Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

Iran


Lhalo

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

The iraqis tried the same in 91. Bombing israel, hoping to get them involved, and dissolving the coalition.

I'm glad you brought this up. it made no sense to most of us why Iraq fired scud missiles at Israel (missing most of their targets) because the US came to the rescue of Kuwait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, st1ckboy said:

Some of the most beautiful women I've ever seen were at a strip club in Russia.

I recently went to a dead body call. Super hot Russian chick at the house, and her boyfriend dead on the floor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"............ soooooo......., youre single now, right?"

Edited by ten ocho recon scout
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Tank said:

I'm glad you brought this up. it made no sense to most of us why Iraq fired scud missiles at Israel (missing most of their targets) because the US came to the rescue of Kuwait.

Essentially they knew none of the arab states would fight alongside of Israel. That will never change. 

Iran is aiming for the same. It wouldnt help them in any fight, directly, but it could (in desert storm, would) lead to the gulf states pulling support. It wasnt that we needed them for their armies, but we needed them for their airfields, land, etc.

If Israel gets involved, suddenly the the Saudis (possibly) say "you cant launch planes from our airfields anymore." Even if the Saudis agree behind closed doors that its silly, they have their own population to answer to.

It might be different with Iran. Arab vs Persian.... so perhaps its not as big of a hangup for them. But essentially, the Muslim states cant be seen as being partnered with Israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 min ago

Aerial images show damage from the strikes

From CNN's Paul P. Murphy

 

7ace050b-6c9a-45f2-b3cb-532d5c85f252.jpg

 

CNN has obtained satellite images from Planet Labs, Inc. that appear to show damage from Iranian missile strikes at al Asad Air Base in Iraq. 

Four buildings on the base appear damaged. It also appears a missile hit one of the runways at the airbase.

 

c35b0d27-7331-456f-82c3-02746a8e2208.jpg

 

c0aeabbc-3b5e-41ad-a5b7-c620c84b56b2.jpg

 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, st1ckboy said:

2 min ago

Aerial images show damage from the strikes

From CNN's Paul P. Murphy

 

7ace050b-6c9a-45f2-b3cb-532d5c85f252.jpg

 

CNN has obtained satellite images from Planet Labs, Inc. that appear to show damage from Iranian missile strikes at al Asad Air Base in Iraq. 

Four buildings on the base appear damaged. It also appears a missile hit one of the runways at the airbase.

 

c35b0d27-7331-456f-82c3-02746a8e2208.jpg

 

c0aeabbc-3b5e-41ad-a5b7-c620c84b56b2.jpg

 

 
 
 
 

 

Interesting. It kind of sounded (last night) like they landed outside of the complex, almost by intent. Obviously this isnt the case.

Hypothetical. (And I hope its over). But with the pics above, lets say a large amount of our people were killed.... would you change your stance on retaliation? (Question to everyone on this thread)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Interesting. It kind of sounded (last night) like they landed outside of the complex, almost by intent. Obviously this isnt the case.

Hypothetical. (And I hope its over). But with the pics above, lets say a large amount of our people were killed.... would you change your stance on retaliation? (Question to everyone on this thread)

You obviously would know about this than myself, but from listening to people on the news that have been in these situations, our missile detection systems are so good, they would have had at least a half hour warning before anything hit. Chances of casualties from this kind of strike seems pretty unlikely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, st1ckboy said:

You obviously would know about this than myself, but from listening to people on the news that have been in these situations, our missile detection systems are so good, they would have had at least a half hour warning before anything hit. Chances of casualties from this kind of strike seems pretty unlikely. 

Ive been out for too long, so not sure how good our systems are today. 30 mins might be a stretch. For missiles from Russia to the US, probably. But from Iran to Iraq, i think it would be more around 5 mins or so, give or take (depending on its ballistic arc). 

