Iran Situation

[Belsnickel]

(01-03-2020, 02:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Qassem Suleimani was the head of a terrorist organization that had recently killed and were targeting American citizens.

While I get this being the justification for the assassination, it's important to keep in mind that the way we classified the IRGC as a terrorist organization would be similar to another country classifying USSOCOM (if the commander reported directly to POTUS) as a terrorist organization. Then you have to consider how we would see an assassination of the commander of, say JSOC. That is what we just did. Classifying them as a terrorist organization doesn't change the fact that he was a foreign official of another country's official military, a military we are not currently engaged in open conflict with.

[Au165]

(01-03-2020, 03:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: While I get this being the justification for the assassination, it's important to keep in mind that the way we classified the IRGC as a terrorist organization would be similar to another country classifying USSOCOM (if the commander reported directly to POTUS) as a terrorist organization. Then you have to consider how we would see an assassination of the commander of, say JSOC. That is what we just did. Classifying them as a terrorist organization doesn't change the fact that he was a foreign official of another country's official military, a military we are not currently engaged in open conflict with.

Like I said above, Iran classified our entire military organization as a terrorist group. Using the same logic we applied they'd be justified in blowing up anyone associated with our military that was involved, or may be involved in future, drone strikes. 

[Belsnickel]

(01-03-2020, 03:20 PM)Au165 Wrote: Like I said above, Iran classified our entire military organization as a terrorist group. Using the same logic we applied they be justified in blowing up anyone associated with our military that was involved, or may be involved in future, drone strikes. 

I had started typing my reply before you posted that, then got distracted and only saw it after.

But yeah, 's good times.

[*bfine32*]

(01-03-2020, 02:59 PM)Au165 Wrote: One country's terrorist organization is another country's military. I am sure in some country's our military would be considered a terrorist group as we have launched strikes that have killed all sorts of civilians that the local government didn't agree with and we weren't at war with. In fact, Iran does label our entire military a terrorist group. The other issue here is he is acting on government issued orders, hence him being a government official. Blowing him up does nothing as someone else will step in because the government isn't just going to stop. Again, this is far different then Osama Bin Laden.

If someone blew up one of our generals in charge of middle eastern operations because we were planning to issue drone strikes on people from their country we disagreed with, we would call that an act of war. 

(01-03-2020, 03:11 PM)hollodero Wrote: I guess no one disputes that, or that his death is not a loss for the human race.

It's the implications that make this maybe a bit trickier than just reducing it to this guy's deeds and how he deserved what he had coming.

Would you be willing to go to war over him?

(01-03-2020, 03:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: While I get this being the justification for the assassination, it's important to keep in mind that the way we classified the IRGC as a terrorist organization would be similar to another country classifying USSOCOM (if the commander reported directly to POTUS) as a terrorist organization. Then you have to consider how we would see an assassination of the commander of, say JSOC. That is what we just did. Classifying them as a terrorist organization doesn't change the fact that he was a foreign official of another country's official military, a military we are not currently engaged in open conflict with.

What other Nations consider us should have 0 bearing on what we classify other organizations. The United States has deemed IRGC a terrorist organization. You want to take issue with the classification of them as a terrorist organization feel free, but that doesn't change the fact that when we authorized the attack they were a terrorist organization; therefore, not a whole different situation than the elimination of bin Laden.

[Au165]

(01-03-2020, 03:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What other Nations consider us should have 0 bearing on what we classify other organizations. The United States has deemed IRGC a terrorist organization. You want to take issue with the classification of them as a terrorist organization feel free, but that doesn't change the fact that when we authorized the attack they were a terrorist organization; therefore, not a whole different situation than the elimination of bin Laden.

...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.

[Belsnickel]

(01-03-2020, 03:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What other Nations consider us should have 0 bearing on what we classify other organizations. The United States has deemed IRGC a terrorist organization. You want to take issue with the classification of them as a terrorist organization feel free, but that doesn't change the fact that when we authorized the attack they were a terrorist organization; therefore, not a whole different situation than the elimination of bin Laden.

You're very much missing the point being made.

[hollodero]

(01-03-2020, 03:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What other Nations consider us should have 0 bearing on what we classify other organizations. The United States has deemed IRGC a terrorist organization. You want to take issue with the classification of them as a terrorist organization feel free, but that doesn't change the fact that when we authorized the attack they were a terrorist organization; therefore, not a whole different situation than the elimination of bin Laden.

Though your response really rather addresses those two other gentlemen and not me, let me respond: Yes both Suleimani and Bin Laden can be seen as terrorist leaders, and I would not argue about that in principle. In this aspect, there is indeed a similarity. There just are some major differences in the two cases as well and you seem to neglect those by just focusing on said similarity. I don't feel that's well argued.

[*Nately120*]

Can we just nuke Iran? Let's cut to the chase on this one.

[*bfine32*]

(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.

IDC if he were the Supreme Leader; if he is the head of an organization we classify as a Terrorist organization then he is the leader of a terrorist organization. WE have not classified Iran's Army as a terrorist organization; only the part that targets civilians.

