Posted on Jun 21, 2019
Trump approves strikes on Iran, but then abruptly pulls back — The New York Times
383
5
3
2
2
0
On the brink of war and not for legitimate reasons.
Trump approves strikes on Iran, but then abruptly pulls back — The New York Times
Posted from apple.newsPosted in these groups: 
Iran
Iran
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 1
0
0
0
"Not legitimate reasons"? That's a fair statement though not entirely accurate. One of the longest held principles of international diplomacy is that an attack on any vessel in international waters or an embassy of a foreign nation is an act of war. (The embassy is considered a piece of the nation it represents) This has been extended to include foreign flagged airships in international airspace. What makes you statement "fair" is that an attack on an unmanned drone most likely doesn't carry the same weight inasmuch as human life is not lost. Thus, it is easy to explain the President's initial response to order the military to plan a response but then stand down after taking time to reflect. See that. He "reflected". Yes, I'm just as surprised as you. Of course, his enemies don't reflect. They merely jump to their megaphones and add to the dirge.
(0)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
Hahaha! As usual, Jack, not a completely factual response.
1. None of those four tankers belonged to the US and the nations that do own them have not publicly called for military action not called it an act of was. Thus not a legitimate reason for us to do so.
2. What is the appropriate response when one of your strategic UAVs have been shot down over disputed territorial water boundary? And I emphasize disputed because all we have is a US said/Iran said debate as to the location of the drone. We’ll see what evidence Iran provides to the UN. Definitely hitting manned targets that kills Iranians is not an appropriate response.
3. “He reflected”? If we’re to believe him that he didn’t know till 10 mins from execution about the casualty count but I find that hard to believe. What kind of military advisors and national security advisors provide a detailed armed response without providing a BDA projection well in advance? Are they that incompetent? If so we should be worried about other proposals they make.
I would say some critics like myself have reflected on this topic based on the information made available. Congress definitely should be asking more questions about the process that led uo to this.
1. None of those four tankers belonged to the US and the nations that do own them have not publicly called for military action not called it an act of was. Thus not a legitimate reason for us to do so.
2. What is the appropriate response when one of your strategic UAVs have been shot down over disputed territorial water boundary? And I emphasize disputed because all we have is a US said/Iran said debate as to the location of the drone. We’ll see what evidence Iran provides to the UN. Definitely hitting manned targets that kills Iranians is not an appropriate response.
3. “He reflected”? If we’re to believe him that he didn’t know till 10 mins from execution about the casualty count but I find that hard to believe. What kind of military advisors and national security advisors provide a detailed armed response without providing a BDA projection well in advance? Are they that incompetent? If so we should be worried about other proposals they make.
I would say some critics like myself have reflected on this topic based on the information made available. Congress definitely should be asking more questions about the process that led uo to this.
(1)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
MAJ James Woods his response was to the attack on the drone. Now, why do you begin your response to my comment with a personal attack?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google