But aside from that, I imagine all our people in the region were already waiting on it to come anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Ive been out for too long, so not sure how good our systems are today. 30 mins might be a stretch. For missiles from Russia to the US, probably. But from Iran to Iraq, i think it would be more around 5 mins or so, give or take (depending on its ballistic arc). 

But aside from that, I imagine all our people in the region were already waiting on it to come anyway.

Ah, this was just posted. You are correct, it look "several minutes." I would assume they were already on heightened security, and this would be plenty of time to get to the bunkers, right?

6 min ago

Iran's choice of missile ensured Americans would have a warning

Analysis from CNN's Nick Paton Walsh

Jeremy Binnie, the Middle East and Africa editor at British military magazine Jane's Defence Weekly, said the choice of what was likely a Qiam ballistic missile carried some risk — but it also likely ensured several minutes of warning for the Americans when the attack hit their radars. 

"The attack on Saudi Arabia last year used cruise missiles and UAVs, while these were ballistic missiles." he said. "That might have been a deliberate decision to minimize damage, as the Iranians would have known that the ballistic trajectories could be picked up much more easily by radars, providing early warning of the attack"  

About the Qiam missile: Binnie said that, according to images released, the missile recovered near Ain al-Assad Air Base was a Qiam, a type that was "recently upgraded with a new re-entry vehicle that has fins so that it can steer itself towards its target" 

He said these missiles had been used before to attack ISIS and Kurdish rebels in Iraq, "but their accuracy and reliability was spotty."

"Some missiles failed to reach the target area, while others missed their apparent targets," Binnie said. "If the Iranians were aiming for uninhabited areas at the Iraqi bases, there consequently was still some risk they would accidentally hit a bunker where coalition personnel were sheltering."

Some background: There is a growing belief among some US officials that Iran's missiles intentionally missed areas populated by Americans , multiple Trump administration officials said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, st1ckboy said:

Ah, this was just posted. You are correct, it look "several minutes." I would assume they were already on heightened security, and this would be plenty of time to get to the bunkers, right?

6 min ago

Iran's choice of missile ensured Americans would have a warning

Analysis from CNN's Nick Paton Walsh

Jeremy Binnie, the Middle East and Africa editor at British military magazine Jane's Defence Weekly, said the choice of what was likely a Qiam ballistic missile carried some risk — but it also likely ensured several minutes of warning for the Americans when the attack hit their radars. 

"The attack on Saudi Arabia last year used cruise missiles and UAVs, while these were ballistic missiles." he said. "That might have been a deliberate decision to minimize damage, as the Iranians would have known that the ballistic trajectories could be picked up much more easily by radars, providing early warning of the attack"  

About the Qiam missile: Binnie said that, according to images released, the missile recovered near Ain al-Assad Air Base was a Qiam, a type that was "recently upgraded with a new re-entry vehicle that has fins so that it can steer itself towards its target" 

He said these missiles had been used before to attack ISIS and Kurdish rebels in Iraq, "but their accuracy and reliability was spotty."

"Some missiles failed to reach the target area, while others missed their apparent targets," Binnie said. "If the Iranians were aiming for uninhabited areas at the Iraqi bases, there consequently was still some risk they would accidentally hit a bunker where coalition personnel were sheltering."

Some background: There is a growing belief among some US officials that Iran's missiles intentionally missed areas populated by Americans , multiple Trump administration officials said.

maybe it's the conspiracy theorist in me speaking, but i don't like stuff like this being published in public. it could be a way to say somewhat subtley to the iranians "hey, use a different missile. these didn't work as well as you hoped."

i know, i know, but during the gulf war, when iraq fired scud missiles as israel, i think it was the state department that told media NOT to report on where the missiles landed because they believed that the iraqis were watching CNN and getting information on adjusting their targeting. the media cooperated with the request, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Tank said:

maybe it's the conspiracy theorist in me speaking, but i don't like stuff like this being published in public. it could be a way to say somewhat subtley to the iranians "hey, use a different missile. these didn't work as well as you hoped."

i know, i know, but during the gulf war, when iraq fired scud missiles as israel, i think it was the state department that told media NOT to report on where the missiles landed because they believed that the iraqis were watching CNN and getting information on adjusting their targeting. the media cooperated with the request, too.

