US Deploying to Gulf

Why can't Fatboy Dayglo-Orange grow a spine, pick up a Bowie knife and challenge Ali Khamenei to a bit of one-on-one down on the sand in Maysan Province?

'Cos he lacks the cojones.

Rather let the simple boys and girls from Badonkadonk Iowa , Shreveport and Pittsburgh do the dying.

What does USA get out of another round?

Zip, nada,nowt.

Q: What does Uncle Sam's most important local ally and eternal BFF get out of a protracted ground war between Iran and USA ?

A: Elimination of the second biggest threat to its existence ( Saddam was the greatest threat - Box ticked)
To be cynical I might add.

Stopping China’s Silk Road plan. They get almost 6.3 percent of their crude from Iran. They will have to go to Russia to make up the difference. Which the Ivan’s will gladly supply for a price.

Top 15 Crude Oil Suppliers to China


The more uncertain the markets are the more it does hurt China. Saber rattling with the potential for shooting does not a create a great trade environment.

Trump's trade war is slowing China's new silk dream
 
Anything to do with the "B" word was purged - even if a lot of people were in only for the formality, but still competent. When I was interning at Ford, I had a guy from Iraqi mil who was employed at the time telling me so many stories of how badly the whole thing was handled. He managed to emigrate over to the U.S - really nice guy too with an electrical engg. degree.
There was a wonderful but telling story from my time in MND(SE) of senior Iraqi army officers being instructed in Western riot-control techniques. In a desk-top scenario, an inject saw a single petrol-bomb being thrown.

US Advisor: 'What would you do now Sir?'​

Iraqi General: 'Open fire on the crowd.'​
US Advisor: 'No, no General, that would be disproportionate and not what we have taught you.'​
Iraqi General: 'I know. But just look at how you've f***** my entire country up!'​

Regards,
MM
 
At the time, it was widely felt that Blair had not made his case to invade. I believe that 1/2 million people marched on London to protest because of this and yet, it made no difference.
In examining the mystery as to why Tony Blair of all people swung behind George W Bush in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 it is necessary to examine New Labour's attitude to the British Armed Forces and more specifically their role in Kosovo.

New Labour, unlike Old Labour, had the usual "progressive" distrust of the British military, seeing it (rightly) as tradition-bound, patriotic, old-fashioned in beliefs, elitist, male-dominated and conservative, exactly the qualities that would alienate it from the happy-clappy Cool Britannia that Blair and his chums was setting out to create. I recall some vacuous Blairite woman on Newsnight prior to the 1997 election telling us how under the new government the Armed Forces would no longer fight for "nebulous" concepts like Queen and Country but for "concrete" values like human rights!

And we must never underestimate the trauma that was burned indelibly into Labour's collective memory of the Falklands War, when in their opinion these hideously conservative Armed Forces with their astonishing victory guaranteed Maggie Thatcher's landslide election win in 1983. This jingoism could never again be allowed to get out of the bottle, from now on the British military would only ever be deployed as the world's social worker.

This was shown in the deployment to Sierra Leone, which was nice but never going to win headlines. And then came Kosovo, New Labour's "Good War" fought alongside that other 1990s progressive icon Bill Clinton. Sending paratroopers to fight genocidal warlords, bombing cities to support "human rights", it was the perfect war for the age. And when Blair went to Kosovo to find himself mobbed by delirious Kosovan kids chanting "Tonee! Tonee!", well the poor man lost the run of himself.

So it was in 2003, Blair would top it all with the ultimate human rights war, he would show the Tories that Labour could fight wars better than they ever could, nice wars, wars to liberate people and uphold human rights, wars in which Britain couldn't expect to gain anything because actual British national interests were not the sort of thing New Labour would fight for. It would be a simple war, the Brits would go in alongside the Yanks and using lots of smart technology wipe out the tyrant, easily and without bloodshed, just like in Kosovo.

Alas it didn't work out that way, neither for the British Armed Forces nor indeed for New Labour.
 

Nemesis44UK

LE
Book Reviewer
In examining the mystery as to why Tony Blair of all people swung behind George W Bush in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 it is necessary to examine New Labour's attitude to the British Armed Forces and more specifically their role in Kosovo.

New Labour, unlike Old Labour, had the usual "progressive" distrust of the British military, seeing it (rightly) as tradition-bound, patriotic, old-fashioned in beliefs, elitist, male-dominated and conservative, exactly the qualities that would alienate it from the happy-clappy Cool Britannia that Blair and his chums was setting out to create. I recall some vacuous Blairite woman on Newsnight prior to the 1997 election telling us how under the new government the Armed Forces would no longer fight for "nebulous" concepts like Queen and Country but for "concrete" values like human rights!