And as you keep failing to acknowledge is what other countries consider us should have 0 bearing on our actions when it comes to safeguarding our citizens.

We will see if this holds water with the international community. What did they do when we classified them as a terrorist organization.
International Community "US why did you kill him?
US: "Because he was the head of a terrorist organization that was targeting US citizen and was an eminent danger."
International Community: "Didn't you realize he was a General in another sovereign country?"
US: "That's their problem, not ours"

[GMDino]

(01-03-2020, 04:12 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Can we just nuke Iran?  Let's cut to the chase on this one.

I suppose that will depend on if DJT feels someone was "not nice" to him in the near future. 

Or if the "F*** YEAH!" hawks need a little more "push" to get off.  Time will tell.

[*bfine32*]

(01-03-2020, 04:07 PM)hollodero Wrote: Though your response really rather addresses those two other gentlemen and not me, let me respond: Yes both Suleimani and Bin Laden can be seen as terrorist leaders, and I would not argue about that in principle. In this aspect, there is indeed a similarity. There just are some major differences in the two cases as well and you seem to neglect those by just focusing on said similarity. I don't feel that's well argued.

To the innocent US and allied civilians targeted and killed by these 2 organizations there was absolutely no difference.

[*Nately120*]

(01-03-2020, 04:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: I suppose that will depend on if DJT feels someone was "not nice" to him in the near future. 

Of if the "F*** YEAH!" hawks need a little more "push" to get off.  Time will tell.

It would probably be good for the hawks to see us nuke another country since most weren't alive the last time we did it.  With that being said, if we don't send a bunch of troops over there we won't have anyone to "support" and root for...I'm torn really.

[*bfine32*]

(01-03-2020, 04:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're very much missing the point being made.

Okey Doke

[Au165]

(01-03-2020, 04:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: IDC if he were the Supreme Leader; if he is the head of an organization we classify as a Terrorist organization then he is the leader of a terrorist organization. WE have not classified Iran's Army as a terrorist organization; only the part that targets civilians.

And as you keep failing to acknowledge is what other countries consider us should have 0 bearing on our actions when it comes to safeguarding our citizens.

We will see if this holds water with the international community. What did they do when we classified them as a terrorist organization.
International Community "US why did you kill him?
US: "Because he was the head of a terrorist organization that was targeting US citizen and was an eminent danger."
International Community: "Didn't you realize he was a General in another sovereign country?"
US: "That's their problem, not ours"

We don't get to classify other governments however we want and blow them up without repercussions, as much as you may like to think so. We kill civilians every month all over the world, we just killed 30 pine nut farmers in Afghanistan in September. Classifying our military as a terrorist group really isn't far-fetched in fact the CIA funds plenty of terrorist groups all over the world, you remember the whole Contra issue? We funded terrorists in Afghanistan during the cold war, right? Syria we funded rebel forces (terrorists) fighting against an established government. So on and so forth we are as guilty of doing the same thing they do, again the difference is we are us and they are them and that's all that matters to most people.

What other countries consider us is pointing out that "terrorist" is relative and therefor shouldn't be any sort of cart blanche reasoning for doing whatever you want. When you kill a government official it is an act of war, we will see how they handle it but calling everything "terrorist" related as a reason to jump into military action is a very dangerous way of doing world politics. 

[GMDino]

(01-03-2020, 04:18 PM)Nately120 Wrote: It would probably be good for the hawks to see us nuke another country since most weren't alive the last time we did it.  With that being said, if we don't send a bunch of troops over there we won't have anyone to "support" and root for...I'm torn really.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2020/01/03/us-sending-3000-more-troops-to-mideast-as-reinforcements/23891858/

Quote:US sending 3,000 more troops to Mideast as reinforcements

The Associated Press


WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States is sending nearly 3,000 more Army troops to the Mideast as reinforcements in the volatile aftermath of the killing of an Iranian general in a strike ordered by President Donald Trump, defense officials said Friday.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a decision not yet announced by the Pentagon, said the troops are from the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. They are in addition to about 700 soldiers from the 82nd Airborne who deployed to Kuwait earlier this week after the storming of the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad by Iran-backed militiamen and their supporters.

The dispatching of extra troops reflects concern about potential Iranian retaliatory action for the killing Thursday of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, commander of Iran's Quds Force. But it also runs counter to Trump's repeated push to extract the United States from Mideast conflicts. Prior to this week's troop deployments, the administration had sent 14,000 additional troops to the Mideast since May, when it first publicly claimed Iran was planning attacks on U.S. interests.

The reinforcements took shape as Trump gave his first comments on the strike, declaring that he ordered the killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani because he had killed and wounded many Americans over the years and was plotting to kill many more. “He should have been taken out many years ago," he added.

The strike marked a major escalation in the conflict between Washington and Iran, as Iran vowed “harsh retaliation" for the killing of the senior military leader. The two nations have faced repeated crises since Trump withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal and imposed crippling sanctions.

