Soleimani Death

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
BLADEMDA said:
Most importantly, Iran should not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon.
Click to expand...


BLADEMDA said:
We can not and should not be the police force for the entire world
Click to expand...
Well if you want to be the only one with the bomb you are going to have be the world police force.
Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Lawper said:
So to clarify, is it about energy security? I understand the geopolitics but there's a difference between energy independence and energy security which is why some of the comments were confusing me
Click to expand...
I think it was about a secure source of resources (which was oil to be sure), as well as avoiding the spread of Soviet control. I don't think you could have called it energy independence during the cold war, because it was as much about keeping a supply chain as it was preventing the Soviets from dominating it.

NOW, I can only speculate. I can only speculate because I think we have an ever-increasingly weaker argument for continuing to directly involve ourselves in the politics of the area. I'd certainly rather have our hands in it than Russia or China, but frankly I'm not sure how interested they are in the area anymore either. I think we do need to avoid a nuclear Iran. I think it is mostly geopolitical at this point. That's of course from my layman's understanding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
narcotics999 said:
Cheap gas? it used to be less than 1$. Now I pay 3.8 with a refinery next to the gas station.
Click to expand...
We still have very cheap gas. I pay about $3 and change per gallon. That's way better than $2and change per liter

But, not a good reason to kill people.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
narcotics999 said:
Cheap gas? it used to be less than 1$. Now I pay 3.8 with a refinery next to the gas station.
Click to expand...

The price of a gallon of gas hasn’t changed much in over a decade. It is cheap.

$60 per barrel is what the world needs to maintain supply. We may have a lot of energy but we don’t have much $20 per barrel oil like Saudi Arabia. For the USA to maintain its energy stance $50-$60 per barrel oil is the right price.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
BLADEMDA said:
The price of a gallon of gas hasn’t changed much in over a decade. It is cheap.

$60 per barrel is what the world needs to maintain supply. We may have a lot of energy but we don’t have much $20 per barrel oil like Saudi Arabia. For the USA to maintain its energy stance $50-$60 per barrel oil is the right price.
Click to expand...
Oil should be a billion a barrel; we need to stop burning that $.t.
 
HighPriest said:
We still have very cheap gas. I pay about $3 and change per gallon. That's way better than $2and change per liter

But, not a good reason to kill people.
Click to expand...

No, I did not say to kill people. What I mean is in spite of killing people, gas price is not cheap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
HighPriest said:
I'd certainly rather have our hands in it than Russia or China, but frankly I'm not sure how interested they are in the area anymore either. I think we do need to avoid a nuclear Iran. I think it is mostly geopolitical at this point. That's of course from my layman's understanding.
Click to expand...

I believe the U.S. strives to continue the containment of Russia spreading its influence. It used to be about oil, now it is essentially what you said, geopolitical. We are close allies with Israel, but we want to be in the good graces of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc more so than we want them to prefer Russia to solve its problems. We do this to appease Israel, but to keep Russia out of the region. I still think China and Russia are still interested, they seek to fill voids in power. When we leave who will take over? So we stay to maintain a presence in the region. It is almost at Russia's front door so it is beneficial to us should Russia begin another Crimean campaign. These are my opinions about the long-term goals of the U.S.
 
I mean....what Crimean campaign? Russia already annexed Crimea and effectively part of Ukraine and no one did anything to stop them. Turkey (Erdogan) is on the anti-US bandwagon now too, and they were always the bridge point for Crimea.

China has its eyes set on Africa, and they've made that very, very clear. That's the piggy bank they're eyeing (aside from hegemony over Asia) and no one is effectively doing anything to stop them. So if it were about limiting Chinese influence, we're off target.

I think the ideal situation for "who steps in" when we pull out is: the people who live there. I'm all for keeping Russian and Chinese influence out. I'm not sure we need to occupy the region to do that. The quagmire we've set ourselves up with is that we can't do it effectively from a diplomatic standpoint alone because we've burned all those bridges over the years.

