Iran

I'm not sure I buy that line of thinking. I've done some searches and all have come back with similar answers.

TIFWIW

Naval vessels generally do not go completely unarmed during training exercises or joint drills, nor do they simply hide all weapons in internal storage. Instead, they operate under a mixed approach where weapons are kept on board—often in a ready-to-use state—but are controlled, secured, or configured differently depending on the specific drill.

The exercise in question required ships not to carry any ammunition. Normally, the Dena carries various missiles and guns, including anti-ship missiles. Because the U.S. also took part, it would have been aware that the Dena was unarmed. Former Indian Foreign Minister Kanwal Sibal accused the attack of being “premeditated as the US was aware of the Iranian ship’s presence in the exercise.”
 
The school was adjacent to an Iranian military facility.

We shot. We missed is my guess. There is some debate that we were using outdated intelligence tha didn't show the school being where it was. No accusations of them using the school in a nefarious manner that I've seen
Oh my. That's is tragic.

Wtf are we doing???
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen


If we actually put boots on the ground in Iran, you can kiss any Republican winning the presidency goodbye for at least a decade, and that's the least of the concerns.

Certainly for the next election, but you sell the Democrat party short in their ability to alienate large segments of the voting base.

Do not take this as an endorsement of the Republican party however, they suck too
 
I said a real isolationist president and government that didn’t police and support the world.

You’re just playing semantics.

To what end? Sounds like we're on the same side. I'm just clarifying what you're saying. It sounds like didn't mean to say isolationist and now you know what the word means.
 
@utvolpj

I came across some conflicting info so I did a search asking if weapons were banned. This is the result I got:

Claims regarding the restriction of weapons at the MILAN 2026 naval exercises are contradictory, with high-level accusations of a ban conflicting with official Indian accounts of active, live-fire training.
  • Claims of Unarmed/Defenseless Status: Former Indian Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal asserted that, according to the protocol for the exercise, participating vessels were prohibited from carrying any ammunition. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Saeed Khatibzadeh also stated the destroyed Iranian frigate (Dena) was in a "weapon- and military warfare-free status".
  • Contradictory Official Record: India's Press Information Bureau, in its official account of the MILAN 2026 sea phase, confirmed that "live firings as part of surface gun shoots, as well as anti-air firings, were also undertaken".
  • The Incident: The controversy surrounds the sinking of the Iranian warship IRIS Dena by a U.S. submarine on March 4, 2026, shortly after it left the MILAN exercises.
  • Context: While some reports allege the ship was defenseless, other analysis points out that as a warship, the Dena was technically armed, regardless of the exercise's rules, and its status as a combatant in a wider conflict zone remains a point of intense geopolitical debate.
    Military.com +8
In summary, while there were claims that the exercise mandated unarmed ships, official accounts indicate that live ammunition was used in at least some, if not all, parts of the exercise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rikberry31
The premise of the article in SA is wrong. In conflict, children can be sufficiently equipped to be lethal.

But bombing a school, even accidentally, is unconscionable

You can tell yourself whatever you need to to accept it.

That school was close to an IGRC facility.

They could have been armed and told to shoot US troops in the inevitable ground invasion.

Their parents probably supported the Ayatollah.

They're better off dead than in a burka.

Whatever makes it more palatable for you personally is ok.
 
You can tell yourself whatever you need to to accept it.

That school was close to an IGRC facility.

They could have been armed and told to shoot US troops in the inevitable ground invasion.

Their parents probably supported the Ayatollah.


They're better off dead than in a burka.

Whatever makes it more palatable for you personally is ok.
Are you able to comprehend simple sentences???

I believe it's abundantly clear that I don't accept it.
 
Certainly for the next election, but you sell the Democrat party short in their ability to alienate large segments of the voting base.

Do not take this as an endorsement of the Republican party however, they suck too
Spot on with that first comment IMO. People have stayed away from the polls for that reason alone.
 
Leaving people to die at sea has always been one of the textbook bad things, so that's probably a sign that you should reevaluate

Do we know if the sub put out a distress call for the ship it hit or not? Did it loiter in th area and monitor the survivors until rescue arrived? We’re not loading enemy survivors on one of our subs if we can help it.
 
Our military has been bombing school that have zero strategic value since I was 30?

👌
You pretend like this is the first time we've civilians or civilians buildings before.

Collateral damage is the norm for us, and has been since 9/11.
 
lol bunch of idiots


"Rubio told the Arab ministers that the US is focused on targeting Iran’s missile launchers, stockpiles and manufacturing sites, Axios says.

The secretary tried to explain that the goal of the war is not regime change, even though he acknowledged that the US wants different people running Iran."


I thought Marco’s speech in Munich was amazing and believed that was his launch pad to running for President in 2028.

Since… he’s literally wiped out all hope of that happening. He’s made statement after statement and had to reverse course a few days later. There’s not much clarity when he’s improv-ing and answering questions. I guess the prepared speech really deceived me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: midnight orange
Spot on with that first comment IMO. People have stayed away from the polls for that reason alone.
Absolutely agree, after the last election in some arguments with long time friends (Democrats) who were stunned. I explained the election wasn't as much about Trump winning people over as it was the Democrat party's handling of Biden as a viable candidate and alienating huge segments of voters.

Something the Republicans are doing now.
 

Advertisement



Back
Top