[Merged] Iranian general Qassem Suleimani asassinated in drone strike / WWIII? - Page 8

trustbutverify · 4th January 2020, 01:55 AM

Originally Posted by MattNelson

This attack was not in the interest of the U.S. Signs say it was at the behest of Israel.

"FYI on the coming Iran War (25 Mar. 2019, The White House)"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yyANWty4NA

Still looking for some evil not rooted in "Israel". Not easy.

Lukraak_Sisser · 4th January 2020, 02:26 AM

I do wonder who Trump is working for.
Because in 1 fell swoop he's allowed the Iranian government to use this to solidify internal support, strengthening it's position, allow Iran to play the victim of a ruthless bully giving it local and possibly larger support (Maybe Russia and China will start openly buying their oil again?), given the Iranian supporters in Iraq a nice cause to drive the country away from the US politically and at the same time given many individual terrorists a new motive, most likely increasing the chance of retaliatory attacks against civilians.
I doubt any terrorist or mullah would ever have been that successful in strengthening Iran's position on purpose.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 4th January 2020, 02:50 AM

You know how Trump didn't warn the UK? Well, you know who he did warn?

Russia & Israel

Know who else?

Random people who happened to be at Mar-A-Largo

The Great Zaganza · 4th January 2020, 03:06 AM

The biggest problem is that the Trump administration hasn't articulated a clear strategy with regards to Iran or shown any consistency in its actions.
If Trump announced a removal of the sanctions that affect ordinary Iranian citizens every time he has a high-ranking Iranian military leader killed, it might actually help with changing the Regime in Tehran.
But like this, it is just helping the Regime justify its oppression whilst pushing Iraq further away and towards Iran.

Darat · 4th January 2020, 03:11 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

How is it remotely possible that you didn't know about this guy until yesterday, even though General McChrystal called him out in the Atlantic more than ten years ago?

Took you long enough to find that or read that in some article since you started posting.

Darat · 4th January 2020, 03:22 AM

Originally Posted by alfaniner

Iran vows "Harsh Revenge". The Iranian Ambassador to the U.N. said that. Not even using diplomatic words. This is so much more insane than promising a "harsh response." Once you get fanatic religion behind it it's going to be impossible to put down.

Totally disagree, Iran has done all it can to further what it considers its interests. If they could have done more they would have already have done more.

Regardless of whether you think this particular act was right or wrong you have to agree that Iran had always done what it can to further its interests since the 1979 revolution (or what the leader believes is its interests) regardless of international laws and international acceptable behaviour. It is a terrible regime that has caused immense harm to its own country and to many others outside its borders, often in direct military action or via proxies.

From what I know so far on balance whilst I don't agree with the action I can see how it could have a positive benefit in reducing Iranian sponsored proxies. As ever in these types of conflicts the people at the top are not exposed to personal danger. This does send a message saying that the Americans are willing to act the same way as the Iranians would and try to kill the higher echelons whenever possible. That may make those at the top more wary regardless of their public rants.

Darat · 4th January 2020, 03:30 AM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

That seems to be what the administration wants to imply by using the phrase "target of opportunity".

It rather strains credibility to assume that they'd had other prior opportunities but decided that a rocket strike at an operating civilian airport with guaranteed civilian collateral casualties was the best one of them.

This is one of things I'd like to know more about before I can really decide whether the actions was overall the best action to have taken.

According to several reports I've listened to he often travelled in the ME, he was not a reclusive shadowy figure.

So why was the action taken now?

I can't see that he would be directly involved in any planned terrorist activity so can't see it would stop any imminent attack.

Was it in retaliation to the embassy attack? Wouldn't the administration have simply said so if that was the case.

Dr.Sid · 4th January 2020, 03:51 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Was it in retaliation to the embassy attack? Wouldn't the administration have simply said so if that was the case.

It was retaliation for Khamenei's tweet.

P.J. Denyer · 4th January 2020, 04:11 AM

Originally Posted by Samson

Part of me says infantile men doing infantile things, and why do we keep taking these people seriously?
I truly believe women would run the world better.

As a Brit I have to say our experience has been a less than unmitigated triumph, I think the problem lies in the nature of the game rather than the gender of the players per se.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 4th January 2020, 04:11 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

So why was the action taken now?

Well, if we subscribe to the theory that Trump accuses others of what he himself is doing, then there are a fairly large number of tweets and interview segments where he accuses Obama of imminently attacking Iran because he's worried about being re-elected and wants to "look tough".