And I'm not defending Middle Eastern countries and their politics there. There's a lot of trouble on that front with or without us. But the opportunity to call the leaders of any middle eastern country and say "hey, man, don't listen to Russia" was tossed out a long time ago. Other than with maybe Saudi Arabia. Which is a terrible government that in any other circumstance we would not get along with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
psychapp121 said:
please enlighten us how it’s wrong family doc
Click to expand...
I hope you change your tune when you're actually out and trying to make a living. Unless you manage to have a completely concierge practice with no referral base, this attitude is going to make you a pariah.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
I seriously can’t imagine saying Russia is a more serious threat than China in any aspect of geopolitical issues. Y’all need to put some respect on China’s name. They literally have organ harvesting concentration camps and barely make the news because of remarkably efficient censorship. Google is making them a censorable...google. They may have a smaller economy than us in some metrics but their buying power is effing ridiculous. See LeBron James bowing to China like a little bitch. Russia?! What have they done? Taken a little more land is Europe that they used to own? Influenced a reality TV star? China is thinking bigger than US politics. They looking to become to US.
 
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965), Hansard, November 11, 1947
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
jw3600 said:
I seriously can’t imagine saying Russia is a more serious threat than China in any aspect of geopolitical issues. Y’all need to put some respect on China’s name. They literally have organ harvesting concentration camps and barely make the news because of remarkably efficient censorship. Google is making them a censorable...google. They may have a smaller economy than us in some metrics but their buying power is effing ridiculous. See LeBron James bowing to China like a little bitch. Russia?! What have they done? Taken a little more land is Europe that they used to own? Influenced a reality TV star? China is thinking bigger than US politics. They looking to become to US.
Click to expand...

China is a major global threat to the USA going forward. Economically, China wants to replace the USA as number 1 "big dog" in the world.

From another perspective China is more stable than Russia making them less of a wild card for nuclear armageddon. That's why I rank Iran 1 and North Korea number 2 because I am most concerned about a rogue nuclear weapon detonation by them or their proxies.
 
HighPriest said:
I hope you change your tune when you're actually out and trying to make a living. Unless you manage to have a completely concierge practice with no referral base, this attitude is going to make you a pariah.
Click to expand...

As a salaried inpatient psychiatrist..I hope you don’t refer anyone to me lol..I’m just playing I just don’t like that particular poster he’s very holier than thou
 
HighPriest said:
I hope you change your tune when you're actually out and trying to make a living. Unless you manage to have a completely concierge practice with no referral base, this attitude is going to make you a pariah.
Click to expand...
Doubtful, I've yet to meet a psychiatrist that was not so overwhelmed with patients that they had to give a damn what any other doctor thought of them.
 
psychapp121 said:
As a salaried inpatient psychiatrist..I hope you don’t refer anyone to me lol..I’m just playing I just don’t like that particular poster he’s very holier than thou
Click to expand...
Who normally calls you to see a patient? Not the ER or a hospitalist or perhaps someone who admits a patient? Like a family doc?

You can be salaried all you want, but if you don’t generate any work units, or your colleagues have an issue with you, I think you’ll find the hospital administration less than supportive of retaining your contract.

I appreciate Snarky humor as much as anyone. My advice, take it or leave it, is to keep your general insinuation that any specific specialty is lesser to a dull hum. Make fun of Naturopaths or scientologists instead. They deserve it.

People don’t even get mad about that kind of thing, they just stop working with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
VA Hopeful Dr said:
Are you truly so ignorant as to not realize how despite the US's many screw ups we are no where near as bad as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan?
Click to expand...

It’s all subjective, it’s not a competition. Are you saying dying in a gas chamber is worse than being lynched for example. Why are you the one whom gets to decide that? The US history (and present) is also problematic and bad.

As far as Iran goes, I do think US foreign policy and strategy in general has become weaker in the eyes of other world leaders, but hopefully this incident doesn’t escalate further for the sake of innocent people in the region and the military.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
VA Hopeful Dr said:
Doubtful, I've yet to meet a psychiatrist that was not so overwhelmed with patients that they had to give a damn what any other doctor thought of them.
Click to expand...
Have you met one who routinely disparaged family medicine? I haven’t. And if I were a family doc I would send my patients across town if it meant he didn’t see them.
 
