Trump foreign policy

[Tiberius]

3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

It wasn't a deal. It was extortion. 150 million in cash for the mullahs (who gave money to themselves and terrorist cells, not the country or people) in exchange for building a bomb slower. The "deal" accomplished nothing. Nothing. 

And yet Donald Trump's state department is begging Iran to stay in compliance with Obama's extortion....

[Deranged Rhino]

11 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

And yet Donald Trump's state department is begging Iran to stay in compliance with Obama's extortion....

 

No one is begging. Iran will never be allowed to get a bomb. Because doing so would mean Hezbollah and Hamas have a bomb. The Mullahs are done, they know it. The world knows it. Soon you will too. 

[Tiberius]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

No one is begging. Iran will never be allowed to get a bomb. Because doing so would mean Hezbollah and Hamas have a bomb. The Mullahs are done, they know it. The world knows it. Soon you will too. 

How will we stop them? Obama's strategy did stop them and got inspectors in. Trump went in opposit direction and now they are making nuclear material again. That's an Obama step forward and Trump a step back 

 

And how are the Mullah's leaving? I thought Murduro was leaving too?

[Deranged Rhino]

The Iran deal did nothing to stop Iran's nuclear program. That's a lie you've swallowed in full because you don't like to think for yourself. The Iran deal funded terrorism and gave the Mullahs a stay of execution. Nothing more. 

 

The people of Iran will be the masters of their nation's destiny. They do not want the Mullahs, even if you do. They do not want terrorists getting funding over the people, even if you do. We have been supporting the people (unlike the past administration who thumbed their nose at the people of Iran in favor of coddling the Mullahs) both in public and in covert operations. Those will continue. Sanctions will continue. There won't be a war, and the Mullahs will collapse from within. 

 

It's already happened. You're just on a ten minute delay.

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

29 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

No one is begging. Iran will never be allowed to get a bomb. Because doing so would mean Hezbollah and Hamas have a bomb. The Mullahs are done, they know it. The world knows it. Soon you will too. 

It is political here too... Kerry whispering Biden would be friendlier to Iran so Iran should do A, B, and C ... but don't kill anyone. Killing someone gets you blown up. Trump will bomb you if you do A, B, and C - I promise! (To get the Iranian deal back)

And then President Trump declines to escalate. 

It will be interesting to see Iran's next move - if they cannot provoke US action without killing Americans. Do they back off? Will they kill Americans (I hope not!)? If they kill Americans, then everything changes... and Iran gets that "war" they were hoping for, but at what price to them? 

Edited June 21, 2019 by Buffalo_Gal

[3rdnlng]

26 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

It is political here too... Kerry whispering Biden would be friendlier to Iran so Iran should do A, B, and C ... but don't kill anyone. Killing someone gets you blown up. Trump will bomb you if you do A, B, and C - I promise! (To get the Iranian deal back)

And then President Trump declines to escalate. 

It will be interesting to see Iran's next move - if they cannot provoke US action without killing Americans. Do they back off? Will they kill Americans (I hope not!)? If they kill Americans, then everything changes... and Iran gets that "war" they were hoping for, but at what price to them? 

Who are you to deprive HAHA Gator of a good laugh?

[Buffalo_Gal]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

Who are you to deprive HAHA Gator of a good laugh?

mea culpa 

[sherpa]

Glad to see an ill advised, reactionary, stupid response wasn't our course.

 

I'm more certain now than ever that what was called off last night was a cruise missile thing, which is very expensive and does little damage.

Cruise missiles have small warheads.

Kind of the big hat, no cattle thing.

Looks cool, but does very little to your adversary.

 

Still, there simply has to be a response.

We cannot allow the Iranians, whether it's their central command or rogue elements of the Revolutionary Guard to destroy our stuff in international airspace.

Going down that path has no good end.

 

I don't care if it's military, economic, UN driven or any other means, or how long it takes to do something, but we simply cannot allow this to be inconsequential. 

[CommonCents]

6 minutes ago, sherpa said:

Glad to see an ill advised, reactionary, stupid response wasn't our course.

 

I'm more certain now than ever that what was called off last night was a cruise missile thing, which is very expensive and does little damage.

Cruise missiles have small warheads.

Kind of the big hat, no cattle thing.

Looks cool, but does very little to your adversary.

 

Still, there simply has to be a response.

We cannot allow the Iranians, whether it's their central command or rogue elements of the Revolutionary Guard to destroy our stuff in international airspace.

Going down that path has no good end.

