US bases in Iraq under missile attack

[bolverk 29394]

3 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I'd figure ISIS would have something to do with that.

Iran was passionately opposed to ISIS and had soldiers, along with their proxies, fighting alongside the Kurds, as well as coordinating with us, the fight against them.

Remember: Iran = Shiite; ISIS = Sunni.

[gsoda3 3234]

10 minutes ago, Junior Miller said:

We had an internationally recognized deal with Iran in place and very little public conflict with them over the previous few years until idiot went and backed out for no legitimate reason. No, he didn't start the initial conflict in the middle east but you'd have to be a real moron to think that's what I meant. He started THIS current escalation of conflict with Iran. 

I mean, I even said in the post you quoted when trump renegged on the deal and started this whole conflict. For you to read that and think I'm saying trump is responsible for the very beginning of all conflict with Iran takes a really stupid level of reading comprehension. 

ok the error in your thinking is that things were just dandy until and because he reneged on the deal.   that's what i take by you meaning trump "started" this. 

 

iran's been long fighting the US by proxy in iraq.  after ISIS was defeated in syria those attacks in iraq from militias backed by iran have increased.  tensions between the US and iran were already high because of this.  trump reneging on the deal increased the tension, but it was already there.   

 

 

[4th&Five 41457]

 

[gsoda3 3234]

8 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Now I'm wondering what his best deal is.

probably USMCA.  in terms of american interests it got a lot of stuff on the checklist crossed off.  thing is NAFTA wasn't terrible so the delta between original deal and new deal isn't that great but at least it's not a net negative.  

 

what do you think the best deal is?

[Junior Miller 1502]

9 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

ok the error in your thinking is that things were just dandy until and because he reneged on the deal.   that's what i take by you meaning trump "started" this. 

 

iran's been long fighting the US by proxy in iraq.  after ISIS was defeated in syria those attacks in iraq from militias backed by iran have increased.  tensions between the US and iran were already high because of this.  trump reneging on the deal increased the tension, but it was already there.   

 

 

All this shit you spewed out has been standard operating procedure for the region for decades. They fuck with us using proxies and we fuck with them by invading their region, tossing it into chaos, then like a horrible houseguest refusing to leave. 

Getting from that level to depending on Iran's leadership to be the bigger man and not start a massive war is all on trump. 

[triplehorn 2664]

I have an odd feeling Trump wanted and expected this wag to bear more political fruit and last longer.  Iran has effectively smothered it with a wet blanket.  Impeachment talk not going away.

[Junior Miller 1502]

1 minute ago, triplehorn said:

I have an odd feeling Trump wanted and expected this wag to bear more political fruit and last longer.  Iran has effectively smothered it with a wet blanket.  Impeachment talk not going away.

Thing is trump knows the corrupt republican Senate isn't going to remove him. So why do this stuff now? The election isn't for another 10-11 months, and if you want to drum up idiotic jingoistic fake patriotism with war to try to save your own ass why not do it on the eve of the election? What happens now won't even be remembered by then. 

[GRHorn 105]

7 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

I have an odd feeling Trump wanted and expected this wag to bear more political fruit and last longer.  Iran has effectively smothered it with a wet blanket.  Impeachment talk not going away.

Go poke around on the dark web and see what you can find out. 

[Neonmoon 38127]

You know what, I bet the dead people in the Ukraine airplane that got shot down totally see this as a win too. 
 

[triplehorn 2664]

3 minutes ago, Junior Miller said:

Thing is trump knows the corrupt republican Senate isn't going to remove him. So why do this stuff now? The election isn't for another 10-11 months, and if you want to drum up idiotic jingoistic fake patriotism with war to try to save your own ass why not do it on the eve of the election? What happens now won't even be remembered by then. 

Trump's ego can't tolerate not controlling the news cycle for even a day.  It drives him nuts.  The Senate not removing Trump notwithstanding, GOP Senate still stands to take political damage, especially vulnerable senators.  This was Trump's way of setting the narrative in the first week of the new year after the holidays.  Right now, it looks like it's going to fizzle, which is good, obviously.

[wildcat09 29213]

17 minutes ago, Junior Miller said:

All this shit you spewed out has been standard operating procedure for the region for decades. They fuck with us using proxies and we fuck with them by invading their region, tossing it into chaos, then like a horrible houseguest refusing to leave. 

