Iran Situation

[*michaelsean*]

Well I've been done with this stuff for awhile. If someone is behind attacks on another country then that country can deal with them as they see fit. If they leave us alone, we leave them alone.

In some way, some innocent Americans are going to get killed. Not worth it if we weren't retaliating for something done to us.

[GMDino]

(01-06-2020, 10:03 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Well I've been done with this stuff for awhile.  If someone is behind attacks on another country then that country can deal with them as they see fit.  If they leave us alone, we leave them alone.

In some way, some innocent Americans are going to get killed.  Not worth it if we weren't retaliating for something done to us.

What does that mean?

You're done talking about it or that your you're done worrying about it?

Trump and Pompeo have already put forth multiple "reasons" for the attack, which have changed.

But Trump's continuous escalation is the problem here.  Doubling down on committing war crimes isn't a good look for any POTUS.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-06-2020, 10:10 AM)GMDino Wrote: What does that mean?

You're done talking about it or that your you're done worrying about it?

Trump and Pompeo have already put forth multiple "reasons" for the attack, which have changed.

But Trump's continuous escalation is the problem here.  Doubling down on committing war crimes isn't a good look for any POTUS.

I've been done with us being in it.

[GMDino]

(01-06-2020, 10:16 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I've been done with us being in it.

Got it.  Thanks for that.

[CJD]

Okay, spent the weekend brushing up on the situation. Think my opinion is...relatively informed now.

Here's the basics, in my opinion:

Soleimani deserved to die. He (and his military machinations) have led to the death of thousands (if not more) civilians, including Americans. Especially if it's true that he helped orchestrate the attacks on the US embassy in Iraq, although that still seems to be an unconfirmed detail.

The odds of this starting "World War III" are low, considering Iran has very few formidable allies and a ton of outright enemies. Iran + Iraq + Syria + Russia (If Russia even participates, which would probably be just defensive weapon assistance if anything) vs everyone else would not be a great war for them.

For that reason, I get the sense that most of Iran's retaliation will be in the form of terrorism or terrorist acts in America and other allied countries. We'll see how good the allies are at sniffing out and preventing those attacks, should they materialize.

I think the assassination was myopic though. I don't think this is a very similar situation to the Bin Laden or Al-Baghdadi kills. Both of those men were leaders of terrorist groups that, without a central figure, splintered into smaller and less effective groups (theoretically).

That won't happen in the Iranian government. It'll probably just be a "next man up" situation. Iran's terror network (or "covert forces" if you'd prefer) will not be affected that much by this assassination. I imagine it would be like someone assassination a US general. Sure, it'd piss Americans off a lot, but that General wasn't making sole decisions nor was he an isolated "head" of a snake, so to speak. Someone will be promoted to General afterwards and the machine will continue to run.

As it has been stated multiple times, both Bush and Obama had opportunities to kill Soleimani but did not. They likely decided that the unrest it would cause was not worth the incremental change in leadership in Iran's government/military it would create. It's surprising that Trump's advisers did not reach the same conclusion.

But it remains that the world is less one evil person due to this attack so it can't really be considered a bad thing, from that perspective.

HOWEVER, if this leads to increased military presence and deadly skirmishes in the area, that is when this assassination begins to look dumb as hell. Escalation is the key to determining the consequences of this attack. If we start shipping troops over there by the thousands and they start dying, then this becomes much more difficult to justify. After all, Vietnam was not originally intended to be a war either, as America initially only sent "advisers" to South Vietnam. The last thing we need, as a country, is another one of these drawn out wars in which we attempt to "establish Democracy."

Also, Trump's handling of the situation in the media is ***** disgusting. You can tell he's so war hungry. He sounds like he's looking forward to killing civilians with that comment about bombing cultural sites...
...That's literally a war crime.

Not that we've been good about holding our Presidents accountable for war crimes in the past...So I guess that part doesn't matter.

[Au165]

(01-06-2020, 10:01 AM)GMDino Wrote: Indeed.  And his cult loves it.

And he's going to sanction our "ally" Iraq if they don't get in line.

Also there was some debate awhile back about if DJT's tweets count as official policy.

He seems to believe they do.

