Iran
 

Trumps Iran work in completely unrelated to re-election. Definitely. Why would anyone think otherwise?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9268691.html

This is going to be the crapsack world we were promised.

Y'all need to find consensus on this, if it's a crapsack he'll never get re-elected

Wait for it: "You can't impeach me, I'm a War President."

All in all, I would prefer not to have a crapsack.

Unfortunately, they seem to be joined at the hip.

OTOH, making an example of Soleimani for Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (and indirectly N. Korea's Kim Jong-un) that conveys we're not going to turn the other cheek, it's not going to be an eye for an eye, and we're not going to wait for another disaster of 9/11 magnitude before we act, may not be a bad idea. Demonstrating that we're willing to preemptively take out those plotting against us may show that an ounce of prevention is still worth a pound of cure. Americans may want a President willing to follow-up on this. Too much snake oil out there.

I think that all Presidents with lingering crapsack wars have had two terms.

Not LBJ but we're much more militaristic and nationalistic now.

Who said war? It probably won't be war.

Iran is as incapable of backing down from this as we would be in their situation.

They are nationalistic as hell, with some religious wallpaper over it.

Let's hope they're all that way, then we won't have to worry about collateral damage.

If every single one of our munitions hit with pinpoint accuracy, there will still be collateral damage.

Iran isn't just going to sit there, and they can't reach us, so they're going to clobber everyone that they CAN reach that has ever spoken to us in a civil tone of voice.

Not in terms of lives. If they all jump on the nationalistic bandwagon, they all become enemies.

What I am saying is that due to their inability to hit us, they will hit anyone that's friendly to us.

They're expansionists, they were going to do that anyway.

They're more or less us with a little less spit & polish.

And a different flavor of weird fundamentalist religion.

I say we just hand Trump over. I'm sure he won't mind taking one for the team.... :D

I see you've been reading Tehran Rose.

She doesn't appreciate President Dalek J. Trump.

Trump and Pompeo are clueless.
They just want all those Afghans in Afghanistan, Iranians in Iran and Iraqis in Iraq to give up and go home so we can have our way.

Baghdad Intl Airport has been La Guardia East for almost 20 years. We let the General came and go, then decided to assassinate him and all around him in an ambush. Wrong and stupid.

Lucky Strike, no strike back!

There, we're covered.

Attachment 69455

sexobon age reference noted

just to be clear, I never mean that to be in the spirit of "OK boomer" :D

I still get a kick out of it, like Conan's In the Year 2000.

Turns out the reason Iraq is so damned angry, is that dude had been invited there to discuss a de-escalation proposal proposed by the Saudis, who then handed the itinerary over to us.

So, it was basically a Sopranos-style mob hit.

While this would be completely in character for Commander Bonespur can we get a link?

Do they think the embassy attack was just coincidental and unrelated to the gent?

It would be odd to accept your hosts's invitation, and then use that visit to attack another of the host's guests, unless perhaps they wanted to make a point during the negotiations

Not ruling anything out

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qasem_Soleimani

This was totally a mob-style set up.

Unfortunately, I can't access WAPO from this system, so it was wikipedia or Daily Mail. I chose Wikipedia.

Soleimani was just the man that an informed America would have been engaging, recruiting, and enlisting in America's Middle East strategies. He has long been a moderate, pragmatic, and an extraordinary talented solver of problems. His strategies were, as commander of Iranian, Syrians, and Iraqi forces, legendary. Unlike so many extremists, he was an earliest and strong supporter of Kurds. But moreso, he had on many occasions approached US diplomats with solutions to ease and diminish the American/Iranian conflicts.

Most noteworthy was his rabid American support and advise on how to take out the Taliban after 11 September. Only (as so many ignorant Americans have done) to be undermined by a mental midget president's "Axis of Evil" speech. Which all but declared war on a nation that so desperately wanted to help America take out the Taliban.

Soleimani was highly respected in most every Arab nation. He could both unite people and lead them in a manner that few others could. He even was a strong and open supporter of respect for democracy and street supporters who demanded their freedoms from Iranian religious clerics. He clearly was a moderate. He should have been target #1 for American diplomats to recruit as a powerful ally.

