![]() |
US-Iran crisis intensifies after general assassinated
The United States last night attacked Baghdad airport, killing multiple people including it's target one of Iran's top government officials Qassem Soleimani. This CNBC article I think does a fair job of recapping the underlying conflicts between Iran and US over the past couple of years that are coming to a head here.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/03/top-iranian-general-qassim-soleimani-killed-in-us-airstrike-in-baghdad-pentagon.html Iran's foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif calls the assassination of their top general an act of international terrorism by the United States, and says that the "U.S bears responsibility for all consequences in it's rogue adventurism." US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says that the U.S was performing a pre-emptive strike to defend itself, and that they have intelligence showing Soleimani had planned an "imminent" attack on Americans deployed in the region. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/03/qasem-soleimani-killing-pompeo-says-airstrike-response-threat/2802844001/ Pompeo has not disclosed intelligence evidence of a plot at the this time, and UN official Agnes Callamard argues the airstrike is a violation of International Law. https://nypost.com/2020/01/03/us-airstrike-that-killed-qassim-soleimani-of-iran-violates-human-rights-law-un-official-says/ Here are worldwide reactions to this volatile situation. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/01/03/world/iran-killing-triggers-global-alarm-we-are-waking-up-more-dangerous-world/ This is arguably an act of war, one that threatens to also engulf Iraq again as this attack was carried out without the approval of the Iraqi government by the United States on Iraq's soil. I would expect some form of response by Iran, and then another response by the United States. I don't know how far this will escalate, but global affairs are not off to a good start in 2020... |
So far from what I read, Soleimani was responsible for the deaths of over 500 US soldiers, worked on the attack on the US Embassy ( An act of war, as any Embassy is considered the soil of the home country ), and was largely considered the most dangerous terrorist since Osama Bin Laden.
The U.S. has been in a quiet war with Iran for four decades, and been in a proxy war with them in Iraq for over almost two decades, it is good that there was finally a punch back to this monster. |
While what Trump did was probably deserved, there’s a good chance it’s gonna cause WW3.
|
What Trump did, whether the guy deserved it or not, was pretty par for the course for his stupidity and inability to actually follow through on anything he promises.
You do not kill a foreign diplomat on a third party's soil without even informing that country that you will be undertaking military action. Did anyone from Iraq die in the attack? If they did, that's a whole other clusterfuck. As for Trump's inability to keep a promise, let's not forget that he was supposedly pulling troops out of the Middle East? Now he's sending them back, and let's not pretend he hasn't been spoiling for open war with Iran for months now. Every time the US pokes its nose into the middle-east, things get worse not better and it is high time the US government stopped acting like the world's authority on everything because every country they interlope in ends up worse than where they started. We don't need yet another Gulf War. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'm not necessarily saying that there should not have been a strike against this guy, but this was definitely a poorly conceived plan. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
But even if there was conclusive evidence, this particular plan for carrying it out was a bad one for reasons already outlined. |
Quote:
Also if I may ask, how else would you suggest they carry out the plan? |
Know how folks complain when Iran citizens shout "DEATH TO THE GREAT AMERICAN SATAN!"?
Well, they surely aren't gonna stop doing that NOW. |
Quote:
Either confer with Iraq's government or strike him somewhere else. He's high profile, I doubt they'd have much trouble finding him somewhere that wouldn't cause quite so much trouble. If need be, you can always prep/evacuate likely targets as needed until the operation is over. I don't claim to have all the answers here, but given how much of a mess of things this makes, I can't imagine it's the best way of doing things. |
Quote:
Quote:
Also while he could be targeted elsewhere, as he traveled across the Middle East, doing so would not have taken out the leader of Kata'lb Hizballah as well, and it would potentially allow any plans made during the meeting to go forward. Quote:
|
Craziest part, Trump is actually stupid enough to think this will incite a rebellion in Iran. How dumb can someone get?
|
I am of an age where I can remember the start of the Iraq war. Thwarting the alleged Soleimani plot sounds uncomfortably close to the script used for invading Iraq. We did a "pre-emptive strike" there too, and it was based on false intelligence of weapons of mass destruction in the country. So my default position is skepticism until we can examine all of the evidence ourselves, and not just take Trump's word or Pompeo's.
As much as this situation reminds me of Iraq, Trump's infinitely crazier than Bush, as even George Bush specifically ruled out assassinating Soleimani, understanding that it would be a potentially irreversible point of escalation. https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-obama-bush-and-bibi-all-passed-on-killing-qassem-soleimani Trump also has to know this, but wants to open that Pandora's box. I cannot see the United States as victims acting only in self-defense though I'm American. I see this as part of a larger pattern of actions by Trump to try to make peace with Iran impossible, starting with tearing up the Iran Nuclear deal and burying them in sanctions, though Iran was abiding by the terms agreed. We took further punitive action against Iran for the Saudi Arabia oil field attack that the Houthis of Yemen actually claimed responsible for, not Iran. https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/20/politics/trump-announces-iran-sanctions/index.html?no-st=9999999999 We similarly accused Iran of attacking a Japanese oil tanker, despite protests from the actual owner of the ship that they were not struck by any Iranian mine. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/14/oil-tanker-owner-disagrees-with-us-that-mine-caused-blast-near-iran.html I watched a very interesting interview this afternoon on Democracy Now with award-winning journalist Amy Goodman. She invited Ro Khana on her show, and I thought what he had to say was perhaps the most informative of all of the guests. Congressman Khana had an amendment in the national defense authorization that would have prevented any offensive action against Iran and any funding for it, but the Pentagon forced this language to be taken out of the bill, and now Trump just so happens to be doing this very thing, taking offensive action in Iran and can't be held accountable by Congress. Here's the link if anyone wants to watch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAFr_s4ZOd8 I don't believe the doublespeak by the United States government that they don't want escalation in Iran. Yes, they do. |
Quote:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-news-us-shows-limpet-mine-parts-case-against-iran-in-tanker-attacks-today-2019-06-19/ A Revolutionary Guard boat also approached the tanker later and removed an unexploded mine. https://apnews.com/6a48842e263541a5b3451f0d41dee01a Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