Getting from that level to depending on Iran's leadership to be the bigger man and not start a massive war is all on trump. 

We've also used proxies to fuck with them.

[Anastasis 23390]

4 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

You know what, I bet the dead people in the Ukraine airplane that got shot down totally see this as a win too. 
 

Take it up with Putin. 

[Anastasis 23390]

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/08/794517031/satellite-photos-reveal-extent-of-damage-at-al-assad-air-base

 

 

 

[Dbeasy 14962]

Sorry, we live in a world where EVERYONE is an expert on EVERYTHING and therefore we need to rule immediately. Either this is the greatest presidential decision ever or WWIII. There is no middle ground. 

I rate your post a 3.5 on a scale of 1 to 10.

[Message Board User 12389]

We the people!

 

[Biff Tannen 45491]

8 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

We the people!

 

This is why we can't have nice things.  Fucking let us die.  We are a virus.

[Message Board User 12389]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

This is why we can't have nice things.  Fucking let us die.  We are a virus.

Ignorance also makes us much more susceptible to dis/misinformation.

[StruggleBus 3922]

I'm shocked that 20% of women actually know where Iran is. 

[RomaVicta 29769]

41 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

ok the error in your thinking is that things were just dandy until and because he reneged on the deal.   that's what i take by you meaning trump "started" this. 

 

iran's been long fighting the US by proxy in iraq.  after ISIS was defeated in syria those attacks in iraq from militias backed by iran have increased.  tensions between the US and iran were already high because of this.  trump reneging on the deal increased the tension, but it was already there.   

 

 

I like how the status quo always includes the presence of an American army in a foreign country. Same thing in Viet Nam.

"They're using dirty guerilla tactics against our conventionally unbeatable army, those dirty bastards! How dare they attack the army we put into the middle of their world to ensure we get what we want?!?!?!?"

We invade. Kill a couple of hundred thousand people. Sponsor a superficial election where we can "let freedom reign." Pat ourselves on the back as the eternal good guys beloved by the world. Only an evil force could oppose such a presence. In our B Movie world view, it's all very simple. We're good. They're evil. We will prevail because we have God and right on our side and nobody is as brave and tough as we are. Amazing we elected a narcissist president.

PEOPLE DON'T LIKE HAVING FOREIGN ARMIES IN THEIR BACKYARD! THEY REALLY DON'T. THEY HATE IT. 

W's Iraq invasion keeps bleeding us. It's the worst policy of my lifetime and that includes Viet Nam.

[RomaVicta 29769]

22 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

We the people!

 

I'll point a finger at the news media as part of the blame for this. They should devote a segment to each repetitive analysis show on laying out the basic facts of who, what, when, where. You know, actually be informative instead of interpretative. But they don't want to cut into the time of their panel of experts repeating the same things over and over.

[Pato del Muerto 52336]

36 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

You know what, I bet the dead people in the Ukraine airplane that got shot down totally see this as a win too. 
 

Those people were willing to fly into/out of Iran on a Ukrainian airliner. They were at peace with their possible demise. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33831]

Just now, Pato del Muerto said:

Those people were willing to fly into/out of Iran on a Ukrainian airliner. They were at peace with their possible demise. 

wow.

[Pato del Muerto 52336]

2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

wow.

I wasn’t serious, brah. 

[TXSG8R 3360]

Based on those sat shots, its hard to believe Iran was shooting to avoid US casualties.  I don't see any shots that didn't hit some kind of structure.  The only reason there weren't casualties is because they had enough warning to get into bunkers.  There's a little bit of flexing going on that the pentagon cant ignore.  Iran can shoot, so we either stand up patriot and avenger batteries (and more security for those, and more logistics support, which means a more significant troop footprint), or we get the fuck out of dodge.  

[WhatTheBuck 28703]

5 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Those people were willing to fly into/out of Iran on a Ukrainian airliner. They were at peace with their possible demise. 

It may still be statistically safer than eating undercooked bacon. 

[Pato del Muerto 52336]

1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

It may still be statistically safer than eating undercooked bacon. 

Well I’m alive and they are dead. 

[WhatTheBuck 28703]

1 hour ago, gsoda3 said:

what do you think the best deal is?

Collusion with Russia?

