US bases in Iraq under missile attack

[Biff Tannen 45491]

4 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

PBS has a special on the McCarthy hearings, and how Edward R. Murrow straight-up went after him, while others were quaking in their boots at the thought of it.

This is what we need today.  When Pompeo goes on the Sunday shows and fucking straight up lies, Chuck Todd and whomever else needs to grow a pair and say, "um, that's a lie.  let's try this again."

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

When the administration decides not to hold formal press conferences, and will gladly try and boot reporters out of the pool, they get confused and don't know what to do.

We have come a long way from Walter Cronkite.  PBS has a special on the McCarthy hearings, and how Edward R. Murrow straight-up went after him, while others were quaking in their boots at the thought of it.

This right here. Americans, ALL Americans should have been and should be demonstrating up and down the Mall about the lack of access for press personnel to the WH. Don't visit the Smithsonian until you have pressured elected officials that this is no democracy in action. Many schools have shuttered their journalism programs and the media field has changed rapidly, forcing news orgs to change along with it. But if this trend is not brought to heel immediately, then we can no longer point at Russia, North Korea, and China and scornfully comment on their media blackouts.

[atomheartbevo 89396]

9 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

Indeed. The remark about being a good family man was meant as an insult, like Czar Alexander III, who let millions die without ever giving a fuck.

My sarcasm meter was off.  I got to meet him a few times when I was volunteering for his campaigns back in the '90s, and he seemed like a nice guy, and is actually sharper than most people assume, but like I said, he made the final call on Iraq.

9 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

Don't you argue on a daily basis that the government should be given control over the economy and personal freedom?

Nope, you're confusing me with a present-day Republican/Trump supporter.  I was done with the GOP mostly after Iraq in 2003, and finally after Sarah Palin.

9 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

If you want to avoid war, then you cannot let the media and the politicians control you. 

Only way you are going to get rid of needless military adventures, is if you change up the lobbying game and get the lobbyists out of Congress, and stop electing dipshits who pander to certain groups and/orwho think we need to fight all of the battles for Israel and the Saudis.  We don't need 800+ bases/installations around the world either.  But there's too much money in it, so there you go.

[atomheartbevo 89396]

14 minutes ago, kevwun said:

Murrow got the go-ahead from Ike though.  The Republicans didn't get rid of him until his usefulness was done.

That he did, but it was still ultimately Murrow sticking his neck out there - there was nothing Ike could do if McCarthy and Co. had tried to go after Murrow (or more likely those who worked around him).

Problem for us, is that we don't have anybody with that kind of....presence these days.  We get dipshits like Chuck Todd mostly lobbing softballs, because he's too afraid he'll get his access to administration officials cut off.  So we end up with the most cutting-edge journalism being people on comedy news shows, who have no problems pointing out how fucking stupid this administration can be.

[jimmyjazz 45538]

5 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Only way you are going to get rid of needless military adventures, is if you change up the lobbying game and get the lobbyists out of Congress, and stop electing dipshits who pander to certain groups and/orwho think we need to fight all of the battles for Israel and the Saudis.  We don't need 800+ bases/installations around the world either.  But there's too much money in it, so there you go.

[TXSG8R 3360]

17 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The corporate welfare for defense contractors is a much bigger problem than installations when it comes to the defense budget.  Atom is right though, that cant be solved without booting the lobbyists and/or setting term limits for congress.  They should also extend the grace period between gov't jobs and contracting to something like 5+ years.  Plenty of acquisition folks give sweetheart deals to defense contractors and easily wait the 2 years to get payback by hiring on.  trump shoulders most of the blame for the current spending bill, but he basically told congress he didn't give a shit what was in it, just pass it so he can sign it.  Fiscal conservatives must have been on vacation.

https://www.thenation.com/article/heres-where-your-tax-dollars-for-defense-are-really-going/

 

[DDD Dad 14243]

48 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

So we end up with the most cutting-edge journalism being people on comedy news shows, who have no problems pointing out how fucking stupid this administration can be.

+1

We are living in an interesting age, to be sure.

