatened to “decisively respond” to any U.S. attack on the Islamic Republic following President Joe Biden linking Tehran to the killing of three U.S. soldiers at a military base in Jordan

Iran threatens to respond to any US strikes as Biden weighs how to react to a base attack in Jordan

Iran has threatened to “decisively respond” to any U.S. attack on the Islamic Republic following President Joe Biden linking Tehran to the killing of three U.S. soldiers at a military base in Jordan

abcnews.go.com

 

[Ree4]

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?

I'm no fan of Biden but they expect him to instantly solve a problem that's existed for decades that the previous 7 presidents couldn't. It's hilarious.

 

[jawatkins]

I'm no fan of Biden but they expect him to instantly solve a problem that's existed for decades that the previous 7 presidents couldn't. It's hilarious.

It’s stupid. We shouldn’t be college girlfriends trying to fix bad boys, but at the same time we have to help protect the world economy and ourselves. We can’t just leave a lot of these places. Some matter, others we just seem to attack to help the rich get richer.

 

[seminole97]

I'm no fan of Biden but they expect him to instantly solve a problem that's existed for decades that the previous 7 presidents couldn't. It's hilarious.

 

[seminole97]

It’s stupid. We shouldn’t be college girlfriends trying to fix bad boys, but at the same time we have to help protect the world economy and ourselves. We can’t just leave a lot of these places. Some matter, others we just seem to attack to help the rich get richer.

Why not?

 

[bunsen82]

Why not?

Go ahead leave Israel to its own devices and no intervention and watch the bloodshed.

 

[jawatkins]

Why not?

Because without defense it doesn’t just destroy their economies it destroys ours. We have a global economy and logistics matter.

 

[seminole97]

Go ahead leave Israel to its own devices and no intervention and watch the bloodshed.

Honestly, I might even pity the Arabs before it was over.
But the Star of David isn’t the 51st star on the U.S. flag.
That centuries old fight isn’t ours to wage.

Let’s back up 35 years and examine US actions in the Middle East. What have we accomplished for the American blood and treasure lost in that maelstrom since?
What is the return on investment that keeps you making contributions?

 

[seminole97]

Because without defense it doesn’t just destroy their economies it destroys ours. We have a global economy and logistics matter.

We fundamentally disagree if you think China-India-Europe paying a few percentage points more to ship goods will ‘destroy’ our economy.

Do you think stationing troops at Tower 22 is defending our economy?
How?

 

[jawatkins]

We fundamentally disagree if you think China-India-Europe paying a few percentage points more to ship goods will ‘destroy’ our economy.

Do you think stationing troops at Tower 22 is defending our economy?
How?

The world economy affects everyone. You can pretend inflation wasn’t about world logistics problems all you want but it’s what happened.

 

[seminole97]

The world economy affects everyone. You can pretend inflation wasn’t about world logistics problems all you want but it’s what happened.

You can pretend inflation wasn’t about world governments printing a shit ton of money all you want but it’s what happened.

 

[jawatkins]

You can pretend inflation wasn’t about world governments printing a shit ton of money all you want but it’s what happened.

Sure sure nothing about no products being available and then the companies continuing to ride the price hikes to record profit percentages.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

I'm no fan of Biden but they expect him to instantly solve a problem that's existed for decades that the previous 7 presidents couldn't. It's hilarious.

Nobody is expecting him to “fix” anything.


Folks are expecting him to respond effectively to last weekends attack.

 

[Kelsers]

Nobody is expecting him to “fix” anything.


Folks are expecting him to respond effectively to last weekends attack.

Has he?

 

[seminole97]

Nobody is expecting him to “fix” anything.
Folks are expecting him to respond effectively to last weekends attack.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Biden’s tough-talk, no-action strategy has earned him no respect from Iran​

The White House’s “just barely enough” approach to Iran has painted President Biden into a box. He now faces a put-up-or-shut-up moment, and he will likely fall short in the eyes of many Americans.

When asked if he held Iran accountable for Sunday’s Kata’ib Hezbollah drone strike on Tower 22 in Northeastern Jordan, killing three American soldiers and wounding 40, Biden responded, “Yes. I do hold them responsible, in the sense that they’re supplying the weapons to the people who did it.”