This is why the Pentagon had the amendment against offensive action in Iran stricken from the Defense Authorization Act. If the language had not be removed Trump would have been forced come to Congress and make a case presenting evidence to get approval. Facts would be necessary. No, not even this congress would have approved something as general as, "it is hard not to imagine that their discussion did not involve plans..." You would have to prove that you were in imminent danger. Assassinating a government official because of the possibility of an embassy being vandalized again does not look like self-defense, it looks like a punitive action, and a reckless one because of the scale of our response in relationship to what happened, and also because it is based on conjecture that these were the operatives behind past attacks-- we believe, and assuming they were then they could have been plotting a future riot together. Now when you say the general is a "plotter" and a "terrorist" are you are referring to Soleimani being the head IRGC/ the external wing Qudz? If this is what you are talking about I want to make sure you understand that IRGC is a part of the military structure in Iran's political system, and has been for 40 years. It is similar to a combination of the CIA and US Special forces. Soleimani's position would parallel to a defense secretary here in the United States. In fact the United States worked with Soleimani and his very militia previously against the Taliban in the aftermath of 9/11, he was actually an opponent of Isis and is credited with keeping them from taking over Iran. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/03/when-united-states-qasem-soleimani-worked-together/ This is not to say that Soleimani was not an oppressive figure or that I supported him or that there aren't serious internal problems within Iran and their military, I think the same could be said of the United States and our government, that doesn't mean if someone were to go to assassinate officials from our department of defense it would be justifiable or wise. The designation of the IRGC as a terrorist group is quite new. Trump controversially labelled the country's own military terrorists just back in spring, and it is yet another link in a long chain of aggressive actions the United States has been taking since Trump got in office to isolate and antagonize Iran, and destabilize the peace in the region we had obtained under the Obama administration, and it undermines the narrative that the United States wants to de-escalate and is just defending themselves but they keeping getting attacked randomly by Iran. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran/u-s-officially-designates-irans-revolutionary-guards-a-terrorist-group-idUSKCN1RR1BE |
Quote:
United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence: Adam Schiff (D-CA-28), Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA-22), Ranking Member United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: Richard Burr (R-NC), Chair Mark Warner (D-VA), Vice Chair Leadership in the United States House of Representatives: Nancy Pelosi (D-CA-12), Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-CA-23), Minority Leader Leadership in the United States Senate: Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Minority Leader 4 Republicans, 4 Democrats, David Nunes, Richard Burr, Kevin McCarthy, and Mitch McConnell have shown support for the attack on twitter, that leaves the 4 Democrats being the only ones who could have opposed this. 4 Democrats, opposing the killing of the leader of Kata'lb Hizballah, who had just attacked the embassy, and a man responsible for the killings of 500 to 600 Americans. Yeah, I am sorry but there is no way that those 4 top Democrats are going to take responsibility, in an election year, to not stop these two people if presented the opportunity. Especially since such a meeting between the general and Kata'lb Hizballah, could very well result in another embassy attack or deaths of US personnel. It would be Benghazi 2.0 right before the 2020 election. Quote:
Quote:
He planned a strike on US soil, that would have killed US civilians, along with the Saudi Ambassador in 2011. https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/01/04/iran-agents-once-plotted-kill-saudi-ambassador-dc-case-reads-like-spy-thriller/ He instructed his militia leaders in Iraq to step up their attacks on U.S. targets in Iraq using weapons provided by Iran. Two weeks before he moved rockets that could target helicopters into Iraq. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-soleimani-insight/inside-the-plot-by-irans-soleimani-to-attack-us-forces-in-iraq-idUSKBN1Z301Z He is responsible for the building and shipping of IED and other weapons into Iraq to destabilize the country and fuel a civil war that targeted US troops between 2005 to 2007 which claimed the lives of over 600 US troops and injured thousands more. He also allegedly had direct planning, financing, and directing of the 2012 terror attack against the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi. https://nypost.com/2020/01/04/inside-the-twisted-terrible-reign-of-iranian-general-qassem-soleimani/ Quote:
Quote:
https://www.hudson.org/research/11436-obama-strikes-a-deal-with-qassem-suleimani Peace? Peace? Are you serious? Again I point out that this man was shipping weapons into Iraq as recently as October and telling the militias there to step up the targets and attacks. Lets look at this "peace" we achieved under Obama with Iran, we already covered the Benghazi attacks and the planned bombing on U.S. soil. We have the capture of US soldiers on January 12, 2016 which resulted in release of pictures of them bound, a direct violation of the Geneva convention. https://www.lawfareblog.com/irans-photographs-navy-sailors-war-crime-or-just-outrage Iran through its use of Hezbollah was responsible for shipping countless number of drugs into Europe and America, the money of which was used to further finance terror operations. https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-hezbollah-drug-trafficking-investigation/ They engaged in various acts of cyber espionage targeting the state department and various other civilian targets. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/25/world/middleeast/iran-hackers-cyberespionage-state-department-social-media.html I could go on and on, but I think it is rather clear that Iran, despite the nuclear accord, was still willing to act in a non peaceful manner, in attempts to humiliate and hurt the U.S. |
Quote:
Dark humour about American warmongering aside, I'm kinda with Alt on Obama with this one. He was better than Bush or Trump sure, but that's not setting the bar very high. Obama was pretty good domestically but he wasn't much better for the Middle-East than other Presidents have been. |
ALT, seriously, stop and read what you read. It's kind of terrifying.
|
Quote:
|
America is not a nation of war-mongering conquerors, ALT.
You WANT war? You WANT to slaughter innocents just to prove your point? What did Iran EVER do to you?? If we turn into what you describe, Iran is NOT the brutal, godless terrorist nation you claim it is. WE are. |
Quote:
That all being said, it is wrong to ignore Iran's aggression over the last two decades, something must be done to say that they need to stop. Targeting a key figure that has killed thousands of people, and hundreds of US soldiers, and was preparing to unleash even more attacks seems to send a pretty clear message that the US will no longer tolerate the actions of Iran against them anymore. What happens next is not up to the US but Iran, if Iran does not want war, and I hope they do not, then they can see this as a chance to change their attitude and stop targeting US troops and embassies, if they want to go to war with the US, then they can counter attack and kill even more people and continue along the bloody path they have chosen for the past two decades. |
Quote:
What's your solution? Do we, as Trump said, "bomb the s*** out of them and leave Iran a deserted ruin? (In other words, genocide.) Do we target their families, another method he recommended? Do we invade, kill the political and religious leaders, and subjugate the citizenry? (In other words, invade the place and take over, exactly what crazy conspiracy theorists always say ISIS is going to do to us.) Do we seize the oil fields? (In other words, become no better than thieves.) Do we force the Muslim citizenry to abandon their faiths and become Christians? (Become a new version of the Taliban?) See where I'm going? When all is said and done, who's the actual terrorists here? |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Good riddance to a terrorist.