[wildcat09 29213]

48 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

The corporate welfare for defense contractors is a much bigger problem than installations when it comes to the defense budget.  Atom is right though, that cant be solved without booting the lobbyists and/or setting term limits for congress.  They should also extend the grace period between gov't jobs and contracting to something like 5+ years.  Plenty of acquisition folks give sweetheart deals to defense contractors and easily wait the 2 years to get payback by hiring on.  trump shoulders most of the blame for the current spending bill, but he basically told congress he didn't give a shit what was in it, just pass it so he can sign it.  Fiscal conservatives must have been on vacation.

https://www.thenation.com/article/heres-where-your-tax-dollars-for-defense-are-really-going/

 

Why on earth does anyone still believe Congressional term limits would diminish lobbyist influence? Can anyone actually explain how that would work?

[Steamboat1874 4032]

Lobbying is nothing more than legalized bribery.

[TwiceHorn 31240]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Why on earth does anyone still believe Congressional term limits would diminish lobbyist influence? Can anyone actually explain how that would work?

The theory is less emphasis on reelection if term is limited.  Thus, less emphasis on fundraising and less vulnerability to quid pro quo campaign contributions from industry/industry groups and less incentive to listen to lobbyists.

Of course, that ignores the other forms of graft that lobbyists offer.

[yoladu 4066]

3 hours ago, TXSG8R said:

JFC you’re an idiot. What I’m saying is you don’t invade a country and then pull up stakes because that makes shit worse. Dubya invadimg without any plans for the backend was just about as bad. Actions have consequences, and the last time we started to pull out isis flooded the country. This time it will probably be Iran, or their proxies, since Iraq is majority Shiite anyway taking over fully. Trump killing Soleimani will probably directly achieve Soleimani’s goals. Kick the US out and allow Iran to take over. 

You cannot prosecute wars fully at 30k feet.  Look at countries like Libya where we tried that. You also don’t go and kill a fuckton of Iraqis and destroy their infrastructure and then go “sorry, helping fix all this shit costs too much, we are out.” I said it earlier, and I’ll say it again since you seem to be more interested in coming off like a tough guy rather than actually comprehending. When Iraq says to leave, we leave. I’m done with derailing this thread trying to get you to understand that I agree with a lot of the stuff you say, but that you’re still a moron for trying to dumb things down to binary arguments  

 

there you go.

[TXSG8R 3360]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The theory is less emphasis on reelection if term is limited.  Thus, less emphasis on fundraising and less vulnerability to quid pro quo campaign contributions from industry/industry groups and less incentive to listen to lobbyists.

Of course, that ignores the other forms of graft that lobbyists offer.

Yea, bribes would have to be much more overt if they cant extend it over decades.  Its not a silver bullet, but it would help.  

[hpslugga 4042]

16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The theory is less emphasis on reelection if term is limited.  Thus, less emphasis on fundraising and less vulnerability to quid pro quo campaign contributions from industry/industry groups and less incentive to listen to lobbyists.

Of course, that ignores the other forms of graft that lobbyists offer.

All term limits will accomplish is changing the names of the people who allow for shit like this to happen. It's not like the federal government has some invisible barrier through which people pass once they take the oath of office and that pass through said barrier makes them evil or stupid. These people are bought and paid for by a handful of billionaires and multi-millionaires and they're put in office with the understanding that their policy decisions need to benefit them primarily. If you enact term limits, all you're really doing is slightly inconveniencing the aforementioned super wealthy by making them continue to research/vet candidates every few years instead of being able to say "you know, that Lindsey Graham has been our whore for almost twenty years, so let's pump some more money into his re-elect bid and he can be our whore for 6 more years."

If anything, what they'll do is promote leadership position concepts in all their little Super PAC's and the ones who've never held elected positions will get them the next go around. So you've got a guy that's been promoted the head of the I'm Rich, Bitch PAC, he serves a term of two years, then they properly fund and campaign for him the next time a Senate seat in Texas or Wyoming or whatever comes up. And when he serves? It'll look no different than it already does now.

If you want to mitigate the power of, as you say, "fundraising, quid pro quo campaign contributions, and incentive to listen to lobbyists," you might want to start (certainly not end) with the overturn of Citizens United.

Edited January 9, 2020 by hpslugga

[TwiceHorn 31240]

2 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

All term limits will accomplish is changing the names of the people who allow for shit like this to happen. It's not like the federal government has some invisible barrier through which people pass once they take the oath of office and that pass through said barrier makes them evil or stupid. These people are bought and paid for by a handful of billionaires and multi-millionaires and they're put in office with the understanding that their policy decisions need to benefit them primarily. If you enact term limits, all you're really doing is slightly inconveniencing the aforementioned super wealthy by making them continue to research/vet candidates every few years instead of being able to say "you know, that Lindsey Graham has been our whore for almost twenty years, so let's pump some more money into his re-elect bid and he can be our whore for 6 more years."