The official policy thing I started thinking about yesterday. He insisted that tweet served as official notice, which to me, now exposes some of his other tweets to serious legal scrutiny. The guy literally burns his own defense because he can't stay out of his own way.  

[*bfine32*]

(01-06-2020, 09:27 AM)Au165 Wrote: Did we assassinate a high ranking general of a sovereign state during those incidents? If not, I can't say I see the similarities to the incidents. Also, did that incident get our troops thrown out of a country?

Let me help you out with the similarity: I think there are very few who do not think dude deserved to swallow a missile, most are now concerned about escalating into war. Just like they were concerned about it happening after the Hormuz incident.


But to add to the atrocity which was eliminating the head of a terrorist organization that has killed and plan to kill innocent Americans. I've noe learned it was racist:

https://twitter.com/Kaepernick7/status/1213553331181764608?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1213553331181764608&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fhomenews%2Fmedia%2F476902-megyn-kelly-criticizes-kaepernick-for-iran-tweet-because-everything-is-racist

[GMDino]

(01-06-2020, 01:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let me help you out with the similarity: I think there are very few who do not think dude deserved to swallow a missile, most are now concerned about escalating into war. Just like they were concerned about it happening after the Hormuz incident.


But to add to the atrocity which was eliminating the head of a terrorist organization that has killed and plan to kill innocent Americans. I've noe learned it was racist:

https://twitter.com/Kaepernick7/status/1213553331181764608?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1213553331181764608&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fhomenews%2Fmedia%2F476902-megyn-kelly-criticizes-kaepernick-for-iran-tweet-because-everything-is-racist

Thanks Lindsey.

[Au165]

(01-06-2020, 01:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let me help you out with the similarity: I think there are very few who do not think dude deserved to swallow a missile, most are now concerned about escalating into war. Just like they were concerned about it happening after the Hormuz incident.


But to add to the atrocity which was eliminating the head of a terrorist organization that has killed and plan to kill innocent Americans. I've noe learned it was racist:

https://twitter.com/Kaepernick7/status/1213553331181764608?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1213553331181764608&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fhomenews%2Fmedia%2F476902-megyn-kelly-criticizes-kaepernick-for-iran-tweet-because-everything-is-racist

Being concerned has various levels, hence why I asked if we assassinated a general during that incident you are referencing or if we got ejected from a neighboring country within days because of said referenced incident. I can be concerned I'll be audited for having a $500 dollar write off to good will on my taxes and I can be concerned I'll be audited for having a $5,000,000 dollar write off to good will, both are concerns but there are circumstances that make those concern substantially different.

Also, if he was appointed to that role by the head of Iran how is he the head of the organization? If the Iranian leader can now appoint another head of the Royal Revolutionary Guard, doesn't that technically make him the head of the organization? By the logic you applied, can we just drone strike Hassan Rouhani?

[Yojimbo]

Rueters just reported that the U.S. has agreed to leave Iraq.


https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1Z520A?__twitter_impression=true

[Belsnickel]

(01-06-2020, 05:35 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: Rueters just reported that the U.S. has agreed to leave Iraq.


https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1Z520A?__twitter_impression=true

I mean, if they didn't agree then it would create an even larger international dust up.

[6andcounting]

(01-06-2020, 05:35 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: Rueters just reported that the U.S. has agreed to leave Iraq.


https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1Z520A?__twitter_impression=true

(01-06-2020, 08:02 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I mean, if they didn't agree then it would create an even larger international dust up.

The letter is fake news! WW3 is back on the menu boys!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/pentagon-chief-denies-us-leaving-iraq-tehran-crowds-mourn-commander/ar-BBYFVYS?ocid=spartanntp

[Dill]

(01-03-2020, 04:03 PM)Au165 Wrote: ...he was also a general in another sovereign state's government. You keep failing to acknowledge that piece and how it makes things WAY different. Again, we are a terrorist organization per the designation Iran has assigned us an therefor if they attacked anything related to our military they would be doing so in the attempt to prevent a terrorist organization from carrying out terrorist attacks. Just deeming a part of a foreign government a terrorist group and pretending like that gives you cart blanche to do what you want isn't going to hold water with the international community as we have seen other countries coming out, even our allies, and saying they aren't backing this.

