#17

I didn't get that from the article. I thought he was only ordering that future ships had steam catapults.

Either way, he should spend more time playing golf and less time worrying about carrier aviation.

"He advanced Iran from a regional to a world power."

IDK. I think that the current theatrics from the US will end, at which point the rest of the world will step in and ensure that Iran stays in line. I think Iran knows that too. They're waiting for it. They want it.

"He wants the U.S. proxy war on Israel's behalf to wipe Iran off the face of the earth - at any cost."

Not at any cost. I don't think Israel is doing anything in Iran anymore. There is nothing they can do.

Why would they waste time engaging in a conflict they know they can't win.

Netanyahu may be a lot of things, but he is no idiot.

#11

No kidding, Trump may be the best thing that ever happened to Iran.

#10

I guess I didn't know that Trump was an engineer or expert on Naval ship building.

#8

We were talking about this in the office yesterday. Our consensus was that someone in the Trump clan is going to make money off of this. No other reason.

#21

I do a lot of work with Poland and Finland. I sometimes feel like they want Russia to do something. Something they could justify going exact revenge on that country.

Poland is by far the most aggressive country I work with.

"You mean except the foreign aid?"

Which is what? $3B per year? In a country with a GDP of $720B?

"If they're so tough why are they still losing?"

Ukraine is losing???

Please, do tell.

You sound like Trump briefing the press on how the US has achieved "great success" in Iran.

Is that true as well?

"You're not wrong; this war of choice to appease Israel and distract from the millions of still illegally unreleased Epstein Files has made the world much less safe and the US much more disrespected... and deservingly so."

"Appease" Israel?

I don't think so.

In Trump, Netanyahu found a US president who could easily be manipulated through his ego. I don't fault Netanyahu. I think he's an -------, but I also think his hand was the best it was ever going to get. It just turned out that Iran had a better hand.

Between us girls, because of this failure to produce the results Israel was hoping for, I don't know how much use they will have for Trump-or the US-going forward.

At the moment, I don't know that I would group the US with "the west," if the west is comprised primarily of western European countries. I love Albania, but the US is currently like an Albania on steroids, but without the nice beaches.

"Trump doesn't do multi-party deals."

Oh, yeah.

I didn't forget to mention the US as a western country, because the US is basically on a Charlie Sheen-style crack binge. At least at the strategic level.

Iran has handed the US the greatest strategic defeat in the history of this country. I would challenge anyone to disagree with that. If you think Russia is doing poorly in Ukraine-at least Russia was able to capture territory that Ukraine would like to have back. The US did nothing of the sort. The US has no bargaining chip it can use with Iran. From my vantage point, the Iran war ends when the US concedes to their demands. There is no other option. I'd love for someone to tell me I'm wrong.

Western weakness??

I'm not sure what world you guys are living in, but western Europe is anything but weak, and they are getting stronger, more confident, and more capable every day.

NATO is what NATO is, but within the collection of NATO countries, there are smaller groups of multi-lateral coalitions that don't really care about what NATO or the NAC have to say. They're going to fight even if Hungary or Portugal dilly-dally.

At the end of the day, it's the multi-lateral coalitions that Putin should fear. The fact he is focused on NATO is a good thing. It means he does not have his eye on the ball.

"I always said it Was Provoked."

Provoked?

Provoked how?

By existing?

"NATO just poured Gas on the Fire."

NATO did what?

NATO, to my knowledge, has not done anything with regards to Ukraine.

"Where I live now isn't some pie in they sky pink hair Utopia. It's just a better run version of the US."

Might I be so bold as to ask you where you landed?

And I agree with you. There is a reason I will die somewhere in Europe. Maybe it's the decades of war that shaped the continents character, but for the most part, European countries are drama free, and everyone knows that they both rights and responsibilities. That's what I like about it.

Growing up in the US, I was pretty much a die-hard libertarian. Because I believed that a strong government that had the power to do good, also had the power to do bad. But living here, I see government that provides rights but also demands responsibility. And that changed my mind on a lot of things.

"That's not how the "presumption of innocence" works. But your comment effectively underscores the difference between targeting expertise and legal expertise."

Fair enough. I'm no lawyer.

But how about the Supreme Court and Ex Parte Quirin.

Do you think that FDR's Supreme Court had sufficient legal experience?

"Targeting experience is not legal expertise. You lied about the attack in Afghanistan being legal under international law."

It wasn't?

Please, do explain. I'm not aware of any finding stating that counter threat-finance operations are/were illegal?

"Sufficient reason to condemn them."

Oh, I think it's ------- stupid. I did counter-drug ---- down in Honduras for a while. Equally stupid. 90% of the things I've done in the military were, IMO, theater. 10% mattered and made a difference.

But because I think something is stupid doesn't make it illegal or a war crime.

"Firing on shipwrecked survivors is a war crime. Saying you were only trying to completely destroy the ship that the shipwrecked survivors were clinging to is a distinction without a difference."

And you've come to that conclusion based on your extensive experience in targeting?

Anyone else here have targeting experience??? Other than me?

"Anwar Al-Awlaki was not an innocent man."

He went to court and was found to be innocent?

Let's level the bubble here. The strike on Anwar-al-Awliki was completely justified. Ex Parte Quirin held that US citizens acting as enemy combatants forfeit their right to a criminal trial. Google it. al-Awliki was part of an organization that had been declared hostile combatants. The US also killed several ISIS members who were US citizens.

The strikes we did on the Narco labs in AFG and the strikes on oil tankers in Syria? I don't think that was effective. Especially in AFG, given how that mess turned out. The drug boat thing is pure Trump theatrics. But that doesn't change the fact that, if the strikes on the boats fall under counter-threat finance, they're legit targets.

"Do you consider a boat alleged to be full of drugs a valid military target?"

I can't say.

I didn't see the intel reporting on it.

"Regardless, if people weren't the target, we wouldn't be making a second pass to kill the shipwrecked survivors. Which is a war crime, even in war."

Totes.

If the allegations that the commander ordered strikes against distressed seamen, that is a war crime. No question.

If the commander ordered a re-strike because the task was to destroy the ship, and the ship had not been destroyed...not a war crime.

"Bad things never excuse other bad things."

It was a bad thing to disrupt Japanese supply lines during WWII?

"Don't go there. The US committed war crimes against civilians, as one of the main men responsible for them, Curtis LeMay, said."

Yup.

The US sunk around 1100 merchant ships during WWII. Never gave the sailors on board a trial.