It is interesting seeing seeing who calls it an assassination and who doesn’t. |
Quote:
Trump did. Now, here's an explanation of why another Gulf War is folly: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-invasion-iran-would-be-suicidal-110411 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
THINK about that. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Kind of like how World War 1 started with the assassination of Archbishop Francis Ferdinand. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I should mention, btw, that Bin Laden was being pursued for both national and international criminal charges, and even so, Pakistan was very angry at us after the mission for violating their sovereignty. |
Quote:
|
Why are we all forgetting that the reason there's so much anti-US sentiment in the Middle-East is because past American governments have invaded over false pretences for the sake of controlling oil supplies and forcing their values onto other cultures? I'm not going to condone the burning down of the US Embassy, but let's stop pretending that the US are the good guys here. There are no good guys in these wars - although I guess a debate could be made for Iraq since they largely just seem to be in a really unfortunate location.
Also, I don't Bin Laden is a good comparison. He was wanted internationally for well known, confirmed crimes. I'm not okay with the violation of sovereignty, but the strike itself I'm okay with. The attempted assassinations of Fidel Castro would be a better example, although there's the issue of the absence of a third party. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
If this were a case in a court of law and you tried to prosecute with the flimsy conjectural evidence the US government seems to have, you would be laughed out the building. I'd like to think that maybe the standard for ordering an assassination on foreign soil should be higher than that. This entire situation is a mess and a large part of that is because of the US leadership making stereotypical US leadership decisions. |
Quote:
Do you deny he met with militia leaders in October instructing them to step up attacks, as well as provided them with weapons from Iran? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-soleimani-insight/inside-the-plot-by-irans-soleimani-to-attack-us-forces-in-iraq-idUSKBN1Z301Z Do you deny that as leader of Iran's military he helped finance and direct thousands of terror plots in Iraq and Syria? I mean this all is fact, his trail of crimes and bodies has been well known and documented across three US Administrations and across the world. Edit: Or you know we could just ask those that attacked the embassy who was in command, they were quite clear. "Outside the embassy, the protesters flung rocks at the gate while others carried banners with President Trump’s face crossed out and chanted, “No, no, America! … No, no, Trump!” They scrawled “No to America!” and “Soleimani is my commander” on the embassy walls — referring to Iran’s pointman for Iraq, Revolutionary Guards commander Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani. Qais al-Khazali, leader of the Iranian-backed Asaib Ahl al-Haq militia, and several other senior militia leaders were among the protesters." https://nypost.com/2019/12/31/hundreds-of-iraqis-attempt-to-storm-us-embassy-in-baghdad/ |
Quote:
As for Iran having influence in Iraq, that's none of the US' business. |
Quote:
In court not only would you lay out the facts but you would have experts come in and testify on them to show that Soleimani was engaging in behavior that he has done for over a decade when it comes to commanding foreign militias for Iran's interest. |
It’s a testament to the longevity of Rupert Murdoch’s stranglehold on Western media that far-right propagandists, or centrist apologists, don’t even have to be paid to do their job, they don’t have to know how they’ve been manipulated - it’s almost automated at this point, allowing a true illusion of self-determination with spreading hatred they believe to be wholly original and solely defined by them. With such a successful decades-long dehumanisation of the Middle East, any and all actions undertaken to further destabilise the region is universally seen as a good thing by those people; the Forever War of recent decades need not end if there are brown people still left to shake their geopolitical fist at, if there’s always a new enemy to justify the ransacking of government coffers for private interests. There will always be a justification.
|
Iran's actual heads of state say: "We are complying with America's nuclear deal."
Republicans say: "Don't believe them, they're a bunch of liars!" A mob of Iranian citizens say: "“No, no, America! … No, no, Trump!” Republicans say: "They are deadly serious! This is a threat to America!" Angry Mob screaming, "Death to the Great American Satan!" Republicans shout: "TERRORISTS!" But Just-as-Angry Mob shouting, "LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!" And Republicans say, "Aw, they don't mean it." Sounds kinda dumb, doesn't it? On a related note, Trump has just threatened war crimes against Iran. In his midnight tweetstorm, he said, I quote: Quote:
Quote:
To put this in terms everyone can understand, I am reminded of the famous scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where Indiana Jones (a character Trump compared himself to at least once) points a grenade launcher at the Nazi troops carrying the Ark of the Covenant, threatening to destroy the artifact rather than let them have it. The evil archaeologist Belloq (one of film history's biggest narcissists and an overall big jerk) calls Indy’s bluff, however, correctly reminding him that “we are simply passing through history. This, this *is* history.” (Yeah, that's right, the villain is not only calling out the hero, he's making a valid point while doing so.) The president of the United States is threatening Iran with cultural extinction. No matter how you spin it, that is a war crime. Threatening a war crime is also war crime. And this president must be held accountable for it, whether while in office or afterward as need be. Edit: It doesn't look like Iraq is as happy with Trump as he assumed they'd be: https://www.aol.com/article/news/2020/01/05/iraqs-parliament-calls-for-expulsion-of-us-troops/23893552/ |
Iran has announced on state tv that they are officially pulling out of the nuclear deal, it was largely a sham at this point anyway, but now they have made it official.
|
Many Iranian Americans support the death of the terrorist general.
One such protest. https://www.google.com/amp/s/losangeles.cbslocal.com/video/4374204-iranian-americans-celebrate-death-of-general/amp/ The US doesn’t support the ICC and mostly doesn’t care what the UN says. |
If Soleimani was as talented as everyone says he was, then I wonder if his assassination might impair Iran's ability to work through its proxies in the Middle East. If he had mysteriously died by poison then you've probably saved some American lives down the line and get away with it, but destroying him in a brazen airstrike only serves to give Iran an obvious reason to retaliate and makes things more chaotic for all the other actors not named the US or Iran. I think the scariest aspect of the confrontation as it currently stands is Israel or Saudi Arabia. They might receive retaliation or be provoked into attacking Iran or its proxies, at which point you can't help but think it'll spiral into open conflict and the US would have to respond in kind.
|
US did a good job, Iran is a country who promotes terrorism, human trafficking etc etc. They deserved it.