With other administrations I'd assume a certain degree of long-term thought and strategic consideration had gone in to the decision. With this administration I genuinely wouldn't be surprised to learn that it was about impeachment.

Meadmaker · 4th January 2020, 04:24 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Well, if we subscribe to the theory that Trump accuses others of what he himself is doing, then there are a fairly large number of tweets and interview segments where he accuses Obama of imminently attacking Iran because he's worried about being re-elected and wants to "look tough".

With other administrations I'd assume a certain degree of long-term thought and strategic consideration had gone in to the decision. With this administration I genuinely wouldn't be surprised to learn that it was about impeachment.

That's the thing about this administration that I absolutely loathe.

Other presidents have done things that seemed like a very bad idea, but I always assume that there must be a great deal of thought that went into them. I always assumed that advisers were consulted, that there was a review, that while it may ultimately be the president's decision, there were a lot of professionals involved, and at least some of them were urging the president to take action.

With this president, I think he might have seen Iran's tweet saying "There's nothing you can do", and that threatened his ego, and decided he was going to show them who was boss. How did Hillary Clinton put it? Something like, "The nuclear button shouldn't be in the hands of a man who can be baited with a tweet."

I hope it works out. I have no idea whether it was a good idea or not. I have no idea if this was a contingency that had been contemplated for a while, or just an impulsive reaction by a guy who wanted to make sure that this was nothing at all like Benghazi. I know that I am not confident in our leadership.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 4th January 2020, 04:31 AM

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.

Well, we here in the UK are about to go through Brexit and we're currently in the process of desperately trying to negotiate trade deals with other countries - particularly the US - from a position of weakness. All the US needs to do is make some part of some deal contingent on sending troops to Iraq/Iran, and the UK may well comply.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 4th January 2020, 04:47 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Taking a step back I do wonder how much of an escalation this would be.

I mean since formal diplomatic relations ended in 1980 Iran-American relations have survived the Iraq-Iran War, the 1983 Hezbollah bombings, the Iran-Contra Affair, the attack on the USS Samuel B. Roberts, Operation Praying Mantis, Operation Nimble Archer, the shootdown of Iran Air Flight 655, the Gulf War, the "Axis of Evil Speech," multiple rounds of sanctions, near endless diplomatic bickering, and endless skirmishes, saber rattling, and other assorted dick waving.

Speaking neutrally, regardless of how anyone feels about either participant, any of the specific incidents historically or the current one, it seems like if either America or Iran needed an excuse to throw down the gloves it would have happened by now.

The differences I see here are firstly that Trump is not interested in a diplomatic solution, and secondly that this particular action puts Iran into a position where they likely believe they cannot fail to retaliate. How weak would they look if they just let the US get away with this without any kind of response?

I'm no expert, but I don't see a path to deescalation.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 4th January 2020, 04:49 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

There may be grains of truth that are misleading. The tweet seems to imply that Iran, and specifically Soleimani, was part of the 9/11 plot, whereas this is the Wikipedia summary of what the Commission Report found:

Quite astonishing really that 2 decades later 9/11 is still being used to justify military actions against countries and people who weren't involved.

Vixen · 4th January 2020, 05:07 AM

Originally Posted by Baylor

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

<fx: mass fainting on ISF>

Vixen · 4th January 2020, 05:09 AM

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.

It was probably carefully planned by the intelligence services and US military. Trump is just the figurehead.

Vixen · 4th January 2020, 05:13 AM

Originally Posted by crescent

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?

As a pointer to one historical precedent: the UK took out three IRA terrorist suspects as they were strolling down a street in Gibraltar.

Vixen · 4th January 2020, 05:24 AM

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.

Ignoring for the moment the pros and cons of the current situation, taking out an army general is actually a good tactic in a war. Kill the foot soldiers or the cavalry - there are many thousands more coming up at the rear. Bring down the generals or the field marshall and straight away you have taken out the guys who determine military strategy. These are the guys who are key to how a battle or war is fought. So yeah, in the scheme of the Art of War, taking out a leading general is perfectly logical and sound, with minimal collatoral.

Vixen · 4th January 2020, 05:38 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

If you follow that logic just about every country in the Middle East is at war with just about every other country, and all of them are at war with the US. We better add in which countries in the EU are involved in this conflagration while we are at it.

Not taking sides but European countries and the west in general (and non-Islamic countries) do not have a stated mission to ruthlessly erase non-Muslim states in some kind of 'holy war'.

Heck, this holy war has been going on since the crusades.

