Jump to content

The Iran thread

Clark Griswold

By Clark Griswold
in Squadron Bar

 Share

Recommended Posts

war007afa Flight Lead

war007afa

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, viper154 said:

Ya they got it all wrong though, it wasn’t a F-16 that started WWII, the mother fucker was a drone. 

Same pilot from the song, ironically.  Who knew?! 🍿

  • Haha 1
  • Replies 404
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

RegularJoe
RegularJoe
HuggyU2
HuggyU2

I propose a toast:  To the incompetence of Iranian aviation.  Hear, hear! And  on a positive note, congrats to President Raisi: he quit smoking yesterday!

HuggyU2
HuggyU2

BTW congrats to Qasem Soleimani.  This marks three years since he quit smoking.

Posted Images

Bigred Flight Lead

Bigred

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, viper154 said:

Ya they got it all wrong though, it wasn’t a F-16 that started WWII, the mother er was a drone. 

Little known fact, when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, they used drones.

Edited by Bigred
SurelySerious Gray Beard

SurelySerious

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Bigred said:

Little known fact, when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, they used drones.

He was on a roll

LJDRVR Flight Lead

LJDRVR

Posted
Posted
On 1/3/2020 at 3:04 PM, pawnman said:

Why couldn't they deploy to Iraq for six months without a new AUMF?  As long as they don't start firing across the border, I don't see why the current AUMF wouldn't cover it.

My reading of the current AUMF is that it covers individuals and groups responsible for the 9/11 attacks and "associated forces." So I'm curious: my non-lawyer (moron pilot) reading of the language in the authorization seems to not pass muster for us attacking anything Iranian. I'm sure there are rooms of lawyers that have crafted obtuse opinions justifying this crap, but I can't see for the life of me how it isn't a violation of the warpowers act. Hopefully somebody who flunked out of law school before they went to UPT can explain it to me.

Not saying this guy doesn't totally deserve what he got, but if the Iranians got off a rocket attack that purposefully targeted and killed the Chairman of the JCS, it would be an act of war, right?

  • Upvote 1
pawnman Gray Beard

pawnman

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, LJDRVR said:

My reading of the current AUMF is that it covers individuals and groups responsible for the 9/11 attacks and "associated forces." So I'm curious: my non-lawyer (moron pilot) reading of the language in the authorization seems to not pass muster for us attacking anything Iranian. I'm sure there are rooms of lawyers that have crafted obtuse opinions justifying this crap, but I can't see for the life of me how it isn't a violation of the warpowers act. Hopefully somebody who flunked out of law school before they went to UPT can explain it to me.

Not saying this guy doesn't totally deserve what he got, but if the Iranians got off a rocket attack that purposefully targeted and killed the Chairman of the JCS, it would be an act of war, right?

I get we'd need additional authorization to strike Iranian targets.  I just don't think Trump would need any further authorization to preposition more forces in the area.

HossHarris Gray Beard

HossHarris

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, LJDRVR said:

My reading of the current AUMF is that it covers individuals and groups responsible for the 9/11 attacks and "associated forces." So I'm curious: my non-lawyer (moron pilot) reading of the language in the authorization seems to not pass muster for us attacking anything Iranian. I'm sure there are rooms of lawyers that have crafted obtuse opinions justifying this crap, but I can't see for the life of me how it isn't a violation of the warpowers act. Hopefully somebody who flunked out of law school before they went to UPT can explain it to me.

Not saying this guy doesn't totally deserve what he got, but if the Iranians got off a rocket attack that purposefully targeted and killed the Chairman of the JCS, it would be an act of war, right?

I think the key difference is that this knucklehead was in Baghdad when he caught a warhead. 
 

I’d also be willing to speculate that there was pretty good intel linking him to the embassy shenanigans .... or ... he was getting a little too popular / powerful back home and we got tipped off. 
 

(retired ... don’t actually know anything ... free to wildly speculate)

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
gearhog Gray Beard

gearhog

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

19 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

I clicked the retirement button this morning...

You’re denial email should be waiting in your inbox in the AM.

JK. Congrats! I punched in Oct and it’s awesome.

Edited by torqued
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
CharlieHotel47 Flight Lead

CharlieHotel47

Posted
Posted
 
We did shoot one of their airliners down years ago.
 



Ukrainian plane carrying 180 passengers crashed outside Tehran airport: Iran state media

https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukrainian-plane-crash-tehran-iran-180-passengers

Explore the Fox News apps that are right for you at https://www.foxnews.com/apps-products/index.html.

