حكيم المدينة @law936pmuhttps://twitter.com/law936pmu/status...6093462564864013. Juni
Focus on news next
two days please don't worry will see what we can do we don't talk we make action.
Well, let's see if this bright fellow knows something we don't know.
Last edited by HermantheGerman; 15-06-2019 at 12:38 PM.
This old tweet of POSIWH (Piece of shit in white house) shows how he thinks.
Guess now who's polls are starting to look really bad...
I did search but can't find a definition of such a person unfortunately.
Is this what you mean eh?
Me! An "authority" on any subject is somewhat dubious, a conclusion that many accepted subject authorities, here on TD, would agree.
I suspect most here believe I am "a senile old fart". Happily being able to write, read and understand that phrase, still , I disagree.
Having watched and helped my father pass through that phase of life, prior to him rejoining my late mother and many of his family.
Others may draw similarities with the lady above.
A dentist. Poking around inside someone's head, finding a suspicious entity, poking it to confirm pain and then trying to fix the problem. Using acquired skills to remove the entity and replacing the entity with a more durable and useful material.
Producing a thankful patient.
Last edited by OhOh; 15-06-2019 at 04:32 PM.
A tray full of GOLD is not worth a moment in time.
Same ol song and dance...innit?
The Generals Won’t Save Us From the Next War - June 10, 2019
https://www.theamericanconservative....-the-next-war/
by Danny Sjursen [is a retired U.S. Army Major and regular contributor to The American Conservative]
excerpt:
These are company men, after all, obedient servants dedicated—no matter how much they protest otherwise—to career and promotion, as much or more than they are to the national interest. The American military, especially at the senior ranks, is apt to let you down whenever courage or moral fortitude is needed most. In nearly 18 years of post-9/11 forever war, not a single general has resigned in specific opposition to what many of them knew to be unwinnable, unethical conflicts. Writing about the not-so-long-ago Vietnam War, former national security advisor H.R. McMaster, himself a problematic war on terror general, labeled in his book title such military acquiescence Dereliction of Duty. That it was, but so is the lack of moral courage and logical reasoning among McMaster and his peers who have submissively waged these endless wars in Americans’ name.
Think on it: of the some 18 general officers who have commanded the ill-fated, ongoing war in Afghanistan, each has optimistically promised not only that victory was possible, but that it was “around the corner” or a “light at the end of the tunnel.” All these generals needed, naturally, was more time and, of course, more resources. For the most part they’ve gotten it, billions in cash to throw away and thousands of American soldiers’ lives to waste.
Why should any sentient citizen believe that these commanders’ former subordinates—a new crop of ambitious generals—will step forward now and oppose a disastrous future war with the Islamic Republic? Don’t believe it! Senior military leaders will salute, about-face, and execute unethical and unnecessary combat with Iran or whomever else (think Venezuela) Trump’s war hawks, such as John Bolton, decide needs a little regime changing.
Need proof that even the most highly lauded generals will sheepishly obey the next absurd march to war? Join me in a brief trip down an ever so depressing memory lane. Let us begin with my distinguished West Point graduation speaker, Air Force General and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Richard Myers. He goes down in history as as a Donald Rumsfeld lackey because it turns out he knew full well that there were “holes” in the Bush team’s inaccurate intelligence used to justify the disastrous Iraq war. Yet we heard not a peep from Myers, who kept his mouth shut and retired with full four-star honors.
Then, when Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki accurately (and somewhat courageously) predicted in 2003 that an occupation of Iraq would require up to half a million U.S. troops, he was quietly retired. Rummy passed over a whole generation of active officers to pull a known sycophant, General Peter Schoomaker, out of retirement to do Bush the Younger’s bidding. It worked too. Schoomaker, despite his highly touted special forces experience, never threw his stars on the table and called BS on a losing strategy even as it killed his soldiers by the hundreds and then the thousands. Having heard him (unimpressively) speak at West Point in 2005, I still can’t decide whether he lacked the intellect to do so or the conscience. Maybe both.
Imagine my surprise...
