With tensions rising in the middle east — in the wake of Iran shooting down a U.S. drone — Bill Whittle addresses the conspiracy theories about the potential of U.S. war with Iran. From false flag attacks, to neocon or Jewish saber-rattling, to war-for-profit by the military industrial complex, Bill addresses the accusations of Progressives, and even of Trump supporters.
Categories
Shooting Down Conspiracy Theories about U.S. War with Iran
With tensions rising in the middle east — in the wake of Iran shooting down a U.S. drone — Bill Whittle addresses the conspiracy theories about the potential of U.S. war with Iran. From false flag attacks, to neocon or Jewish saber-rattling, to war-for-profit by the military industrial complex, Bill addresses the accusations of Progressives, and even of Trump supporters.
20 replies on “Shooting Down Conspiracy Theories about U.S. War with Iran”
Jimmy Carter should have dealt with this problem.
Which voice is too low? Also, have you already adjusted the volume slider in the lower left of the video window? Sorry for the trouble. If something’s broke, I’d like to fix it.
I think there’s a great opportunity for a fascinating/interesting discussion here but, for some strange reason, I can’t find anyone to engage in it. I tried on RallyPoint.com (social media for the military) and failed. My point is that an attack on an embassy, a ship, or an aircraft is an attack on the nation the flag of which these things fly and, thus, is an act of war. A drone is an aircraft. However, it is an unmanned aircraft and it could be argued that the level of grievance may not rise to the same level as on a manned ship or manned aircraft. Then again, I could argue that it doesn’t matter if it’s manned or not. Sadly, as I opened this comment, I have yet to find anyone willing to take one side or the other and I’m left to debate with myself…
To ask a related question: Would it be an act of war to bomb an American monument without human casualties? How about an empty building on the grounds of an American embassy? A U.S. F-16 sitting empty on a tarmac?
Is it an act of war to bomb America?
An embassy is a piece of the nation it represents. So are ships and aircraft flying the flags of the nations where they are registered. Thus, to bomb on of these is an act of war.
My tongue was firmly in my cheek when I wrote that.
The monument is an interesting question. If the monument is located within the sovereign territory of the U.S., there is no question. However, if it is located within the sovereign territory of another nation, it would depend on the status of the land. I honestly don’t know if any American monuments located in foreign nations, say a WWII cemetery located in France, occupies land ceded to the U.S. Any location on the grounds of a U.S. embassy is the sovereign territory of the U.S, be it an unoccupied building or a rose garden. A U.S. warplane occupied or not, is a U.S. warplane, possibly answering my own question about the case of a drone.
You want a conspiracy theory, here’s one for you.
Right now there are professional DC people w/ very furrowed brows loudly lamenting that Trump is about to send us to war w/ Iran. AND about 6 weeks ago there were chin-scratchers, w/ equally furrowed brows loudly lamenting that Trump, the war monger, was about to invade Venezuela.
I think the Dems, Never Trumpers, and especially the ink stained wretches in the Acela Corridor are desperate for Trump to actually be the warmonger of their fantasies. They want that because the anti-war movement that they pumped up against W worked pretty damn well. They really want to run the same play against Trump in time for next year. And they believe that it’ll work much better against Donny 2 Scoops since his poll numbers are fragile and the public appetite for ANOTHER foreign intervention is nonexistant. Especially w/in Trump’s own base.
I don’t believe in conspiracy theories because I’ve seen people try and work together.
Remember the cardinal rule of understanding Trump: take him seriously, but not (overly-) literally.
Here’s another possibility.
T: “Give me a proportional response that’ll smack the Iranians without making us look bad or starting a war”
Advisors: “We can take out the radar they used to identify the drone.”
T: “Great. How many casualties would that cause?”
Advisors: “uh…pardon?”
T: “How many people will die?”
Advisors: “We’ll have to get back to you on that.”
T: “Let me know when you have the number, but get the strike ready for an hour from now.”
–about 45 mins later–
Advisors: “…so you can see from the file that according to our best information, up to 150 people may die in the strike.”
T: “Call it off. That’s too much.”
Also, we don’t know what was going to be hit, so we can’t just assume that all the casualties were slated to be military. We also may understand the “10 minutes before” as something other than “manned planes were already in the air and told to turn around.”
While I prefer a more robust military response, as a minimum President Trump should demand that Iran pay for the drone.
It would cost Iran several hundred million dollars they likely don’t have, or at a minimum would do severe damage to their economy. It would be an additional economic sanction and Iran would be replacing the very military equipment they destroyed.
As always, Bill understands people and what happens when messages aren’t sent which stop escalating poor behavior….I like the analogy of kids and Mom….just about it….I also agree with the projection of people’s idea of what people think onto others in situations which they have not been in….I have had the occasion to tell young people, talking about Trump and the draft during Vietnam, that, if they were not an adult during Vietnam that they need to sit the conversation out…there were so many things going on then that they are simply unaware of because…..well…because they weren’t even alive then and it most likely is not even “Googleable”….Good episode today…
Conspiracy theories…
I tend to be cautious when dealing with them. It is easy to dismiss them with the wave of your hand. While many if not most are just that. There have been quite a few that turned out to be more true than we realize.
“Gulf of Tonkin” “Benghazi” “Fast & Furious” “Uranium 1” “Fusion GPS” etc etc etc.
All this to say:
Let us keep a healthy skepticism. Both of the conspiracy theory AND the prevailing narrative.
Responding substantively to YouTube commenters is about as useful as pushing a rope.
The 150 numbers are not Iranian but US troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, the UAE and other places. Iran’s hardliners already has boots on the ground in all those countries ready to go.
Always study the factions in a dictatorship. You are never at war with a people or a government. It is always a faction in the dictatorship that you are at war with.
The same with North Korea. Its Kim verses the communists and Kim must not look weak.
The same in Saudi Arabia. The crown prince verses the islamists. Again if he looks weak or soft he’s dead.
This is how Trump and Pompeo work. Find the moderate, empower them, pretend no change if possible while reform is done.
Abe was in Iran negotiating with the government (or part of it) and the attacks are designed to disrupt the negotiations. Trump has intelligence that the hard liners in the Iranian religious military units are behind this. He isn’t taking the bait.
Sometimes to win a war you must ignore the last few shoots and keep negotiating.
Now this is proportionate. https://apnews.com/f01492c3dbd14856bce41d776248921f
I agree with your arguments, Bill, but you forgot one… and that one just might be true. Iran recently removed human CIA assets from their country, in the same way as North Korea did. This could well be either deep-state CIA assets, or those Iranian generals paid by the CIA. The deep state wants war.
Bill, I get all of the arguments you make, and I have to say, I agree with them. And you are probably correct. Iran probably will escalate this and launch an attack that does kill our airmen or sailors, or innocent lives on some cargo ship. And when that happens it will have been preventable. I do take a note of exception to a part of your response to Scott. Trump has to play footsie with his political enemies both foreign and domestic on this one. In part because he also campaigned on not getting us mired in more conflicts and wars. So he has a promise to his voters to keep. But above that he can now say (when Iran escalates this conflict) that it was his deference, his unwillingness to go straight to armed conflict that has now brought us here. He will be able to say that he should have listened to his advisors and generals. He will be able to remind the public that does not think about these things in terms of human nature, that we must not forget the lessons of the past. And there will be more support and consensus for a larger US military response. Sadly, I believe he had to play the game on this event to bring the nation along to a point of understanding and accepting a US military response.