I'm sure Iran already has access to this information. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, st1ckboy said:

Ah, this was just posted. You are correct, it look "several minutes." I would assume they were already on heightened security, and this would be plenty of time to get to the bunkers, right?

6 min ago

Iran's choice of missile ensured Americans would have a warning

Analysis from CNN's Nick Paton Walsh

Jeremy Binnie, the Middle East and Africa editor at British military magazine Jane's Defence Weekly, said the choice of what was likely a Qiam ballistic missile carried some risk — but it also likely ensured several minutes of warning for the Americans when the attack hit their radars. 

"The attack on Saudi Arabia last year used cruise missiles and UAVs, while these were ballistic missiles." he said. "That might have been a deliberate decision to minimize damage, as the Iranians would have known that the ballistic trajectories could be picked up much more easily by radars, providing early warning of the attack"  

About the Qiam missile: Binnie said that, according to images released, the missile recovered near Ain al-Assad Air Base was a Qiam, a type that was "recently upgraded with a new re-entry vehicle that has fins so that it can steer itself towards its target" 

He said these missiles had been used before to attack ISIS and Kurdish rebels in Iraq, "but their accuracy and reliability was spotty."

"Some missiles failed to reach the target area, while others missed their apparent targets," Binnie said. "If the Iranians were aiming for uninhabited areas at the Iraqi bases, there consequently was still some risk they would accidentally hit a bunker where coalition personnel were sheltering."

Some background: There is a growing belief among some US officials that Iran's missiles intentionally missed areas populated by Americans , multiple Trump administration officials said.

 

That's kind of what the former "CIA" expert was saying on the local news last night.  That these bases are huge, and that the missles were probably aimed at portions where the chances of personnel being there was minimal.  And that there was enough warning to safely get personnel to their shelter spots.  

For Iran, it's a win, because they just attacked a US base.  But it wasn't enough of a win to cause 1000 tomahawks to be headed back towards them.  For the US, we killed a terrorist, got to see some lib heads explode, and just have to fill a few potholes.

Of course if it doesn't end here, then it's a different story.  But the rhetoric on both sides seem to have cooled down quite a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

 

That's kind of what the former "CIA" expert was saying on the local news last night.  That these bases are huge, and that the missles were probably aimed at portions where the chances of personnel being there was minimal.  And that there was enough warning to safely get personnel to their shelter spots.  

For Iran, it's a win, because they just attacked a US base.  But it wasn't enough of a win to cause 1000 tomahawks to be headed back towards them.  For the US, we killed a terrorist, got to see some lib heads explode, and just have to fill a few potholes.

Of course if it doesn't end here, then it's a different story.  But the rhetoric on both sides seem to have cooled down quite a bit.

Like this lib:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/hannity-says-irans-refineries-could-soon-go-up-in-flames

Or this lib:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/01/08/lindsey_graham_iranian_strike_on_us_bases_is_an_act_of_war.html

Or these libs:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-fox-news-pals-are-picking-new-iran-targets-on-air

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 min ago

Republican senator says Iran briefing was worst he's had "in my nine years" in the Senate

From CNN's Manu Raju

Republican Sen. Mike Lee, speaking to reporters today, called today’s briefing the “worst briefing I’ve had on a military issue in my nine years” in the Senate.

‪The Utah lawmaker called the way this played out as “un-American” and “completely unacceptable” given that the administration suggested that Congress shouldn’t have a role in debating Iran military action. He said the administration would not commit to new AUMF ("authorization for use of military force") or a cite a reason for coming to Congress before taking military action.

Asked if President Trump should have authorized the attack against Qasem Soleimani, Lee said he’s “agnostic” on that because the briefers didn’t give specific details ‬on the attacks planned by Soleimani.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...