schurem
1728
Might it be that it is in the ayatollah’s own interest to keep trump around? Give the manchild his “win” before the election so they can have another four years of easily maniplated, aimless and dumb America? I know I would, were I playing as Iran…
Still, without knowing more, we can’t tell if it’s a lucky hit or good accuracy. The fact that it hit dead center doesn’t mean it couldn’t be random. Given the inherent lack of accuracy of the weapons used, I’d say the precision of that hit argues against it actually being aimed.
It’s a good question. If you are Putin obviously you do. China a little less obvious, he is pretty anti-chinese which hurt their economy, but if you are playing the long game then destroying American’s alliance is worth a lot. North Korea, probably want to keep him around because of the love letters, but you also risk getting destroyed if throws a tantrum.
But Iran, he has a had pretty irrational hatred of Iran from the beginning. The sanctions are really hurting, and the Democrats are pledging to trying a resurrect the JCPOA. On the other hand, odds are great with Trump will get US troops pulled out of the region with the next term.
schurem
1731
Ballistic missiles aren’t neccessarily only accurate to three zip codes anymore. Theres tech to have them do complicated manoeuvres and GPS (or GLONASS) guidance for that pinpoint accuracy. It’s not like a JDAM is very high or well guarded tech.
20 meters is pretty good accuracy when you are talking about 1000 km flight path. Why are you assuming that the troops would be in a bunker, unless the US had a heads up? If we assume both of these things are true (that the troops could easily get into the bunkers and that the missiles were not accurate enough to kill anyone in a bunker unless they got really lucky), then doesn’t that argue for the idea that Iran launched this strike without the intent to kill anyone? Or are you saying that they don’t know these things that you know about how likely it was that they would kill people?
Timex
1733
Well, you could know that the US has shit that detects such things, which is fairly common knowledge.
KevinC
1734
Now I’m imagining something like Orcrist, but instead it’s poop that glows when orcs missiles are near.
They had to know we were going to have warning system in place. Between satellites, ground and air based radar, pretty much anything bigger than robin that flies in the region we know about.
Evidently we even have copy of the radar signal from the SAM missile that shot down the Ukraine airline.
I’m saying that the Iranian took their best shot and hoped for the best. I believed they wanted to kill American because the million of Iranian mourning Soleimani death demanded it. But their story about what they were trying to do evolved to fit what actually happened. Sort of like playing 8 ball in pool and accidentally getting in a ball you weren’t aiming for
Has their story changed, or is it just that other people are now saying they weren’t really trying to hit people? They targeted buildings, which they were clearly able to hit, which did not house people who might be sleeping, ill, or otherwise likely to get hurt. Of course shooting at a base has a chance of killing someone, but they probably hoped the people would get to safety in time. I sincerely doubt that their plan was to fire their best weapons at us and hope it did a ton of damage and therefore deterred us from further escalation. That would be pure insanity.
Well here is one of the earliest stories I can find for Iranian claims.
If Iran had killed a top US general I doubt we’d settle for anything less than killing 80 people.
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/iran-claims-80-us-nationals-killed-in-missile-attacks/1695809
In ballistic missile attacks on Iraqi military bases early Wednesday, 80 U.S. citizens were killed, according to Iranian state-run television.
The claim came after Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles against U.S. military and coalition forces in Iraq.
The missiles were launched from Iran and targeted at least two Iraqi military bases where U.S. military and coalition personnel are stationed, at Al-Asad and Erbil, said Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman in a statement.
The Pentagon said it was assessing whether any U.S. troops had been killed or injured in the attacks, but gave no immediate indications of casualties.
Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said Tehran had “concluded proportionate measures” in response to the U.S. killing of the head of Iran’s elite Quds Force, Qasem Soleimani, last week, adding that Tehran is not looking for a war with the U.S.
vyshka
1738
Don’t give them ideas dammit
antlers
1739
For domestic consumption they claimed 80 killed because that is what their people demanded. By all appearances what they actually tried to do was avoid casualties because they wished to avoid escalation. Trump’s credibility is so low I’m sure they thought they could finesse the actual casualty count.
When they do their actual high-casualty retaliation, I suspect they will try to make the attribution much murkier
Good news, I wonder if there is any chance in the Senate it will pass.
What pisses me off is that all the powers that Congress has ceded to the executive branch can be voted by the President. This seems fundamentally wrong.
The laws should be written that President can take executive action in emergency to raises tariffs, spend unauthorized money, change the immigration laws, and most off all take military action etc. But after 30, 60 or 90 days the Congress has to approve his actions.
This would do much to reign in the imperial presidency.
Menzo
1741
Zero chance, since McConnell won’t even let it come up for a vote.
vyshka
1742
Outside of response to an incoming nuclear strike, the President should be required to consult Congress.
draxen
1743
Don’t presidential candidates have to undergo rigorous psych profiles?
I thought this was a thing…
googles
vyshka
1745
/me waits for you to see the pic of the doctor that checked him out before the election :)
What happens to the spent money if Congress doesn’t approve? How do you repair the damage of a trade war Congress didn’t approve? Most of all, what happens when the President starts a war with aggressive strikes and Congress doesn’t approve? I think all this would do is mean that a President who started an unpopular war would hurt his party slightly more (by forcing them to vote for it). And even then you would have to require a vote not just make one optional and it’s still likely the other party would also be forced to ratify the actions because there would already be a bunch of American deaths to deal with.
I don’t think the President requires broad latitude to take aggressive (or “preemptive”) action against other countries.
First of all, Congress can act quickly when it needs to (we declared war on Japan on Dec 8, 1941).
Secondly, contingency plans can be pre-approved for a wide variety of scenarios and are really the best way to protect American lives and interests since ad-hoc response are much more likely to have unexpected consequences. For example, assassinating Soleimani in response to terrorist actions by Iran could have been approved by Congress or at least by a select committee.
And thirdly, there should really be guidance given for the “uncharted waters” scenarios, where Congress is explicit about what the President’s goal should be in directing the military with regard to specific countries or groups of countries or people. That is, the President might have to decide how to de-escalate conflicts and protect lives, but his default goal should be to avoid actions that might lead to wars unless they have been pro-actively approved by Congress.