 

I don't care if it's military, economic, UN driven or any other means, or how long it takes to do something, but we simply cannot allow this to be inconsequential. 

You brought up something in an earlier post about jets returning to a carrier with ordinance. What’s the procedure for that? Are there conditions where they would shoot them into the ocean to make the landing safer?   

[sherpa]

25 minutes ago, CommonCents said:

You brought up something in an earlier post about jets returning to a carrier with ordinance. What’s the procedure for that? Are there conditions where they would shoot them into the ocean to make the landing safer?   

 

Some stuff is no problem.

Air to air missiles, air to ground missiles like anti radiation stuff used to take out radar sites are not a big deal.

Dumb bombs are cheap and not worth the weight and risk of bringing them back aboard.

More exotic stuff, which is far more expensive, is worth it.

 

Things like flares, which is burning magnesium, providing one million candle power for night stuff, is absolutely not worth it, but fortunately, with the US's night capability, it isn't used much anymore, but would have to be jettisoned prior to landing.

 

Either way, the sailors that work the flight deck don't like weapons on the landing airplanes, and neither does the captain.

Lot's of bad things can happen.

[DC Tom]

9 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

Some stuff is no problem.

Air to air missiles, air to ground missiles like anti radiation stuff used to take out radar sites are not a big deal.

Dumb bombs are cheap and not worth the weight and risk of bringing them back aboard.

More exotic stuff, which is far more expensive, is worth it.

 

Things like flares, which is burning magnesium, providing one million candle power for night stuff, is absolutely not worth it, but fortunately, with the US's night capability, it isn't used much anymore, but would have to be jettisoned prior to landing.

 

Either way, the sailors that work the flight deck don't like weapons on the landing airplanes, and neither does the captain.

Lot's of bad things can happen.

 

Can't the shock of landing degrade weapon reliability, too?

[sherpa]

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

Can't the shock of landing degrade weapon reliability, too?

 

Good question.

Don't know.

 

To your point, most of the stuff I carried ex dumb bombs was pretty sophisticated seeker head stuff, and the electronics guys would always plug into the seeker and test it before launch to validate performance, but other than air to air missiles, which were left on for a day at a time, most of the stuff was offloaded between cycles.

 

 

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, sherpa said:

 

Good question.

Don't know.

 

To your point, most of the stuff I carried ex dumb bombs was pretty sophisticated seeker head stuff, and the electronics guys would always plug into the seeker and test it before launch to validate performance, but other than air to air missiles, which were left on for a day at a time, most of the stuff was offloaded between cycles.

 

 

 

I've read that it does, but not from a reliable source.  A2A in particular, since it usually has to withstand multiple cycles.

 

Makes a certain sense...but "makes sense" doesn't make it true.

[sherpa]

10 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I've read that it does, but not from a reliable source.  A2A in particular, since it usually has to withstand multiple cycles.

 

Makes a certain sense...but "makes sense" doesn't make it true.

 

I've been thinking about your post since I read it, and I can't really recall ever having an airplane that was loaded up on a previous cycle with air to mud and not downloaded.

We always hooked the sidewinders first thing, and loaded the gun.

F-14's did the same with sidewinder and sparrow.

I think AMRAAM is the same.

What most folks who aren't familiar with carrier aviation don't think about  is that weight is a big thing.

So is drag when coming aboard.

Having a lot of dead weight in the wing pylons was a pain in the rear.

For those reasons, you always planned to get rid of whatever you launched with, ex missiles.

[Ol Dirty B]

16 hours ago, GG said:

 

Speaking of, care to refute Sherp’s facts since you called him out on it?

 

Well I can't. Because I know what I don't know. That was my only issue with his post.

 

None of us can definitively say it was over the hormuz or over Iranian air space that was the point of my post.

 

If it can be shown it is over international airspace, then a response is deserved even though I don't think we should be heavy handed.

 

I'm not sure what a war with Iran accomplishes. We've got to be smart and not take the bait as a country.

 

I don't mean this as left or right, I mean this as how the rest of the world views us. If we alienate this useless country, then invade, destroy and do what happened with Iraq, we're just creating another generation of enemies. Giving another reason for crap anti US propaganda.

 

We can all disagree and see different solutions. I just hope at least with me, and hopefully with others, we can see that people want to offer the best solution.

 

I'm not anti-American, I'm not a pacifist. I'm just try to be pragmatic. 

 

EDIT: also nothing he said is a fact besides a 150 million dollar drone got shot down. As someone who'd like to cut down on government spending, I'd prefer those don't get shot down.

