US and Iran Relations (News and Discussion)

[visionary]

4 hours ago, tshile said:

Honestly I don’t care how we arrived at ‘don’t send missiles into iran’

 

you all got the bar set too high 

In isolation sure.  But in the context of future situations, and long term consequences in our relationship with Iran and other countries we have issues with or may in the future, it’s kind of important.  I’m sure other countries are paying close attention and taking notes.

 

(Although I suspect you aren’t being entirely serious) 😉

Edited June 22, 2019 by visionary

[visionary]

 

[Cooked Crack]

Quote

The plans had been drawn, the targets set, and a single word from the commander in chief would have activated the U.S. military to strike a foreign adversary. But President Trump was having second thoughts.

After giving his top Pentagon officials permission to prepare for U.S. military strikes against Iran, Trump convened his top advisers in the Oval Office on Thursday evening and began asking crucial questions just minutes before the operation was set to commence, according to officials familiar with the episode.

What are the potential risks, he asked. How many people could be killed? What could go wrong?

Trump had already been briefed in detail on such questions earlier in the day, including a Pentagon estimate of up to 150 Iranian casualties. But — with national security adviser John Bolton joining the debate arguing strenuously in favor of the strikes — the president was asking about them again.

 

[FanboyOf91]

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

Edited June 22, 2019 by visionary

[No Excuses]

It’s almost like they renounced nuclear weapons in exchange for easing sanctions and more financial flexibility recently.

[killerbee99]

The guy is a ****ing moron

[Hersh]

1 hour ago, No Excuses said:

It’s almost like they renounced nuclear weapons in exchange for easing sanctions and more financial flexibility recently.

 

This is the exact same thing he said about NK. If they renounce nuclear weapons, we will be there best friend and make them really rich. 

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

57 minutes ago, killerbee99 said:

The guy is a ****ing moron

He really is. “I know so much about nuclear”. Sure you do.

 

We basically have Harvey Weinstein as POTUS. Disgusting.

[Larry]

 

Quote

 

 

Wow.  Trump offering to lift economic sanctions if Iran will give up their nuclear program.  

 

If Trump can get them to agree to that, it would make him the best negotiator we've had in the White House in two years.  

 

Edited June 22, 2019 by Larry

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

“I’ll be your best friend.” That’s how I used to get the nerds at Cool Spring Elementary to give me their snack packs during lunch. I was a terrible teacher.

[Bozo the kKklown]

 

 

[Cooked Crack]

Must have got tired of neocons calling him a **** boy on TV.

[mistertim]

10 hours ago, Hersh said:

 

This is the exact same thing he said about NK. If they renounce nuclear weapons, we will be there best friend and make them really rich. 

 

It's basically the same con he used to scam stupid people out of their money for decades. He'd find out what they wanted, paint an amazing picture of how rich they'd get if they did/gave him what he wanted, and pretend he'd be their top advocate and a loyal business partner.

 

I feel like this will be a bit harder to do when it comes to geopolitically complex nuclear disarmament negotiations with a wily foreign power. 

Edited June 23, 2019 by mistertim

[Barry.Randolphe]

He's posturing so he can build a Trump Tower in Tehran

[visionary]

 

 

 

[Springfield]

I fully support a cyber attack against their weapons systems.  Wish this type of option were on the table more often.

[Barry.Randolphe]

18 minutes ago, Springfield said:

I fully support a cyber attack against their weapons systems.  Wish this type of option were on the table more often.

 

I will fully support Stuxnet-ing them to the Stone Age

[nonniey]

12 hours ago, Springfield said:

I fully support a cyber attack against their weapons systems.  Wish this type of option were on the table more often.

The point of the cyber attack was to disable the IADs so our planes would be safe (safer).  It was pointless without the follow through and that particular attack software probably can't be reused.

Edited June 23, 2019 by nonniey

[Springfield]

11 minutes ago, nonniey said:

The point of the cyber attack was to disable the IADs so our planes would be safer (safer).  It was pointless without the follow through and that particular attack software probably can't be reused.

 

I assume that different cyber attacks are possible in the future.  I’d certainly hope that a cyber attack, in whatever form, is always available as an option.  While we didn’t attack physically (good IMO), a cyber attack shows that we can disable systems.

 

Perhaps a deterrent against future actions by Iran.

[Larry]

1 hour ago, nonniey said:

The point of the cyber attack was to disable the IADs so our planes would be safer (safer).  It was pointless without the follow through and that particular attack software probably can't be reused.

 

That's kinda my feeling, too.  

 

Granted, I don;t know a thing about this cyber attack.  (And if I did, I wouldn't be allowed to talk about it.)  But the impression I have is that things like this tend to be one-shot weapons.  

 

Using a cyber weapon to disable their antiaircraft weapons, two hours before an air strike?  I'm OK with that.  (But even then, only if we didn't have the option of, say, just going around them, and keeping that bullet in reserve for later.  Blowing them up, conventionally, would have been even better.  Might even get the people who shot down the drone.)  

 

But using this kind of weapon, just as a gesture?  Waste of a one-shot weapon.  

 

[LD0506]

[Riggo-toni]

[PeterMP]

I seriously doubt that the net long term value of cyber attacks is positive.  Historically, the weapons have just turned around us against us (US citizens, companies, and (local) governments that aren't really any better suited to defend themselves than Iran).

[Dan T.]

On 6/23/2019 at 12:35 AM, Springfield said:

I fully support a cyber attack against their weapons systems.  Wish this type of option were on the table more often.

 

On 6/23/2019 at 12:55 AM, Barry.Randolphe said:

 

I will fully support Stuxnet-ing them to the Stone Age

 

22 hours ago, nonniey said:

The point of the cyber attack was to disable the IADs so our planes would be safe (safer).  It was pointless without the follow through and that particular attack software probably can't be reused.

 

21 hours ago, Larry said:

 

That's kinda my feeling, too.  

 

Granted, I don;t know a thing about this cyber attack.  (And if I did, I wouldn't be allowed to talk about it.)  But the impression I have is that things like this tend to be one-shot weapons.  

 

Using a cyber weapon to disable their antiaircraft weapons, two hours before an air strike?  I'm OK with that.  (But even then, only if we didn't have the option of, say, just going around them, and keeping that bullet in reserve for later.  Blowing them up, conventionally, would have been even better.  Might even get the people who shot down the drone.)  

 

But using this kind of weapon, just as a gesture?  Waste of a one-shot weapon.  

 

 

 

I just hope that, in general,  if we are to escalate the use of cyber warfare we are ready defensively for that escalation.  Because my sense is that with cyber warfare, hostile nations  are on a much more equal footing with us than with traditional warfare.  North Korea showed us that a few years back.  And reports of Russia successfully hacking into our national public utility infrastructure should give us all pause.  With everything tied to the Web these days, the havoc that could be created by all-out cyber attacks to all of our institutions is a bit of a scary thought.