Yes.  Hence my final sentence.

One thing, though.  We have joked on here about pols having to wear suits with logos like NASCAR drivers and more seriously about them being taken to task about their contributions, at least.

Well, Warren's candidacy is making that a more common topic of conversation, perhaps boding well for the future.  Although I dislike Citizens United's effect, particularly the part extending the Bill of Rights to corporations (which is not quite as explicit in the case as some would have you believe), it may be that the First Amendment is actually the solution to the problem.  Talk about it, air it out, and we can probably reduce the influence of lobbyists/corporations/industry.

[Newy25 7638]

Just to sum up the Iranian response:

1. Fire on US bases, either miss entirely or cause no damage

2. Shoot down one of their own passenger jets killing their own citizens

 

Their military seems like it kind of sucks. 

 

[Horn Dog 9671]

9 minutes ago, Newy25 said:

Just to sum up the Iranian response:

1. Fire on US bases, either miss entirely or cause no damage

2. Shoot down one of their own passenger jets killing their own citizens

 

Their military seems like it kind of sucks. 

 

Iranian military would make an excellent next Head coach for Texas football 

[TXSG8R 3360]

7 minutes ago, Newy25 said:

Just to sum up the Iranian response:

1. Fire on US bases, either miss entirely or cause no damage

2. Shoot down one of their own passenger jets killing their own citizens

 

Their military seems like it kind of sucks. 

 

1. is not accurate.  They hit quite a few structures, likely outright destroyed some aircraft, and damaged many more.  

[4th&Five 41457]

 

[El Diablo 4232]

I've got nothing to contribute, just wanted to comment that we've been jacking with these assholes for most of my life. Shah, Ayatollah, hostages, Contra etc... If some of their women weren't so hot I'd say we need to leave. BUT there is that.

[InkaUtexas 25486]

5 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

I've got nothing to contribute, just wanted to comment that we've been jacking with these assholes for most of my life. Shah, Ayatollah, hostages, Contra etc... If some of their women weren't so hot I'd say we need to leave. BUT there is that.

Don't know why, but your pictures are not showing up. 

[El Diablo 4232]

I'm a failure.

[jimmyjazz 45538]

2 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

I'm a failure.

I got you:

[atomheartbevo 89396]

 

1 hour ago, Newy25 said:

Just to sum up the Iranian response:

1. Fire on US bases, either miss entirely or cause no damage

2. Shoot down one of their own passenger jets killing their own citizens

Their military seems like it kind of sucks. 

Did you not bother looking at the satellite photos?   Most of their missiles hit actual structures.

If Iran's missile attack was as shitty as everybody makes it out to be, there should be a string of impact craters dotting the countryside between Iraq and that airbase (and the wreckage we've seen pictures of are the early stage(s) of that missile and not the actual warheads that impacted the airbase), and there should be plenty of craters in runways and open areas.  Instead, there's plenty of destroyed buildings.

[El Diablo 4232]

Surprised they didn't unleash a cargo container full of them miniaturized smart drones. Size of a bumblebee but get into evarthing. Savage.

[jimmyjazz 45538]

7 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

If Iran's missile attack was as shitty as everybody makes it out to be, there should be a string of impact craters dotting the countryside between Iraq and that airbase (and the wreckage we've seen pictures of are the early stage(s) of that missile and not the actual warheads that impacted the airbase), and there should be plenty of craters in runways and open areas.  Instead, there's plenty of destroyed buildings.

I haven't kept up -- are the structures that were hit ones that were previously occupied by US soldiers?  In other words, can we assume that the advanced warning was the primary reason we didn't lose anyone?

[TXSG8R 3360]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I haven't kept up -- are the structures that were hit ones that were previously occupied by US soldiers?  In other words, can we assume that the advanced warning was the primary reason we didn't lose anyone?

Aircraft maintenance areas were mainly hit.  Couple of clamshells and a few hardstand buildings (one may be a hangar, hard to tell).  They also barely missed a hardened aircraft hangar.  Early warning is the only reason we didnt have any casualties.  Not necessarily from the Iranians, we have our own launch monitoring stuff watching Iran.  