And we must never underestimate the trauma that was burned indelibly into Labour's collective memory of the Falklands War, when in their opinion these hideously conservative Armed Forces with their astonishing victory guaranteed Maggie Thatcher's landslide election win in 1983. This jingoism could never again be allowed to get out of the bottle, from now on the British military would only ever be deployed as the world's social worker.

This was shown in the deployment to Sierra Leone, which was nice but never going to win headlines. And then came Kosovo, New Labour's "Good War" fought alongside that other 1990s progressive icon Bill Clinton. Sending paratroopers to fight genocidal warlords, bombing cities to support "human rights", it was the perfect war for the age. And when Blair went to Kosovo to find himself mobbed by delirious Kosovan kids chanting "Tonee! Tonee!", well the poor man lost the run of himself.

So it was in 2003, Blair would top it all with the ultimate human rights war, he would show the Tories that Labour could fight wars better than they ever could, nice wars, wars to liberate people and uphold human rights, wars in which Britain couldn't expect to gain anything because actual British national interests were not the sort of thing New Labour would fight for. It would be a simple war, the Brits would go in alongside the Yanks and using lots of smart technology wipe out the tyrant, easily and without bloodshed, just like in Kosovo.

Alas it didn't work out that way, neither for the British Armed Forces nor indeed for New Labour.
Interesting take. Sadly, it seems to jibe with what I know.

I have always said that if politicians want to go to war, that's fine, but they must donate a child to the army and fight alongside regular troops on the front line. We'd soon see who really believes in that war.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
And when Blair went to Kosovo to find himself mobbed by delirious Kosovan kids chanting "Tonee! Tonee!", well the poor man lost the run of himself.
and when he arrived in Iraq in 2003 I avoided the cúnt, in case I said something silly.

Mind you, I also didn't take the photo op with Nell McAndrew - which I regret much more !
 
I think Kosovo was a case of where the UK politicians (Tony) won over U.S politicos (Clinton) on moral grounds and it was a battle of quick and fast. That sort of gave ground to the UK support of the Iraq war as you thought it would be another quick and simple one like GW1. But it wasn't and it mired you down.
 
Iran's Rouhani rejects talks with Washington - Reuters
Returning to the subject of the thread, there's still a few things going on. Rouhani has said that he won't enter into any discussion with Washington:
“Today’s situation is not suitable for talks and our choice is resistance only,” state news agency IRNA quoted Rouhani as saying.
Meanwhile, after the (alleged by Iranian proxies in Iraq) rocket attack in the Green Zone, Trump has said the US will respond with 'great force' if Iran attempts anything against US interests in the Middel East. He also reiterated that Iran will call when ready which is frankly falling on deaf ears:
Trump said on Monday that Iran would be met with “great force” if it attempted anything against U.S. interests in the Middle East. He said reports Washington was trying to set up talks were false, but “Iran will call us if and when they are ever ready”.
Rouhani is using the mixed messages to say that Trump is being influenced by Bolton et al:
Iran has portrayed the hot and cold rhetoric as evidence Trump is being goaded into war against his better judgement by hardline aides such as National Security Adviser John Bolton.

“Right after threatening Iran, they were forced to say they do not seek a war,” Rouhani said in televised remarks on Tuesday. “Iranians will never bow to a bully.”
Rouhani is also asking for increased powers to control the economy as they're facing 'an economic war'. In some reports, the same as when they were fighting the Iran/Iraq war:
The rial currency lost about 60 percent of its value in 2018 under the threat of the revived U.S. sanctions, boosting inflation and provoking sporadic demonstrations. Iran has cracked down on businessmen it accuses of profiteering.

Rouhani said the country faced “economic war”, and the government needed more powers to control the economy
10 businessmen have been sentenced for up to 20 years and three were executed last year for 'economic crimes' which I assume is either a euphemism for the black market or were the wrong kind of 'businessmen'. Nothing has been said about the acquisition of wealth by Soleimani for example:
Judiciary spokesman Gholamhossein Esmaili said courts had sentenced 10 businessmen to up to 20 years in jail on charges including “economic sabotage”, the semi-official news agency Fars reported on Tuesday. Iran executed at least three businessmen for economic crimes last year.
The French economic Minister doesn't appear to like the bribery message of Europe sorting out Iran's economic problems from the US sanctions, or Iran could enrich uranium beyond the JCPOA agreed limits:
Iran said this month it could resume uranium enrichment beyond levels allowed in the nuclear deal if European countries do not find ways to ease financial pressure within 60 days.

French Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire said the Iranian threats were not helpful: “I do not think that Europe will get drawn into this idea of an ultimatum,” Le Maire told reporters.
Iraq, which obviously has a great deal to lose if war does kick off on both sides; is trying for mediation by sending delegations to both Washington and Tehran:
Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi said on Tuesday Iraq would send delegations to both Washington and Tehran to help ease the tension between them.

Iraq is one of the few countries with close relations with both the United States and Iran, which each have helped it fight against Islamic State militants. Washington abruptly pulled non-essential staff from its embassy in Baghdad last week, citing a threat from Iran-backed militias in Iraq.
 
Agreed; a truly disastrous decision aggravated by the decision to deny all Baath party members continued employment in their pre-war administrative and security roles. (...)
The Americans making policy at that point were absolutely delusional with respect to what would happen in Iraq after the invasion. The "de-Baathification" policy was supposed to clear the way for what were imagined to be the democratic and western impulses which supposedly dwelt in the hearts of all men to spring forth.

I recall reading the account of one official sent from Washington to Baghdad soon after the conquest. When he arrived there was no reliably functioning public electricity or telecommunications. His job however was not to deal with those problems. Instead he was supposed to be setting up a state of the art computerised stock exchange as it was believed that this was what was needed to allow the economy to rapidly recover and allow the occupation to be self financing. He very rapidly discovered just how detached the decision makers in Washington were from the real situation on the ground at that time.
 
2 tankers on fire as of 0645 lotcal time today off Fujirah
Kokua Courageous vsl has been abandoned and picked up by a tug boat
Front Altair on fire as well and adrift. crew picked up by Hyundai Dubai whose master reported surface attack. - some reports of RPG.
 
2 tankers on fire as of 0645 lotcal time today off Fujirah
Kokua Courageous vsl has been abandoned and picked up by a tug boat
Front Altair on fire as well and adrift. crew picked up by Hyundai Dubai whose master reported surface attack. - some reports of RPG.
Likely related.

'The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations, which is part of the UK Royal Navy, said on Thursday that it was aware of an incident in the Gulf of Oman, near the Iranian coast.
“UK and its partners are currently investigating,” it said.'


UK maritime group warns of shipping incident in Gulf of Oman - Reuters
 
Sh*t........ Life gets more and more interesting.....
 
Iran may or may not have mined those attacked tankers. They may well have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar by US surveilance. Their recent actions by downing a US Triton/Global Hawk will come almost certainly come back and bite them on the ass.
Iran shoots down US drone aircraft - CNN

If, as the US claim, their drone was in International airspace when Iran shot it down, and can probably be fairly easily be proved, then Iran can expect a response from the US.

The US does not back away from aggression against it, and is unlikely to do so now. They do not want war, despite the trolling and anti-Trump shouting that goes on both on this Forum, the press, and world in general.

Trump is many things but he is,
a) not completely stupid, he got to be President.
b) does have a controlling mechanism of Governmental, internal, and International checks and balances.
c)has at least some pragmatic and sensible senior military leadership.

Iran has miscalculated in the past, which has resulted in military actions that have cost it dearly. Their quest for nuclear weapons, despite very real and pertinent International misgivings, may well have led them into a present situation that can, and may well escalate out of control, which is no-one’s interest.

They have demonstrated that a fanatical adherence to a desire for a nuclear weapon, coupled with a militant, inflexible, intolerant religion that aims at world domination, is not a recipe that the world is entirely happy with, and, at this present moment in time, has a world superpower that is ready willing and able to do something about it.

There will be consequences.
 
Last edited:
UPDATE 4-Iran shoots down U.S. military drone in Gulf region - Reuters
IRGC first said it was shot down over Hormozgan:
Guards website Sepah News said the “spy” drone was brought down over the southern Iranian province of Hormozgan, which is on the Gulf.
Later statements give a lat and long off the Iranian coast:
Iran's Zarif tweets that downed U.S. drone took off from UAE - Reuters
“At 00:14 US drone took off from UAE in stealth mode & violated Iranian airspace. It was targeted at 04:05 at the coordinates (25°59’43”N 57°02’25”E) near Kouh-e Mobarak. We’ve retrieved sections of the US military drone in OUR territorial waters where it was shot down,” Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted.
Also says it was in ‘stealth mode’ :) probably meaning they think the transponder was off. Apparently, they’re also taking it to the UN:
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top