His response to whether he had made a decision on how he would respond to the attack was a simple one word answer: “Yes.” The country now awaits the response that Secretary of State Antony Blinken claims will be “multileveled, come in stages, and be sustained over time.”

Do not expect a debilitating kinetic response. Do not even expect a strike in Iran. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has “told the U.S. via intermediaries that if it strikes Iranian soil directly, Tehran will itself hit back at American assets in the Middle East.”

Iran established a red-line yesterday when its representative to the United Nations, Saeed Iravani, told reporters that giving a “strong response to enemies” who target the country is “the fundamental policy of Iran,” and that attacks on “Iran’s territory, or its interests or citizens abroad” will face a “decisive response.”


White House national security spokesman John Kirby later told reporters, “We are not seeking a conflict with the regime in the military way.”

Iran seems to be dictating the rules, and Biden’s White House meekly obeying. Biden’s escalation paralysis is not a problem just in Ukraine anymore — it now includes Iran. The administration’s fear of sparking a “wider war in the Middle East” has affected U.S. Central Command’s ability to respond to the 160-plus attacks that Iranian proxies have launched against U.S. bases throughout the region and continues to place American service members at risk.

Biden’s rope-a-dope strategy toward Iran is getting Americans killed and wounded. How many dignified transfer of remains movements at Dover Air Force Base will Biden have to attend before he understands that Iran is already at war with the U.S. and has been for some time?

Israel does not seem to have a problem recognizing the hostility of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). When the IRGC poses a threat, the Israelis act decisively, and Iran gets the message. In two airstrikes in December 2023, they killed IRGC advisor General Seyed Razi Mousavi in a Damascus neighborhood, and another 11 IRGC officials at the Damascus International Airport.

With Biden, Iran is reacting differently. Twice, Biden has sent a message directly to Tehran, and twice they have blown him off. In poker terms, they called his bluff, which involves plenty of vacuous, tough talk toward Iran but no direct confrontation.

His first message to Iran and Hezbollah, delivered in an interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes” in October, was, “Don’t escalate this war.” The second was delivered after the joint U.S.-United Kingdom strike on Houthi targets in Yemen. Biden confidently stated, “I’ve already delivered the message to Iran. They know not to do anything.”

Backing up Biden’s tough talk now is problematic. It would require something this administration has struggled with — a forward-thinking plan, not a reaction. A tactical response with strategic effects.

Kirby recently commented that the U.S. would take a “tiered approach.” But what does that entail? The solution lies in this administration’s ability to leverage the instruments of national power that are available — diplomatic, informational, military and economic. The military arm must be the hammer that delivers the message that attacking U.S. bases is an act of war and will not be tolerated. Other instruments of national power would be applied to create additional pressure points on the regime.

There are plenty of targets available. Asked by Fox News anchor John Roberts which targets could be hit without causing escalation, former CENTCOM spokesman Joe Buccino pointed to “IRGC bases in the south that are largely empty,” “Iranian vessels, Iranian ships in the Arabian Gulf,” and “[Iranian oil refineries].

Biden could also strike against Iran’s ability to wage war by destroying the Shahed-136 drone production facility in Esfahan, in central Iran. This is the weapon used to attack Tower 22 and civilian targets in Ukraine. He could also strike the Iranian spy ship Saviz in the Gulf of Aden, which is likely a covert IRGC ship providing guidance for Houthi missile and drone attacks against commercial shipping and the U.S. Navy ships. Additionally, Biden could strike nuclear facilities suspected of processing weapons grade uranium.

Merely striking back at its proxies lets Iran off the hook. Affording the Iranian government sanctuary in its own country will only escalate the situation. Biden needs to deliver what Mike Tyson would describe as a “punch in the mouth.” Iran, much like Russian President Vladimir Putin, has no regard for the tool — proxy, mercenary or foreign fighter — only the result.

Strikes against the proxies and Iran must be followed up with the other instruments of national power. Economically, the U.S. should freeze Iranian assets, shut down Iran’s ability to refine oil and sell it on the open market, and eliminate sanction waivers and ransom payments. Deny the regime the funds it needs to wage war.


