visionary Posted January 4, 2020 Author Share Posted January 4, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 5 minutes ago, Destino said: So THIS is an obvious act of war? What then do we call it when a military leader from a recognized country organizes attacks on US civilians and military? I’m struggling to see how that asshole killing Americans is somehow acceptable but Americans killing him is unreasonable. I didn't say what Soliemani did was acceptable. And if all efforts fail, I could even be on board with killing him or starting a war over Iran's actions. I'm just saying that there should be no doubt as to what the act itself signifies. Given that we usually save war as a last resort when all else fails and given that I'm not prepared to concede that Trump did exhaust all other options before giving the go order, I don't think killing Soliemani at this point was justified. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Destino said: So THIS is an obvious act of war? What then do we call it when a military leader from a recognized country organizes attacks on US civilians and military? I’m struggling to see how that asshole killing Americans is somehow acceptable but Americans killing him is unreasonable. This would be akin to the Soviets or El Salvadorians targeting the director of the CIA during the 1980s or the Houthi now. If any of them had killed our CIA director, we'd be talking about war. Globally, there's a long history of proxy wars and conflicts without there being attacks by nation states on the government employees of other nation states. And this has been done to us and by us. Globally, for every country having proxies strike at your military out of country has been the costs of having a global military. US appears to have up ended that historical precedent without considering the longer term implications or consulting with many of our long time allies. I'm not bemoaning that the guy is dead, and it might even end up having been a good thing to have done, but this is something that at least post-WW1 even is not within international norms. (I'm honestly not sure if they were going to go this route why they didn't go after Khamenei.) Edited January 4, 2020 by PeterMP 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 Something about the whole "multiple imminent threats all over the region" explanation by Pompeo makes no sense. If there were all these supposed attacks ready to go, why would you just go attack the general who is in a completely different location? Wouldn't you go send the military to those locations to defend the areas? Also, why would killing the general even necessarily stop those "imminent threats" from happening in the first place? Couldn't have killing the general had the complete opposite effect and send those other attacks into action immediately right after the killing of the Iranian general? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 22 minutes ago, visionary said: OMG, Tucker Carlson had a rational thought again. Damn. This is a WFT moment. 3 minutes ago, NoCalMike said: Something about the whole "multiple imminent threats all over the region" explanation by Pompeo makes no sense. If there were all these supposed attacks ready to go, why would you just go attack the general who is in a completely different location? Wouldn't you go send the military to those locations to defend the areas? Also, why would killing the general even necessarily stop those "imminent threats" from happening in the first place? Couldn't have killing the general had the complete opposite effect and send those other attacks into action immediately right after the killing of the Iranian general? Cause if he's not there, there is no one that will count down and literally say "Go." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CousinsCowgirl84 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 https://www.wavy.com/news/politics/iran-vows-harsh-response-to-us-killing-of-top-general/ An American official who spoke on the condition on anonymity denied the U.S. was behind the reported attack This news article says that US official says it’s not a US attack, however that’s the only article i read saying that... if the attack didn’t come from the US, who did it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, DCSaints_fan said: Can anyone with knowledge of the region shed some light as to what extent the Shia in Iraq are pro-Iran? Is there a possibility of full fledged civil war in Iraq between Shia, Sunni and Kurds ? Those who are pro Iranian are Shia but many Shia have been protesting Iranian interference the last year or so. I'm not sure what the percentages are within the Shia for supporting and opposing Iran. There were celebrations in Basra last night and this morning of Suleimani's death and those were Shia. The Sunni's are definitively anti-Iranian and the Kurds are pro-American. Edited January 4, 2020 by nonniey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 4, 2020 Author Share Posted January 4, 2020 11 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said: https://www.wavy.com/news/politics/iran-vows-harsh-response-to-us-killing-of-top-general/ This news article says that US official says it’s not a US attack, however that’s the only article i read saying that... if the attack didn’t come from the US, who did it? Could be Israel if it's not us, but they tend to focus on Syria and Lebanon these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 4, 2020 Author Share Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) Edited January 4, 2020 by visionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) When the new Middle East War starts and this could be the opening salvo of WW3; may all those Trump supporters sons and daughters get drafted to fight in the middle east. They are the ones most likely going to have to fight. Edited January 4, 2020 by Rdskns2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 4, 2020 Author Share Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) Edited January 4, 2020 by visionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 Pompeo better start showing some evidence to back up his claims. He keeps adding to the list of how many people were saved by this action. I’m skeptical he is being honest but I’ll give him a couple days to show proof of this. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 1 hour ago, PeterMP said: This would be akin to the Soviets or El Salvadorians targeting the director of the CIA during the 1980s or the Houthi now. If any of them had killed our CIA director, we'd be talking about war. Globally, there's a long history of proxy wars and conflicts without there being attacks by nation states on the government employees of other nation states. And this has been done to us and by us. Globally, for every country having proxies strike at your military out of country has been the costs of having a global military. US appears to have up ended that historical precedent without considering the longer term implications or consulting with many of our long time allies. I'm not bemoaning that the guy is dead, and it might even end up having been a good thing to have done, but this is something that at least post-WW1 even is not within international norms. (I'm honestly not sure if they were going to go this route why they didn't go after Khamenei.) That makes sense. Targeting America’s CIA director would certainly have been a major provocation. That said, it feels like we’re ignoring weight classes here. Iran isn’t the USSR. what says they get the same consideration given to a nation credibly threatening mutually assured destruction. They aren’t even North Korea. At least, not yet. It wasn’t too long ago that the US was desperately trying to stop Israel bombing their nuclear sites. Iran presumably, could not do so themselves. Also, I’ve never read anything detailing the movement of US CIA directors, but I cant imagine they made habit of wandering around too close to their enemy’s military strength without some secrecy or assurances to keep them safe. I really don’t know though, so I guess it’s possible. Seems like a hell of a gamble. Baghdad’s airport was where this guy was killed right? Google says that’s about 25 minutes from the green zone in a nation crawling with US military war machines. Seems like he gambled one time too many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 4, 2020 Author Share Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Destino said: Also, I’ve never read anything detailing the movement of US CIA directors, but I cant imagine they made habit of wandering around too close to their enemy’s military strength without some secrecy or assurances to keep them safe. I really don’t know though, so I guess it’s possible. Seems like a hell of a gamble. Baghdad’s airport was where this guy was killed right? Google says that’s about 25 minutes from the green zone in a nation crawling with US military war machines. Seems like he gambled one time too many. Supposedly he was there on the invitation of Iraq. It wasn't really a gamble though by his pov, since he likely never expected the US to attack him, nor did Iranian or Iraqi officials (unless some were in on it) Edited January 4, 2020 by visionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 10 minutes ago, Hersh said: Pompeo better start showing some evidence to back up his claims. He keeps adding to the list of how many people were saved by this action. I’m skeptical he is being honest but I’ll give him a couple days to show proof of this. It would have to be rock solid evidence too. As the title of this thread says, credibility is a problem. I’m not sure anyone would even believe any evidence short of a video taped confession. The US case for war in iraq did a lot to erode trust. Trump casually lying about absolutely everything, all the time, and his mercurial nature, may have killed off any trust that remained. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 4, 2020 Author Share Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) Hmmm. I don't suppose it's possible that we actually did do this, found out we didn't get anyone big and are now denying it for some reason. Edited January 4, 2020 by visionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CousinsCowgirl84 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) iran could have done it. pro-Iran militias also claimed the vehicles carried their medics. seems like good propaganda to me.. Edited January 4, 2020 by CousinsCowgirl84 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 5 hours ago, bearrock said: ......r, I don't think killing Soliemani at this point was justified. KIlling Solliemani has been justified for about 20 years. . 2 hours ago, visionary said: Supposedly he was there on the invitation of Iraq. It wasn't really a gamble though by his pov, since he likely never expected the US to attack him, nor did Iranian or Iraqi officials (unless some were in on it). . More likely than not some Iraqi official or officials were in on it and tipped us off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Destino said: It would have to be rock solid evidence too. As the title of this thread says, credibility is a problem. I’m not sure anyone would even believe any evidence short of a video taped confession. The US case for war in iraq did a lot to erode trust. Trump casually lying about absolutely everything, all the time, and his mercurial nature, may have killed off any trust that remained. Don't know why they are muddying the waters so much they should have just said he was involved in the embassy assault and the rocket attacks last week and left it at that. They had more than enough justification with that and his previous activities and wouldn't have had to explain anything further. Edited January 4, 2020 by nonniey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 4, 2020 Author Share Posted January 4, 2020 People were claiming this new strike was part of a systematic calculated effort to take out Iran’s Iraqi militia leaders. Now it seems like it didn’t even happen. Also after reading the reports on Trump’s reasoning for the attack, and seeing still more contradictory explanations by his surrogates, it seems more and more likely this came from Trump not wanting to look weak and have people make fun of him and his advisors messing up and having to cover their asses after the fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 4, 2020 Author Share Posted January 4, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 5 hours ago, nonniey said: KIlling Solliemani has been justified for about 20 years. . Do you agree that killing Soliemani is an act of war? Do you agree that act of war should be a last resort? Do you think all other options have been exhausted? I guess one's conclusion depends on the answers to the questions above. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillUnknown Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 Thread worth reading Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaytoAli Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 1 hour ago, bearrock said: Do you agree that killing Soliemani is an act of war? Do you agree that act of war should be a last resort? Do you think all other options have been exhausted? I guess one's conclusion depends on the answers to the questions above. He was in Iraq, acting in the interest of regionally killing Americans for Iran, right? He was looking for action and found it. that is on him and the people that supported his actions. Iran’s leaders are not strangers to staying relevant with a jihadist mindset. It is how they became established in Iran with fighting capitalist greed. Problem for them, is the justifiable conflicts of the past won’t let them escape the the economic damage done. So the resulting improvement needs of the progressives are impacted by the desire of those that still see an unfinished fight. War? No........but as long as they keep planning to attack....then give them an attack to force them to rethink. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskins59 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 42 minutes ago, ClaytoAli said: He was in Iraq, acting in the interest of regionally killing Americans for Iran, right? You don't know that. How do you know that he was there in order to kill Americans? Just because Trump and his people say so? The dumbass Pence is suggesting that Soleimani is somehow connected to 9/11. A Shiah supporting Al Qaeda? Yeah, like I believe that BS. I don't believe any crap that comes from this government, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now