Their strikes in retaliation against targets in the region injured many US personnel, mainly concussion injuries, which Trump, draft dodging coward that he is, called 'minor headaches'.
Trump thought he could have a nice little 'war' to boost him, he backed off after that. At least that's the opinion of actual military experts.https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ttack-iraq
Aforementioned NATO agreement, point 14, (the last so scroll down), proving my point and not your Trumpist PR.https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/offi ... 112964.htm
Who is engaging in 'political talking points?'
Always better to have a bit of knowledge, though I understand that runs counter to Trumpist BS.
Iran has another card to play, US aversion to body bags.
Nasty regime agreed, not that the ones the US backs are any better.
The biggest threat to Iran? Internal dissent.
The biggest boost to the regime, threats from abroad, countries that have actually had modern war on their soil or just above it, understand this. It tends to unite even opponents of said regime.
Back to topic.
Germany and NATO nukes.
Yes they are symbolic, as are all such weapons.
Over the past 15 years, Trump's best bud Vlad, has;
Engaged in radiation poisoning in London (and caused 2 BA 767's to be checked for radiation as the perps flew in on them).
Did a major cyber attack on a sovereign nation (Estonia) crippling it's infrastructure.
Annexed a region and shot down a Malaysian 777 while doing so.
Carried out a nerve agent attack on a British city, injuring not just the targets but one UK police officer and member of the public, both still affected by it, murdering another and leaving enough of the agent lying around to kill 100's.
Which begs the question, what if he thinks he can push more, until one day he does something that NATO cannot counter with anything other than military force?
Do we really want to reach that situation?
The best defence is a united front, don't try and BS me and pretend he hasn't constantly whined about NATO and other international bodies, said so himself on numerous occasions.
A second Trump term will encourage Putin, after all Trump only agreed to follow other NATO sanctions after the nerve agent attack after extreme pressure from his military/intel people (who he constantly undermines and insults), and the few remaining sane GOP senior politicians. He didn't like it and said so.
If reaffirming Germany's access to and post Tornado nuke delivery capability is part of that, so be it.
However Cold War-ish it might seem.
You run on about as much as Obama and all the European soft power types that appease first and ask questions later.
All the left’s bluster can’t dampen the impact of the Trump’s success in the Mid East. And I think you know it but more importantly so do voters.
Btw, Plz make the case for Biden if you dare especially in light of the money, Putin arranged to have paid to his son.
Look, I get it, the US right are unable to be in any way rational about Iran, much like Cuba.
Still butthurt after the hostage crisis and the botched rescue attempt, 40 years on.
FACT - The US gave weapons to Iran to get a few hostages out, those of us with memories longer than a US electoral cycle know this.
So don't you EVER attack other nation's rational responses.
The 2015 deal stopped Iran's nuke program as sanctions were hurting, which in turn created the internal dissent the hardliners feared, they came too close for their own comfort in losing control in 2009 for instance.
Then Trump ended it because President black guy brokered it, cannot have those who should just be the help do things like that can we?
Which in turn empowered the regime's hardliners again, as anyone with the remotest clue could have seen.
You are fooling no-one but yourselves.
Besides, how else are you going to end the Iranian regime? A full scale war? Don't make me laugh.
France did screw up in 1979 granted, the French Security Service urged that that mad mullah then exiled in France should be 'dealt with' before he flew back a hero, the then French President, Giscard, refused. The same buffoon who allowed him in, ironically his successor from 1981, Mitterand, (oohhh, scary Socialist), likely would have green lit such an op had he been in office then, he could be ruthless like that.
But then who overthrew a democratic Iranian government in 1953? Installed a once fascist supporting fake monarch? The US and to our shame, the UK too, at least the latter, until recently at least, realized this.
Do you really think that the Iranians don't know all of this?
Stop assuming they are as ignorant about this as too many in the US are.
Biggest CIA station in the region, maybe in the world in 1979, didn't see it coming did they, even those mere poor relation Limey's at MI6 were warning what was coming from 1977. What did they know eh?
Which brings us back to NATO, whose members, and others, all worked hard to broker the deal, which the orange racist and his minions ripped up.
Now that is a crisis of confidence, quite apart from the insults aimed at the leaders of allies, especially female ones, another thing Trump cannot handle, mere women as leaders.
So really the US is in no position as things stand right now to tell any NATO nation what they should or should not do as regards defence, why the hell should they listen to that overgrown, irrational child?
100's of European NATO service personnel were killed in Afghanistan, so back off with any suggestion of being 'ungrateful'.
453 from the UK alone.
Worse coming from a draft dodger who also cannot handle expert opinion from his security/intel people, (if he even comprehends it).
Now if Germany does not seek to renew it's commitment to NATO nuclear delivery, that is their right, I would not agree with it, I don't think it's likely, even so, it's it their right as a sovereign nation and grown ups can handle it/find a way around it.
Trump is not to be trusted, nor should he be.
Though I suspect if the F-18E/G is eventually chosen as the platform, at least in the near to medium term, the defence dollars won't be sniffed at will they?
Because it's all about $ with the current US admin.
Granted it does seem to be the quickest way of doing it, as well as retaining their SEAD role, (which they used in combat over Kosovo), I note that the UK are pressing ahead with (mostly radar) based upgrades to the RAF Batch 3 and likely 2 airframes, which may encourage Germany to follow.
But that does not involve nuclear delivery, at least for the RAF.
As discussed further up more work would be needed for German Typhoons for nuke delivery, if Germany is at fault here it is that they should have seen this issue coming sooner. Since it was never designed in to the aircraft.
Though to be fair, the RAF Tornado fleet, on constant operational deployments since 1990, were subject to rather more wear and tear than the German AF fleet, hence their retirement last year.