Diplomatically we must engage our Sunni Arab partners in the region — Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates. What are they doing to deter Iranian-backed proxies from attacking U.S. bases and commercial shipping in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden?

Right now, the Arab world seems to be standing on the sidelines, watching the U.S., UK and Israel struggle.

Another course of action would be to expel Iranian diplomats from the U.S. and deny them leadership positions on United Nations committees.

But Biden must do something to get Iran’s attention. Iran may respect the power of the U.S. military, but it has no fear of the commander in chief currently leading it.

Col. (Ret.) Jonathan Sweet served 30 years as a military intelligence officer. Mark Toth writes on national security and foreign policy.

Biden’s tough-talk, no-action strategy has earned him no respect from Iran

The White House’s “just barely enough” approach to Iran has painted President Biden into a box.

thehill.com

 

[seminole97]

Strikes against the proxies and Iran must be followed up with the other instruments of national power. Economically, the U.S. should freeze Iranian assets, shut down Iran’s ability to refine oil and sell it on the open market

I think the WH would find roughly zero support internationally for those steps, never mind bombing their enrichment facilities.

These are Boltonesque pipe dreams.

 

[anon_b29nm7v7dwp6r]

Biden is looking pretty weak with this…Austin essentially announces what we are going to do in advance….and even then it’s just going to be to hit some more militia sites….no wonder Iran isn’t taking us seriously.

 

[Obviously Oblivious]

We should hit the Iranian drone production facility, like yesterday. Assuming of course it doesn’t place American lives at further risk in the execution of it.

 

[seminole97]

We should hit the Iranian drone production facility, like yesterday. Assuming of course it doesn’t place American lives at further risk in the execution of it.

Iran has said if we attack Iran they’ll attack our bases in the region.

Who actually, politically, holds escalatory dominance here?

 

[Tom Paris]

If I was a French citizen, I wouldn't have wanted the king to spend my taxes to further his war with England.


I explained why the French King contributed toward a cause he thought would hurt the British Empire.
That's not to say that's what I would have done in his place, I'm just explaining why he did what he did.


The people who opposed NATO expansion did so because they feared it would lead to a war.
They were right.
Should have listened to them.

This wikileak is a Stratfor email from 2008. Talks about Georgia and Ukraine in depth.
Nobody mistakes Stratfor for "Putin apologists".
It's interesting because it approaches the topic from the position of internal discussion, not public consumption, and isn't analysis painted by the events of the last two years:

It is very difficult to imagine that the Georgians launched their attack against U.S. wishes. The Georgians rely on the United States, and they were in no position to defy it. This leaves two possibilities. The first is a massive breakdown in intelligence, in which the United States either was unaware of the existence of Russian forces, or knew of the Russian forces but - along with the Georgians - miscalculated Russia's intentions. The second is that the United States, along with other countries, has viewed Russia through the prism of the 1990s, when the Russian military was in shambles and the Russian government was paralyzed. The United States has not seen Russia make a decisive military move beyond its borders since the Afghan war of the 1970s-1980s. The Russians had systematically avoided such moves for years. The United States had assumed that the Russians would not risk the consequences of an invasion.
If this was the case, then it points to the central reality of this situation: The Russians had changed dramatically, along with the balance of power in the region. They welcomed the opportunity to drive home the new reality, which was that they could invade Georgia and the United States and Europe could not respond. As for risk, they did not view the invasion as risky. Militarily, there was no counter. Economically, Russia is an energy exporter doing quite well - indeed, the Europeans need Russian energy even more than the Russians need to sell it to them. Politically, as we shall see, the Americans needed the Russians more than the Russians needed the Americans. Moscow's calculus was that this was the moment to strike. The Russians had been building up to it for months, as we have discussed, and they struck.

