Iran Situation

[GMDino]

POMPEO defends Trump threatening to commit war crimes in Iran with deflection: "Let me tell you who has done damage to the Persian culture ... it's the Ayatollah ... the real risk to Persian culture does not come from the United States of America." pic.twitter.com/uir7d6dkWX

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 7, 2020

 

[Matt_Crimson]

(01-07-2020, 11:38 AM)GMDino Wrote: That's a wonderful opinion you have there.

Thanks for sharing. 

You mean fact. But thanks for your opinion.

[GMDino]

(01-07-2020, 02:37 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: You mean fact. But thanks for your opinion.

So you know for a "fact" that the headline was changed for the reason you cited?

Do you work there?  Is there a citation for that "fact"? 

If not it is your opinion.

Thanks again.

[Matt_Crimson]

(01-07-2020, 02:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: So you know for a "fact" that the headline was changed for the reason you cited?

Do you work there?  Is there a citation for that "fact"? 

If not it is your opinion.

Thanks again.

Hold on, I'll give them a call.

[Matt_Crimson]

(01-07-2020, 11:37 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think it's true, as well. However, that doesn't matter. It's still a war crime to target cultural sites. Using the idea that they would target cultural sites if they could to justify targeting theirs is defending committing war crimes.

Yeah, I think Trump takes an L on this one. This whole "targeting cultural sites" thing is not a good idea. Even if it's just an empty threat, I still think it's a bad idea to even make that kind of statement. Personally, I'm all for Trump saying we will retaliate if Iran strikes us. But claiming he will target non-military targets sounds like a terroristic threat imo.

[fredtoast]

(01-07-2020, 11:31 AM)masonbengals fan Wrote: So is what Pete said true or not. Would they blow up our cultural sites if possible? I'm not advocating for doing the same at this point, but what he said is true. IMHO

No they probably would not do that because the consequences from the international community would be devastating.

[GMDino]

The Gang that couldn't lie straight is still waffling on their reasons for the killing AND Trump has feels because he can't bomb cultural sites.

"Think of it -- they kill our people, they blow up our people & then we have to be very gentle with their cultural institutions" -- Trump laments international laws prohibiting him from committing war crimes pic.twitter.com/KLB0y5LRLl

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 7, 2020

 

[hollodero]

(01-07-2020, 03:01 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Yeah, I think Trump takes an L on this one. This whole "targeting cultural sites" thing is not a good idea. Even if it's just an empty threat, I still think it's a bad idea to even make that kind of statement. Personally, I'm all for Trump saying we will retaliate if Iran strikes us. But claiming he will target non-military targets sounds like a terroristic threat imo.

Thanks for that.
This is one of the instances where I'd find it devastating if anyone, no matter the political affiliation, would not be appalled. Targeting cultural sites is a war crime, by all your domestic definitions and by the Geneva convention.

(01-07-2020, 03:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No they probably would not do that because the consequences from the international community would be devastating.

That's exactly right. (If reason prevails.)

And the same is probably true the other way round. If Trump were to follow through on his threat, the US won't be forgiven so quickly. It's tough as it is.

[*Nately120*]

(01-07-2020, 03:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No they probably would not do that because the consequences from the international community would be devastating.

Yeah, but that'll play well with his voter base who think that the US is the only awesome country and the rest of the world is a bunch of welfare hags sponging off our hard work.

[Dill]

(01-07-2020, 09:27 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I think Americans are, by nature, desensitized to the imperialist actions of our government. Murdering members of another nation's military is just the next step up from being World Police.

The question I always had was how do you differentiate the Soleimanis from the Kims? Or the Putins? Or the Xis? Or, as Donald Trump famously said, even Americans? 
"There are a lot of killers," Trump responded. "Got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country's so innocent?"
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/02/04/trump-fox-interview/97508274/

Americans aren't really fans of being compared to Putin (as Trump did in this particular quote). It's just another one of those quotes that you see and think "wait, and people still vote for this guy?"

I agree with the bolded.  Part of the "desensitization" results from cagy framing of foreign policy on the part of all presidential administrations. E.g., the current conflict is presented as a consequences of Obama's "bad deal" and "bad choices" by the Iranians. We killed their number two and threaten escalation if they make a "bad decision" by responding in kind. So any conflagration which follows will be the consequence of their bad decision.  Many Americans see through this, but the 35-40% who don't are enough to keep Trump in power and the Senate Republican.

The primary knock against Soleimani seems to be that he was effective in projecting and maintianing Iran's power in the Shia Crescent. He is sometimes credited with keeping Assad in power. He angered the US by supporting Shia militias in Iraq, who were contesting both the US and Sunnis for control of the county.

As for differentiating Soleimanis from the Kims or the Putins or the Xis--I don't find it especially hard to construct a continuum based on contempt for liberal values: Al Baghdadi and bin Laden would be the worst, the outlying extreme; next would come Kim, a creature of the most thoroughgoing totalitarian society currently in existence; Putin and Xi do not fit in either class. They are autocrats in authoritarian systems, but still manage to maintain the backing of most of their populace; and there are important differences between them--Putin's exercises power in personalist fashion in a regime that has become a kleptocracy; Xi wields institutional and ideological power. Both want to/do interact with the international community.   If we were trying to fit every world leader on this continuum, Trump would range near Putin in terms of his character/personality, but he is constrained by the political system he leads.