|
Quote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/06/house-to-vote-on-limiting-trumps-military-powers-regarding-iran.html A full deliberation of congress and sharing the material would not be pointless if there is no clear evidence for the claim of imminent danger the decision to drone this guy was based on. This precedure could have exposed lies from the White House, and then they might not have gotten to carry out the assasination they wanted. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and the Trump administration has yet to demonstrate a specific and imminent threat to us, only a generalized fear. In his CNN interview Friday when Pompeo was asked about the specific nature of the threats Pompeo talked out of both sides of his mouth. "I can't talk too much about the nature of the threats. But the American people should know that the President's decision to remove Soleimani from the battlefield saved American lives. No doubt about that, actively plotting in the region to put thousands of Americans at risk. We know he's behind dozens of attacks throughout region." He does not say how he knows this. Then we were treated to this word salad. "I am not going to tolerate killing of Americans on Dec 27th-- Americans killed in Iraq. Then we watched intelligence flow in to show Soleimani travels throughout region and work to put Americans at risk. Time to take this action, plot to deter further aggression from Qassem Soleimani and iranian regime, as well as de-escalate situation." This reads like a free verse poem. The Trump administration has to show that there was an imminent threat in order to carry out an assassination. We're supposed just to sit down and shut up and fall in line? Why should we just trust this guy whose been pushing us to attack Iran since 2014? We don't need any impirical evidence to evaluate? We should just kill someone primarily because of their reputation as our opponent, and on the word of Robert Hook, Mike Pompeo and Donald Trump that the White House really has some good intelligence that they are not showing us and a catastrophe will strike if we don't do these killings now. That is a psychological form of black mail to manipulate the public. Yeah sorry, the very government that has lied us into wars in the middle East like Libya, Syria, Afghan and Iraq needs to answer questions before receiving a license to kill in Iran too. This could be false intelligence, which is why it has to be shared objectively now or another half a million people may end up dead for no reason just like they did in Iraq. The first responsibility of congress is to check and balance the executive branch, nowhere is this more important than initiating wars, which is what Trump is trying to do. The more information begins to surface the more horrifying this assasination is. The prime minister of Iraq is saying that Soleimani was in the airport on a peace mission trying to improve relations with Saudi Arabia. The guy we just blew away to Kingdom Come could just as easily have been carrying a diplomatic response as hatching a plot. If it is the former then it is our leader this time who just made the world more unsafe. https://thegrayzone.com/2020/01/06/soleimani-peace-mission-assassinated-trump-lie-imminent-attacks/ Quote:
I am not unsympathetic to our fallen countrymen and women. It's tragic that well-meaning American soldiers were used by the government in this way and ended up in the path of guerilla warfare from Iranian-backed militias, fighting and dying on a false pretext so that the military industrial complex could enrich itself here at home. The troops didn't deserve to die, and neither did the people we were invading. It was a no-win situation. This is why I am anti-war, because that is the horrible reality of what it looks like trying to hold a country that does not want you there. It is why I am for exhausting every diplomatic tool, no matter how much of a concession it may be to stop another Iraq. This is why I don't support shooting our opponents first and asking questions later right outside Baghdad airport. I believe it could lead to Iraq 2.0 If two nations do go to war however a distinction does ultimately need to be drawn between warfare against armed forces and saying in a vacuum that Soleiman the mass murderer killed hundreds of Americans. Those hundreds of Americans shouldn't have been sent over there. I wish all of the people were alive today. If you make war on a nation however then the troops killed trying to take control of the country for you is not the same set of circumstances as an act of terrorism against civilians like 9/11. This doesn't make the impact of loss of these American lives any less, there is nothing to prevent or our own government officials from assasination however for consequences of their role in our wars if we assassinate Soleimani on a basis as broad what he did at war. This is a slippery slope that we are using as the basis of this killing. Most of the deaths we know for fact Soleimani is directly responsible for took place within the context of our occupation of Iraq, av decade that left half a million people dead, more displaced and wounded, homes destroyed, raided, mass arrests people tortured and detained, governments broken for nothing, all based on lies of the government telling us to kill this guy too. I think it would be more constructive and relevant to a conversation about foreign policy if we explain how his militias came to be fighting the United States, than reduce the discussion to caricatures where one party is the "monster" as you term it. I am not going to have a conversation about Benghazi as grounds for his assination because this is a theory about something he was involved with, with words like "allegedly" and "supposedly" and "could have" peppered throughout the links you have posted, rather than something we know, and the same is so for him supposedly having a plot to attack America once that never came to fruition if this was even so. Nothing is more final than death. If you believe our government should kill him or anyone then that decision needs to be based on just the hard facts. Quote:
If you don't want to use the word peace with regard to Iran, then how about less of a mess than we have now? Instead of just feeling hurt and humiliated now there is no incentive for Iran not to enrich uranium and build weapons. The population of the country is suffering, food is unaffordable because of the crippling sanctions we slapped on them. Any moderates left will probably be swept out of office in Iran in backlash for the Soleimani assasination and replaced with hardliners. We have Sunnis and Shiites, moderates, hardliners, reformers all united in mourning now and justifiably hating America. 50 people were just killed in the chaos of stampede of the chaos of his funeral marches alone. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/iran-live-updates/2020/01/07/896c70a2-30d5-11ea-9313-6cba89b1b9fb_story.html Iraq, which was in a precarious position technically aligned with both the U.S and Iran, now may have to go all in with Iran. Their parliament has voted to expel us out of the country for fragrantly undermining their sovereignty by killing on their soil an official of the government they invited in to help them defeat Isis, and Trump threatening Iraq with illegal sanctions now if they dare tell us to leave. Iran promising to hit back 30 sites in retribution for this assination, and Trump going for the machine gun threatening to hit 50 in Iran, not sparing even the civilians who could die if he hits the cultural heritage sites, threatening essentially human rights violations. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/trump-threatens-iran-attacks-52-sites-n1110511 We could also see a resurgence of Isis in the north as we just killed the guy who demolished Isis. Isis, the terrorist group that emerged out of the instability that OUR regime change wars caused, was previously being contained by Iran and the Kurds. Trump is doing his best to burn all bridges with both of them. We're telling any Americans to flee the region for their lives right now. If this was an effort to deter aggression then Trump failed miserably. Isis may not be the worse of our problems, Iran was doing naval exercises with Russia and China a little earlier this December. https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/27/asia/china-russia-iran-military-drills-intl-hnk/index.html It is not out of the realm of possibility that you could pull them into this dispute too. Neither Obama or Bush wanted to kill Soleimani because they recognized this would be such a major escalation that it would probably lead to war. That does not mean they had a positive view of him, but our personal feelings won't change that he is respected in the middle east even outside of Iran. If the US and Iran want to de-escalate they stll may not be able to because they can't control the reaction of everyone on the region. I hope that this does not happen, but these are possible geopolitical consequences that need to be considered with his death, and the question is if the threats were truly more imminent to you before you had killed. #NoWarWithIran |
Know what's amazing?
