Trump says he halted U.S. strike on Iran over possible casualties

[Berkshire]

1 hour ago, observer90210 said:

It takes many things to start a war...but it takes real balls to Stop it !!.....like the Donald or not...hats down to him on this one....in fact he seems to be the first president or one of the rare US presidents in history to have done so....well done Donald !

If he was any other President, yes, it would be admirable and courageous.  Unfortunately, Trump lies so damn much that you can't believe a word he says.  He created this dramatic scenario so he can ride in to save the day.  The guy still thinks it's a TV show.  Problem is, it ain't over.  Trump is in way over his head. 

[heybruce]

32 minutes ago, habanero said:

They don't show body bags coming off of cargo planes anymore. Vietnam was a long time ago. 

Coffins draped in American flags maybe!

President George W. Bush (Bush Jr) didn't allow the press to show bodies returning from his Iraq war.  It made the war look bad.

 

I don't know if this policy is still in place.

[neeray]

5 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

If he was any other President, yes, it would be admirable and courageous.  Unfortunately, Trump lies so damn much that you can't believe a word he says.  He created this dramatic scenario so he can ride in to save the day.  The guy still thinks it's a TV show.  Problem is, it ain't over.  Trump is in way over his head. 

Well said Berkshire. Besides "Trump lies so damn much", he also bluffs way too much. His adversaries know by now that he is full of hot air. I think he played a bluff here, right up until that last 10 minutes and then he finally had to fold. As for the heads-up phone call to Iran about a pending attack, that was all part of his bluff strategy. He thought they'd cave at the last moment. NOT.

Chalk this episode up to ANOTHER loss for Team Trump (I said "team" even though I know he is a one-man-show, not a team player or good team leader).

[metisdead]

A post containing a trolling representation of Trump's has been removed. 

[neeray]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

President George W. Bush (Bush Jr) didn't allow the press to show bodies returning from his Iraq war.  It made the war look bad.

 

I don't know if this policy is still in place.

I seem to recall seeing coffins draped in the red, white and blue come off planes, returning from Iraq. But I may be wrong.

[sfokevin]

2 hours ago, observer90210 said:

It takes many things to start a war...but it takes real balls to Stop it !!.....like the Donald or not...hats down to him on this one....in fact he seems to be the first president or one of the rare US presidents in history to have done so....well done Donald !

Or he could just be a serial arsonist-fireman... 

[heybruce]

22 minutes ago, neeray said:

I seem to recall seeing coffins draped in the red, white and blue come off planes, returning from Iraq. But I may be wrong.

The ban was lifted shortly after Obama was sworn in, but pictures are only allowed with the consent of surviving family.  Also, I was wrong about when the ban started, it had been in place since Bush Sr.   https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/world/americas/27iht-photos.1.20479953.html

[hotchilli]

3 hours ago, Tug said:

More likely a moment of clarity realizing how he and he alone would have been responsible for starting another war in the Middle East imo I think he might be starting to realize how out of hand things have become under his administration 

It's just rhetoric, bluffing.... letting Iran know he's the man!

[BestB]

There is by far more to it then he listened or did not .

 

the other day, trump stated hard to believe Iran would dare. It is highly unlikely he went ahead and ordered the strike .

 

firstly there are not enough troops in the region to strike , secondly not the right time and thirdly , either his advisor or him want to appear reasonable and calm. Trump again tweeted he wanted to talk, iranians refusing .

 

may well be political theatre play for full on invasion but so far trump has been more reasonable than Iranians and offering to talk on number of occasions.

 

my fear, Iranians stupid enough to take this as a sign on weakness and continue to wave the red flag , but maybe this is part of American strategy to begin with. 

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, BestB said:

There is by far more to it then he listened or did not .

 

the other day, trump stated hard to believe Iran would dare. It is highly unlikely he went ahead and ordered the strike .

 

firstly there are not enough troops in the region to strike , secondly not the right time and thirdly , either his advisor or him want to appear reasonable and calm. Trump again tweeted he wanted to talk, iranians refusing .

 

may well be political theatre play for full on invasion but so far trump has been more reasonable than Iranians and offering to talk on number of occasions.

 

my fear, Iranians stupid enough to take this as a sign on weakness and continue to wave the red flag , but maybe this is part of American strategy to begin with. 

So he sent an entire flotilla to the Persian Gulf that couldn't be used to make a strike? So it's a bluff? And Iran just called it?

[BestB]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

So he sent an entire flotilla to the Persian Gulf that couldn't be used to make a strike? So it's a bluff? And Iran just called it?

He did not send the entire American flotilla , get your facts right.

 

yes 1 carrier is enough to make a strike but not enough should Iran respond. 

