Merged: Iranian general Qassem Suleimani asassinated in drone strike / WWIII?

[Dr.Sid]

War is just a continuation of twitter discussion:

https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/stat...01034871279616

Especially note:
1st: You can't do anything

[Baylor]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Statement by Trump

Well, "Resistance", I think we can all hear in his voice that he knows he "dun goofed up". I suspect the fact that he was fooled into this moronic act is much more detrimental to his survival than all the Russia and Ukraine hoaxes combined. You should celebrate.

Unbelievable the junk he tells, retweeted before that Soleimani killed "603 American Servicemen", not 602, not 604, with no evidence. And claims again that he was the one who defeated ISIS while common wisdom has it that it was Putin, and real knowledge knows that it was actually Soleimani if any one person should be named. How bizarre.

The Katheib Hezbollah forces that were bombed in retaliation to the one US mercenary killed 500 kilometers away, which lead to the run on the embassy that was used as excuse for the assassination, were exactly in the region and with the task to defeat the last ISIS cells that are roaming around the border region between Syria and Iraq after they lost all territory control in late 2017.

Trump did the impossible. He has me rooting for Nancy Pelosi.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

And there's little to no chance any EU or UK forces would join us, especially after the Iraq debacle.

Iran: 16th in military power.

17th in manpower.

24th in airpower.

4th in total navel strength. (Notice N Korea -1st; and China - 2nd on that page.)


Bottom line, Iran is not Iraq and a war would be absolutely ignorant. But some of us believe Trump is ignorant. No doubt he believes he could order a couple nukes and think there would be few consequences.

It depends on what happens.

To begin with , how strong Iran is on a worldwide level is sort of meaningless. What matters is how strong it is in terms of the Middle East. And there it's pretty damn strong.
And if Iran was dumb enough to launch a full scale invasion of the Persian GUld state, the Euros probably would intereven a la 1990 because that woule directly threaten their economies. But I doubt Iran would be foolish enough to go that route.

[dudalb]

It's the total lack of evidence that the guy posed a clear and present danger to the US or US Citizens that makes me think this move was extremely stupid and ill thought out.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

Yeah. Trump should have done it that way. I agree.

Too bad he didn't.

That's literally exactly what he did. The Iranians sent one of their top military commanders to one of their critical theaters of operation, to meet with troops on the ground and coordinate their efforts. And when they did, the US took the shot. As one does, when one has a shot at an enemy commander.

Quote:

By hitting them in other countries' civilian airports with missiles from drones?

When have we done that?

Ah, the old "it's never happened before, so it must be an inexcusable anomaly" trick. Like aircraft bringing down steel buildings.

Obama raided Pakistan to take out Bin Laden. I'm satisfied with that precedent, but even without it I still think this was a legitimate attack at a reasonable time and place.

I hope you're not imagining that "Baghdad Airport" means they droned him right in the middle of a crowded passenger concourse or something.

[Baylor]

Originally Posted by dudalb

It's the total lack of evidence that the guy posed a clear and present danger to the US or US Citizens that makes me think this move was extremely stupid and ill thought out.

There's another theory that, let's face it, cannot be discussed here.

Americans elected this jackass because they wanted a wall and no ME wars. As expected, they got no wall and ME wars.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

We used to have a slightly different set of rules and protocols about that. Like formal declarations, fields of combat, and other silly trivialities.

Okay, so what's your solution? Iran is actively engaged in proxy wars and terrorist insurgency against the US, its allies, and its interests in the Middle East.

What kind of formal declaration would you like to see? What rules and protocols? What other silly trivialities?

Me, I think that since a state of war obviously exists, it's more important to fight it than to write it down on official letterhead. Killing enemy commanders when you can seems like an obvious strategem in the current scenario.

Or do you think that Iran should enjoy all the benefits of being at war with the US, and none of the drawbacks, just because they were clever enough to not make it "official"?

(Actually I'm pretty sure the Iranian government has made it official.)

