Forum Topic

No rules at all?

If, as Hegseth implies, there are no rules for the US military, then nobody else should bother with them either. There can be no terrorism, if there are no rules. If there is no terrorism, then what is the US fighting about?If there are no rules, then any American can find themselves a target, anywhere in the world. As can any of us now, anywhere. Note: Diego Garcia is a base for USN submarines. The base features a deep-water port specifically designed for docking and supporting nuclear-powered submarines. And what sort of USN vessel sank an Iranian frigate?

David Ainsworth ● 20d4 Comments

Mr Ainsworth'If, as Hegseth implies, there are no rules for the US military, then nobody else should bother with them either. There can be no terrorism, if there are no rules. If there is no terrorism, then what is the US fighting about?,As your anti-Americanism grows even more rabid, then your claims become more and more simply a regurgitation of non sequiturs.Only you and a few others well known for such on this Forum would try to equate the actions of a democratic state defending its interests and its allies by pre-emptive attacks on Iran's nuclear capabilities, with those of a theocratic Islamic dictatorship that has killed according to Reuters on Tuesday about 2,000 of its own people involved anti-government protests, including civilians and security personnel over the last few days.Note this from BBC News- "Did Trump need Congress' approval to attack Iran?In his 28 February video announcement, Trump described the US-Israel attacks on Iran as "major combat operations".'As commander in chief, a president can carry out certain military operations without a formal declaration of war.According to the 1973 War Powers Resolution, the president is required to notify Congress within 48 hours of hostilities beginning.On Tuesday, Trump submitted a resolution to Congress, telling lawmakers that the threat from Iran had been "untenable" despite efforts to find a diplomatic solution'.And I am sure that the US government has various other constitutional political and legal levers it can pull if the overwhelming views of the people regarding Trump's actions are negative.How different from your beloved Iran where the deposed unelected leader of the country that has been for decades the financier and protector of Islamic terrorist groups whose killers have roamed as far as the streets of London and Manchester has been replaced by his son - also unelected.You do seem to have strange views on democracy or are you simply looking to stand out as defending those down trodden and with non-white skin tones ?Or just unpatriotic and anti-British as well as anti-American and antisemitic ? 

John Hawkes ● 20d

Mr A, that's because it was an observation not a joke.

Michael Ixer ● 20d

Not one of your better jokes Mr Ixer. I must admit that, as on October 7th, the military are fair targets, but this statement, if true, shocks me a bit:-"Former Indian Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal has said that the Iranian ship targeted by a US submarine attack off the coast of Sri Lanka would not have been in the region if it had not been invited to take part in India’s Milan naval exercise.“We were the hosts. As per protocol for this exercise, ships cannot carry any ammunition. It was defenceless. The Iranian naval personnel had paraded before our president,” he noted.Sibal argued that the attack was premeditated, pointing out that the US Navy had been invited to the exercise but withdrew at the last minute, “presumably with this operation in mind.” He added that the US ignored India’s sensitivities, as the Iranian ship was present in the waters due to India’s invitation.He stressed that India was neither politically nor militarily responsible for the US attack, but carried a moral and humanitarian responsibility.“A word of condolence by the Indian Navy (after political clearance) at the loss of lives of those who were our invitees and saluted our president would be in order,” he said." (Newswire)--------------------------By the way the frigate has been claimed as having heavy guns. It had one 76 mm (3 inch) gun as its main gun. That is a medium gun, though it could be called heavy on a frigate, I guess."While 76 mm guns are common on modern frigates and corvettes for anti-ship and anti-missile defence, they are generally considered too light to easily penetrate the heavy pressure hulls of a [surfaced] modern nuclear submarine."

David Ainsworth ● 20d

I doubt it matters much to those sailors who drowned how the US submarine was powered?

Michael Ixer ● 20d