[Pato del Muerto 52336]

10 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

Based on those sat shots, its hard to believe Iran was shooting to avoid US casualties.  I don't see any shots that didn't hit some kind of structure.  The only reason there weren't casualties is because they had enough warning to get into bunkers.  There's a little bit of flexing going on that the pentagon cant ignore.  Iran can shoot, so we either stand up patriot and avenger batteries (and more security for those, and more logistics support, which means a more significant troop footprint), or we get the fuck out of dodge.  

Let’s get out. We can go in on a moment's notice but we never leave. Germany, Japan, Philippines, Middle East. Just leave. Thinking we need to be globally strike capable in hours is stupid, old thought. If it’s UN and NATO related, then let’s share that burden a little more equally. 
 

of course, we do that in the Kurdistan area and people flip out. 

Edited January 8, 2020 by Pato del Muerto

[B00M 6280]

31 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This is why we can't have nice things.  Fucking let us die.  We are a virus.

[woohorn 1131]

There's a little bit of flexing going on that the pentagon cant ignore.  Iran can shoot, so we either stand up patriot and avenger batteries (and more security for those, and more logistics support, which means a more significant troop footprint), or we get the fuck out of dodge.  

Someone reported last night that 4 of the missiles "failed in flight". Anyone seen more reporting on that? If that was 4 out of 12, it isn't quite as impressive.

[TXSG8R 3360]

1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Let’s get out. We can go in on a moment's notice but we never leave. Germany, Japan, Philippines, Middle East. Just leave. Thinking we need to be globally strike capable in hours is stupid, old thought. If it’s UN and NATO related, then let’s share that burden a little more equally. 

Thats not why we stay there, we maintain a presence so we can influence the region.  If/when we pull out, Iran/Syria/Russia will just fill the void.  Our global strike capability comes from our carrier groups, subs, and strategic bombers.  None of that really changes, and its not stupid.  Our ability to project power keeps a lot of dumb shit from getting worse.  

[TXSG8R 3360]

5 minutes ago, woohorn said:

 

 

Someone reported last night that 4 of the missiles "failed in flight". Anyone seen more reporting on that? If that was 4 out of 12, it isn't quite as impressive.

 

None of that is confirmed.  Some of those reports may come from some of the fuselages that were found, which wouldn't make them failed.  Ballistic missiles fire in stages, so once the booster section is cooked, it separates from the warhead.  Its also possible that there was redundant targeting, so two rockets hit one target, which wouldn't be super obvious from a wide angle sat shot.  I doubt the true BDA ever gets publicly reported, but like I said, the targeting is pretty fucking accurate for what is supposed to be their low end missiles (if these wind up being Qiam-2s).  These aren't spray and pray Iraqi scuds, thats for sure.  

[workswithseed 2033]

1 hour ago, gsoda3 said:

probably USMCA.  in terms of american interests it got a lot of stuff on the checklist crossed off.  thing is NAFTA wasn't terrible so the delta between original deal and new deal isn't that great but at least it's not a net negative.  

 

what do you think the best deal is?

Probably when he dropped the MOAB, it was a pretty cool deal. I can't really think of too much else.

[workswithseed 2033]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

Iran was passionately opposed to ISIS and had soldiers, along with their proxies, fighting alongside the Kurds, as well as coordinating with us, the fight against them.

Remember: Iran = Shiite; ISIS = Sunni.

That's what I was getting at. Maybe I didn't make it apparent.

[lemonlime 5503]

1 hour ago, krevo said:

Damn reading this thread from page 1 to present - a lot of you guys are really a bunch of chicken littles.  OMG TRUMPS GOING TO USE THIS AS AN EXCUSE TO USE A NUKE.  LOOK AT THIS TWEET FROM SOME UNKNOWN MIDDLE EASTERN TWITTER JOURNALIST.

Shut the fuck up.  You can't possibly be that stupid.

Lo fucking L at someone who supports a man who believes stealth fighters are completely invisible to the naked eye, windmills cause cancer, we should buy Greenland, and that we should nuke hurricanes, thinking others are stupid.

[workswithseed 2033]

4 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Lo fucking L at someone who supports a man who believes stealth fighters are completely invisible to the naked eye, windmills cause cancer, we should buy Greenland, and that we should nuke hurricanes, thinking others are stupid.

I know I said stupid things, but he's stupider!

[hpslugga 4042]

1 hour ago, gsoda3 said:

ok the error in your thinking is that things were just dandy until and because he reneged on the deal.   that's what i take by you meaning trump "started" this. 