Quote:

I'm not comfortable with the idea that any government figure, even military ones, can be designated as fair game by any country who decides that they are in enough of a state of war with someone else to kill them wherever they want.

This seems like a really weird comfort zone to me. How can you not be comfortable designating military commanders as fair game when there's a state of war on between two countries?

Quote:

And I don't suppose you'll be too bent out of shape if one of our generals gets taken out at some airport in Kuwait. Or Turkey.

I might get bent out of shape if our security services let one of our generals get that exposed, but otherwise? We're at war. Our generals are just as much fair game as theirs. Molon labe, and may the better force win.

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Okay, so what's your solution? Iran is actively engaged in proxy wars and terrorist insurgency against the US, its allies, and its interests in the Middle East.

There are no interests of the US (meaning its citizens) in the "middle east". You don't even need their oil anymore. Iran would be perfectly fine with you just pissing off to your own continent after countless decades and leaving them alone, So would be all of its neighbours.

Ami go home!

(maybe it is 5D chess by Trump after all?)

[crescent]

Originally Posted by theprestige

How can you not be comfortable designating military commanders as fair game when there's a state of war on between two countries.

So this happened in Iraq. We are not at war with Iraq. Iraq works with the Iranian military and openly endorses Iranian backed militia, which Suleimani has commanded.

So if an Iranian general visited a neutral nation, could be kill them there too? Even if the host country objected (like Iraq has done here)? Could we kill them in Germany, France? What about a country that is more neutral to us?

That's what gets me. Had this happened in Syria against an Iranian general fighting our Kurdish allies, I might not have objected - we don't pretend to respect any legitimacy of the Syrian government in that conflict. Had Israel killed an Iranian general working with Hezbollah or Hamas to shoot missiles into Israel, that might have been a thing.

But in this case, we killed a man who was there with the legal permission of a government we claim to respect, a government that we set up. Is the legality of the Iraqi government meaningless?

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Okay, so what's your solution? Iran is actively engaged in proxy wars and terrorist insurgency against the US, its allies, and its interests in the Middle East.

<snip>

Good grief. Not that tired old whine.

Did I say something that suggested I had a "solution"?

No I didn't. And I didn't say anything to lead you to suspect I might offer one.

I think this particular move, assassination, was a mistake. A bad idea. I think where it was done was a bad idea. I think when it was done was a bad idea. I think why it was done was a bad idea.

That's all.

Don't try and turn it into something you can argue with beyond that. I'm not interested in your games.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

My wife just saw (on Facebook, so big grain of salt) that two USN submarines have left the base on Hood Canal and passed through the bridge. This was supposed to have been about three hours ago so they should be passing our house before long. We've never seen two at a time in more than 20 years.
It's more than 10,000 nautical miles to the Persian Gulf, but they could be replacing some on patrol more nearby.

Attack subs or boomers?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

Good grief. Not that tired old whine.

It's a forum for discussing US policy. Pros, cons, missteps, desired changes. It's not a whine at all to ask you what your preferred policy is. Especially after I've told you what my preferred policy is.

If your preference is to call out problems, without providing solutions and without accepting discussion or dissent, then I recommend starting a blog, disabling comments, and staying off Twitter.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

I have heard of him. I knew who he was.

It's the idea that he is quite suddenly the worst terrorist leader in the world who needed to be killed at the first possible chance that I take issue with. The idea that he is so dangerous, it justified a military rocket attack on a busy civilian airport in an allegedly allied country that almost certainly killed innocent bystanders.

Can you imagine an US rocket attack on car parked in front of the terminal at de Gaulle?

He wasn't killed at the first possible chance. Not even close, actually.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I don't give Trump that much credit,frankly. I think he acted hastily without much thought.

A definite possibility.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by dudalb

THIS.
As I said, I am shedding no tears over Suleiman's death...guy has plenty of blood on his hands....but this was a incredibly stupid and ill thought out action. I don't see what it gains the US, frankly.
If anything it helps Iran..which is a Bad Thing.