As far as Soleimani is concerned, he is not the leader of a country, but a general tasked with creating a buffer zone for Iran by strengthening clients like Assad and Hezbollah. On the news last night I heard someone claim he was a terrorist because he had killed "thousands" including "other Muslims," which is a silly sort of thing to say.(Imagine someone describing Bill Clinton as a president who plotted the deaths of thousands of his fellow Christians when he bombed Serbia.) Most of those "other Muslims" killed by Soleimani were Iraqi soldiers invading Iran, and later ISIS fighters threatening to overturn Assad. I.e., the same "Muslims" Americans were killing. We hear that he is "responsible" for the deaths of some 700 Americans via some new-fangled shaped-charge IEDs the IRGC supposedly developed and deployed by Shia militia during the Iraq War.  Based on the information I have about the guy, it is not clear how he could be designated a "terrorist" without deploying some kind of double standard, which should be fatal to any such definition. It his not clear how his methods could be differentiated from US practice, without the usual "exceptionalist" dispensation we give ourselves.  I do have an open mind on this matter though, and am not an Iran expert; perhaps someone out there knows more about his activities in Lebanon and Syria, for example, and could provide the requisite differentia specifica.

     

[Mike M (the other one)]

(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.

I get what you are saying, but innocent Americans will get killed either way. I'd rather be offensive than passive every time a USC is killed.  When your passive with a Terrorist group, it gives them legitimacy, and then they do bigger hits with out worrying about retaliation. You hit them every time they hit you, then it makes it harder for them to recruit and stay organized.

You guys hold Trump to his words and behavior and want him to face the consequences, so why the sudden double standards again? When you have the chance to take out a top leader of a Terrorist group, you take it. Just think if Bill had taken out Bin Laden when he had the chance, would 9/11 have still happened? 

All I can say is should have been done already.

[Bengalzona]

I remember being in basic training back in 1983. At morning formation, the drill sergeant brought in the newspaper and read the headline story. The Soviet Union had shot down a Korean Air Lines passenger plane. All 269 people on board, including U.S. Congressman Larry McDonald, were killed. He told us, "Y'all are just about out of here. Get ready, 'cuz your heading straight to war!" For a bunch of Army recruits isolated from the world at Fort Jackson, SC, at that time, we believed him.

It didn't go down that way, obviously. I don't believe the death of Soleimani will lead to war either. At least not one that Iran starts. With a empowered narcissist who thinks he is fulfilling the quatrains of Nostradamus (as defined by a 1980's TV show) leading the U.S., who knows?

For the record, Soleimani was a POS. Thousands of our troops were killed or injured in Iraq due to IED's designed and built with supplies from his group. Regardless of whether the troops should have been there in the first place (they shouldn't have been, IMO), this dude struck out against my brother and sister soldiers. No tears for his loss.

For your consideration. What if Soleimani was assassinated by a CIA or Mossad sniper outside of public view and with no one claiming responsibility? How would you feel abut his death in that circumstance?

Personally, I'm totally fine with that. There is no question as to motive. He was a POS and he was killed for being a POS.

All that said, casually violating other nations' territories and crowing about assassinations builds resentment that eventually comes back as backlash. In today's world, that backlash is represented by retributive ideology and terror attacks that will last decades. And that ideology will persist even if you remove the nation that is sponsoring it. Terror attacks like 9/11 don't come out of the blue. Like cancer, they are born out of acts like this and fester for years before coming to fruition.

[Millhouse]

I am glad they took him out. I think there should have been more involved like letting top Congressional leaders in on it as well as our top Euro ally heads of states. That would be my only criticism of it. Other than that good riddance, it should have been done years ago anyways.

Bottom line, we need to rid ourselves of mid-east oil (oil in general), so we can leave that part of the world alone forever.

[Dill]

(01-07-2020, 08:15 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I get what you are saying, but innocent Americans will get killed either way. I'd rather be offensive than passive every time a USC is killed.  When your passive with a Terrorist group, it gives them legitimacy, and then they do bigger hits with out worrying about retaliation. You hit them every time they hit you, then it makes it harder for them to recruit and stay organized.

You guys hold Trump to his words and behavior and want him to face the consequences, so why the sudden double standards again? When you have the chance to take out a top leader of a Terrorist group, you take it. Just think if Bill had taken out Bin Laden when he had the chance, would 9/11 have still happened? 

All I can say is should have been done already.

What are the double standards that you see here?

[Dill]

(01-07-2020, 08:58 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I am glad they took him out. I think there should have been more involved like letting top Congressional leaders in on it as well as our top Euro ally heads of states. That would be my only criticism of it. Other than that good riddance, it should have been done years ago anyways.

Bottom line, we need to rid ourselves of mid-east oil (oil in general), so we can leave that part of the world alone forever.

At the moment we are not dependent upon Middle East oil ourselves, but our allies and their markets are.