The Western Encirclement of Russia

To understand Russian thinking, we need to look at two events. The first is the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. From the U.S. and European point of view, the Orange Revolution represented a triumph of democracy and Western influence. From the Russian point of view, as Moscow made clear, the Orange Revolution was a CIA-funded intrusion into the internal affairs of Ukraine, designed to draw Ukraine into NATO and add to the encirclement of Russia. U.S. Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton had promised the Russians that NATO would not expand into the former Soviet Union empire.
That promise had already been broken in 1998 by NATO's expansion to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic - and again in the 2004 expansion, which absorbed not only the rest of the former Soviet satellites in what is now Central Europe, but also the three Baltic states, which had been components of the Soviet Union.

The Russians had tolerated all that, but the discussion of including Ukraine in NATO represented a fundamental threat to Russia's national security. It would have rendered Russia indefensible and threatened to destabilize the Russian Federation itself. When the United States went so far as to suggest that Georgia be included as well, bringing NATO deeper into the Caucasus, the Russian conclusion - publicly stated - was that the United States in particular intended to encircle and break Russia.
The second and lesser event was the decision by Europe and the United States to back Kosovo's separation from Serbia. The Russians were friendly with Serbia, but the deeper issue for Russia was this: The principle of Europe since World War II was that, to prevent conflict, national borders would not be changed. If that principle were violated in Kosovo, other border shifts - including demands by various regions for independence from Russia - might follow. The Russians publicly and privately asked that Kosovo not be given formal independence, but instead continue its informal autonomy, which was the same thing in practical terms. Russia's requests were ignored.
From the Ukrainian experience, the Russians became convinced that the United States was engaged in a plan of strategic encirclement and strangulation of Russia. From the Kosovo experience, they concluded that the United States and Europe were not prepared to consider Russian wishes even in fairly minor affairs. That was the breaking point. If Russian desires could not be accommodated even in a minor matter like this, then clearly Russia and the West were in conflict. For the Russians, as we said, the question was how to respond. Having declined to respond in Kosovo, the Russians decided to respond where they had all the cards: in South Ossetia.
Moscow had two motives, the lesser of which was as a tit-for-tat over Kosovo. If Kosovo could be declared independent under Western sponsorship, then South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the two breakaway regions of Georgia, could be declared independent under Russian sponsorship. Any objections from the United States and Europe would simply confirm their hypocrisy. This was important for internal Russian political reasons, but the second motive was far more important.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin once said that the fall of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical disaster. This didn't mean that he wanted to retain the Soviet state; rather, it meant that the disintegration of the Soviet Union had created a situation in which Russian national security was threatened by Western interests. As an example, consider that during the Cold War, St. Petersburg was about 1,200 miles away from a NATO country. Today it is about 60 miles away from Estonia, a NATO member. The disintegration of the Soviet Union had left Russia surrounded by a group of countries hostile to Russian interests in various degrees and heavily influenced by the United States, Europe and, in some cases, China.

This guy is a Russian bot, right? I still think he’s Nat.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Iran has said if we attack Iran they’ll attack our bases in the region.

Who actually, politically, holds escalatory dominance here?

I guess you are Nat…

What’s shakin comrade!!!

 

[seminole97]

I guess you are Nat…
What’s shakin comrade!!!

You think Biden is going to risk a wider war in the election year?
We’ll see what happens, but so far what we’ve seen in the press is that they’re not going to attack Iran.

You might like this read.

Nixon’s comment here has always stood out to me.
Its what I want to hear from the Commander in Chief.

The North Vietnamese undoubtedly interpreted the Johnson conduct of Rolling Thunder as a manifestation of a lack of determination, as well as identifying a vulnerability of the U.S. government to sustained propaganda alleging violations of the law of war. Repeated disinformation, however false, resulted in increased restrictions on U.S. strike forces and target denial. After rebuilding its defenses around Hanoi and Haiphong, the Hanoi government was willing to engage in some risk taking with regard to any new aerial campaign over North Vietnam, convinced that it could win any test of national will with the United States.​

President Nixon, profiting from the errors to his predecessor, recognized the challenge facing him. In a memorandum supporting bombing of the North, he noted:​

[North Vietnam] has gone over the brink and so have we. We have the power to destroy his war-making capacity. The only question is whether we have the will to use that power. What distinguishes me from Johnson is that I have the will in spades.​

I expect Biden to be more of a pussy, and less of a Dick.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Pretty good question. Why do we continually telegraph our punches? To make sure no Iranian "advisors" are in the vicinity? Politics?