HighPriest said:
Have you met one who routinely disparaged family medicine? I haven’t. And if I were a family doc I would send my patients across town if it meant he didn’t see them.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have. Several. They're the only group in the county that takes insurance so I'm kinda stuck though.
 
AMEHigh said:
It’s all subjective, it’s not a competition. Are you saying dying in a gas chamber is worse than being lynched for example. Why are you the one whom gets to decide that? The US history (and present) is also problematic and bad.

As far as Iran goes, I do think US foreign policy and strategy in general has become weaker in the eyes of other world leaders, but hopefully this incident doesn’t escalate further for the sake of innocent people in the region and the military.
Click to expand...
Except it's not subjective, at all.

Yes parts of our history are very awful, but nothing we've done compares to the planned murder of over 20 million people in 6 years.

I'm not comparing gas chambers to lynching to who cares how. I'm talking pure numbers over a very short time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The following article was posted elsewhere but curious to know your thoughts:

www.theatlantic.com

We’re Just Discovering the Price of Killing Soleimani

Grieving families around the world are already paying it.
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com

Personally, I found this article to be absurd but it highlights some really serious problems with regards to anti-Trump sentiment and Iran tensions. Why is Trump getting blamed for the Iran plane crash? I saw people blaming Trump for the stampede that killed dozens in Soleimani's funeral. Why? What's with so much Trump hatred?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Lawper said:
Why? What's with so much Trump hatred?
Click to expand...

All the reporting around the Soleimani decision suggests it was a an "extreme" option presented by the Pentagon to make other more proportional responses look more reasonable. No one ever thought Trump would actually do it, but of course he essentially unilaterally makes the decision to do so. And of course it's a poorly thought out, impulsive, destabilizing decision whose motives are murky, and it's exactly like what he did in Syria.

Now conservatives have to do what they always do: delude themselves into thinking there was some masterplan from a potus who spends most of his time tweeting from the toilet instead of studying any domestic or foreign policy.


E: Many of the talking points about Trump wanting to be a dictator are overblown but just take a look at how he is currently locking out Congress vis a vis his interpretation of the war powers act and the AUMF. Something is terribly wrong if Mike f'ing Lee of all people says the WH briefing is worst briefing on a military issue that he's ever seen

www.google.com

GOP Sen. Mike Lee furious after an 'insulting' Senate briefing on Trump's Iran strike: 'The worst briefing ... on a military issue I've seen in 9 years'

GOP Sen. Mike Lee told reporters the briefing was so "demeaning" that he changed his mind on a resolution to limit Trump's power to attack Iran.
www.google.com
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
vector2 said:
All the reporting around the Soleimani decision suggests it was a an "extreme" option presented by the Pentagon to make other more proportional responses look more reasonable. No one ever thought Trump would actually do it, but of course he essentially unilaterally makes the decision to do so. And of course it's a poorly thought out, impulsive, destabilizing decision whose motives are murky, and it's exactly like what he did in Syria.

Now conservatives have to do what they always do: delude themselves into thinking there was some masterplan from a potus who spends most of his time tweeting from the toilet instead of studying any domestic or foreign policy.


E: Many of the talking points about Trump wanting to be a dictator are overblown but just take a look at how he is currently locking out Congress vis a vis his interpretation of the war powers act and the AUMF. Something is terribly wrong if Mike f'ing Lee of all people says the WH briefing is worst briefing on a military issue that he's ever seen

www.google.com

GOP Sen. Mike Lee furious after an 'insulting' Senate briefing on Trump's Iran strike: 'The worst briefing ... on a military issue I've seen in 9 years'

GOP Sen. Mike Lee told reporters the briefing was so "demeaning" that he changed his mind on a resolution to limit Trump's power to attack Iran.
www.google.com
Click to expand...
Destabilizing? More like peacemaking.

This was classic Deterrence 101.

There's a false dichotomy between appeasement and all out war.

You choose the appeasement route and you'll get more aggression from Iran.

Amazing how we're not in ww3, it's like Trump knew what he was doing and you don't.
 
Mikkel said:
Destabilizing? More like peacemaking.

This was classic Deterrence 101.

There's a false dichotomy between appeasement and all out war.

You choose the appeasement route and you'll get more aggression from Iran.

