US Perspective on the Iran - Israel / US War

[Fatman17]

When was the last time a VP level US Govt official visited Pakistan? I know Biden avoided Pakistan like we were Ebola-19... wonder when was a sitting VP of USA has visited Pakistan? this has to be at least 10-12 years or so ago.

Damn last time a US VP visited Pakistan was back in 2011...

It was Biden

 

[Fatman17]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Meltdown in India

 

[AZ_HighCountry]

It's not hard to see which side of the conflict the US lamestream media is on. In the course of 24 hours they've ranted about Trump about to commit war crimes to now he's chickening out.

Trump critics go from outrage over Iran threat to mocking him as 'chicken' for not following through

Critics slammed President Donald Trump's Iran threat as potential genocide, then mocked him for not following through, using the viral TACO acronym.

www.foxnews.com

Let there be no doubt my utter disgust over anything US media.

As for the "war crimes", our senior senator from AZ has been consistent in his attacks on the President that any attack on civilian infrastructure would constitute a war crime. But would it really?

Remember, during Desert Storm, then-Capt. Kelly was an Intruder pilot. Among the many targets we hit were those that could be counted as "civilian infrastructure". Why? The answer is obvious.

I wonder how many such targets the Captain himself along with his squadron hit during that 43 days.

A retired USAF pilot was on one of the Fox shows last night and reminded Capt. Kelly of that little detail.

 

[Fatman17]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Fatman17]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Fatman17]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Fatman17]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Fatman17]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[j_hungary]

Yes, it has ALWAYS been easy to ignore 'international laws and norms'. Human shields, for one example. Prior to deployment to DS, we were warned, off the record, that human shields tactics are the norm for Muslim armies, and some in the squadron actually talked to civilian lawyers -- just in case.

Looky here...

There is no such thing as 'international laws'. Norms, I agree. But laws? Laughable. A law dies on paper if there is not even the potential of enforcement, so who is going to enforce 'international laws'? The UN? They depends on members to supply troops for said enforcement, and that is only after they reluctantly agreed. Remember the veto power of the Security Council? That is like New York City vetoed a proposed bill in Sydney and Sydney has to obey.

Yes, it is true that everyone, including US, often invoked 'international laws' when it suits their needs. But that underscores the SPECIOUSNESS of 'international laws' even greater. Then after the deeds were done, everyone, including US, performed mental gymnastics to justify our actions.

That said...

I do believe in 'norms'. Google AI got it right: Norms are enforced through social pressure (shame, exclusion). Laws are enforced by state institutions (police, courts).

Countries with similar norms should form their own alliances. Enrich and protect each other. This is what the UN is really afraid of. The UN is nothing but a collection of Third World countries looking to drag everyone else down to their level. Time for the US to exit the UN.

I agree with the Law being non-enforceable, and I agree that nobody was talking about it a long time ago. The problem is, you still respect it because it's the norm to respect the law, because civilization is built on law and order

It's like not every red light has a red light camera, which means we can go through a red light if there are no cameras without any enforceable effect. Should we still respect the red light? I will tell you that most people don't want to stop at the red light, but everyone, minus a few people, still does. That's because we respect the law. Even when that law is not enforceable.

That's the same with international law; even if it is not working, we should still respect it. Because we can't come back and use it to our own defence if we ourselves do not take it. Say what happened when we had our next Terrorist attack? We can't use it to go for help when we ourselves look at it like it's BS, sure, at the moment we are still able to defend ourselves, how about when the moment came when the rest of the world caught up and we are no longer fend off those attack, and let me tell you something, as a person who worked intelligence, you need to get it right everytime, and people who attack you just need to get it right one time. So it's easy to say, the UN is useless, let's leave that, but then, without the UN or NATO, do you think we will still have allies? And do you think we can do everything by ourselves?

If Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, never invaded Kuwait, Iraq would be a nuclear weapons state today, if we go by the testimony of Mahdi Obeidi. Does anyone really think that Iran, under the mullahs, really going to remains inside the borders?

The only difference between Iraq and Iran is that we invaded Iraq and changed their regime, well, either that or I made it all up in my mind where I was between 2003 and 2004. And we weren't invading Iran. Which is my point, actually, are we going to invade Iran? Because we didn't change anything in Iran, well, I was wrong, we did change one thing in Iran, which is to replace the Mullah governing Iran, and we killed them all and handed the government to IRGC, which is a religious fanatic, which will make those Iranian mullahs look like saints.

And again, are we planning to invade Iran? That is the question, because if we don't, they are going to wake up (if they are not already) to the fact that this is going to get us back down, and they will use it for anything they want. And if we are to invade Iran, how? Did you see this is pushing us into a corner??

 

[AZ_HighCountry]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I'd be curious to know what Professor Pape's position would be had this been under a Democrat President rather than a Republican. Or perhaps any Republican other than Trump.

 

[Fatman17]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Fatman17]

I'd be curious to know what Professor Pape's position would be had this been under a Democrat President rather than a Republican. Or perhaps any Republican other than Trump.

He's a political scientist. I doubt his positions would change much. Maybe less dramatic perhaps

 

[Fatman17]

IK is now irrelevant, the earlier these sold out journalists realized the better.

So release him from jail and find out!. Offtopic discussion

 

[AZ_HighCountry]

He's a political scientist. I doubt his positions would change much. Maybe less dramatic perhaps

Fair point.

 

[j_hungary]

Wait what? If that is SOP why the hell would anyone in the military be OK with this? Do they know that this is what they are signing up for, if one of them gets stuck behind enemy lines they might actually be assassinated by their own military if rescue is not possible?

That doesn't seem very compatible with the often pronounced motto of leave no one behind.

Again, not saying this is right or wrong, or was this one the way it actually goes.....

But from an intelligence point of view, this is ALWAYS on the table, especially for people who know stuff. I myself expected to be this way if I were lost behind the enemy line, because I simply know too much, and well, I will just say this, suicide pills exist for a reason. And as I said in the Iceal Hambleton case, General Abrams issued no more air rescue and only ground from that point on, after they had already lost 11 airmen and a few helicopters and aircraft, so that they could get close to either rescue him or not put him down if that is not possible.

As for whether they will really do that, well, this is not something new; we all heard rumors that 9/11 happened because we can't show our hand, so they let the attacks go on, and all the lives lost are because of that. Well, you need to form your own conclusion.