GOP lawmaker says Biden waiting too long on Iran response​

Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) said President Biden is taking too long when it comes to responding to Iran over its connections to groups it is supporting and their aggressions toward the U.S.

“It’s been too long for a while. If you look at the attacks that have taken place since October 7, on U.S. interests, U.S. military, 160 times, what are we waiting for?” Wenstrup said on “The Hill on NewsNation” Thursday.

GOP lawmaker says Biden waiting too long on Iran response

Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) said President Biden is taking too long when it comes to responding to Iran over its connections to groups it is supporting and their aggressions toward the U.S. “…

thehill.com

WASHINGTON — Meeting privately with national security aides this week, President Joe Biden raised a question, two people briefed on the discussion said: If he ordered military action to avenge the deaths of three U.S. soldiers in Jordan, would that jeopardize the delicate talks over the release of American hostages in Gaza?

When aides eased such concerns, he decided that he would proceed with retaliatory measures, the people said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the president’s calculus.


Biden settled on a counterattack plan that is expected to unfold over multiple days, possibly weeks, U.S. officials told NBC News.

American forces are expected to hit targets in different countries outside Iran in response to the drone strike by Iranian-backed militants, which also injured more than 30 service members, U.S. officials said.

The operation, which officials say hasn’t begun, figures to be Biden's most forceful response yet to militia groups that have launched more than 150 attacks against U.S. forces since the war between Israel and Hamas started Oct. 7.

It's also among the biggest and riskiest tests that Biden has faced. He must keep the war from escalating but also respond to the attack in Jordan in a way that deters future assaults and signals to America’s enemies that they can’t kill U.S. forces with impunity.

Complicating matters further, Biden is up for re-election and eager to avoid any impression that he is a weak commander in chief whom adversaries can intimidate.

It's a tough balance to maintain in a fast-moving conflict. Any counterattack that destroys Iranian assets or kills Iranian-backed militia fighters risks a tit-for-tat response that could draw the U.S. deeper into the sort of Middle East quagmire that has bedeviled presidents for decades.

“It is probably the most important moment in his presidency,” said Brett Bruen, who was the director of global engagement in the Obama White House. “If he can apply a set of military strikes that push back Iranian efforts to destabilize the region and also avoid a war with Iran, that will be a strong proof point for his re-election. If he can thread that needle through the next few months, we’re going to hear that refrain on the campaign trail.”

Former President Donald Trump, the front-runner for the Republican nomination, has looked to capitalize on the crisis, posting on his social media site that the drone attack arose from Biden’s “weakness and surrender.”

Trump’s statement drew a fierce response from Biden allies.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., wrote on X that “the deaths of U.S. service members are NEVER something to politicize. We should be focused on holding those responsible for this attack accountable, keeping our troops safe, and avoiding a war in the Middle East.”

It’s doubtful that Trump would applaud anything Biden did. But some conservatives who’ve broken with Trump contend that the Biden administration’s muted response to smaller attacks by Iranian-linked militias invited the lethal assault that killed the three service members.

Biden ordered strikes on Iranian-linked targets in Syria in reprisal for previous attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria, describing them as “proportionate” in scale. Yet John Bolton, a national security adviser in the Trump White House who has become a sharp critic of Trump, likened them to “pinpricks" that weren’t sufficient to deter Iranian aggression.

“You can’t leave Americans vulnerable and say we’re only going to wait until they are dead before we do anything,” Bolton said in an interview.

Biden weighs how the response to Iran could affect Israel-Hamas negotiations — and his own political fate

Biden has settled on a counterattack plan that is expected to unfold over multiple days, possibly weeks, U.S. officials said.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

President Biden ordered retaliation for the deaths of U.S. troops after a Sunday attack on a U.S. base in Jordan, approving plans for significant strikes against Iranian-controlled facilities in Iraq and Syria, CBS News reported Thursday.

The response, expected to begin as soon as this weekend, will occur over several days and be “tiered,” mixing military actions with other steps that can be adjusted to signal that Washington doesn’t seek further escalation, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Tehran, eager to stave off a direct war with the U.S., ordered Iranian commanders to leave bases in Iraq and Syria that could become U.S. targets, hoping to head off high-profile killings that, in Iranian eyes, would require a response.

Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi said Friday that his country will defend itself. “We will not start any war, but if anyone wants to bully us they will receive a strong response,” he said in a televised speech. “Before, when they [the U.S.] wanted to talk to us, they said the military option is on the table. Now they say they have no intention of a conflict with Iran,” Raisi continued.

The Iran-backed militia group Kata’ib Hezbollah announced Wednesday it suspended military operations against U.S. forces. The U.S. has said the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, an umbrella militia group backed by Iran, was responsible for the attack on U.S. forces.

On Thursday, Yemen’s Houthi rebels were still attacking vessels and fired a ballistic missile at a Liberian-flagged container ship in the Red Sea.

“At this point, it’s time to take away even more capability than we’ve taken in the past,” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said during a Pentagon news conference Thursday.

ABC News: U.S. forces responded Thursday and hit Houthi UAVs and a ground control station in Yemen.

Biden hopes to pressure Iran to rein in attacks by groups it supports but which it might not directly command.

Domestically, some Republican critics have bashed Biden, who is campaigning for reelection, labeling him an “appeaser” who is leery of using force to deter America’s enemies.

Austin said the U.S. sought to “hold the right people accountable” without escalating the conflict in the region.

Morning Report — US plan to retaliate against Iran takes shape

President Biden ordered retaliation for the deaths of U.S. troops after a Sunday attack on a U.S. base in Jordan, approving plans for significant strikes against Iranian-controlled facilities in Ir…

thehill.com

 

[seminole97]

“At this point, it’s time to take away even more capability than we’ve taken in the past,”

“At this point, we are incrementing the incremental response.”

We’re really putting to bed the way we went to war in 1991.
That was when the generation who joined the armed forces in the midst of the Vietnam war were at the top of the military food chain. There was so much talk about how when the country went to war it would be with a definable, achievable objective, and the White House wasn’t picking next week’s targets, but instead letting the military achieve the objective.

Now it’s the Johnson White House again, with the approval rating it deserves.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

The U.S. on Friday began to carry out retaliatory strikes in Iraq and Syria, likely against Iran-backed militants for a drone strike on an American base in Jordan last Sunday that killed three U.S. service members.

Live updates: US retaliates after deadly drone attack on Jordan base

Strikes began in Iraq, Syria after American service members were killed Sunday.

abcnews.go.com

 

[MichaelKeller99]

Need to end these foreign entanglements. Takes a comedian to make a serious and honest observation about war: American politicians decided it was easier worshiping veterans with lip service than taking care of them...just makes sense economically.

troy bond the military - - Video Search Results

The search engine that helps you find exactly what you're looking for. Find the most relevant information, video, images, and answers from all across the Web.

video.search.yahoo.com

 

[TennNole17]

The U.S. on Friday began to carry out retaliatory strikes in Iraq and Syria, likely against Iran-backed militants for a drone strike on an American base in Jordan last Sunday that killed three U.S. service members.

Live updates: US retaliates after deadly drone attack on Jordan base

Strikes began in Iraq, Syria after American service members were killed Sunday.

abcnews.go.com

Ty for not starting another thread for the update (ahem chis)

I think this discussed earlier- is this “war”; or since retaliatory don’t need to go to Congress?

 

[Aardvark86]

The U.S. on Friday began to carry out retaliatory strikes in Iraq and Syria, likely against Iran-backed militants for a drone strike on an American base in Jordan last Sunday that killed three U.S. service members.

Live updates: US retaliates after deadly drone attack on Jordan base

Strikes began in Iraq, Syria after American service members were killed Sunday.

abcnews.go.com

Friday after the news cycle. Maybe it’s just me, but I’m not sure you’d wNt to bury that lede

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Ty for not starting another thread for the update (ahem chis)

I think this discussed earlier- is this “war”; or since retaliatory don’t need to go to Congress?

I think we’re still in the retaliatory don’t need to go to Congress stage.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Since we telegraphed the punch I wouldn’t be shocked if the IRGC bugged out of those bases.