Vixen · 4th January 2020, 05:48 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

You know how Trump didn't warn the UK? Well, you know who he did warn?

Russia & Israel

Know who else?

Random people who happened to be at Mar-A-Largo

My crazy paranoid thought is that Boris Johnson is lying low (on holiday in the Caribbean) not making a public statement (yet) which is VERY unusual for a UK PM in a major world event because:

he knew perfectly well of Trump's plan
he has already agreed to deploy British troops to the region.

BobTheCoward · 4th January 2020, 05:53 AM

Originally Posted by Vixen

Ignoring for the moment the pros and cons of the current situation, taking out an army general is actually a good tactic in a war. Kill the foot soldiers or the cavalry - there are many thousands more coming up at the rear. Bring down the generals or the field marshall and straight away you have taken out the guys who determine military strategy. These are the guys who are key to how a battle or war is fought. So yeah, in the scheme of the Art of War, taking out a leading general is perfectly logical and sound, with minimal collatoral.

What is the evidence this is true? Seems it would have a sample size problem.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 4th January 2020, 06:09 AM

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

Here's an article from 2015 talking about the 2800 drone strikes authorized by Obama on Iraq and Syria without congressional approval. Hope this helps.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...rizing-islami/

Are you here arguing that Obama's actions were right, or that Trump's action was wrong?

Planigale · 4th January 2020, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Problem is the classic methods of terrorism are hard to pull off because we have become better at security.
But Using a hand held Antiaircraft weapon to take out a passenger plane taking off is one of the more likely secnearios.

As opposed to the USN that uses a guided missile cruiser to do so, then rewards the commander with a medal? No one even tried let alone convicted?

The US seems to have a track record for terrorist attacks on Iran.

Max_mang · 4th January 2020, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Are you here arguing that Obama's actions were right, or that Trump's action was wrong?

I don't know BrooklynBaby's take on it, but in other forums I have seen people literally argue that:

When Trump does X, it's ok because Obama also did X.
When Obama did X, it was the worst thing anyone ever did and no liberals complained.
Trump doing X is great, because liberals complain about Trump doing it but not when Obama did.

JoeMorgue · 4th January 2020, 07:42 AM

A jolly good trip down "Let's list off everything bad, dirty, questionable, wrong, evil thing that Iran and America have done to each other" lane helps no possible version of this scenario.

Every time Iran or America ask for some concession or way move forward the other side will always be able to, honestly, pull the "Yeah but whatabouta da time..." card. To what end and for what purpose though?

Iran and America can't go back and time and make those things to have never happened. Are we doomed to never improve our relations because if we do it will leave those things "unpaid" for?

This nihilistic bullcrap where long, complicated, in some cases multi-generational or even longer conflicts are philosophically doomed to continue perpetuity because both sides have committed so much against the other they can never erase the red from their ledgers seems rather defeatist to me.

Planigale · 4th January 2020, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by BStrong

I examined Iranian built G3 rifles and various Iranian explosive ordnance captured from insurgents in Iraq in 2004.

Given the venom of the Iran-Iraq war I was a bit surprised to see Iranian small arms and munitions in the hands of Iraqi fighters.

In what way is fighting against an occupying army that invaded your (Iraq) country for no good reason terrorism? Attacking US forces in Iraq is legitimate resistance. This is the type of thing that the US supported against Cuba, in Afghanistan against the Russians etc. It is only regarded as terrorism by US citizens because it is an attack on US occupying forces.

Given the teack record of the US (e.g. overthrowing the democratically elected Iranian government), Iran had a legitimate concern about US forces on its border.

Talk of a new Persian empire is US fantasy.

tyr_13 · 4th January 2020, 07:54 AM

Would this have been a valid and legal operation to perform at Heathrow? LAX? Why or why not?

angrysoba · 4th January 2020, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

A jolly good trip down "Let's list off everything bad, dirty, questionable, wrong, evil thing that Iran and America have done to each other" lane helps no possible version of this scenario.

Every time Iran or America ask for some concession or way move forward the other side will always be able to, honestly, pull the "Yeah but whatabouta da time..." card. To what end and for what purpose though?

Iran and America can't go back and time and make those things to have never happened. Are we doomed to never improve our relations because if we do it will leave those things "unpaid" for?

This nihilistic bullcrap where long, complicated, in some cases multi-generational or even longer conflicts are philosophically doomed to continue perpetuity because both sides have committed so much against the other they can never erase the red from their ledgers seems rather defeatist to me.