Just curious, be honest. Have you heard of this guy before yesterday?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by dudalb

It depends on what happens.

To begin with , how strong Iran is on a worldwide level is sort of meaningless. What matters is how strong it is in terms of the Middle East. And there it's pretty damn strong.
And if Iran was dumb enough to launch a full scale invasion of the Persian GUld state, the Euros probably would intereven a la 1990 because that woule directly threaten their economies. But I doubt Iran would be foolish enough to go that route.

First, I don't think Iran will launch a war. That's unrealistic.

What's realistic is another attack similar to the embassy.

To which Trump then escalates further.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

First, I don't think Iran will launch a war. That's unrealistic.

Iran is at war already. Stop pretending they're not.

Quote:

What's realistic is another attack similar to the embassy.

To which Trump then escalates further.

I think Iran should be legitimately worried about escalation, if they keep attacking US embassies. I think escalation is entirely appropriate, if Iran insists on attacking US embassies. And insists on doing all the other stuff they're doing.

Do you think Iran should continue to attack US interests and allies throughout the middle east without any retaliation or escalation?

[Childlike Empress]

Interesting comment from Patrick Lang, veteran military intelligence and host of a blog for his fellow veteran military intelligence people. True patriot, right to the point:

Originally Posted by Patrick Lang

Qasem Soleimani was an Iranian soldier. He lived by the sword and died by the sword. He met a soldier's destiny. It is being said that he was a BAD MAN. Absurd! To say that he was a BAD MAN because he fought us as well as the Sunni jihadis is simply infantile. Were all those who fought the US BAD MEN? How about Gentleman Johhny Burgoyne? Was he a BAD MAN? How about Sitting Bull? Was he a BAD MAN? How about Aguinaldo? Another BAD MAN? Let us not be juvenile.

The Iraqi PMU commander who died with Soleimani was Abu Mahdi al Muhandis. He was a member of a Shia militia that had been integrated into the Iraqi armed forces. IOW, we killed an Iraqi general. We killed him without the authorization of the supposedly sovereign state of Iraq.

We created the present government of Iraq through the farcical "purple thumb" elections. That government holds a seat in the UN General Assembly and is a sovereign entity in international law in spite of Trump's tweet today that said among other things that we have "paid" Iraq billions of US dollars. To the Arabs, this statement that brands them as hirelings of the US is close to the ultimate in insult.

Somehow the Ziocons around Trump have forgotten that the present state of Iraq refused to yield to Obama's demands for a SOFA and in effect expelled the US from the country.

The Iraqi parliament is going to vote in emergency session over the issue of the death of al-Muhandis. Will they vote to expel the US from their country?

Will we go if they vote that way? We should. If we do not, then we will be exposed as imperialist hypocrites.

Truump should welcome such a vote. He wants to get out of the ME? What greater opportunity could we have to do so?

Let us leave if invited to go. Let the oh, so clever locals deal with their own hatreds and rivalries. pl

People unfamiliar with that kind of view might want to read the comments below the article - I won't as I already know what they will say, but think I'm able to predict that you will learn more from a single written line than you will from a complete segment of the horrible talking heads you think you have to allow into your living room.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by theprestige

<snip>

And the fact is that a lot of people in this thread seem to be pretending that Iran was a peaceful partner in the region before this attack riled them up. As long as that's going on here, I'm going to keep calling it out here.

<snip>

I hadn't noticed people making such posts. Since there are, according to you, "a lot", you shouldn't have any difficulty pointing out a few of them.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Just curious, be honest. Have you heard of this guy before yesterday?

Does it matter? It's clear that military planners and observers have known about this guy for years, and that several administrations - not just Trump's - have been tracking him and looking for an opportunity to kill him. Just because you didn't hear about him until yesterday doesn't mean that Trump invented him yesterday to distract you from whatever it is you think you should be paying attention to instead. Though, you're here, paying attention to this, so I guess it's working?