[atomheartbevo 89396]

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I haven't kept up -- are the structures that were hit ones that were previously occupied by US soldiers?  In other words, can we assume that the advanced warning was the primary reason we didn't lose anyone?

They tipped the Iraqi government off in advance, who naturally tipped us off (but I'm sure we had systems watching Iran as well).  Given the location of those buildings, including the hangars that were hit, and that we have around, 1,500 troops there, there were definitely areas that were hit that, during the day, would probably have Americans in them.

This is one of the bases that Trump visited last month.  

We didn't/don't have Patriot/Avenger systems there.

[RomaVicta 29769]

On 1/8/2020 at 1:31 PM, Enchubben said:

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

You have such high expectations of your president. The stock market and parts of the economy have not ceased to improve during his administration, and his diplomacy has deftly averted a world war. And, my oh my, does he rattle the libs!

It must be so fun caring more about your partisan jersey instead of your country. Have a nice brandy and cigar in the Titanic lounge. It's all good until the cold water floods into your shoes.

Your delusions about the liberal enemy of the USA has, in irony far beyond your dull comprehension, made you the actual enemy to the republic. Even as the icy salt water fills your mouth, you will blame the illusory libs while expecting a rescue from the bloated, criminal masters you so dumbly serve.

Don't look for a life rope from me, fuckwad.

Edited January 9, 2020 by RomaVicta

[gsoda3 3234]

34 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

They tipped the Iraqi government off in advance, who naturally tipped us off

was this actually confirmed?  

[RomaVicta 29769]

19 hours ago, David Dennison said:

So when do we start lobbing bombs at Saudi Arabia?

 

19 hours ago, GRHorn said:

When they start accepting something other than USD for their oil. 

Thanks, GRHorn, for reminding me of that factor. I read about the Saudi and cartel leverage over the US by their choice of using the dollar for oil sales, but it gets mentioned so seldom that it had actually slipped my mind.

Added to that is the clear hold the Saudis have on Trump and family through straight bribery and possibly blackmail. But even if we excise Trump like the tumor he is, they still have that USD threat to hold over our heads.

So, we invade Iraq to make the vicarious tough guys watching TV feel more manly and like we're actually doing something. Then the GOPs use that invasion to send pallets of cash to Iraq accounted for by a mailbox accounting firm only to see it disappear(Vanity Fair). I'm sure the money went to good use. Yea. Sure.

We've been thumbing our nuts while watching ourselves be robbed by the GOP kleptocracy for years. The Russia/Ukraine/Turkey/Saudi scandal is just evidence that the GOPs got sloppy and overconfident.

At least now more people have awakened to it. There's even a slight chance we can correct the disaster, but it's only slight.

Some of us have already gone through a couple of cases on the ledge just swinging our feet in numb impotence.

[Enchubben 5509]

29 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

You have such high expectations of your president. The stock market and parts of the economy have not ceased to improve during his administration, and his diplomacy has deftly averted a world war. And, my oh my, does he rattle the libs!

It must be so fun caring more about your partisan jersey instead of your country. Have a nice brandy and cigar in the Titanic lounge. It's all good until the cold water floods into your shoes.

Your delusions about the liberal enemy of the USA has, in irony far beyond your dull comprehension, made you the actual enemy to the republic. Even as the icy salt water fills your mouth, you will blame the illusory libs while expecting a rescue from the bloated, criminal masters you so dumbly serve.

Don't look for a life rope from me, fuckwad.

I'll say this, you are a talented writer. 

[Tuco 5076]

3 hours ago, Newy25 said:

2. Shoot down one of their own passenger jets killing their own citizens

 

I really, really, really...really, hope we did not figure out how to inflict their anti-aircraft weapons systems with a computer bug. (Like we did with the centrifuges with Stuxnet.)

[atomheartbevo 89396]

52 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

was this actually confirmed?  

The US government didn't come out and say it, but a bunch of reporters with sources in the Iraqi government stated so, and the fact that the bases were completely in lockdown within 4 minutes of launch tends to give credence to that.

Rough math says that the main missiles launched at Al Asad (Fateh-110) travel at Mach 3.5, with a range of 300km, so at max they were in the air for 4-5 minutes. That's not a long time to get 1,500 troops, plenty of whom were asleep, completely under serious protection at 1:45am.

Interesting note: If the DOD is correct (yeah, I know), the four missiles that failed were fired at Erbil and were the Qiams (longer-range scuds), and the 6-10 fired at Al Asad were the Fatehs, shorter-range, truck-launched, and homegrown, and all hit Al Asad.