Indeed. We are where we are.

But right now, neither Iran nor America look to be trying to make anything better, are they?

I mean, your post would probably make more sense if one side was putting forward some kind of plan like, I dunno, maybe an agreement on how to de-escalate Iran's search for nuclear power/weapons in return for some other concessions.

But the post looks kind of strange when it is in response to one side killing a contractor, another side blowing up some militants, then the other side storming an embassy, and the other side blowing up a general and a convoy...

varwoche · 4th January 2020, 08:13 AM

Senator Udall, who was briefed after the action, said in an interview that the supposed imminent threat was not part of the briefing, and he's dubious about it.

Belz... · 4th January 2020, 08:14 AM

Reading the Twitter Deplorables about it, you'd think anyone who has any doubt about this is unamerican.

I guess years of calling the media and democrat lying enemies of the people paid off.

angrysoba · 4th January 2020, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Would this have been a valid and legal operation to perform at Heathrow? LAX? Why or why not?

I can't see how.

As the Iraqi PM complained, it is "an outrageous breach to Iraqi sovereignty".

Surely it would have made sense for America to have complained to the Iraqi government about Iranian meddling at the American embassy and to have put economic and diplomatic pressure on Baghdad rather than to simply blow up Soleimani.

Planigale · 4th January 2020, 08:15 AM

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 is little evidence of this. What we do know is that Iran and its proxies were essential in the defeat of ISIS, pretty much fighting on the same side as the US. They were anti OBL. Yes they have supported the internationally recognised government of Syria. Whilst Assad was not delivering a liberal democracy, it certainly was more liberal than e.g. Saudi. The alternative a religious caliphate of a Saudi approved type would likely be worse, or a Sadam Hussein type military dictatorship such as the US supported.

Can you give an example of current terrorist activity? Fighting alongside US forces in Iraq against ISIS is not terrorism. Fighting alongside the recognised government of Syria is not terrorism. The evidence for active Iranian involvement in yemen is surprisingly little. (https://www.mei.edu/publications/ira...rospects-peace)

Hezbollah in Lebanon is an officially recognised political party and provides a self defence militia (as supported in the US constitution) against foreign invaders.

Belz... · 4th January 2020, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Surely it would have made sense for America to have complained to the Iraqi government about Iranian meddling at the American embassy and to have put economic and diplomatic pressure on Baghdad rather than to simply blow up Soleimani.

Yeah but then, who's going to stop them?

BrooklynBaby · 4th January 2020, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Are you here arguing that Obama's actions were right, or that Trump's action was wrong?

Just a reminder we've been doing this for a long time and it is silly to go after Trump for taking out our enemies. It's his job, just like it was Obama's job.

theprestige · 4th January 2020, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

In terms of adherence to international law, then I think you have a high bar to demonstrate the necessity of this action.

I think the military necessity has been well established.

Captain_Swoop · 4th January 2020, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by Vixen

As a pointer to one historical precedent: the UK took out three IRA terrorist suspects as they were strolling down a street in Gibraltar.

Not by bombing them.

angrysoba · 4th January 2020, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I think the military necessity has been well established.

It has? Could you explain?

theprestige · 4th January 2020, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by alfaniner

Iran vows "Harsh Revenge". The Iranian Ambassador to the U.N. said that. Not even using diplomatic words. This is so much more insane than promising a "harsh response." Once you get fanatic religion behind it it's going to be impossible to put down.

Once? Iran has been backing terrorism with fanatic religion for decades. I get the concern about waking a sleeping dragon, but it's misplaced here. This wyrm has been awake for a while now.

varwoche · 4th January 2020, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Reading the Twitter Deplorables about it, you'd think anyone who has any doubt about this is unamerican.

I guess years of calling the media and democrat lying enemies of the people paid off.

That's a playbook that's been around for a long time. Never mind 911...

Compared to What, song written in late 60s:

President he's got his war
Folks don't know just what it's for
Nobody gives us rhyme or reason
Have one doubt, they call it treason

angrysoba · 4th January 2020, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Yeah but then, who's going to stop them?

Who is going to stop who from doing what?

Iranian meddling? American assassinations?