Breaking news regarding an airliner ^^^


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app
ThreeHoler Gray Beard

ThreeHoler

Posted
Posted

Debated posting this in the airlines thread or here:

KICZ INTERNATIONAL SECURITY A0003/20 - SECURITY..UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PROHIBITION AGAINST CERTAIN FLIGHTS IN THE OVERWATER AIRSPACE ABOVE THE PERSIAN GULF AND THE GULF OF OMAN. THOSE PERSONS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH A (APPLICABILITY) ARE PROHIBITED FROM OPERATING IN THE OVERWATER AIRSPACE ABOVE THE PERSIAN GULF AND THE GULF OF OMAN DUE TO HEIGHTENED MILITARY ACTIVITIES AND INCREASED POLITICAL TENSIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST, WHICH PRESENT AN INADVERTENT RISK TO U.S. CIVIL AVIATION OPERATIONS DUE TO THE POTENTIAL FOR MISCALCULATION OR MIS-IDENTIFICATION. A. APPLICABILITY. THIS NOTAM APPLIES TO: ALL U.S. AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS; ALL PERSONS EXERCISING THE PRIVILEGES OF AN AIRMAN CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE FAA, EXCEPT SUCH PERSONS OPERATING U.S.-REGISTERED AIRCRAFT FOR A FOREIGN AIR CARRIER; AND ALL OPERATORS OF AIRCRAFT REGISTERED IN THE UNITED STATES, EXCEPT WHERE THE OPERATOR OF SUCH AIRCRAFT IS A FOREIGN AIR CARRIER. B. PERMITTED OPERATIONS. THIS NOTAM DOES NOT PROHIBIT PERSONS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH A (APPLICABILITY) FROM CONDUCTING FLIGHT OPERATIONS IN THE ABOVE-NAMED AREA WHEN SUCH OPERATIONS ARE END PART 1 OF 2. 08 JAN 00:10 2020 UNTIL PERM. CREATED: 08 JAN 00:07 2020 A0003/20 - AUTHORIZED EITHER BY ANOTHER AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE FAA OR BY A DEVIATION, EXEMPTION, OR OTHER AUTHORIZATION ISSUED BY THE FAA ADMINISTRATOR. OPERATORS MUST CALL THE FAA WASHINGTON OPERATIONS CENTER AT 202-267-3333 TO INITIATE COORDINATION FOR FAA AUTHORIZATION TO CONDUCT OPERATIONS. C. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS. IN AN EMERGENCY THAT REQUIRES IMMEDIATE DECISION AND ACTION FOR THE SAFETY OF THE FLIGHT, THE PILOT IN COMMAND OF AN AIRCRAFT MAY DEVIATE FROM THIS NOTAM TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED BY THAT EMERGENCY. THIS NOTAM IS AN EMERGENCY ORDER ISSUED UNDER 49 USC 40113(A), 44701(A)(5), AND 46105©. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS PROVIDED AT: HTTPS://WWW.FAA.GOV/AIR_TRAFFIC/PUBLICATIONS/US_RESTRICTIONS/. SFC - UNL END PART 2 OF 2, 08 JAN 00:10 2020 UNTIL PERM. CREATED: 08 JAN 00:07 2020 A0002/20 - SECURITY..UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PROHIBITION AGAINST CERTAIN FLIGHTS IN THE TEHRAN FLIGHT INFORMATION REGION (FIR) (OIIX). THOSE PERSONS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH A (APPLICABLITY) BELOW ARE PROHIBITED FROM OPERATING IN THE TEHRAN FLIGHT INFORMATION REGION (FIR) (OIIX) DUE TO HEIGHTENED MILITARY ACTIVITIES AND INCREASED POLITICAL TENSIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST, WHICH PRESENT AN INADVERTENT RISK TO U.S. CIVIL AVIATION OPERATIONS DUE TO THE POTENTIAL FOR MISCALCULATION OR MIS-IDENTIFICATION. A. APPLICABILITY. THIS NOTAM APPLIES TO: ALL U.S. AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS; ALL PERSONS EXERCISING THE PRIVILEGES OF AN AIRMAN CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE FAA, EXCEPT SUCH PERSONS OPERATING U.S.-REGISTERED AIRCRAFT FOR A FOREIGN AIR CARRIER; AND ALL OPERATORS OF AIRCRAFT REGISTERED IN THE UNITED STATES, EXCEPT WHERE THE OPERATOR OF SUCH AIRCRAFT IS A FOREIGN AIR CARRIER. B. PERMITTED OPERATIONS. THIS NOTAM DOES NOT PROHIBIT PERSONS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH A (APPLICABILITY) FROM CONDUCTING FLIGHT OPERATIONS IN THE ABOVE-NAMED AREA WHEN SUCH OPERATIONS ARE AUTHORIZED EITHER BY ANOTHER AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT END PART 1 OF 2. 08 JAN 00:10 2020 UNTIL PERM. CREATED: 08 JAN 00:07 2020 A0002/20 - WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE FAA OR BY A DEVIATION, EXEMPTION, OR OTHER AUTHORIZATION ISSUED BY THE FAA ADMINISTRATOR. OPERATORS MUST CALL THE FAA WASHINGTON OPERATIONS CENTER AT 202-267-3333 TO INITIATE COORDINATION FOR FAA AUTHORIZATION TO CONDUCT OPERATIONS. C. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS. IN AN EMERGENCY THAT REQUIRES IMMEDIATE DECISION AND ACTION FOR THE SAFETY OF THE FLIGHT, THE PILOT IN COMMAND OF AN AIRCRAFT MAY DEVIATE FROM THIS NOTAM TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED BY THAT EMERGENCY. THIS NOTAM IS AN EMERGENCY ORDER ISSUED UNDER 49 USC 40113(A), 44701(A)(5), AND 46105©. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS PROVIDED AT: https://WWW.FAA.GOV/AIR_TRAFFIC/PUBLICATIONS/US_RESTRICTIONS/. SFC - UNL END PART 2 OF 2, 08 JAN 00:10 2020 UNTIL PERM. CREATED: 08 JAN 00:07 2020 A0001/20 - SECURITY..UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PROHIBITION AGAINST CERTAIN FLIGHTS IN THE BAGHDAD FLIGHT INFORMATION REGION (FIR) (ORBB). THOSE PERSONS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH A (APPLICABLITY) BELOW ARE PROHIBITED FROM OPERATING IN THE BAGHDAD FLIGHT INFORMATION REGION (FIR) (ORBB) DUE TO HEIGHTENED MILITARY ACTIVITIES AND INCREASED POLITICAL TENSIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST, WHICH PRESENT AN INADVERTENT RISK TO U.S. CIVIL AVIATION OPERATIONS DUE TO THE POTENTIAL FOR MISCALCULATION OR MIS-IDENTIFICATION. A. APPLICABILITY. THIS NOTAM APPLIES TO: ALL U.S. AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS; ALL PERSONS EXERCISING THE PRIVILEGES OF AN AIRMAN CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE FAA, EXCEPT SUCH PERSONS OPERATING U.S.-REGISTERED AIRCRAFT FOR A FOREIGN AIR CARRIER; AND ALL OPERATORS OF AIRCRAFT REGISTERED IN THE UNITED STATES, EXCEPT WHERE THE OPERATOR OF SUCH AIRCRAFT IS A FOREIGN AIR CARRIER. B. PERMITTED OPERATIONS. THIS NOTAM DOES NOT PROHIBIT PERSONS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH A (APPLICABILITY) FROM CONDUCTING FLIGHT OPERATIONS IN THE BAGHDAD FIR (ORBB) WHEN SUCH OPERATIONS ARE AUTHORIZED EITHER BY ANOTHER AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT END PART 1 OF 2. 07 JAN 23:45 2020 UNTIL PERM. CREATED: 07 JAN 23:49 2020 A0001/20 - WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE FAA OR BY A DEVIATION, EXEMPTION, OR OTHER AUTHORIZATION ISSUED BY THE FAA ADMINISTRATOR. OPERATORS MUST CALL THE FAA WASHINGTON OPERATIONS CENTER AT 202-267-3333 TO INITIATE COORDINATION FOR FAA AUTHORIZATION TO CONDUCT OPERATIONS. C. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS. IN AN EMERGENCY THAT REQUIRES IMMEDIATE DECISION AND ACTION FOR THE SAFETY OF THE FLIGHT, THE PILOT IN COMMAND OF AN AIRCRAFT MAY DEVIATE FROM THIS NOTAM TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED BY THAT EMERGENCY. THIS NOTAM IS AN EMERGENCY ORDER ISSUED UNDER 49 USC 40113(A), 44701(A)(5), AND 46105©. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS PROVIDED AT: HTTPS://WWW.FAA.GOV/AIR_TRAFFIC/PUBLICATIONS/US_RESTRICTIONS/. SFC - UNL END PART 2 OF 2, 07 JAN 23:45 2020 UNTIL PERM. CREATED: 07 JAN 23:49 2020



Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app
jrizzell Flight Lead

jrizzell

Posted
Posted

I know the default public answer will be “Americans did this”; but I’m betting money that this was an accidental shoot down by Iranian IADS...

Honestly though, a f’in Ukrainian airline, and they’re not turning over the black box to Boeing or US for examination, this is such a surreal time.

Danger41 Gray Beard

Danger41

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Mikey Donuts said:

Too ing long.  This is why I don't read NOTAMS.

It talked mainly about dudes mowing the lawn, an unlit tower, a new MDA that went into effect 5 years ago, World War 3 starting, and an unlit taxiway.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
congressman Crew Dawg

congressman

Posted
Posted
On ‎1‎/‎6‎/‎2020 at 11:16 PM, LJDRVR said:

My reading of the current AUMF is that it covers individuals and groups responsible for the 9/11 attacks and "associated forces." So I'm curious: my non-lawyer (moron pilot) reading of the language in the authorization seems to not pass muster for us attacking anything Iranian. I'm sure there are rooms of lawyers that have crafted obtuse opinions justifying this crap, but I can't see for the life of me how it isn't a violation of the warpowers act. Hopefully somebody who flunked out of law school before they went to UPT can explain it to me.

Not saying this guy doesn't totally deserve what he got, but if the Iranians got off a rocket attack that purposefully targeted and killed the Chairman of the JCS, it would be an act of war, right?

Inherent right to defend legally positioned troops.  By AUMF, UN, and SOFA law

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...