Obama: Took down Osama bin Laden, a known terrorist leader wanted internationally, and mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Viewed by Republicans as worst president in history and a traitor. Trump: Took down an Iranian general whom nobody even heard of with no solid evidence of terrorist activities. Viewed by Republicans as a hero and "true American". Unbelievable. |
Quote:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/obituaries/qassem-soleimani-dead.html |
Quote:
It is not hard to imagine that if reversed it would be Republicans saying that Obama is trying to get a war with Iran to distract from problems at home, with Democrats saying that taking out Osama Bin Laden was unnecessarily provocative of us going into an ally Pakistan. |
I don't like that many innocent civilians were killed just to take out this one guy whom no one heard of. People lost family members, friends, mothers, fathers, people who were just at a fucking airport.
It's no lie that the US and Iran have beef ever since Trump pulled the nuclear deal but if there's no hard evidence about this guy other than he was a general? Come on. Don't risk the lives of millions for one man. |
Quote:
Edit: Breaking News Iran responded by using cruise missiles and ballistic missiles to target US bases all over Iraq. This seems like a rather limited response but may not be the only response given by Iran, however it does clearly ratchet up the tensions. Edit Again: No deaths, and more than a few missiles missed, this could be Iran backing down, or preparing terror attacks and claim deniability. Quote:
I guess the question I have to ask is this, which do you think Pelosi believes would hurt the Democrats more, another Iraq War in which Republicans and Bush were blamed, or another Benghazi in which Democrats were blamed for failing to act. Quote:
Quote:
I can understand by being frustrated by the lack of information, however lets be realistic here, the more concrete information is going to be given out to those like the Gang of 8 in Congress, because of how much risk it puts on the intelligence community to reveal where they got it. Quote:
By the way, just before he arrived in Baghdad, he was in Syria, to coordinate with Iran’s proxys on what to do next against the US, further strengthening the point that he came to Baghdad to plan with the proxys in Iraq. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/tracked-targeted-killed-qassem-soleimanis-final-hours Quote:
Lets also not forget that it wasn't just US servicemen that were targeted by this militia, Iran was funding and orchestrating a full on Sunni vs Shia civil war in Iraq that killed thousands upon thousands of civilians, a civil war that they continue to try and push to today. That blood is on Soleimani's hands. Quote:
Quote:
So what has changed? Honestly the only thing that has changed is that the US took off the table the man responsible for largely orchestrating Iran's foreign policy of funding militias and engaging in terrorism. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
And it’s looking likely that Iran shot down a passenger plane. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-plane-crash-shootdown-ukraine-boeing-latest-a9275051.html%3famp |
Why is it that so many people keep thinking Trump will somehow metamorphosize into a capable leader? He has none of the requirements necessary to successfully lead this nation. Not only does he lack wisdom, intelligence and empathy, he has no understanding of diplomacy, negotiation, history or world cultures. His mental state is in question with every rash decision he makes. Trump is obviously jealous of anyone and everyone in government who knows more about international situations than he does. He has never been a success in business; his business failures and six bankruptcy filings have left countless people devoid of their savings and contractors unpaid for work done for him. He rants about the NFL when his only experience in football was running the USFL into the ground. No American banks would grant him loans he sought, so he turned to the Russians for his money. For Trump, his office is just a setting for another game show in which he can scream "You're fired!" at anyone and everyone who disagrees with him or challenges his decisions. It seems his appeal is mostly for bullies and those who are as stubbornly ignorant as he.
Case in point, LDSMan, read this. https://www.aol.com/article/news/2020/01/07/trump-walks-back-threat-to-commit-war-crimes-against-irans-cultural-sites/23896373/ Specifically, read the replies. Seeing you guys try so hard to agree with everything he says without admitting he made mistakes never fails to amuse me. And yes, it's everyone, the international outcry shows that the only folks behind him are his sycophant yes-men who would indeed defend him if he stood on the corner of 5th Avenue and shot someone. |
Yes, yes, you hate Trump. Doesn’t bother me.
You subscribe motives to me that don’t exist. Trump was better than Clinton. That’s all. I certainly don’t think everything he does is great nor is he the person you describe. Not all that relevant to the discussion at hand. Why should anyone care about online comments? No thoughts on the possibility that Iran just killed a plane full of people? |
Deadly plane crash in Tehran earlier, killing many from my country, so its a bit personal but the over all death count is ridiculous, my deepest condolences.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/middleeast/plane-crash-victims-iran-intl/index.html These people were trying to flee, it's really sad. |
LDS, my opinion of Trump's complete failure in trying to bully Iran is best summed up here:
https://politizoom.com/2020/01/08/the-stupidity-is-unprecedented/ And before anyone criticizes me about how course this editorial is, Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh are even courser. |
Quote:
So far Iran is refusing to release the black box which would either confirm that, or help explain why a relatively new aircraft suddenly crashed, which could save lives. Quote:
|
Uh, ALT, they are not obligated to release the black box to us.
In fact, asking them anything is going to be a chore given what Trump did. |
Quote:
That is of course, if there was anything wrong with the plane..... |
Trust me ALT, Trump has ruined any chance of trust between this country and any other.
This poll was actually taken BEFORE the assassination of General Soleimani, and I do believe it's gotten worse since: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/01/08/trump-ratings-remain-low-around-globe-while-views-of-u-s-stay-mostly-favorable/ Quote:
This was not a military operation to remove an enemy leader. This was murder. Trump had no authority to order an air strike with the intent of killing him, he had no approval from Congress (something you condemned Obama for, I might add) he committed a blatant war crime by threatening to bomb historic and cultural sites. AND, I might add, I'm sick of Republicans saying that Democrats are siding with Iran. Biden said, bluntly, "No one will mourn Soleimani." And besides, I do believe at this point that even if Rep. Omar were to breakdance on his grave, Trump's blindly loyal sycophants would say her sympathies lie with him. |
Quote:
I am not suggesting they release it to the US government, they can give it to Boeing, they can give it to an intermediary, someone, anyone that could be trusted to figure out how this plane went down. Not doing so, will only further the belief that Iran accidentally shot down their own plane and is trying to cover it up. |
Quote:
ALT, let me ask a simple question: Are you not suggesting that the President has the right to order the death of anyone he chooses? |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/04/politics/trump-iran-soleimani-strike-concerns/index.html Quote:
Quote:
|
Iran wasn’t following the nuclear deal to begin with.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/iran-news-breaks-iran-nuclear-deal-limit-uranium-enrichment-donald-trump-warning-today-2019-07-08/ |
Quote:
By the way the nuclear deal of which Iran was already violating, only prevented them from enriching Uranium for a bomb for 15 years. If Iran plans to nuke Israel then the deal did not save any lives, it just postponed the attack. Quote:
Before he flew to Iraq he was in Lebanon briefing Hezbollah on the next step forward after the US Embassy attack, he flew to Iraq and met with the leader that attacked the Embassy and who he had given weapons to in October. It was clear they were planning their next action after the Embassy attack. Quote:
|
Quote:
Look at it that way. People would be screaming for their blood. Just like Iran is now screaming for ours. Quote:
Edit: Here is the Wikipedia page detailing the Embassy attack: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_attack_on_the_United_States_embassy_in_Baghdad Soleimani is mentioned twice, once to show that one of the attackers spray-painted "Soleimani is our leader" on the wall, and again to say that his death occurred in the aftermath. Is the vandalism proof that he was behind the attack? NO. But it seems enough proof to you, it seems. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
The Obama admin designated Soleimani as a terrorist.
https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/pages/tg1320.aspx Edit: https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1Z301Z |
Seems rather vague, but it only reinforces what I already knew. Still see no justification for assassinating him. Sure, he was a bad man, but Trump's actions were extreme.