But we have a president whose penis makes kneejerk decisions. Since he can openly murder someone on Fifth Ave and still get elected. That points to the source of our problems.

America simply created what is to Iran their 11 September. We can expect and probably deserve resulting violent attacks. Respect for America in the Middle East has clearly and severely been diminished. We will suffer due to the idiot's ego.

How stupid? Trump officials said we had averted attacks on America and have made Americans safer. A brainwashed extremist would believe that. Meanwhile these same extremists have told all Americans to get out as fast as possible - even on ground transportation if necessary. Because it was never more dangerous. What did they do? When only preaching to extremists supporters, then those obvious contradictions get ignored.

Clearly an egotist president never once considered long term adversarial effects he will create. He has again presented Putin with more victories in the region. And worse, both his actions and words say he only wants war. He has done everything he can to praise entrenched despots. While constantly demeaning and debasing democracies and America's closest allies.

As a nation, we can expect and probably deserve what will result. We can even expect Iraq to throw us out. Since they must now choose between Iran and America. And apparently have done so.

Expect Pakistan to hold US forces hostage for even more expensive concessions because The Donald has now harmed America's relationships with every relevant nation in that region.

He openly endorsed ethnic cleansing of the Kurds. He has turned public opinion of America in that Nato nation from moderately popular to complete contempt. Even Lebanon is becoming a disaster that may now easily turn against America. Russia has completely replaced America as the region's power broker. How many more surrenders, diplomatic suicides, and political disasters have been created by so many American voters were so dumb as to vote for this idiot.

Murder of a senior government official is never war on terrorism. That is Trump lying again - as usual. That murder was an outright attack on another nation. Those who remember the so many lessons from history remember Archduke Franz Ferdinand. No honest or decent nation unilaterally murders government officials from another nation. Since that means war. And wacko extremists love war.

World nations are becoming more friendly with American adversaries only because of this and other dumb, big penis inspired mistakes. Even the Kurds have learned the hard way (and now again) that America is no longer a trusted ally.

That's show biz.

Early supporter, then apparently he decided they were no longer of use and killed a bunch of them and took over Kirkuk...?

Bush destroyed the Sunni government of 90% Iraq and worked with the nation to replace it with a representative government. Because it is representative, it is majority Shiite. The calculation was that they would be happy it was representative, and thank us for the favor. That government has apparently decided to sit with Shia Iran. This was sort of predictable, so the fault really goes back to W.

Well they're... not dead yet.

It's true we can't be trusted, but first sign of trouble they will be giving us a call. We're #1 on their speed dial.

You can't really have it both ways. Either you get out of the region and accept the fact that some populations will be at risk, or you stay in and run endless war.

The Iranians would probably like to retaliate for the killing of Suleimani by taking out someone close to Trump, someone who would remind Trump of it being revenge for Suleimani, someone who's name would somehow be associated with Suleimani. Do we know anyone close to Trump who's name sounds something like Suleimani? Rudy...Rudy...anyone...Rudy?

Another expectation was that our army would be met by grateful, American flag-waving Iraqis, back in the day.

In neither case was the expectation reasonable. Nor did either one work out the way we had convinced ourselves they would.

Pretty sure they know that Trump doesn't give a crap about his lackeys.

To answer the obvious question, first ask what the US would do in a similar situation? One informed president simply took out the offending weapons. And that settled it. Another informed president simply attacked the places that sponsored (ordered) the attack. An ignorant president simply took out obsolete aircraft while leaving untouched the actual problem - ingredients for nerve gases.

Iran wants peace - as was possible with internationally praised deals made before 2016. So their response will be tempered. Iran will probably attack American military facilities - a less agressive but 'tik for tak' response. And then will say no more will happen as long as America does not escalate - unilaterally attack again.

That response would be quite restrained, sends the message, and would hopefully end it. However we do not have a sane president. Trump wants war. His emotions and ego are at play. Most anyone who was responsible is no longer in his administration. So an insane response remains likely.