 

 

Edited June 22, 2019 by Ol Dirty B

[sherpa]

1 hour ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

Well I can't. Because I know what I don't know. That was my only issue with his post.

 

None of us can definitively say it was over the hormuz or over Iranian air space that was the point of my post.

 

If it can be shown it is over international airspace, then a response is deserved even though I don't think we should be heavy handed.

 

I'm not sure what a war with Iran accomplishes. We've got to be smart and not take the bait as a country.

 

I don't mean this as left or right, I mean this as how the rest of the world views us. If we alienate this useless country, then invade, destroy and do what happened with Iraq, we're just creating another generation of enemies. Giving another reason for crap anti US propaganda.

 

We can all disagree and see different solutions. I just hope at least with me, and hopefully with others, we can see that people want to offer the best solution.

 

I'm not anti-American, I'm not a pacifist. I'm just try to be pragmatic. 

 

EDIT: also nothing he said is a fact besides a 150 million dollar drone got shot down. As someone who'd like to cut down on government spending, I'd prefer those don't get shot down.

 

 

 

There is zero chance it was in Iranian airspace.

We are not going to invade Iran, and any talk about "alienating" them should have been had in the 70's.

Iran is an "Islamic Republic," and the people who are part of that "Islamic Republic" sailed that ship 40 years ago.

The majority of the people aren't interested in being an "Islamic Republic,,"

 

The leadership of rogue nations that attack things in international airspace or waters need to pay serious consequences.

 

 

[3rdnlng]

4 hours ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

Well I can't. Because I know what I don't know. That was my only issue with his post.

 

None of us can definitively say it was over the hormuz or over Iranian air space that was the point of my post.

 

If it can be shown it is over international airspace, then a response is deserved even though I don't think we should be heavy handed.

 

I'm not sure what a war with Iran accomplishes. We've got to be smart and not take the bait as a country.

 

I don't mean this as left or right, I mean this as how the rest of the world views us. If we alienate this useless country, then invade, destroy and do what happened with Iraq, we're just creating another generation of enemies. Giving another reason for crap anti US propaganda.

 

We can all disagree and see different solutions. I just hope at least with me, and hopefully with others, we can see that people want to offer the best solution.

 

I'm not anti-American, I'm not a pacifist. I'm just try to be pragmatic. 

 

EDIT: also nothing he said is a fact besides a 150 million dollar drone got shot down. As someone who'd like to cut down on government spending, I'd prefer those don't get shot down.

 

 

I asked you some questions earlier in this thread that if answered should have brought you to the conclusion that our drone was indeed in international airspace. DC Tom went ahead and answered those questions with a somewhat full response. Did you not read those posts and learn something?

[Koko78]

7 hours ago, Ol Dirty B said:

Well I can't. Because I know what I don't know. That was my only issue with his post.

 

None of us can definitively say it was over the hormuz or over Iranian air space that was the point of my post.

 

Ok, so what's the more likely scenario:

 

1.) The US sent a $240,000,000 non-stealth drone that was specialized for naval surveilance, one of only two we have in the region, into Iranian airspace for schitts and giggles; or

 

2.) Iran is pissed off about the sanctions and someone in the IGRC acted out by firing at a non-stealth US drone in international airspace?

 

Iran's story doesn't make sense. At all.

[3rdnlng]

11 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Ok, so what's the more likely scenario:

 

1.) The US sent a $240,000,000 non-stealth drone that was specialized for naval surveilance, one of only two we have in the region, into Iranian airspace for schitts and giggles; or

 

2.) Iran is pissed off about the sanctions and someone in the IGRC acted out by firing at a non-stealth US drone in international airspace?

 

Iran's story doesn't make sense. At all.

He's chosen to ignore common sense in order to put Iran on an equal veracity level with the U.S. That seems to me like bending over backwards to believe in a country seeped in the art of lying. In fact, even their religion says it's ok to lie to someone outside their faith.

 

We are fortunate here at PPP to have a fantastic array of different professions, educations and experiences. There are few subjects that can't be addressed here by an expert. In this instance not only have we had lay people chiming in with common sense responses but a military geek and an actual navy fighter pilot with experience in the very geographical area in question giving their opinions. "Dirty" knows more though.

[SoCal Deek]

If we spent $100 million on an unmanned drone which, by definition, is flown using a GPS guidance system, isn’t it a bit improbable that that system would even allow it to be flown into Iranian air space? If not, we’re all in BIG trouble when we get driverless cars!