As detailed in this article from the same web page you linked to, reinforcing my original point that what Trump did was a failure: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/qassem-soleimani-iraq-iran-us-trump-war |
Quote:
“ The Revolutionary Guards commander instructed his top ally in Iraq, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and other powerful militia leaders to step up attacks on U.S. targets in the country using sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran, two militia commanders and two security sources briefed on the gathering told Reuters.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1Z301Z |
Quote:
|
Which brings me back to my original point:
With no formal declaration of war, and no proof of any plans to target American interests, Trump ordered him killed. The President of the United States does NOT have the authority to have anyone he wants assassinated. Furthermore, the fact remains, he violated the Geneva Convention by threatening to destroy Iran's cultural and historical sights. That makes Trump a war criminal from this point on. |
Quote:
To not call that plans to target American interests is absurd. Quote:
On the other hand, if Iran believes the US is going to play just as dirty as they and by extension their proxy’s do, it may give them pause in attacking. So when he actually does attack those sites I will condemn it, until then, if it’s to scare Iran into thinking the US will no longer fight with one hand tied behind its back, I can see the value. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Obama administration thought he was a terrorist. By any reasonable person’s definition. Threatening to do so is not a violation. Prove otherwise. |
Quote:
It seems fairly evident that he was planning something big, and was going around briefing those that could be effected, or that would be carrying out the attack. |
Quote:
Hard to know what is the truth really. |
Quote:
"Guzzetti, the retired head of the FAA’s accident investigation division, said the details of the crash publicly available suggested the plane was brought down deliberately. “To me it has all the earmarks of an intentional act. I don’t know whether it was a bomb or a missile or an incendiary device,” he said. If the video of the flaming plane is accurate, “I can’t conceive of a failure that could cause that much of a conflagration,” he said. An engine fire, for example, would take a substantial period “to consume the airplane,” said Guzzetti, who was an air safety investigator and engineering specialist at the National Transportation Safety Board for 18 years before joining the FAA. The abrupt cutoff of flight-tracking data emitting from the plane also indicated that it was “a sudden catastrophic event that created a power loss throughout the whole airplane,” he said" https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/ukrainian-passenger-plane-with-180-crashes-in-iran/2020/01/07/7e214eb4-31cc-11ea-91fd-82d4e04a3fac_story.html I hate to speculate but the only information we have right now is the video of the plane on fire, Iran saying it was a malfunction, and the flight suddenly stopped broadcasting at the time of the accident. |
I don't hate Trump but he campaigned as an anti-war candidate and he shouldn't even be flirting with the idea of war with Iran. Things easily could've escalated to that point if Iran retaliated by killing US soldiers or citizens. Putting America First doesn't have to mean occupying other countries. He has enough domestic issues to worry about as it is. I don't know who this meant to please other than the war hawks in his cabinet and around the world.
|
The NY Times has obtained a video showing the missile hitting the Ukrainian jet right after takeoff, pretty much putting an end to the speculation of what happened.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/video/iran-plane-missile.html |
Yes our PM says the same too, according to his intelligence.
Because Canada was the second highest casualties, at 63. Obviously I don't agree with how aggressive the Us is being to Iran, seemingly from nowhere because we'd heard nothing about it in a while before this :/ But they shouldn't shoot down a plane, like its obviously a passenger jet. |
So now Iran has said that they did shoot down the plane:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51073621 https://twitter.com/HassanRouhani?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor Stating something along the lines of how because of the fact that it was shortly after the US killed Soleimani and the plane was allegedly flying too close to a military facility, that they mistook it for an American military craft or missile and so shot at it. |
Quote:
However it's good that we finally have confirmation from Iran. |
To absolutely nobody's surprise, one of Trump's aids is falling back on the administration's all-purpose contingency plan: Blame Obama!