Amazing how we're not in ww3, it's like Trump knew what he was doing and you don't.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point. Classic maga hat wearing trumpism behavior. Trump needlessly and thoughtlessly overescalates a situation and then when we stumble into some kind of scary but ultimately neutral detente you all pretend he was playing 7th dimension chess from the getgo. Sad!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
vector2 said:
Thanks for proving my point. Classic maga hat wearing trumpism behavior. Trump needlessly and thoughtlessly overescalates a situation and then when we stumble into some kind of scary but ultimately neutral detente you all pretend he was playing 7th dimension chess from the getgo. Sad!
Click to expand...

What supports your statement that it was needless and/or thoughtless?
 
vector2 said:
Thanks for proving my point. Classic maga hat wearing trumpism behavior. Trump needlessly and thoughtlessly overescalates a situation and then when we stumble into some kind of scary but ultimately neutral detente you all pretend he was playing 7th dimension chess from the getgo. Sad!
Click to expand...
Well -

I obviously can't speak to what the president thought or didn't think, knew or didn't know, hoped or didn't hope.

And there certainly is room for lots of horrible things to happen in the coming weeks and months.

But let's recap the events events so far:
  • US: General Soleimani, one of a handful of masterminds behind Iran's direct and indirect attacks on Americans and our allies, is dead in admittedly dramatic and public fashion. Let's not let his death completely overshadow the half-dozen or so other senior militia leaders who were also killed, also an extremely positive result.
  • Iran: Their retaliation was a completely ineffective PR maneuver. The missile attack was clearly designed and executed solely to be a way to back down while saving some face (by staging it from Iran's territory instead of within Iraq).
It's hard to spin this as anything but a positive outcome for us.

Two associated tragedies are entirely Iran's fault ... a stampede killing 50something people at Soleimani's funeral, and an airliner that appears to have been accidentally shot down by Iran. The latter is evidence of poor training and incompetent leadership, embarrassing for the regime and likely to isolate them further.

Even if you prefer a checkers analogy instead of 7d chess, one side had a better week than the other.


And I disagree that the situation was overescalated. Our embassy had just been attacked by Iran-supported and Iran-directed militia group, after months and months of repeated escalations by Iran.

Let's not forget that Iran's current regime was involved in the 1979 takeover of our embassy in Tehran. Their recent president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was there. Their current supreme leader the Ayatollah Khamenei was there. Direct, violent action was absolutely reasonable to respond to that attack and deter round 2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
As promised, here is some very cogent analysis, from what I consider to be the best military topics website:

Iraq: The Master Of Mayhem Meets A Missile

The Iranian missile attack on American bases in Iraq two days ago backfired in a big way The two targets, at al Asad and Irbil, suffered little damage and no Americans were killed For Iranian leaders seeking vengeance, the missile attack not only faile
www.strategypage.com www.strategypage.com

The analysis is very different from the "Iran made the responsible choice in retaliation" memes we've been seeing. Looks liek the had no choice, but not in a good way, for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I completely understand -why- Iran retaliated. But they definitely put their foot in their mouth in a big way, and I agree that it weakens their position both internally and on the international stage. I mean, targeting American bases with no effect - you could at least spin that as "we meant to miss everyone. We just wanted to demonstrate that we -could- retaliate, but we're not like the US." (True or not, it's a spin).

You can't spin accidentally or mistakenly shooting down a civilian airliner. That's egg on your face no matter what.

Ultimately, it's really hard for me to say if eliminating Soliemani was the right (proportionate) choice or not. I don't have all of the information. I don't know what other options Trump had on the table. Some reaction was absolutely necessary in response to an orchestrated attack on the US embassy. Again, I'm not defending anything the US did or is accused of doing over the last however-many years. This is where we are now: the embassy was attacked. The attack was coordinated by a foreign government. A reaction was indicated.

Maybe Trump had a better option. Maybe this was the best option. As someone who traditionally leans conservative on at least foreign policy, I think Trump is generally a ***** who doesn't think things through and who is the epitome of the Emperor's new clothes. Does that mean he's always wrong? No. In fact, there are topics on which I agree with him. I don't like how he represents them, I often don't agree with what I perceive as his generally rudimentary understanding of them, and I would certainly prefer someone who can string a sentence together be the representative of these ideas. But its hard to second guess this issue without knowing a lot more information, much of which will probably never be available to the public (or at least won't be available until someone who was there publishes a book in 15 years).