As I said, if Iran did this exact same thing to us we would call it an act of war. Only difference here is we are America and they aren't so we blindly back any violations of international sovereignty as us just doing what's best.

Substantial points, Au.

Since the Gulf War of 1991 the US has positioned itself in ME conflicts as the bearer of civilized standards (e.g., we don't torture prisoners or target civilians) and international law (respect the sovereignty of other nations!).  That is why, until now, it has mattered "what others thought of us." That other countries accepted (at least partially) this account of US intentions and actions was always one basis of the US' immense and unmatched diplomatic power--the kind of power evidenced in the Iran Deal, which brought Europe and three US adversaries to the table to sign an agreement now irrevocably undone by the Solemaini assassination.

That claimed high ground is one reason why the Trump administration is demanding that Iran behave like a "normal" nation. 

But this has also been a very troubled ground, since in practice the US regularly violates the civilized/international standards it claims to uphold, acting as an "exceptional" nation in the sense that the rules it wants others to uphold don't necessarily apply to the US.  Under Bush and Obama it was possible to explain US violations of international law as emanating from rogue elements of presidential administrations or the military itself, coloring out side the lines of command, so to speak. 

Under Trump, however, violations are openly embraced from the top down. It seems only the "deep state" has hindered plundering of other nations' property/resources and blocked actions which would make the US an international aggressor. Trump, like much of his base, appears to have little knowledge of the aforementioned standards and no interest in upholding them. The Base thinks in terms of "bad guys" and "good guys," not terms like "sovereignty," "international law," or "official representing a sovereign state."

The problem with the latter is that it has given us a president who, ignoring "what others think of us," cannot adequately forsee the consequences of his actions, in this case of violating the sovereignty of two states with one assassination--only the most recent in a pattern of actions currently driving us to another "endless" ME war.

[Benton]

(01-06-2020, 08:02 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I mean, if they didn't agree then it would create an even larger international dust up.

What I've read is that there's been miscommunications, they're staying but moving troops around.

I think it'll be confusion for a bit because nobody knows what we're doing.

[*bfine32*]

(01-06-2020, 09:37 PM)Benton Wrote: What I've read is that there's been miscommunications, they're staying but moving troops around.

I think it'll be confusion for a bit because nobody knows what we're doing.

Least of all the public. 

[Dill]

(01-06-2020, 10:26 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Soleimani deserved to die. He (and his military machinations) have led to the death of thousands (if not more) civilians, including Americans. Especially if it's true that he helped orchestrate the attacks on the US embassy in Iraq, although that still seems to be an unconfirmed detail.

I would urge my liberal friends, especially those inclined to observe and analyze before judging, to think more critically about claims that Soleimani was "responsible for/planning American deaths" in any sense other than military leaders generally are/do.  I'll add that the designation "terrorist" was already problematic before 9/11 (i.e., operated via double standards).  By 2007 it was politicized to the point of uselessness as descriptive term.  But the assassination of the general of a sovereign nation's military, with whom we were not at war, would even by 2007 standards be an act of terrorism.

(01-06-2020, 10:26 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The odds of this starting "World War III" are low, considering Iran has very few formidable allies and a ton of outright enemies. Iran + Iraq + Syria + Russia (If Russia even participates, which would probably be just defensive weapon assistance if anything) vs everyone else would not be a great war for them.

For that reason, I get the sense that most of Iran's retaliation will be in the form of terrorism or terrorist acts in America and other allied countries. We'll see how good the allies are at sniffing out and preventing those attacks, should they materialize.

I hope you are right, but I'm not certain the WW III odds are that low.  Countries would not necessarily have to be "allies" of Iran to take its side in the conflict currently shaping; the prime motivation could be to check US recklessness. China and Russia both would have an interest in doing that.  (By taking sides I mean drawing red lines, especially nuclear.) Also, Europe and Japan need Gulf oil, which a war would block.

Your second point also speaks more to the difficulty of containing conflict. Iran may proceed carefully (more carefully than Trump), possibly targeting a US official planning the deaths of Iranians, a mirror-image attack which will be "terrorism" if they are successful. I would not rule out attempted attacks on US soil, now that we are "safer," but I think they are certainly coming in other countries. Another possibility is ramped up proxy attacks on Israel and Saudi Arabia, including oil facilities. Not to mention attacks or other threatening behavior toward Gulf shipping. And of course Trump will have to respond. Given the nature of the leaders of each belligerent, I don't see an off ramp here.