The United States urged its citizens to leave Iraq “immediately” as fears mounted that the strike and any retaliation by Iran could ignite a conflict that engulfs the region.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo defended the strike as “wholly lawful,” saying that Soleimani posed an “imminent” threat against the U.S. and its interests in the region.


AdChoices
“There was an imminent attack,” Pompeo told Fox News. “The orchestrator, the primary motivator for the attack, was Qassem Soleimani."

The W hite House did not inform lawmakers before the strike. It was expected to give classified briefings to members of Congress and staff in the afternoon. Defense Secretary Mark Esper notified House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of the strike shortly before the Pentagon confirmed it publicly.

Pompeo called world leaders Friday to explain and defend Trump’s decision to order the airstrike that has sparked fears of an explosion of anti-American protests as well as more violence in the already unstable Middle East.

The State Department said Pompeo had spoken Friday with top officials in Afghanistan, Britain, China, France, Germany and Pakistan.

In his calls with the British and German foreign ministers as well as China’s state councilor, Pompeo stressed that Trump acted to counter an imminent threat to U.S. lives in the region but also that the U.S. is committed to “de-escalation” of tensions, according to the department's summaries of the conversations.

De-escalation was not mentioned in the department's summary of his call with the French foreign minister, nor in his calls with Afghanistan’s President Ashraf Ghani or the Pakistani military chief of staff. In those calls Pompeo “underscored the Iranian regime’s destabilizing actions through the region and the Trump Administration’s resolve in protecting American interests, personnel, facilities and partners," the department said.

Trump opted not to play a round of golf on Friday, and he was not expected to be seen publicly until he travels to Miami for an afternoon event for his reelection campaign.

Sidenote:  So the quote from DJT basically means it was just an assassination...not to do with the embassy attack.

Quote:The reinforcements took shape as Trump gave his first comments on the strike, declaring that he ordered the killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani because he had killed and wounded many Americans over the years and was plotting to kill many more. “He should have been taken out many years ago," he added.

[BmorePat87]

The world is better off without this person, but is he worth starting a war over? There's something to be said about holding Iran accountable for their proxy attacks, but does that mean assassinating a foreign leader in a likely illegal manner and then briefing Russia before Congress?

Obama and Bush pushed the limits of executive power with regards to drone strikes, including Obama killing an American citizen under the age of 18. I was really critical of their policies, but this act might just be plain dumb. What strategic gain was made? It just seems like it was done without thought for revenge or to start a conflict.

**** the hawks but also **** Rose McGowan for her dumb ass tweet.

[Arturo Bandini]

Is there a US president that didn't declare a war or at least didn't bomb another country during his time ?

I have a hard remember one since I'm born.

I dislike Trump but he's just doing what every US president has done.

We kill millions people ? Not a big deal, they kill one of us, let's kill them by millions ...

Patriotic americans are the best but if another dude is patriotic to his own country then he becomes an evil guy ?

It's not going to end well.

[fredtoast]

(01-03-2020, 04:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: IDC if he were the Supreme Leader; if he is the head of an organization we classify as a Terrorist organization then he is the leader of a terrorist organization. WE have not classified Iran's Army as a terrorist organization; only the part that targets civilians.

And as you keep failing to acknowledge is what other countries consider us should have 0 bearing on our actions when it comes to safeguarding our citizens.

We will see if this holds water with the international community. What did they do when we classified them as a terrorist organization.
International Community "US why did you kill him?
US: "Because he was the head of a terrorist organization that was targeting US citizen and was an eminent danger."
International Community: "Didn't you realize he was a General in another sovereign country?"
US: "That's their problem, not ours"

Do you agree it is an Act of War by the United States against another sovereign country?

Or do you think that has no meaning either?

[Au165]

(01-03-2020, 04:41 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: Is there a US president that didn't declare a war or at least didn't bomb another country during his time ?

I have a hard remember one since I'm born.

I dislike Trump but he's just doing what every US president has done.

We kill millions people ? Not a big deal, they kill one of us, let's kill them by millions ...

Patriotic americans are the best but if another dude is patriotic to his own country then he becomes an evil guy ?

It's not going to end well.

We have gotten away with using "Terrorist" as a catch all to avoid a lot of wars in the last couple decades. The problem is we have used it so much we that the line between terrorist and just "bad actor in foreign country" has disappeared. Assassinating a foreign country's general is a little bit of new territory in recent years, especially with a country we have no formal declaration of war against.

[*Nately120*]

(01-03-2020, 04:41 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: Is there a US president that didn't declare a war or at least didn't bomb another country during his time ?

I have a hard remember one since I'm born.

I dislike Trump but he's just doing what every US president has done.

We kill millions people ? Not a big deal, they kill one of us, let's kill them by millions ...

Patriotic americans are the best but if another dude is patriotic to his own country then he becomes an evil guy ?

It's not going to end well.

I can't call myself savvy in any case, but as common as war is it always seemed like going to war with Iran was seen as taking things to the next level and a bit too far, so to speak.  This seems like a bold move, even for a country that has been at war for almost 20 years.