https://www.alternet.org/2020/01/trump-spokesman-tries-to-defend-iran-strike-by-attacking-obama-but-it-completely-backfires/ It didn't go over well... Edit: In incredible Irony, Trump is now pushing for more NATO presence in the Middle East: https://www.politico.eu/article/us-president-donald-trump-asks-for-nato-help-in-middle-east/ This will likely go over even less well. |
Quote:
terms of lives lost, and the media coverage would wage on and on indefinitely until the war was over which was 8 years in the case of Iraq. In order to escape blame Democrats had to be perceived as the party that would be the alternative to war, they would not be in a stronger position than the Republicans if they had authorized a drone strike that led to another Iraq. Obama for instance did not hold office as a senator when the Iraq War resolution was voted on. He was separated from that whole fiasco. He suffered no political repercussions because he had no vote on record. He was able to criticize the Iraq war and make a campaign promise out of ending the war, presenting a less hawkish face to the public in the general election than the war's proponent John McCain, who came off as just another 4 years of Bush's policies. The shadow of the Iraq War loomed over Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primary too, making for an unfavorable contrast between her and Obama. She was deservedly bludgeoned over the head for her pro-war vote. John Kerry also shot himself in the foot by voting for the Iraq war. Bush may have started the war, but Kerry's position was ultimately the same as Bush's, thus it nullified the criticism of Bush, making it not a conversation about which candidate was going to get us out of the war, but turning it into which one was in a better position to win the war. Kerry was rightly viewed as just a more cowardly version of Bush, and Bush was re-elected. There would have been political loss if Democrats obstructed Trump and American personnel were harmed or killed overseas as a result of their inaction, but there would have also been a political loss if Democrats supported a poorly-hatched foreign policy decision that plunged us into war, and the size of the loss would be far worse. Trump can be the one steering the ship, but they can all still go down with his ship. Ultimately they should make their calculations based on what evidence is presented to them at the time, and what was more likely. They would be crazy to just rubber stamp something this important with their eyes closed. For what it's worth I'm glad that the U.S and the Iranians at this time are pulling back, and that nobody was harmed in the military base, and there's a visible grace period where we should be able to de-escalate. I say this knocking wood, hoping that the political situation doesn't alter yet again by the time I finish writing. Quote:
The only thing we accomplished is infuriating Iran and making the situation in the middle East more caustic. We fortunately are not at war today at least, which is one blessing at least, but the shiites hate us even more now as we killed a popular general of theirs. They won't forgive or forget this, and all we have to show for this is a bunch of innocent people gone. Not to mention all the people will die indirectly because they can't afford food and don't have access to their medicine because of the sanctions we then had to place on Iran as a response to their military action, though there isn't much left in Iran to sanction been sanctioned by the United States, we were already down to taking even cancer treatment drugs from the Iranians. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/08/14/u-s-sanctions-are-killing-cancer-patients-in-iran/ This is not a game so Trump can appear to not look weak. This was not a win for Trump. It still led to a mess. Both of our nation's are probably guilty of violating international law. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/iran-plane-crash-likely-caused-violations-international-law-both-tehran-ncna1113646 Quote:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/15/curveball-iraqi-fantasist-cia-saddam https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/07/yellowcake200607 https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/08/how-the-iraq-war-was-sold/ Drone striking Soleimani is a leap based simply on blind faith in the American government must have unseen evidence that they would show you if they could, but it's too sensitive. Mother knows best I am being realistic, realistic that this a morally bankrupt white house with literally some of the very same Bush administration people who have come back in a revolving door to tell you to trust them like Gina Haspel and Brian Hook. There was no concrete information to take to the gang of 8, which is why they chose to circumvent congress to kill Soleimani because they had no case against him. Even in the classified setting of congress it was the same vague information you would know if you read the newspaper. If they had anything specific then our vice president Mike Pence, who was just out there peddling conspiracy theories about Soleimani being behind 9/11, would not be trying to respond to criticism about how insulting this briefing was by saying it wasn't really the full briefing to account for why it is so general. Trump would also not be out there fast-talking, inventing things that our statesmens say was never in the briefing like four embassies about to be blown up in an effort to make himself look less irresponsible for serving the country this nothing burger to suit his political interests. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-claims-iran-general-qassem-soleimani-was-plotting-to-blow-up-our-embassy-before-strike/ https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-s-evolving-account-soleimani-s-imminent-threat-n1113846 https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-and-pence-demand-trust-then-lie-blaming-soleimani-for-benghazi-and-9-11-933915/ Quote:
disprove that they were not deliberating about what action they could potentially take against the United States over Iran. Should we go escalate with Russia now too? Of course not! https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/putin-meets-assad-rare-syria-visit-iran-tensions-200107150701410.html In fact Russia's deputy foreign minister has met with Hassan Nasrallah. It would be suicidal to take the next step from that to go assasinate someone in the Russian government. This is not enough to kill someone over. It would be an act of war. https://www.foxnews.com/world/senior-russian-official-in-damascus-for-talks-with-syrian-leaders What's even more disturbing is that not only did the prime minister of Iraq say that Soleimani was coming for peace talks, he says that the United States also knew this and gave approval for Soleimani to visit, encouraging these negotiations to foster relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia. What he's describing sounds like we set him up. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/qassem-soleimani-death-iran-baghdad-middle-east-iraq-saudi-arabia-a9272901.html Pompeo says this is all Iranian propaganda, (though the source is Iraq and not Iran) and that they knew of no peace mission. One of these two men is a liar, either Pompeo or Abdul-Mahdi. I take the word if the Iraqis over the United States in this instance, as they are the neutral party, contrary to Pompeo saying it is Iranian propaganda. Furthermore Pompeo has urged Trump to kill Soleimani before. He is the Lady Macbeth who has screeched to attack Iran more than once. That much we know for a fact at least. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/killing-of-soleimani-follows-long-push-from-pompeo-for-aggressive-action-against-iran-but-airstrike-brings-serious-risks/2020/01/05/092a8e00-2f7d-11ea-be79-83e793dbcaef_story.html https://www.salon.com/2020/01/08/who-needs-john-bolton-mike-pompeo-has-been-pushing-trump-into-war-with-iran-all-along/ Quote:
"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," - General John Abizai This is the head of the head of the U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq telling you that they were there for the oil. There's far more evidence that we invaded Iraq for their oil then there is right now that Soleimani was out to blow up some Americans last week. There are memos from the British government that show them brazenly lobbying not be cut out of their fair share of the oil too. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secret-memos-expose-link-between-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html Before we invaded Iraq the oil was nationalized. It was not open to the British and American oil companies that have set up in Iraq today, companies that profited from the suffering of the people, including Haliburton the oil business that then-vice president Cheney once ran. In 1998 Kenneth Derr, then CEO of Chevron, said, "Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas-reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to." Now Chevron does, along with BP, ExxonMobil, Shell, you name it. https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/us/a-closer-look-at-cheney-and-halliburton.html https://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/index.html https://waronwant.org/media/shell-blasted-iraq-oil There were no weapons of mass destruction, both the United States inspectors and the United Nations spent years in Iraq looking for this fairytale, and found nothing. Iraq didn't even have Scud missiles. Iraqi scientists explained they had no chemical weapons. You invaded them unjustly. The war was illegal, breaching the United Nations Charter. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/07/usa.iraq1 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm Quote:
Yes, Soleimani was an Iranian commander, that didn't remove him from the conflict between Iraq and the United States however, as his country is Iraq's neighbor. What happened is that he formed an alliance with Iraq. People trying to build a coalition to drive out a mutual threat is also something that I would expect of war. The United States was trying to seize control of Iraq. It would be in his nation's interest to prop up Iraq because Iran is next door. What happens to Canada would concern us as Americans naturally, and vice versa I hope. John Bolton, who was not only Trump's former National Security adviser but the architect of the Iraq War, told Israeli officials after the Iraq invasion that, "Everybody wants to go to Baghdad. Real men go to Tehran." It was pretty clear what he meant by that, his ambition was to invade Iran. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/05/john-bolton-has-wanted-war-with-iran-since-before-you-were-born/ You support sending a drone to kill Soleimani because you thought he could be a threat. Here was a far less subtle threat then what you claim to be in danger from. Your tanks rolled into the region, and said his country was next. I don't condone many of things that Soleimani has done. This is why I think war should be avoided at all costs, I'll it say again. You can't just say without Iran there wouldn't be attacks since you've attacked Iraq. The horror of war is not just the suffering and death of the people you are conquering, it's our own loyal troops who are going to get shot down. It's even more heartbreaking when we had no good reason to be on that soil. Iraq hadn't been trying to attack us. You say Soleimani just wants to kill the Americans. I think that's not likely since a year earlier he was helping the Americans defeat the Taliban after we were the victims of 9/11 and he played an important role in restoring order in Afghanistan. I think we could learn more about what's going on in the region and strengthen our foreign policy if we ask why it is that someone who was willing to work with us just a minute ago so quickly turned against us? Did we do anything that might have inflamed tensions that we could not do in the future like start a game war? This is important to understand not to justify the tragedy of anyone's death. It's so we can make better informed foreign policy decisions. There is an international community of people we have to work within like it or not. We are all connected to each other. Quote:
I didn't say Soleimani did not have blood on his hands. Yes, he does. He is the equivalent of the CIA. How many nice agents carrying out black ops do you know? The question is was the United States in imminent danger from this person? Is this about regime change again, or is it about self-defense? If it's the former then it was an offensive action against Iran, not defensive and Trump needed to go congress to make a declaration of war, and I would be against that too. I don't think Iran has done enough directly to us to warrant sending more soldiers over there in front of militias. I would also caution any Americans who want to start hunting the world for monsters abroad, as they might be surprised to learn what their own government is doing. Trump funded and armed the Saudis as they waged the genocide against the people of Yemen, he did so even over the objections of the congress. What about the blood of those people on his hands? I think the Saudi Arabian government has done far more to destabilize the region than Iran. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-vetoes-resolution-to-end-us-participation-in-yemens-civil-war/2019/04/16/0fabc312-60a1-11e9-bfad-36a7eb36cb60_story.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/26/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-war-yemen.html I will readily acknowledge with you that Soleimani and his military has blood on it's hands. Are you willing to agree at least that we also have blood on our hands? Quote:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear/iran-is-complying-with-nuclear-deal-restrictions-iaea-report-idUSKCN1LF1KR After Trump not only reneged on the promise America made to Iran, but kicked them on the way out of the door by putting punishing sanctions on them, then yes, Iran did stop meeting comittments as they had no incentive to anymore. Europe and China tried to see what they could salvage of the deal, and keep Iran from leaving the table altogether. Now that we assassinated the general Iran has made clear that they will no longer comply with any of the restrictions of the deal. This does not serve the National security interests of the United States or the international community to keep goading a country until they develop nuclear capabilities. Before the deal they had the capacity to make 10 bombs if they wanted. Why would you want them to go back to that? As for Iran's leadership killing moderates and dissidents, yes, that is awful I agree. You say that you understand Soleimani's position, but I want to draw your attention to the fact you that Soleimani was part of the external wing of the Quds force. He was not ayatollah-- whose regime is still firmly entrenched. To be clear this domestic policy will not alter at all by removing Soleimani. If it did, that would still be an act of war against a nation if that was your interest. It is not a defense action if your goal is to change their regime. The United States has a habbit of trying to topple governments with a nonchalant attitude to what comes next. Don't like the Iranian government now? Neither do I. I wish the American CIA hadn't in overthrown Mossadeq who was democratically-elected, and then forced the Shah on the Iranian people over so the country would be a puppet state for the USA and give them a juicy share of the oil. The United States is okay with puppets so long as they control the strings. After years of the dictatorship the people revolted against the Shah's reign, and now there is the reactionary government in Iran we see today. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/cia-assisted-coup-overthrows-government-of-iran So ask yourself what your goal is for Iran before you start taking out the country's administrators, and saying it won't make a difference. Make sure it's going to yield the results you think. Quote:
Quote:
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://time.com/5761448/why-iraqis-are-worried-about-an-islamic-state-resurgence-after-soleimanis-death/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwistpDFmvfmAhXiYd8KHaBGCZUQqOcBMAB6BAgAEAI&usg=AOvVaw1WppTYDQ_Jvx5jQefHSjBv This was Soleimani's purpose for working with the iraqi government. If you took out the person who could protect them then there better be strong evidence that Iran was going to do imminent harm to the United States. There isn't. You could indirectly lose a lot more lives in the future. This is an opportunity for Isis and Al-Qaeida to regroup because now Iran and the United States are focused on one another instead of a potential mutual threat. Quote:
Quote:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/27/us/politics/russia-hypersonic-weapon.html The same is true of China. If you went to war with Iran, you would be testing China since they are Iran's top trading partner and oil consumer, they have an economic interest in keeping Iran afloat, and they ignore the United sanctions and continue to work with Iran. Also who would have constituted your allies if Iran had shot to kill? The United States is the loyal henchman for Saudi Arabia and Israel, did they have our backs? No. They ducked and ran for cover. Netenyahu made it clear that this was an Iranian-American conflict and we were on our own. Trump didn't coordinate this attack with Europe, they found out about it after we had already killed Soleimani, and most countries were horrified. We were isolated from many of our traditional allies, even our own country wasn't united about this. It was split along party lines, and protests against war were popping up all over the country. It doesn't sound like this bothered you, but I was disturbed. Look, I am glad both nations de-escalated. I don't want a nuclear war either. I think it's dangerous however to do something like this with no expectation of retaliation. It isn't something to play around with. We got off the hook this time, but had Iran's missiles killed Americans in that military base it would have been war. Was this an experiment really worth it to take down one man? I am inclined to say no based on all the information I currently have. Whether they think Soleimani deserved to die or not, most Americans seem to agree that killing him made us more unsafe. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/09/killing-soleimani-made-us-less-safe-trump-reckless-iran-poll/2835962001/ |
Quote:
Quote:
An Iranian national was captured not too far away from Mar-A-Lago carrying $22,000 in cash, and multiple weapons. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iranian-man-arrested-near-trump-mar-a-lago-resort-today-had-weapons-cash-2020-01-10/ |
Well, US already proved that it can win a few battles but overall, the war is always lost. An enemy is weak, but roots are still there. No rockets, no fire and certainly no words can change the weight of a history already written. In order to end this, people must stop with their meddling. They must leave each other alone. Of course this won't save civilians from their demise, since they're always in the wrong.
Killing Saddam was utterly stupid. And people knew that back then. Yet they didn't cared. In the end this greed turn out to be unprofitable. How many billions of dollars lost? And no american dream achieved. Only hatred was founded. |
What I don't like is how wars are always taken to the middle east, killing innocent civilians. Then when some try and seek asylum they are denied and called "terrorists" and other shit, obviously racism. You can't destabilize these nations and think people aren't going to flee for their safety.
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:48 AM. |
![]()
© 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.
Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.