One last point, as escalation continues, should Trump decide to hit Iran's oil fields to put them out of condition, it would be very likely that Iran would put Saudi Arabia's out of commission. That would paralyze economies of many countries. The price of oil would go through the roof, affecting every consumer good in every country in the world. Some countries may blame Iran for the fallout, but likely they will also blame the US. Outside of the Fox audience, it is clear to the world that ditching the Iran Deal and ramping up sanctions and tensions in the Gulf has pushed us to the brink.

(01-06-2020, 10:26 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I think the assassination was myopic though. I don't think this is a very similar situation to the Bin Laden or Al-Baghdadi kills. Both of those men were leaders of terrorist groups that, without a central figure, splintered into smaller and less effective groups (theoretically).

That won't happen in the Iranian government. It'll probably just be a "next man up" situation. Iran's terror network (or "covert forces" if you'd prefer) will not be affected that much by this assassination. I imagine it would be like someone assassination a US general. Sure, it'd piss Americans off a lot, but that General wasn't making sole decisions nor was he an isolated "head" of a snake, so to speak. Someone will be promoted to General afterwards and the machine will continue to run.

As it has been stated multiple times, both Bush and Obama had opportunities to kill Soleimani but did not. They likely decided that the unrest it would cause was not worth the incremental change in leadership in Iran's government/military it would create. It's surprising that Trump's advisers did not reach the same conclusion.

Totally agree with you here. It looks like Trump was upset by Iranian tweets and, when presented with a range of options, picked the most extreme.

Bin Laden and Al Baghdadi were charismatic leaders, whose organizations were built around personal authority. Solemeini, however, gifted, was still part of a military machine, a long-standing institution with replaceable parts. Killing him would not have stopped any "planned attacks" or whatever any more than killing General Schwarzkopf would have impeded the clearance of Kuwait in 1991. Most can see that killing QS increased the likelihood of retaliation, now elevated to a matching level of damage.

I am fairly certain that advisors with command and intel experience did conclude the assassination was a bad move. Trump does not follow professional advice--that is why Mattis, Bolton, and Kelly left.  If the US leaves Iraq, or reduces its footprint to a few hundred advisors, the Iranians have won an important victory. If the US does not leave, then we are likely in for another insurgency, more loss of blood and treasure. Still an Iranian victory. Trump is more dangerous now than in the first two years of his term. His advisors know that people who don't support his impulsive decisions don't last long, and he has motivation to drive impeachment from the news for cycles to come.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-06-2020, 01:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let me help you out with the similarity: I think there are very few who do not think dude deserved to swallow a missile, most are now concerned about escalating into war. Just like they were concerned about it happening after the Hormuz incident.


But to add to the atrocity which was eliminating the head of a terrorist organization that has killed and plan to kill innocent Americans. I've noe learned it was racist:

https://twitter.com/Kaepernick7/status/1213553331181764608?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1213553331181764608&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fhomenews%2Fmedia%2F476902-megyn-kelly-criticizes-kaepernick-for-iran-tweet-because-everything-is-racist

Dude’s an embarrassment. I get if you are concerned that this could turn into something bad, but to think killing this POS is picking on brown people is ridiculous.

[Au165]

We have now blocked Iranian Diplomats from attending the UN to speak with the security council. This man never wants anyone to testify it seems.

https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/el0w5t/the_trump_administration_is_barring_irans_top/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

[*bfine32*]

(01-06-2020, 10:21 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Dude’s an embarrassment.  I get if you are concerned that this could turn into something bad, but to think killing this POS is picking on brown people is ridiculous.

He's only an embarrassment if you've ever associated with his stunts. I have not, so I can just call him a joke

[GMDino]

Trump Tweets "We're gonna bomb Iran's Cultural sites"

Pompeo "Trump didn't say we're gonna bomb cultural sites"

Esper "We will not bomb cultural sites"

Trump "Yes we are gonna bomb cultural sites"

One day folks...all in one day pic.twitter.com/TsCDbgUtNd

— ?Liberal Puppy? (@liberalpuppy) January 7, 2020