[Pedrogaz]

I've been reading quite broadly on this. Something doesn't quite add up. 

How can the Iranians have photographs of drone parts if the drone was shot down in International waters? What are the US doing flying drone in, or close to, Iranian waters? Clearly a provocative act...perhaps designed to start war. If Iran were flying drone even 30 miles off the coast near New York, can anyone say with a straight face that the US would not have shot it down?

 

The Oman message is rumoured to have been for the Iranians to pick three sites for the US to bomb, which would do no damage or kill innocents, to save Trump's face. The Iranians refused to do this and said any attack would be treated as an act of war.

 

It is also said that at the presidential briefing Bolton and Pompeo were for military action.....the Pentagon was against it. Trump originally went with Bolton/Pompeo's advice and tweeted his 'big mistake' tweet. Someone got to Trump before the attack took place and then he changed his mind.  

 

There was also a P8 Poseidon aircraft with 35 people on board 'accompanying' the drone, which the Iranians said didn't shoot down because it would involve loss of life and maybe start a war. The US after confirmed the P8 being in the vicinity. Neither party said if it entered Iranian waters.

 

This is like the boy who cried wolf. The US has been found out lying so many times with false flags and the like, it has become difficult for allies in private to support the US, although they still talk the talk on the TV. One expects that the 'coalition' might be a bit thin on the ground consisting of Israel, Saudi and the Emirates.

 

Despite the lead of NATO being such a warmonger, we have heard little or nothing from them. What is going on there? Surely shooting down the drone should active Clause 5 in the treaty.

 

 

[Kasane]

Unbelievable though it is, Trump show more compassion the any of the other US presidents in all recent history

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Kasane said:

Unbelievable though it is, Trump show more compassion the any of the other US presidents in all recent history

You mean you're taking him at his word? Donald Trump's word? Really?

[heybruce]

13 minutes ago, Pedrogaz said:

I've been reading quite broadly on this. Something doesn't quite add up. 

How can the Iranians have photographs of drone parts if the drone was shot down in International waters? What are the US doing flying drone in, or close to, Iranian waters? Clearly a provocative act...perhaps designed to start war. If Iran were flying drone even 30 miles off the coast near New York, can anyone say with a straight face that the US would not have shot it down?

 

The drone was shot down in the air, not the water.  The US says it was in international airspace, Iran says it entered Iranian airspace.  At this point I don't know how either can be proven or disproven.

 

The drone was almost certainly a surveillance drone spying on Iran and getting as close to the country as possible.  Annoying but legal it it stays in international airspace.  It was a high altitude drone that fell a great distance through upper atmosphere winds, so the location of the debris would give a poor indication of where the drone was at the time it was hit.  If I remember correctly, the jet-stream primarily blows from west to east, which could have blown parts in the air west of Iranian airspace into their airspace before hitting the ocean.

[atyclb]

3 hours ago, bendejo said:

to know what a neocon is (probably not, he'd have to read boring, egghead political analysis periodicals to learn about that)

 

i have never read such things yet i know what a neocon is

[Kasane]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You mean you're taking him at his word? Donald Trump's word? Really?

You have anything else to go on, boy?

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, Kasane said:

You have anything else to go on, boy?

Pretty much Trump's entire history of human relations.

And what do you have to go on, apart from Trump's word? This is not a person noted for his honesty. So there's that to go on, too. Also, he lied about imposing additional sanctions on Iran, instead.

[Sujo]

7 minutes ago, Kasane said:

You have anything else to go on, boy?

I dont think he needs anything else to go on. What he said was truth.

 

I think the best option is the US and Iran sit and hash out a deal. Maybe even bring in a few strong countries to back up the agreement.

 

Then Trump can claim its his agreement and not Obamas.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

A casualty estimate would have been a prominent part of any military option explained to Trump. 

 

Either Trump ordered the strike without paying attention to the casualty estimate then asked at the last minute (possible), he was not nearly as close to an actual strike as he claims (claiming to be ten minutes away either for dramatic effect or because he was clueless about the strike timeline), or a combination of the two. 

 

I think a combination of not understanding what he was ordering and not being as close to an actual strike as he claims is the most likely explanation for this strange behavior.

 

Or it's just a made up version. This way he sort of comes out ok.

[neeray]

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

I dont think he needs anything else to go on. What he said was truth.

 

I think the best option is the US and Iran sit and hash out a deal. Maybe even bring in a few strong countries to back up the agreement.

 

Then Trump can claim its his agreement and not Obamas.

Your last line says it all.

That's really all this is about.

[BestB]

17 minutes ago, Pedrogaz said:

Sorry but the US's offer of negotiations is much more likely to be going through the motions as a preamble to war.