[Enchubben 5509]

8 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

The US government didn't come out and say it, but a bunch of reporters with sources in the Iraqi government stated so, and the fact that the bases were completely in lockdown within 4 minutes of launch tends to give credence to that.

Rough math says that the main missiles launched at Al Asad (Fateh-110) travel at Mach 3.5, with a range of 300km, so at max they were in the air for 4-5 minutes. That's not a long time to get 1,500 troops, plenty of whom were asleep, completely under serious protection at 1:45am.

Interesting note: If the DOD is correct (yeah, I know), the four missiles that failed were fired at Erbil and were the Qiams (longer-range scuds), and the 6-10 fired at Al Asad were the Fatehs, shorter-range, truck-launched, and homegrown, and all hit Al Asad.

was just going to ask about this 

[TXSG8R 3360]

48 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

The US government didn't come out and say it, but a bunch of reporters with sources in the Iraqi government stated so, and the fact that the bases were completely in lockdown within 4 minutes of launch tends to give credence to that.

Rough math says that the main missiles launched at Al Asad (Fateh-110) travel at Mach 3.5, with a range of 300km, so at max they were in the air for 4-5 minutes. That's not a long time to get 1,500 troops, plenty of whom were asleep, completely under serious protection at 1:45am.

Interesting note: If the DOD is correct (yeah, I know), the four missiles that failed were fired at Erbil and were the Qiams (longer-range scuds), and the 6-10 fired at Al Asad were the Fatehs, shorter-range, truck-launched, and homegrown, and all hit Al Asad.

If you can’t get from your CHU to a bunker in under a minute you’re doing it wrong. 

[LCHorn 2585]

I know I'm not the only veteran on the board and I'm not reading back through all 13 pages to confirm, but has anyone posted from personal experience about Al Asad?

 

I was headquartered there in 2005, so I'm intimately familiar with the base and the surrounding area.  Suffice to say there were targets that could have been hit that would be likely to result in a body count or just potentially a bigger hole in the ground.  There's a chow hall (we called it the "Taj Mahal") build large enough to feed 10k meals a day, not to mention any number of residential barrack structures or cans.  I would presume that the Iranians could have hit these if they wanted to escalate--that they did not is, I think, significant in terms of their goals with the attack. 

[RomaVicta 29769]

1 hour ago, Tuco said:

I really, really, really...really, hope we did not figure out how to inflict their anti-aircraft weapons systems with a computer bug. (Like we did with the centrifuges with Stuxnet.)

Repped for a very interesting piece of speculation.

I recall that we jammed the Libyan SAM batteries when Reagan bombed that country. Many of the missiles went straight up and came straight back down on the batteries. 

It would be an interesting debate about who bears the most responsibility for the crash if the sabotage happened as you speculate. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

It’s pretty disheartening to learn that with respect to a conflict between Iran and the US, that it appears that Iran is the one being the rational actor.

Fuck all you trumpkins for what you have done to our country. Ignorant Dipshits. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33831]

this is fine:

 

[InkaUtexas 25486]

Ambassadors rarely start their own cars. Now military attaches... Consul Officers... Different story. 

[Francisco 2.0 32313]

 

[futureman 22414]

20 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

What’s so funny? 

I had only thought he was a football idiot.  it’s funny to swing by here and see that he’s a full blown lunatic. 

[futureman 22414]

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

It’s pretty disheartening to learn that with respect to a conflict between Iran and the US, that it appears that Iran is the one being the rational actor.

Fuck all you trumpkins for what you have done to our country. Ignorant Dipshits. 

lulz

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, futureman said:

lulz

So we can safely assume you’re one of them. 
 

one of them. 
 
fucking loser. 

[Anastasis 23390]

4 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I got you:

 

Would drone attack. 

[Anastasis 23390]

Also,

 

[InkaUtexas 25486]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Also,

 

Politics I can get behind. 

[henrygandorf 29174]

1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

this is fine:

 

cut to ambassadors waiting on the curb for their uberpool.

that should be another snl sketch.  this shit writes itself.

[workswithseed 2033]

16 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Also,

 

I'd to shoot my rocket at her airstrip.

[NWBuck 8547]

41 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I'd to shoot my rocket at her airstrip.

Me too, but like the Iranian ordnance, I'd probably explode early and off target.