 

iran's been long fighting the US by proxy in iraq.  after ISIS was defeated in syria those attacks in iraq from militias backed by iran have increased.  tensions between the US and iran were already high because of this.  trump reneging on the deal increased the tension, but it was already there.   

 

 

The roots of the conflict go back to 1953, 50 years prior to the US invading Iraq, and everything that's happened since. This did not start with Obama or Trump. They're merely the latest two actors to come into the 9th and 10th acts of this utterly wretched tragedy of political theatre.

[Enchubben 5509]

17 hours ago, Enchubben said:

Shit now the Dow is probably only up 9500 points since Trump took office.

Scratch that - DJI is back up 200 points.

[Biff Tannen 45491]

36 minutes ago, B00M said:

Cool man.  Go fuck yourself.

[Junior Miller 1502]

21 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

Thats not why we stay there, we maintain a presence so we can influence the region.  If/when we pull out, Iran/Syria/Russia will just fill the void.  Our global strike capability comes from our carrier groups, subs, and strategic bombers.  None of that really changes, and its not stupid.  Our ability to project power keeps a lot of dumb shit from getting worse.  

You can peacefully maintain a presence with bases in places like Saudi Arabia and South Korea and throughout Europe without war mongering and throwing trillions of printed out of thin air money dollars at a continuous war effort 

If we had responsible leadership 20 years ago put a fraction of the trillions we've wasted in war efforts towards development and building out infrastructure for viable alternative energy sources we would have zero reason today to be there for oil purposes. We have far more than enough oil reserves to sustain ourselves if we had built out proper energy infrastructure to where we're not 100% dependent on oil. 

If we had any kind of decent leadership today that would be a project we would start on immediately. Now that we've already fucked the Kurds over there's no reason to be there anymore. Pull our forces out of the middle East except for enough to maintain presence in Saudi Arabia to protect oil interests in the area. 

I assume you're some sort of former military and as such I guess it's normal to view the world in black-and-white warmongering terms, but our vast nuclear arsenal guarantees no country is ever going to invade the US. We can maintain order through minimal presence without killing a bunch of people and then fucking other people's countries up the way we have been. 

[gsoda3 3234]

1 hour ago, Junior Miller said:

 

All this shit you spewed out has been standard operating procedure for the region for decades. They fuck with us using proxies and we fuck with them by invading their region, tossing it into chaos, then like a horrible houseguest refusing to leave. 

Getting from that level to depending on Iran's leadership to be the bigger man and not start a massive war is all on trump. 

yes thank you for summarizing what i've been saying.  it'd be helpful to your cause in the future to avoid hyperbole. 

[Enchubben 5509]

40 minutes ago, woohorn said:

 

 

Someone reported last night that 4 of the missiles "failed in flight". Anyone seen more reporting on that? If that was 4 out of 12, it isn't quite as impressive.

 

Technically they didn't "fail", they just got blocked by a Boeing 737.

[atomheartbevo 89396]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/08/794517031/satellite-photos-reveal-extent-of-damage-at-al-assad-air-base

 

 

43 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

Based on those sat shots, its hard to believe Iran was shooting to avoid US casualties.  I don't see any shots that didn't hit some kind of structure.  The only reason there weren't casualties is because they had enough warning to get into bunkers.  There's a little bit of flexing going on that the pentagon cant ignore.  Iran can shoot, so we either stand up patriot and avenger batteries (and more security for those, and more logistics support, which means a more significant troop footprint), or we get the fuck out of dodge.  

 

30 minutes ago, woohorn said:

Someone reported last night that 4 of the missiles "failed in flight". Anyone seen more reporting on that? If that was 4 out of 12, it isn't quite as impressive.

 

DOD says 17 missiles hit the main airbase in Iraq (out of 22 fired at the two airbases).  I haven't seen anything about the other airbase (in the Kurdish area) being hit, but 17 hitting the main airbase is impressive as hell.  These aren't Saddam's Scuds, that's for sure, and like TXSG8R said, they all seem to have hit structures.

If Iran warned Iraq, knowing they would warn us, so that our folks were protected, Iran sent one helluva message that most people, particularly the media and Fox News seem to be ignoring - these were accurate as hell.  But you can bet the DOD is paying attention.

The image that Republicans and Fox News are pushing is one that should have had 17 holes scattered across the ground between Iran and that base, not 17 hits directly on the base, most/all hitting actual structures and not the open/empty areas.