4th January 2020, 01:55 AM	#281
trustbutverify Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 7,725	Originally Posted by MattNelson This attack was not in the interest of the U.S. Signs say it was at the behest of Israel. "FYI on the coming Iran War (25 Mar. 2019, The White House)" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yyANWty4NA Still looking for some evil not rooted in "Israel". Not easy.
	__________________ "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -- Mahatma Gandhi Wollen owns the stage

4th January 2020, 02:50 AM	#283
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 26,634	You know how Trump didn't warn the UK? Well, you know who he did warn? Russia & Israel Know who else? Random people who happened to be at Mar-A-Largo
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

4th January 2020, 03:06 AM	#284
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 10,735	The biggest problem is that the Trump administration hasn't articulated a clear strategy with regards to Iran or shown any consistency in its actions. If Trump announced a removal of the sanctions that affect ordinary Iranian citizens every time he has a high-ranking Iranian military leader killed, it might actually help with changing the Regime in Tehran. But like this, it is just helping the Regime justify its oppression whilst pushing Iraq further away and towards Iran.
	__________________ “Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”-Sen. Lindsey Graham

4th January 2020, 03:11 AM	#285
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 89,355	Originally Posted by theprestige How is it remotely possible that you didn't know about this guy until yesterday, even though General McChrystal called him out in the Atlantic more than ten years ago? Took you long enough to find that or read that in some article since you started posting.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

4th January 2020, 03:22 AM	#286
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 89,355	Originally Posted by alfaniner Iran vows "Harsh Revenge". The Iranian Ambassador to the U.N. said that. Not even using diplomatic words. This is so much more insane than promising a "harsh response." Once you get fanatic religion behind it it's going to be impossible to put down. Totally disagree, Iran has done all it can to further what it considers its interests. If they could have done more they would have already have done more. Regardless of whether you think this particular act was right or wrong you have to agree that Iran had always done what it can to further its interests since the 1979 revolution (or what the leader believes is its interests) regardless of international laws and international acceptable behaviour. It is a terrible regime that has caused immense harm to its own country and to many others outside its borders, often in direct military action or via proxies. From what I know so far on balance whilst I don't agree with the action I can see how it could have a positive benefit in reducing Iranian sponsored proxies. As ever in these types of conflicts the people at the top are not exposed to personal danger. This does send a message saying that the Americans are willing to act the same way as the Iranians would and try to kill the higher echelons whenever possible. That may make those at the top more wary regardless of their public rants.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

4th January 2020, 02:26 AM	#282
Lukraak_Sisser Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 3,539	I do wonder who Trump is working for. Because in 1 fell swoop he's allowed the Iranian government to use this to solidify internal support, strengthening it's position, allow Iran to play the victim of a ruthless bully giving it local and possibly larger support (Maybe Russia and China will start openly buying their oil again?), given the Iranian supporters in Iraq a nice cause to drive the country away from the US politically and at the same time given many individual terrorists a new motive, most likely increasing the chance of retaliatory attacks against civilians. I doubt any terrorist or mullah would ever have been that successful in strengthening Iran's position on purpose.

4th January 2020, 03:30 AM	#287
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 89,355	Originally Posted by Checkmite That seems to be what the administration wants to imply by using the phrase "target of opportunity". It rather strains credibility to assume that they'd had other prior opportunities but decided that a rocket strike at an operating civilian airport with guaranteed civilian collateral casualties was the best one of them. This is one of things I'd like to know more about before I can really decide whether the actions was overall the best action to have taken. According to several reports I've listened to he often travelled in the ME, he was not a reclusive shadowy figure. So why was the action taken now? I can't see that he would be directly involved in any planned terrorist activity so can't see it would stop any imminent attack. Was it in retaliation to the embassy attack? Wouldn't the administration have simply said so if that was the case.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

4th January 2020, 03:51 AM	#288
Dr.Sid Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic Posts: 2,237	Originally Posted by Darat Was it in retaliation to the embassy attack? Wouldn't the administration have simply said so if that was the case. It was retaliation for Khamenei's tweet.

4th January 2020, 04:11 AM	#289
P.J. Denyer Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 6,259	Originally Posted by Samson Part of me says infantile men doing infantile things, and why do we keep taking these people seriously? I truly believe women would run the world better. As a Brit I have to say our experience has been a less than unmitigated triumph, I think the problem lies in the nature of the game rather than the gender of the players per se.
P.J. Denyer Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 6,259	__________________ "I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion "Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills

4th January 2020, 04:11 AM	#290
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 26,634	Originally Posted by Darat So why was the action taken now? Well, if we subscribe to the theory that Trump accuses others of what he himself is doing, then there are a fairly large number of tweets and interview segments where he accuses Obama of imminently attacking Iran because he's worried about being re-elected and wants to "look tough". With other administrations I'd assume a certain degree of long-term thought and strategic consideration had gone in to the decision. With this administration I genuinely wouldn't be surprised to learn that it was about impeachment.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