Anyway, why not go for broke, and suggest that Trump conspired with Putin, who conspired with the Iranian regime, who conspired to put this guy in harm's way so that Trump could kill him as a distraction?

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It's a forum for discussing US policy. Pros, cons, missteps, desired changes. It's not a whine at all to ask you what your preferred policy is. Especially after I've told you what my preferred policy is.

I really couldn't care less what your preferred policy is. I never asked you for it.

Quote:

If your preference is to call out problems, without providing solutions and without accepting discussion or dissent, then I recommend starting a blog, disabling comments, and staying off Twitter.

I was "discussing" my feelings about this particular assassination. Nothing more.

If you want to go beyond that, fine. But you have no reason to believe I should feel compelled to go there with you.

I'm sure you'll find plenty of takers wherever you go. You needn't feel put upon that I am not among them.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

War is just a continuation of twitter discussion:

https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/stat...01034871279616

Especially note:
1st: You can't do anything

Famous last words.

[Trebuchet]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Attack subs or boomers?

Dunno. I fell asleep (on purpose, cat said it was nap time) so I never saw them if they went by and now it's dark.
And of course, they are submarines. Normally they go by quite slowly accompanied by multiple escorting vessels. But if they've ever gone out submerged, we wouldn't have seen them anyhow. I don't know if they can actually navigate the Strait of Juan de Fuca submerged, but I'm sure they know.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Iran is at war already.

We have always been at war with Oceania!

Quote:

Stop pretending they're not.



I think Iran should be legitimately worried about escalation, if they keep attacking US embassies. I think escalation is entirely appropriate, if Iran insists on attacking US embassies. And insists on doing all the other stuff they're doing.

Do you think Iran should continue to attack US interests and allies throughout the middle east without any retaliation or escalation?

Presumably any action could be given this fig leaf of justification. A nuclear bomb on Tehran? Why not? They shouldn’t get away with anything with impunity after all. Don’t forget to ask Skeptic Ginger why she hates America and while you are at it.

In my opinion, the response of the US to the alleged Iranian responsibility of assaulting the US diplomatic services in Iraq should be smarter than firing missiles at Baghdad international airport. I would be interested to know more about the actual circumstances here, but on the face of it that looks pretty astonishing.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

I hadn't noticed people making such posts. Since there are, according to you, "a lot", you shouldn't have any difficulty pointing out a few of them.

In my opinion, all of the following posts either state the premise outright, or else express a conclusion that depends on that premise.

Originally Posted by 3point14

Do we think there will be a retaliation?

I wonder what the reaction to 'Iran kills US general' would be.

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Now the region has a new Martyr of unprecedented level. All hell will break loose against US forces. Congratulations.

Relevant thread: https://twitter.com/ejmalrai/status/1212966187157663748

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

I think that's likely one of the reasons. It can also be claimed as an excuse to stop the impeachment proceedings entirely as a matter of security. And being at war is usually a good move when it comes to being re-elected.

Pretty much the only things I don't think this was about are making America or the Middle East safer.



I don't know enough about the American political system - could starting a war with another country while shutting one party out from the discussions be illegal? I could certainly see it being impeachable.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

New decade, time for a new military entanglement in the middle east. Hope we liked the dismal failure of the Iraq war, because this one will only be the same, but more so.

Originally Posted by 3point14

Right out of the Maggie playbook.

I'd really like to live in a world where starting a war makes a politician less likely to be re-elected. Ho hum.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Good thing there won't be any consequences! Iran, properly chastised, will go forth and sin no more.

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Plus, they are likely to be on the receiving end of any backlash alongside the US forces in the region.

Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive

No, we are ginning up a war because Trump needs to get the story about the unredacted emails that prove he personally held Ukraine aid off the media.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

I warned some time ago that this useless dickhead in the White House was going to get the US into a shooting war with Iran. This gets them a LOT closer. Anyone who thinks Iran will be a walkover like Saddam is living in fantasyland. Iran can, and will, do a lot of damage to the US. Trump's total lack of even the remotest understanding of foreign affairs is going to cost the lives of hundreds, if not thousands of US sons and daughters.