Whether it was "too much" or not will be told more with time than it will with personal opinion. If it helps to unwind the control of the Iranian regime, and something better comes about after - then it was probably the right amount of pressure. If it results in Iran building a nuclear weapon, it was probably not the right move. Then, of course, you'll have hindsight guiding the reigns.

There is, I think, absolutely no way that Iran's reaction was somehow a masterful plan by Trump. He certainly could not have predicted they would shoot down a civilian airliner. And, frankly, they could have killed people with their missiles - either on accident or on purpose. So whether or not he made the right call, the outcome was by and large a chance situation. My personal opinion is that it's more like some kind of Rube Golbergian, Mr. Magoo situation where he happened to come out ahead.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Goro said:
As promised, here is some very cogent analysis, from what I consider to be the best military topics website:

Iraq: The Master Of Mayhem Meets A Missile

The Iranian missile attack on American bases in Iraq two days ago backfired in a big way The two targets, at al Asad and Irbil, suffered little damage and no Americans were killed For Iranian leaders seeking vengeance, the missile attack not only faile
www.strategypage.com www.strategypage.com

The analysis is very different from the "Iran made the responsible choice in retaliation" memes we've been seeing. Looks liek the had no choice, but not in a good way, for them.
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting this. Very interesting. I'm somewhat in doubt about their missle program too, but they didnt seem to have any problem hitting the Saudi oil refineries. Not sure where the full truth lies.
 
Angus Avagadro said:
Thanks for posting this. Very interesting. I'm somewhat in doubt about their missle program too, but they didnt seem to have any problem hitting the Saudi oil refineries. Not sure where the full truth lies.
Click to expand...
They hit the Saudi refineries with drones. Humans in the loop until the boom. Also notably not technology developed in Iran.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
pgg said:
They hit the Saudi refineries with drones. Humans in the loop until the boom. Also notably not technology developed in Iran.
Click to expand...
I mean, the missiles were Russian, right? Nothing but high quality craftsmanship there.
_106783566_053706463-1.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
pgg said:
Well -

I obviously can't speak to what the president thought or didn't think, knew or didn't know, hoped or didn't hope.

And there certainly is room for lots of horrible things to happen in the coming weeks and months.

But let's recap the events events so far:
  • US: General Soleimani, one of a handful of masterminds behind Iran's direct and indirect attacks on Americans and our allies, is dead in admittedly dramatic and public fashion. Let's not let his death completely overshadow the half-dozen or so other senior militia leaders who were also killed, also an extremely positive result.
  • Iran: Their retaliation was a completely ineffective PR maneuver. The missile attack was clearly designed and executed solely to be a way to back down while saving some face (by staging it from Iran's territory instead of within Iraq).
It's hard to spin this as anything but a positive outcome for us.

Two associated tragedies are entirely Iran's fault ... a stampede killing 50something people at Soleimani's funeral, and an airliner that appears to have been accidentally shot down by Iran. The latter is evidence of poor training and incompetent leadership, embarrassing for the regime and likely to isolate them further.

Even if you prefer a checkers analogy instead of 7d chess, one side had a better week than the other.


And I disagree that the situation was overescalated. Our embassy had just been attacked by Iran-supported and Iran-directed militia group, after months and months of repeated escalations by Iran.

Let's not forget that Iran's current regime was involved in the 1979 takeover of our embassy in Tehran. Their recent president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was there. Their current supreme leader the Ayatollah Khamenei was there. Direct, violent action was absolutely reasonable to respond to that attack and deter round 2.
Click to expand...


Let me preface by saying that Soleimani was an enemy of the US and I'm not shedding any tears for his death. Maybe he even needed to meet his end at some point, but your Monday morning QB'ing of how "great" things turned out for us is pure retrospective bias. There was no guarantee that Iran would stop at their latest PR stunt or that troops wouldn't be killed, and indeed we still don't what may be coming further down the pike. Again, the reporting is that people within the Pentagon who have all the intel and who actually know what they're talking about in regard to proportionate responses thought killing Soleimani was an extreme option, likely wasn't going to be selected, and that it was offered in the hopes that a more moderate response would be chosen by Trump.