4th January 2020, 04:24 AM	#291
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 20,024	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim Well, if we subscribe to the theory that Trump accuses others of what he himself is doing, then there are a fairly large number of tweets and interview segments where he accuses Obama of imminently attacking Iran because he's worried about being re-elected and wants to "look tough". With other administrations I'd assume a certain degree of long-term thought and strategic consideration had gone in to the decision. With this administration I genuinely wouldn't be surprised to learn that it was about impeachment. That's the thing about this administration that I absolutely loathe. Other presidents have done things that seemed like a very bad idea, but I always assume that there must be a great deal of thought that went into them. I always assumed that advisers were consulted, that there was a review, that while it may ultimately be the president's decision, there were a lot of professionals involved, and at least some of them were urging the president to take action. With this president, I think he might have seen Iran's tweet saying "There's nothing you can do", and that threatened his ego, and decided he was going to show them who was boss. How did Hillary Clinton put it? Something like, "The nuclear button shouldn't be in the hands of a man who can be baited with a tweet." I hope it works out. I have no idea whether it was a good idea or not. I have no idea if this was a contingency that had been contemplated for a while, or just an impulsive reaction by a guy who wanted to make sure that this was nothing at all like Benghazi. I know that I am not confident in our leadership.

4th January 2020, 04:31 AM	#292
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 26,634	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. Well, we here in the UK are about to go through Brexit and we're currently in the process of desperately trying to negotiate trade deals with other countries - particularly the US - from a position of weakness. All the US needs to do is make some part of some deal contingent on sending troops to Iraq/Iran, and the UK may well comply.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

4th January 2020, 04:47 AM	#293
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 26,634	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Taking a step back I do wonder how much of an escalation this would be. I mean since formal diplomatic relations ended in 1980 Iran-American relations have survived the Iraq-Iran War, the 1983 Hezbollah bombings, the Iran-Contra Affair, the attack on the USS Samuel B. Roberts, Operation Praying Mantis, Operation Nimble Archer, the shootdown of Iran Air Flight 655, the Gulf War, the "Axis of Evil Speech," multiple rounds of sanctions, near endless diplomatic bickering, and endless skirmishes, saber rattling, and other assorted dick waving. Speaking neutrally, regardless of how anyone feels about either participant, any of the specific incidents historically or the current one, it seems like if either America or Iran needed an excuse to throw down the gloves it would have happened by now. The differences I see here are firstly that Trump is not interested in a diplomatic solution, and secondly that this particular action puts Iran into a position where they likely believe they cannot fail to retaliate. How weak would they look if they just let the US get away with this without any kind of response? I'm no expert, but I don't see a path to deescalation.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

4th January 2020, 04:49 AM	#294
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 26,634	Originally Posted by angrysoba There may be grains of truth that are misleading. The tweet seems to imply that Iran, and specifically Soleimani, was part of the 9/11 plot, whereas this is the Wikipedia summary of what the Commission Report found: Quite astonishing really that 2 decades later 9/11 is still being used to justify military actions against countries and people who weren't involved.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

4th January 2020, 05:07 AM	#295
Vixen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Suomi Posts: 17,973	Originally Posted by Baylor Trump did the impossible. He has me rooting for Nancy Pelosi. <fx: mass fainting on ISF>
	__________________ Blott en dag, ett ogonblick i sander, vilken trost vad an som kommer pa! ~ L Sandell

4th January 2020, 05:09 AM	#296
Vixen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Suomi Posts: 17,973	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. It was probably carefully planned by the intelligence services and US military. Trump is just the figurehead.
	__________________ Blott en dag, ett ogonblick i sander, vilken trost vad an som kommer pa! ~ L Sandell

4th January 2020, 05:13 AM	#297
Vixen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Suomi Posts: 17,973	Originally Posted by crescent 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? As a pointer to one historical precedent: the UK took out three IRA terrorist suspects as they were strolling down a street in Gibraltar.
	__________________ Blott en dag, ett ogonblick i sander, vilken trost vad an som kommer pa! ~ L Sandell