Originally Posted by alfaniner

The resulting thread will not just be to military personnel. Every American in the area will be a potential target. I'm thinking mostly of media reporters especially, as they will be present and exposed more than most civilians.

[tanabear]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I find myself feeling incredibly ill informed. There's US troops sitting halfway across the world doing something or another, but I'm really not sure what. Now, there have been protests, and so a US airstrike takes out an Iranian general in Iraq.

My first question was, "What was an Iranian general doing in Iraq?" If the answer was any variation on "conducting a war", it's hard to get too bent out of shape about him becoming a casualty. That happens in war.

I believe General Qasem Soleimani was in Baghdad on an official visit to attend the funeral of the Iraqis murdered by the US on the 29th.

The more important question is, "What are we doing in Iraq?" As a matter of fact, what are we doing in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Bahrain, Djibouti, Oman, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates etc? And those are just off the top of my head.

The war in Iraq was completely based on lies. I think this is one of the few times in history when a war was a complete fabrication. There is always a certain amount of chicanery going on in any war, but usually there is an element of truth. But not with the Iraq Attaq of 2003. It was entirely a fake war. Even though the war was a complete fraud we have been there for the better part of two decades now. In fact, we have been bombing Iraq on and off for the past 30 years!

The war mongers, war criminals and war profiteers that comprise Conservatism Inc. and the neo-liberal establishment want us to believe that killing one general will help to transform the Middle-East. If we kill enough baddies the Middle-East will become as placid and as well-governed as the American Midwest. Nope.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

We have always been at war with Oceania!

Not true. We haven't always been at war with Iran, either. But we have definitely been at war with Iran since long before yesterday.

Quote:

Presumably any action could be given this fig leaf of justification. A nuclear bomb on Tehran? Why not? They shouldn’t get away with anything with impunity after all. Don’t forget to ask Skeptic Ginger why she hates America and while you are at it.

That seems like a dishonest presumption on your part. Is that really your theory of warfare?

My position is that military action should adhere to the principles of military necessity, distinction, and proportionality. My understanding is that this action was consistent with those principles. As far as I know, there's nothing currently going on in Tehran that would justify a nuclear bomb, according to those principles.

[Captain_Swoop]

Qasem Soleimani: Strike was to 'stop war', says Trump

Quote:

President Donald Trump has said the US killed Iran's top military commander Qasem Soleimani "to stop a war, not to start one".

He said Soleimani's "reign of terror is over"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50989745

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by tanabear

The more important question is, "What are we doing in Iraq?" As a matter of fact, what are we doing in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Bahrain, Djibouti, Oman, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates etc? And those are just off the top of my head.

I agree that those are important questions.

[alfaniner]

Quote:

President Donald Trump has said the US killed Iran's top military commander Qasem Soleimani "to stop a war, not to start one".

Of course, he's saying the exact opposite of the truth.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by 3point14

I was thinking more along the lines of a US general in Mexico. Or Canada.

That doesn't seem even remotely analogous to the current situation. Iraq is a battleground where both US and Iranian forces and allies are operating. It makes sense for generals to be there, and to be at risk there.

Though, if Iran is able to find a US general in Canada or Mexico, they're welcome to take a shot at him. Us being at war with Iran, and all.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Qasem Soleimani: Strike was to 'stop war', says Trump

The U.S.A. and Iran are the same in that their leadership whips up hatred to build support among the Deplorables whenever their poll ratings fall. It keeps the people from focusing on the **** hole country they live in.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Not true. We haven't always been at war with Iran, either. But we have definitely been at war with Iran since long before yesterday.

Actually, until 45 got into power, you had an agreement with Iran that they were abiding by. Do you think Trump's kids will be signing up to go fight or will that be left to the peons?