[fredtoast]

(01-07-2020, 08:15 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: When your passive with a Terrorist group, it gives them legitimacy, and then they do bigger hits with out worrying about retaliation. You hit them every time they hit you, then it makes it harder for them to recruit and stay organized.

I disagree.  We don't end terrorism by killing terrorists.  All we do is create more martyrs and enemies. 

The main point of conflict in the middle east is between two different factions of Islam.  The only time they are interested in killing Americans is when we choose one side over the other.

Bin Laden told us his exact motives for the 9-11 attacks.  EVERY SINGLE ONE of them involved actions we took in the Middle East.

[Au165]

Welp they launched rockets at our base in Iraq. Let’s see what kind of irrational response we muster up now.

[Dill]

(01-07-2020, 08:24 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I remember being in basic training back in 1983. At morning formation, the drill sergeant brought in the newspaper and read the headline story. The Soviet Union had shot down a Korean Air Lines passenger plane. All 269 people on board, including U.S. Congressman Larry McDonald, were killed. He told us, "Y'all are just about out of here. Get ready, 'cuz your heading straight to war!" For a bunch of Army recruits isolated from the world at Fort Jackson, SC, at that time, we believed him.

It didn't go down that way, obviously. I don't believe the death of Soleimani will lead to war either. At least not one that Iran starts. With a empowered narcissist who thinks he is fulfilling the quatrains of Nostradamus (as defined by a 1980's TV show) leading the U.S., who knows?

 
I remember when the KAL was shot down, but I wasn't worried it would lead to a war. US and Soviet leaders were far too rational, and it was clearly an accident. I remember when the US shot down an Iranian passenger plane as well, and I did not think that would lead to war for the same reasons.

So, speaking to the bolded, what bothers me about the current situation, B, is that the leaders of Iran and the US may not be so rational. Trump didn't just tear up the Iran Deal (which I thought offered the best long-term shot at regime change from within).  He re-imposed sanctions on Iran and has seriously hurt their economy. I heard one commentator yesterday suggest it would likely collapse in 2020.

The Iranian leadership was already in a very desperate position before the assassination. Angry too, after signing and adhering to the Iran Deal for so many years, trashing their nuclear program on the promise of peace, and peacefully coordinating with the US to defeat ISIS. They are threatened by US bases in Iraq, Qatar, and Afghanistan and Trump is further Arming Saudi Arabia. 

The assassination of a regime official ramps up pressure to respond proportionally. Most FP experts expect Iran will HAVE to respond somehow, and Trump and Pompeo assure us that when they do, the US will retaliate-- not "proportionally," but taking it to yet another level. That has me wondering if they might take out Iranian oilfields.  In any case, that promised extra-appropriate measure would surely mean a state of war exists between the US and Iran. This necessity of tit-for-tat, now looking iron clad, distinguishes the current situation from previous incidents like the KAL downing.

If I am a member of the Iranian leadership, I don't want war with the US because I don't want that catastrophe to befall my revolution, my nation and my people, but I don't want my regime to fall or disintegrate either which I see as protecting all the foregoing. However, if the latter becomes a real risk because of economic collapse, and there is no clear picture of what might emerge on the other side of that collapse, the choice between picking up the gauntlet now, or waiting until economic collapse, is looking even steven.  If there is a war with the US, sure, their first strikes would cripple the infrastructure. Trump likely thinks he can punish Iran enough without invading. We (the Iranian leadership) can likely accept more casualties and damage than the US, and hold out indefinitely. That's a terrible scenario, but looks like it's coming either way. So make clear that a war will target US allies, Israel, Qatar and Saudi Arabia as well, and that the US will be fighting another Iraq insurgency in Iraq and an expanded insurgency in Afghanistan--again. Warn a world dependent on Gulf oil to get ready to tighten their belts.  And then retaliate.  This will be a bigger and costlier unnecessary war than the Iraq War, which Trump always claimed he was against as he promised to "bring the US troops home."

So, speaking again as an American, I think that Iran has much less wiggle room than the US now, and Trump and his advisors have engineered it that way. Iran has to choose war or collapse. To my thinking, only US restraint in the face of Iranian retaliation for Soleimani could prevent war at this point. That leaves us with Trump, his mind on a humiliating and confusing impeachment, making decisions in a room largely cleared of competent advisors.

NB: just realized after writing all this--totally forgot about Congress! Trump could be reigned in from that side, defunded, or preferably impeached.

[masonbengals fan]

(01-07-2020, 03:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No they probably would not do that because the consequences from the international community would be devastating.

 I've saw no evidence they are concerned with the international community's opinion. 

[Dill]

(01-07-2020, 10:00 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote:  I've saw no evidence they are concerned with the international community's opinion. 

"Opinion"=/="consequences."  E.g., sanctions are not "opinions," but they are certainly consequences. That said, opinions can lead to sanctions, which Iran cares very much about.

In any case, Iran is certainly concerned with "opinion" as well as consequences. They have worked very hard to draw the EU onto their side in this conflict, not to mention other ME nations.  If it comes to war, they know world opinion will be very important.