4th January 2020, 05:24 AM	#298
Vixen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Suomi Posts: 17,973	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. Ignoring for the moment the pros and cons of the current situation, taking out an army general is actually a good tactic in a war. Kill the foot soldiers or the cavalry - there are many thousands more coming up at the rear. Bring down the generals or the field marshall and straight away you have taken out the guys who determine military strategy. These are the guys who are key to how a battle or war is fought. So yeah, in the scheme of the Art of War, taking out a leading general is perfectly logical and sound, with minimal collatoral.
	__________________ Blott en dag, ett ogonblick i sander, vilken trost vad an som kommer pa! ~ L Sandell

4th January 2020, 05:38 AM	#299
Vixen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Suomi Posts: 17,973	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger If you follow that logic just about every country in the Middle East is at war with just about every other country, and all of them are at war with the US. We better add in which countries in the EU are involved in this conflagration while we are at it. Not taking sides but European countries and the west in general (and non-Islamic countries) do not have a stated mission to ruthlessly erase non-Muslim states in some kind of 'holy war'. Heck, this holy war has been going on since the crusades.
	__________________ Blott en dag, ett ogonblick i sander, vilken trost vad an som kommer pa! ~ L Sandell

4th January 2020, 05:48 AM	#300
Vixen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Suomi Posts: 17,973	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim You know how Trump didn't warn the UK? Well, you know who he did warn? Russia & Israel Know who else? Random people who happened to be at Mar-A-Largo My crazy paranoid thought is that Boris Johnson is lying low (on holiday in the Caribbean) not making a public statement (yet) which is VERY unusual for a UK PM in a major world event because: he knew perfectly well of Trump's plan he has already agreed to deploy British troops to the region.
	__________________ Blott en dag, ett ogonblick i sander, vilken trost vad an som kommer pa! ~ L Sandell

4th January 2020, 05:53 AM	#301
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 18,362	Originally Posted by Vixen Ignoring for the moment the pros and cons of the current situation, taking out an army general is actually a good tactic in a war. Kill the foot soldiers or the cavalry - there are many thousands more coming up at the rear. Bring down the generals or the field marshall and straight away you have taken out the guys who determine military strategy. These are the guys who are key to how a battle or war is fought. So yeah, in the scheme of the Art of War, taking out a leading general is perfectly logical and sound, with minimal collatoral. What is the evidence this is true? Seems it would have a sample size problem.

4th January 2020, 06:09 AM	#302
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 26,634	Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby Here's an article from 2015 talking about the 2800 drone strikes authorized by Obama on Iraq and Syria without congressional approval. Hope this helps. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...rizing-islami/ Are you here arguing that Obama's actions were right, or that Trump's action was wrong?
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

4th January 2020, 07:29 AM	#303
Planigale Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 3,473	Originally Posted by dudalb Problem is the classic methods of terrorism are hard to pull off because we have become better at security. But Using a hand held Antiaircraft weapon to take out a passenger plane taking off is one of the more likely secnearios. As opposed to the USN that uses a guided missile cruiser to do so, then rewards the commander with a medal? No one even tried let alone convicted? The US seems to have a track record for terrorist attacks on Iran.
Planigale Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 3,473

4th January 2020, 07:41 AM	#304
Max_mang Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 371	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim Are you here arguing that Obama's actions were right, or that Trump's action was wrong? I don't know BrooklynBaby's take on it, but in other forums I have seen people literally argue that: When Trump does X, it's ok because Obama also did X. When Obama did X, it was the worst thing anyone ever did and no liberals complained. Trump doing X is great, because liberals complain about Trump doing it but not when Obama did.
Max_mang Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 371

4th January 2020, 07:42 AM	#305
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 22,147	A jolly good trip down "Let's list off everything bad, dirty, questionable, wrong, evil thing that Iran and America have done to each other" lane helps no possible version of this scenario. Every time Iran or America ask for some concession or way move forward the other side will always be able to, honestly, pull the "Yeah but whatabouta da time..." card. To what end and for what purpose though? Iran and America can't go back and time and make those things to have never happened. Are we doomed to never improve our relations because if we do it will leave those things "unpaid" for? This nihilistic bullcrap where long, complicated, in some cases multi-generational or even longer conflicts are philosophically doomed to continue perpetuity because both sides have committed so much against the other they can never erase the red from their ledgers seems rather defeatist to me.
	__________________ - "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset - "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal - "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