[Giordano]

Originally Posted by qayak

Actually, until 45 got into power, you had an agreement with Iran that they were abiding by. Do you think Trump's kids will be signing up to go fight or will that be left to the peons?

They can't. Bone spurs. Unfortunately it is an inherited condition.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by tanabear

I believe General Qasem Soleimani was in Baghdad on an official visit to attend the funeral of the Iraqis murdered by the US on the 29th.

The more important question is, "What are we doing in Iraq?" As a matter of fact, what are we doing in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Bahrain, Djibouti, Oman, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates etc? And those are just off the top of my head.

The war in Iraq was completely based on lies. I think this is one of the few times in history when a war was a complete fabrication. There is always a certain amount of chicanery going on in any war, but usually there is an element of truth. But not with the Iraq Attaq of 2003. It was entirely a fake war. Even though the war was a complete fraud we have been there for the better part of two decades now. In fact, we have been bombing Iraq on and off for the past 30 years!

The war mongers, war criminals and war profiteers that comprise Conservatism Inc. and the neo-liberal establishment want us to believe that killing one general will help to transform the Middle-East. If we kill enough baddies the Middle-East will become as placid and as well-governed as the American Midwest. Nope.

What's the official VDARE position?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by theprestige

We're already in a shooting war with Iran. Have been for decades.

Nope, not a real shooting war.

You might have been in a phoney shooting war, where both sides rattle their bayonets and make scary sounding threats, but beyond the occasional raid, you haven't been in one thus far

In Operation Desert Storm (1st PGW), and Operation Iraqi Freedom (2nd PGW), you had deployed troops on the ground, with heavy armour and artillery and extensive air cover. Two sides shooting at each other and dead people; 30-55 thousand killed in the first one, 60,000 in the second one and those include almost 5,000 Americans across both of them. That was what a real shooting war looks like; battlefields, burning tanks and APCs, dead soldiers and civilians; lots and lots of dead soldiers and civilians, and those two will look like a cakewalk if the US tries to take on Iran in the same way. Iraq had about 50,000 professional soldiers (the Republican Guard). The rest were poorly equipped, poorly motivated conscripts. However, in the case of Iran, they can put up half a million, well equipped, highly trained, highly motivated professional soldiers. Iran has the 8th biggest armed forces in the world - that is a far more terrifying prospect for US forces to deal with than the mere skirmishes that were the two Gulf Wars.

[Giordano]

The most important lesson we were supposed to learn from the Vietnam war was not to go to war unless we knew what an obtainable victory would look like. Basically, what did we want to achieve? How do we end it?

I will give a George Bush #1 credit for having a clearly defined goal when he pushed Iraq back out of Kuwait. To some extent we also had a specific goal of eliminating the power of the Taliban in Afghanistan, just a poor appreciation of of what to do after that. George Bush #2 and Iraq? No clear end game at all. And the quagmire since then only expands and continues...

So what will a realistic victory look like against Iran now?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by qayak

Actually, until 45 got into power, you had an agreement with Iran that they were abiding by.

An agreement to tolerate a certain amount of proxy warfare and terrorist insurgency from Iran, without retaliating or escalating.

It's a dubious policy, and one I'm not particularly committed to.

To which I am not particularly committed.

[I Am The Scum]

Vice president Mike Pence tweeted:

Quote:

[Suleimani] Assisted in the clandestine travel to Afghanistan of 10 of the 12 terrorists who carried out the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.

Is even a tiny part of this true? I know the actual quantity of 9/11 hijackers was 19 (not 12). Did any of them even get smuggled into Afghanistan?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

Vice president Mike Pence tweeted:


Is even a tiny part of this true? I know the actual quantity of 9/11 hijackers was 19 (not 12). Did any of them even get smuggled into Afghanistan?

Given the current administration's record with facts and truth, I would say that about 0% of it is true. FFS, Pence can't even get the number of terrorists right!

If any of this BS was even remotely true, we would have all heard about it loud and long for the last 10 years or more from Iran Hawks like John Bolton.

What we have actually heard? Crickets