Iran claims to have downed a US UAV

a reply to: face23785
I think there is no question that the memo he talked about existed. If Iraq and Afghanistan had gone differently (think post war occupation of Germany and Japan) we would have seen a push into other countries as well.
Certain elements of the US administration, both parties, think tanks, policy institutes and so forth were very keen about the idea of spreading democracy and American hegemony by force of arms.
And why not? Would have been nice if it only ever had a chance of succeeding.
Anyway you're are also correct in saying that this is the past. Nobody in the US argues for another democracy spreading adventure with boots on the ground.
The circumstances that led to what Clark talked about don't exist anymore.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Willtell
Gen Wesley Clark on the US going to war in 7 countries in 5 yrs

It's an ongoing deep state operation folks. Iran is next on the list after they destroyed Libya and Syria and before that of course Iraq.


It's actually run by the State Department that’s why that neocon Pompeo is at the head of this stupid war and Hillary Clinton was behind the Syrian and Libyan wars as SEC during that spinless punk Obama's administration.

And he said that, what, 15 years ago? It never happened. Why do people still post this garbage? He was wrong.

The timeline is not set in stone because there are a lot of things that need to be in place before they can proceed with each country. They need to get the sheeple onboard as well and in that they are failing.

The statement Wesley Clark heard was shortly after 911.
The warmongers had unlimited support from the population so they thought they could steam roll over those countries.

They squandered that oppurtunity on wars of toppling leaders in countries that never attacked us and the public and allies turned against them.

Perhaps they will set off a bomb in America to get their war going.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: tanstaafl

So what are you suggesting here, that the Russians DIDN'T shoot down KAL 007??

I'm suggesting it is possible that it was us - the good ole US of A.

The Russians ADMITTED it!

You've never heard of someone claiming responsibility for something they didn't do?

I'm sure there are a lot of different reasons we may have done the deed, then asked Russia to claim responsibility, some kind of 'you scratch my back I'll scratch yours' kind of deal.

I'm not saying that is what happened, I'm just saying I don't trust the mouthpieces that told me it was the Russians any further than I can spit.

I'll tell you a little secret. I had a friend back in the mid-90's who was a long time RC-135 pilot (RIVET JOINT or COBRA BALL, I can't remember which). I asked him about this incident one day, and here's what he told me...

"Obviously all of the missions are classified, and we can't speak about specific details probably in my lifetime, but if you were a betting man and you were to put your money on there being a 707 like aircraft in the immediate vicinity of KAL007 that night, you better hope you bet large! **solid wink** And that's all I have to say about the matter."

Take it for what you will.

When you couple this with the USAF's acknowledgement that there were RC-135's operating "in the region" that night, and add in the damaged Russian air defense radar system (which the US probably knew all about), and the fact that there were supposed to be some missile tests further south that night (which is why the RC-135's were there), what a better opportunity to shadow an off-course civilian airline and see if they couldn't score a mother-load of intelligence in the process?

I don't think there's a whole lot of question, the Russian's shot down KAL007. There is, however, the distinct possibility they didn't think they were shooting down a civilian airliner, but rather a reconnaissance aircraft.

Kill a 747 plane load of people to eliminate one Congressman. That's doing it the hard way.

''I saw two rows of windows and knew that this was a Boeing,'' he said. ''I knew this was a civilian plane. But for me this meant nothing. It is easy to turn a civilian type of plane into one for military use.''
Continue reading the main story

Minutes later, he fired two air-to-air missiles, sending Korean Air Lines Flight 007 crashing into the sea, killing 269 people and causing what President Boris N. Yeltsin has called the greatest tragedy of the cold war.

Thirteen years after the downing of KAL 007, debate still rages over whether the Soviet Air Force showed a reckless disregard for human life and why the Korean plane was so far off course

Link

No much "IF" to it when the fighter pilot talks about shooting it down.

a reply to: roadgravel

One of the really weird things about KAL007 was how long it flew after the attack. It didn't disintegrate immediately, but continued to fly (albeit erratically) for another 9 minutes or so before it began its final spiral down into the sea.

ETA - I asked my friend if he was there that night, and he just said he couldn't comment one way or the other. I kind of got the sense he was, but I have no way to verify that other than the conviction with which he said what did about the night.

On a personal note, those must be some absolutely GRUELING missions!! Especially out of Offutt of all places. I remember he used to comment about that, often 23+ hour missions. He used to lament about how the 'old-timers' had it so much better flying out of the Aleutian's. (though I find that hard to believe given the flying conditions there).

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

The R-8 only had an 88 pound warhead. Hitting a 747, even with two, wouldn't bring it down right away. Hitting near the aft fuselage, it most likely damaged the hydraulics, which took a few minutes to drain.

Yeah, I suppose you're right.

Just seemed odd. Passenger aircraft are pretty fragile, all things considered.

Didn't depressurize, just strange. No conspiracy there.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Thanks for the posts about your convo with a friend. Sheds a bit of light on what may have been. So often things are not as advertised when it comes to the government.

a reply to: roadgravel

The area is a very contested area from a strategic standpoint.

It is probably the closest two super-powers will ever come to each other with their biggest weapons and the biggest intelligence gathering equipment known to mankind.

Frankly, I think we've put too much stock in it, at the expense of the middle east, but that's just my opinion.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I think as long as the US and Russia stay off each others soil there won't be a big war between the two. It gets done using these other countries, sorta piece meal, as resources are claimed.

a reply to: roadgravel

Once again, "War" in the shadow of nuclear weapons, is NOT possible.

Any first world country understands this.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I think as long as the US and Russia stay off each others soil there won't be a big war between the two. It gets done using these other countries, sorta piece meal, as resources are claimed.

But seriously what's the point in that ... besides military spending ofcourse?

a reply to: DanDanDat

I suppose it is who gets to control the biggest part of the world for economics.

a reply to: Arnie123

He needs to do something. The more we do nothing, the more the IRGC pushes, because as stated earlier, it's proof that God is on their side. Look at how far they backed down after Praying Mantis in 88. They got a lot quieter for a long time after getting hammered.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Arnie123

He needs to do something. The more we do nothing, the more the IRGC pushes, because as stated earlier, it's proof that God is on their side. Look at how far they backed down after Praying Mantis in 88. They got a lot quieter for a long time after getting hammered.

I'll tell you what, Trump is walking a tight rope and possibly one of the greatest challenges he is enduring, so far so good. However, like you said, we still have to do something, but what....

There isn't any issues taking out ideologues, it's public perception and considering the US, a global eye turned on him for his response.

twitter.com...

Link to a tweet explains the fact that two aircraft were there. With some interesting pics

Some people are claiming the UAV was used as bait to lure sensor admissions from the Iranians.

Expensive bait

a reply to: blackbird9393

It's always been done, but the BAMS-D wouldn't have been used for that. That's what the EQ-4 is for. BAMS was designed for sea search and monitoring shipping.

a reply to: blackbird9393

It most likely wasn't an aircraft that filmed it going down though. They haven't said what filmed it, but it appears to have been filmed from a much lower angle, like you'd see from a surface ship.

Amir Ali Hajizadeh, a high-ranking officer in the IRGC, said another military aircraft, carrying 35 passengers, had been flying close to the drone. "We could have shot down that one too, but we did not," he said.

I thought I’d add this relevant tidbit of info I had not read on this matter yet...

apple.news...

I think even though after the fact may have been a factor in Trumps decision not to go ahead with yesterday’s attack...
I also wouldn’t be surprised if additional forces will be sent if not already on route...