4th January 2020, 07:49 AM	#306
Planigale Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 3,473	Originally Posted by BStrong I examined Iranian built G3 rifles and various Iranian explosive ordnance captured from insurgents in Iraq in 2004. Given the venom of the Iran-Iraq war I was a bit surprised to see Iranian small arms and munitions in the hands of Iraqi fighters. In what way is fighting against an occupying army that invaded your (Iraq) country for no good reason terrorism? Attacking US forces in Iraq is legitimate resistance. This is the type of thing that the US supported against Cuba, in Afghanistan against the Russians etc. It is only regarded as terrorism by US citizens because it is an attack on US occupying forces. Given the teack record of the US (e.g. overthrowing the democratically elected Iranian government), Iran had a legitimate concern about US forces on its border. Talk of a new Persian empire is US fantasy.
Planigale Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 3,473

4th January 2020, 07:54 AM	#307
tyr_13 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 16,088	Would this have been a valid and legal operation to perform at Heathrow? LAX? Why or why not?
	__________________ Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

4th January 2020, 08:08 AM	#308
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 26,200	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue A jolly good trip down "Let's list off everything bad, dirty, questionable, wrong, evil thing that Iran and America have done to each other" lane helps no possible version of this scenario. Every time Iran or America ask for some concession or way move forward the other side will always be able to, honestly, pull the "Yeah but whatabouta da time..." card. To what end and for what purpose though? Iran and America can't go back and time and make those things to have never happened. Are we doomed to never improve our relations because if we do it will leave those things "unpaid" for? This nihilistic bullcrap where long, complicated, in some cases multi-generational or even longer conflicts are philosophically doomed to continue perpetuity because both sides have committed so much against the other they can never erase the red from their ledgers seems rather defeatist to me. Indeed. We are where we are. But right now, neither Iran nor America look to be trying to make anything better, are they? I mean, your post would probably make more sense if one side was putting forward some kind of plan like, I dunno, maybe an agreement on how to de-escalate Iran's search for nuclear power/weapons in return for some other concessions. But the post looks kind of strange when it is in response to one side killing a contractor, another side blowing up some militants, then the other side storming an embassy, and the other side blowing up a general and a convoy...
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

4th January 2020, 08:13 AM	#309
varwoche Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 13,837	Senator Udall, who was briefed after the action, said in an interview that the supposed imminent threat was not part of the briefing, and he's dubious about it.
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.

4th January 2020, 08:14 AM	#310
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 87,826	Reading the Twitter Deplorables about it, you'd think anyone who has any doubt about this is unamerican. I guess years of calling the media and democrat lying enemies of the people paid off.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

4th January 2020, 08:14 AM	#311
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 26,200	Originally Posted by tyr_13 Would this have been a valid and legal operation to perform at Heathrow? LAX? Why or why not? I can't see how. As the Iraqi PM complained, it is "an outrageous breach to Iraqi sovereignty". Surely it would have made sense for America to have complained to the Iraqi government about Iranian meddling at the American embassy and to have put economic and diplomatic pressure on Baghdad rather than to simply blow up Soleimani.
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

4th January 2020, 08:15 AM	#312
Planigale Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 3,473	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 is little evidence of this. What we do know is that Iran and its proxies were essential in the defeat of ISIS, pretty much fighting on the same side as the US. They were anti OBL. Yes they have supported the internationally recognised government of Syria. Whilst Assad was not delivering a liberal democracy, it certainly was more liberal than e.g. Saudi. The alternative a religious caliphate of a Saudi approved type would likely be worse, or a Sadam Hussein type military dictatorship such as the US supported. Can you give an example of current terrorist activity? Fighting alongside US forces in Iraq against ISIS is not terrorism. Fighting alongside the recognised government of Syria is not terrorism. The evidence for active Iranian involvement in yemen is surprisingly little. (https://www.mei.edu/publications/ira...rospects-peace) Hezbollah in Lebanon is an officially recognised political party and provides a self defence militia (as supported in the US constitution) against foreign invaders.
Planigale Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 3,473

4th January 2020, 08:16 AM	#313
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 87,826	Originally Posted by angrysoba Surely it would have made sense for America to have complained to the Iraqi government about Iranian meddling at the American embassy and to have put economic and diplomatic pressure on Baghdad rather than to simply blow up Soleimani. Yeah but then, who's going to stop them?
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

4th January 2020, 08:17 AM	#314
BrooklynBaby Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2015 Posts: 1,012	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim Are you here arguing that Obama's actions were right, or that Trump's action was wrong? Just a reminder we've been doing this for a long time and it is silly to go after Trump for taking out our enemies. It's his job, just like it was Obama's job.

4th January 2020, 08:19 AM	#315
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 41,297	Originally Posted by angrysoba In terms of adherence to international law, then I think you have a high bar to demonstrate the necessity of this action. I think the military necessity has been well established.