 

This is akin to the UN inspectors looking for WMDs in Iraq. The war was going ahead whatever Hans Blix and his team said. He can't use inspectors now because they have consistently said Iran is clean under the JCPOA.

 

If US/Iran have some negotiations and the US put nothing on the table ie don't remove sanctions, Iran will walk away, and the US will say, "well we tried diplomacy and it didn't work' we are reluctantly forced to attack." This line will be parroted in all MSM newspaper and TV stations.

 

Starting war has a playbook in the US, and they are following it very closely...their problem is that the public support for the war is very low (last time I saw it there were only about 25% actually supported a war but of course this does change when war has begun). But the combination of aggressive talk about the threat Iran poses to the US and false flags will bring the public round in time. You can never underestimate the intelligence of the American public.

Whatever US offer maybe it is still a good will gesture until proven otherwise . Iran’s refusal only makes American stance stronger and makes for better case, we have tried and tried and tried but declined each and every time.

 

international politics is not black and white , there is always a theatre play. 

 

Have seem a bit of internatinal support against any kind of war but have not seen any support for Iran. 

 

They are hardly doing themselves any favours by refusing to talk 

[KKr]

4 hours ago, rooster59 said:

 

"We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights (sic) when I asked, how many will die," Trump wrote in a series of morning tweets. "150 people, sir, was the answer from a General.

Sigh !!!
  

or maybe, and more appropriately, I should be crying.

[neeray]

21 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Or it's just a made up version. This way he sort of comes out ok.

Probably all FAKE NEWS, from TrumpTwitter Press.

Edited June 22, 2019 by neeray
spell correction

[Kasane]

The keyboard warriors are out in full force in MSM today. The are talking about how "America's credibility" has been damaged by Trump Alt Del of the Iran attack. Not blundering into war is a "sign of weakness". Freaking war mongers all. 

Edited June 22, 2019 by Kasane

[Morch]

21 minutes ago, Pedrogaz said:

Sorry but the US's offer of negotiations is much more likely to be going through the motions as a preamble to war.

 

This is akin to the UN inspectors looking for WMDs in Iraq. The war was going ahead whatever Hans Blix and his team said. He can't use inspectors now because they have consistently said Iran is clean under the JCPOA.

 

If US/Iran have some negotiations and the US put nothing on the table ie don't remove sanctions, Iran will walk away, and the US will say, "well we tried diplomacy and it didn't work' we are reluctantly forced to attack." This line will be parroted in all MSM newspaper and TV stations.

 

Starting war has a playbook in the US, and they are following it very closely...their problem is that the public support for the war is very low (last time I saw it there were only about 25% actually supported a war but of course this does change when war has begun). But the combination of aggressive talk about the threat Iran poses to the US and false flags will bring the public round in time. You can never underestimate the intelligence of the American public.

 

So it's "akin" other than the UN inspectors bit doesn't apply. Great consistency and logic there.

 

I think neither side (apart from respective war mongers) is truly interested in an all out war. Most of the related happenings are more about posturing, with some sort of negotiations as the goal.

 

Expecting sanctions to a fully lifted prior to negotiations is unrealistic. On the other hand, there are many layers and levels of sanctions, not all targeting the same things, so a partial lift is doable, in return for an Iranian concession. I guess that's one reason behind piling them up, useful as a negotiation chip.

 

As others posted, essentially Trump will probably be satisfied with any deal he can call his own (and it would, obviously, be the bestest ever). Given his motivations and carelessness, wouldn't be surprised if such an agreement will be inferior (security-wise) to the one he ditched.

[owl sees all]

So the bottom line is that the Don saved us from WW3. Anyone object to a Nobel Peace award? I see one on the horizon.

 

Keep up the good work Donald.

Edited June 22, 2019 by owl sees all

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Kasane said:

The keyboard warriors are out in full force in MSM today. The are talking about how "America's credibility" has been damaged by Trump Alt Del of the Iran attack. Not blundering into war is a sign of weakness. Freaking war mongers all. 

 

Making threats and not following up on them doesn't convey strength. Publicly discussing attack plans, the consultations related to them and last minute flip flops involved doesn't help either.

[Kasane]

An American Boeing P-8 airplane with 35 people on board entered Iranian airspace. Aerospace Force head Amir Ali Hajzadeh says Iran could have shot the plane down, but chose not to.

While on the one hand, it is odd to think that the US and Iran are trying to spread a message of reconciliation by pointing out how many people they could’ve killed but didn’t. Still, this is a much preferable message to the mounting tensions and fears of confrontation coming ahead of that. 

[BestB]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Making threats and not following up on them doesn't convey strength. Publicly discussing attack plans, the consultations related to them and last minute flip flops involved doesn't help either.

But does show mercy and willingness to deescalate . And that may have been the goal or part of the play