Trump administration providing ‘false’ information about Gulf of Oman attack, says Japanese tanker owner
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8958916.html
The owner of the Japanese tanker attacked on Thursday said US reports have provided “false” information about what happened in the Gulf of Oman.
The ship operator said “flying objects” that may have been bullets were the cause of damage to the vessel, rather than mines used by Iranian forces, as the US has suggested.
Yutaka Katada, chief executive of the Japanese company operating the ship called Kokuka Courageous, one of two vessels attacked near the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday, said the damage could not have been caused by mines or torpedos that are shot underwater, since the damage was reportedly above the ship’s waterline.
getting crowded
The Royal Navy sends Marines to the Gulf to protect UK ships after Iranian attacks on tankers
Last edited by HermantheGerman; 16-06-2019 at 11:27 AM.
israel, KSA and the USA are blaming iran.....just like they've been planning to do for months.
The order has been issued from a faraway country. Get your naval forces into the Arabian Gulf and start a war. May has jumped yes sir and taken the shekels. One wonders if the RN have simulated a military attack on Iran and arrived at the same, "we lose", conclusion as a faraway country's military did.
Presumably the nuclear armed UK RM forces will "protect" ships using military threats and actions. I suggest they have to get a positive vote through the HOC prior to starting a war with Iran. They may of course have just quietly changed the law, to allow an exclamation of "highly likely" in lieu of proven facts.
Anything on the HOC agenda next week indicating this emergency debate?.
Last edited by OhOh; 16-06-2019 at 12:40 PM.
Nobody minds a spat with Iran, all good politics, but they don't want and won't risk it erupting into a full blown conventional war, which as a matter of trivia would rapidly expand to western doorsteps.
And who takes Trump seriously anyway? Let him make war noises for EU wimps to echo, while they all know it would result in a shitfest like every other effort in that region over the past decades.
Could be he just wants petrol up a few bucks.
TD's whackjobs pictured waiting for the Iran invasion.
Iran would be no different than Iraq in a conventional war. It would be overwhelmed and quickly defeated by a massively superior force. It is after the nation state collapses and the insurgency starts that the US would have it's troubles. The same as in Iraq but the Iranian military would get steamrolled and decimated in no time flat.
They are just the tripwires. The UK will protect them with all it's might. Which is highly likely to be in the area. Vassals being ordered to do what vassals are for.
If the tankers have UK military with guns on them, they are by definition warships. If the military open fire on Iranian military boats it is an act of war.
If they are on UK warships and open fire on Iranian warships it is an act of war.
Both situation require a HOC vote prior to the UK military being authorised to play.
If they are both in Iranian waters more consequences.
No UNSC resolution, currently, to hide behind.
Do you have a link to the factual evidence that;
1. Mines were the cause of the explosions and
2. they were planted on the tankers by Iranian military.
Or is it this guys opinion you accept;
Last edited by OhOh; 16-06-2019 at 07:58 PM.
it's like 2003 all over again....
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...ttacks-1365855Pompeo: Iran definitely responsible for attack on tankers
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stood firm Sunday in his rhetoric about Iran, saying it is “unmistakable” that Tehran is responsible for what appeared to be attacks last week on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf.
“It’s unmistakable what happened here,” Pompeo told Chris Wallace, host of “Fox News Sunday.” “These were attacks by the Islamic Republic of Iran on commercial shipping on the freedom of navigation with the clear intent to deny transit through the Strait,“ referring to the Strait of Hormuz.
Pompeo on Thursday blamed Tehran for the attacks of two oil tankers. He said his accusation was based “on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping and the fact that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication.”
On Sunday, Pompeo added that the intelligence committee “has lots of data, lots of evidence,” that back up his claim.
“The world will come to see much of it, but the American people should rest assured we have high confidence with respect to who conducted these attacks, as well as half a dozen other attacks throughout the world over the past 40 days,” he said.
Also Sunday, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is accusing Iran of being behind the attacks on the vessels. However, Japanese crew members have said the vessels were hit by “flying objects,” not Iranian mines, as the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have said.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)