Fort Sill and Fort Bliss probably look like somebody kicked over an anthill today.

 

[atomheartbevo 89396]

 

[krevo 142]

18 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Lo fucking L at someone who supports a man who believes stealth fighters are completely invisible to the naked eye, windmills cause cancer, we should buy Greenland, and that we should nuke hurricanes, thinking others are stupid.

I never said anything about supporting Trump or his warmongering.  I said a lot of you are fucking dumbasses if you think a few missiles hitting some random shit in Iraq were going to lead to Trump using a nuclear weapon.  Stop with the "finger on the button" bullshit already.

[Enchubben 5509]

2 minutes ago, krevo said:

I never said anything about supporting Trump or his warmongering.  I said a lot of you are fucking dumbasses if you think a few missiles hitting some random shit in Iraq were going to lead to Trump using a nuclear weapon.  Stop with the "finger on the button" bullshit already.

if you followed the commentary in the North Korea thread, you would think Trump should have us in WW6 by now.

Edited January 8, 2020 by Enchubben

[gsoda3 3234]

9 minutes ago, Junior Miller said:

You can peacefully maintain a presence with bases in places like Saudi Arabia and South Korea and throughout Europe without war mongering and throwing trillions of printed out of thin air money dollars at a continuous war effort 

If we had responsible leadership 20 years ago put a fraction of the trillions we've wasted in war efforts towards development and building out infrastructure for viable alternative energy sources we would have zero reason today to be there for oil purposes. We have far more than enough oil reserves to sustain ourselves if we had built out proper energy infrastructure to where we're not 100% dependent on oil. 

If we had any kind of decent leadership today that would be a project we would start on immediately. Now that we've already fucked the Kurds over there's no reason to be there anymore. Pull our forces out of the middle East except for enough to maintain presence in Saudi Arabia to protect oil interests in the area. 

 

this hasn't been true in a number of years.  not only the USA, but the world, just isn't dependent on iranian oil anymore.  since 2013? we've been the #1 producer of oil.    

edit:  misread what you said, you never said iranian oil.  point still stands that the shock we feel today from an oil disruption won't be anything like it would have been 20 years ago.  we're not as dependent on ME oil.

Edited January 8, 2020 by gsoda3

[MNLonghornFUKM 8799]

We the people!
[/url]  

So Miss South Carolina was right when she said she personally believes that some people in the US doesnt have maps.

[TXSG8R 3360]

1 minute ago, Junior Miller said:

You can peacefully maintain a presence with bases in places like Saudi Arabia and South Korea and throughout Europe without war mongering and throwing trillions of printed out of thin air money dollars at a continuous war effort 

If we had responsible leadership 20 years ago put a fraction of the trillions we've wasted in war efforts towards development and building out infrastructure for viable alternative energy sources we would have zero reason today to be there for oil purposes. We have far more than enough oil reserves to sustain ourselves if we had built out proper energy infrastructure to where we're not 100% dependent on oil. 

If we had any kind of decent leadership today that would be a project we would start on immediately. Now that we've already fucked the Kurds over there's no reason to be there anymore. Pull our forces out of the middle East except for enough to maintain presence in Saudi Arabia to protect oil interests in the area. 

I assume you're some sort of former military and as such I guess it's normal to view the world in black-and-white warmongering terms, but our vast nuclear arsenal guarantees no country is ever going to invade the US. We can maintain order through minimal presence without killing a bunch of people and then fucking other people's countries up the way we have been. 

Forward presence isn't always warmongering, most of the time its to avoid further wars.  Isolationism doesn't work, Joe Kennedy out front should have told ya.  Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that everything can be solved with a bullet, or that any of the previous shit in the gulf was the correct move.  But once you go knock down a country, you establish a presence until the country is back on its feet, otherwise you just create further chaos.  

Your simplistic view of the world makes me think you're young, or a pure academic.  You're correct, the world isn't black and white, and there are very few simple answers to any of the global problems we face.  "We cant be invaded" is a pretty bizarre viewpoint to make decisions from.  We don't have to be invaded to be impacted by things outside of the US.  

[G650 14074]

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

W's Iraq invasion keeps bleeding us. It's the worst policy of my lifetime and that includes Viet Nam.

It's bad but not even in the same galaxy as Vietnam.