In regard to overescalation, I'm sure there were direct, violent responses to the embassy attack that were more measured than killing a guy so popular he might as well have been Persian Tom Hanks, so how about you don't simply handwave away tragedies (even if they are the Iranians' fault at the end of the chain) and just acknowledge that overescalation and increasing of tensions is precisely what led to the sequence of events that caused a stampede and caused 170-some people to die in a plane crash. Hell, I just got back to the states on an international flight that took two more hours than it should've because it had to avoid Iran and most of Iraqi airspace.

More generally though than who had the better week, who here thinks the US overall is safer and/or Middle East tensions are better since the US withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement that all of Europe still wants? Who here thinks the US and her citizens are safer since killing Soleimani? I know I surely don't.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
vector2 said:
Let me preface by saying that Soleimani was an enemy of the US and I'm not shedding any tears for his death. Maybe he even needed to meet his end at some point, but your Monday morning QB'ing of how "great" things turned out for us is pure retrospective bias. There was no guarantee that Iran would stop at their latest PR stunt or that troops wouldn't be killed, and indeed we still don't what may be coming further down the pike. Again, the reporting is that people within the Pentagon who have all the intel and who actually know what they're talking about in regard to proportionate responses thought killing Soleimani was an extreme option, likely wasn't going to be selected, and that it was offered in the hopes that a more moderate response would be chosen by Trump.

In regard to overescalation, I'm sure there were direct, violent responses to the embassy attack that were more measured than killing a guy so popular he might as well have been Persian Tom Hanks, so how about you don't simply handwave away tragedies (even if they are the Iranians' fault at the end of the chain) and just acknowledge that overescalation and increasing of tensions is precisely what led to the sequence of events that caused a stampede and caused 170-some people to die in a plane crash. Hell, I just got back to the states on an international flight that took two more hours than it should've because it had to avoid Iran and most of Iraqi airspace.

More generally though than who had the better week, who here thinks the US overall is safer and/or Middle East tensions are better since the US withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement that all of Europe still wants? Who here thinks the US and her citizens are safer since killing Soleimani?
Click to expand...

That is the problem with preemption. We MIGHT have saved lives because of Iran getting its nose bloodied and thinking twice about future operations. We just don't know.
If Great Britain and France invaded Germany in the 30s during the rise of Nazism and violation of post WW1 Agreements, history would likely judge them as aggressors and bullies and the world would never know the horrors that were averted. 500 drone strikes on Obama's watch. How many horrors averted? How much more venom created in that part of the world by those strikes? Were they seen as weak responses emboldening our enemies? We just don't know.

I hate Trump, but support this choice.

ETA: BTW with the benefit of hindsight, how do you and the group feel about the Israeli bombing of the Iraqi reactor? How would the math on gulf war 1 have changed if Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons? Given his behavior there is more than a small chance he might have nuked Iran or somebody else? What is your opinion?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Did Iran missiles really miss their US targets?
Or did Iran intentionally miss?

If it was an intentional miss and they have some 700 missiles within range of US bases in the middle east then our troops may have a cross hair on their backs continually. None of those 12+ missiles were intercepted and all landed inside the confines of their target walls as I understand it.
 
Iran was able to take out a moving civilian jet (it now admits). Seems like those surface to air missiles are quite capable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

coffeebythelake
Death aboard an airplane
Replies
27
Views
2K
Beeftenderloin
Beeftenderloin
Agast
Death by nitrogen hypoxia
2 3
Replies
104
Views
5K
psycho-matic
P
coffeebythelake
Yet another dental sedation death
Replies
20
Views
2K
coffeebythelake
coffeebythelake
coffeebythelake
Maryland dentist causes anesthesia overdose death (with a twist)
Replies
15
Views
2K
coffeebythelake
coffeebythelake
S
The death of PE in anesthesia.
2
Replies
69
Views
9K
Dr. Rude
Dr. Rude
Top