That was quite possible and, at first, did happen. Concepts of war were well defined 2000 years before Columbus. Due to the intelligence level of senior American officials, we violated those rules - repeatedly.

In the movie "Patton", he says that if phones, electricity, wat3er, schools, etc are not restored in Germany in 6 months, then America would be defeated in Germany. Yes, that well understood that long ago.

So what did America do in Iraq? First indication of mental midgets making decisions was apparent on your TV within days after Baghdad fell. Looters stealing artifacts from the museum with American soldiers simply standing there watching. (And some here even denying it.) Soldiers had no "After action orders". So they could do nothing. All hell started. A major violation implemented back in Washington by the uneducated (extremists).

They sent Paul Bremer. He issued two orders - CPA 1 and 2. First all educated people (doctors, engineers, government administrators, teachers) must be fired for being a member of the Bath party. Second, he disbanded the army. Both examples of stupidity. Both example of decisions made only from emotions. To this day, Bremer denies what he stupidity created.

What happened is what is suppose to happen. Iraq's best educated people had no jobs and no income. So of course they attacked their enemy - Americans. By month seven, a five mile road from Baghdad to the airport was so dangerous that no American could drive on it. Americans simply did what was obviously dumb even over 2000 years ago.

It was so dangerous that even Bremer had to sneak out of Baghdad to go home.

America so messed things up that Iraq, could not even produce the amount of electricity that was routine during Saddam's time. Even with big new GE generators.

Why did both Japan and Germany becomes some of America's greatest allies? We did not obstruct those nations from rebuilding themselves. We both encouraged and assisted, where ever possible, those nation's restoration. In short, we did "nation building". Only wackos in Washington never understood why that is necessary or how to do it.

Why do wackos still not understand it. It cannot be explained in a tweet. Reality is more difficult. It must include the reasons (and history) why.

It is called Phase Four planning. The most critical part of a military victory occurs in six months after a surrender. Ask about. Notice so many peers who do not know that. Who did not learn the lessons of history. Under Cheney, we converted Iraqis from the gracious liberated into angry civil warriors.

A disaster in Tikrit is simply one example of what happens when leaders are dumb, emotional, and uneducated. 5000 America servicemen killed uselessly because people in Washington were mental midgets.

You are confusing Tirkit with Kirkuk. Soleimani was instrumental in the liberation for Tirkit from Dash after Iraqi army leadership (incompetence) failed to do so.

What happened was well documented. Even George Jr's top people said his chosen Prime Minister (Maliki?) was incompetent. But George Jr said he had already made a decision ("right guy for Iraq"). And then spent two hours daily via video conference teaching him politics.

To understand Shia influence is to understand Sadr - a most powerful Shia leader. Sadr is an Iraqi nationalist. He had to flee to Iran for four years when Americans had targeted him. I believe Maliki was instrumental in protecting Sadr as best he could. Because Sadr (quite accurately) described constant incompetence by Americans. He even criticized America for interfering in Iraqi elections after ISIS was expelled.

Sadr has not been a close friend of Iran. He has been also critical of oversized influence by Iran in Iraq. Unfortunately, that is due in part to repeated American interference that only help firm a closer relationship between Iraq and Iran.

The Don's recent and unjustified attack in Baghdad further entrenched Iran in Iraq. Sadr is unhappy about that. Extremist Americans do not understand. Because Sadr is also critical of how America has so messed up Iraq. These extremist Americans only see that criticism and not the more complex picture of how Iranian and Iraqi Shia are not that friendly.

I write the word that make the world seen sane
I write the words of goodness and things
I write the words so that young kids need not die.
I write the words then end up being obverse.

Now looking for my Richard Rogers.

You're just upset because Crispy Critter Suleimani made Trump's list and you didn't. Petty, petty, petty.

Unfortunately The Don only knows about people that Fox tells him are evil. That enemies list is so long that he will never hear about me.

That list includes a large number of administration officials who were fired or quit rather than perform corruption. And since his enemies list is so long, even the National Security Council has numerous vacant seats. He cannot find acceptable candidates who are not on his potential enemies list.

Worse, people he would like cannot get security clearances.

Fox told him that Soleimani was evil. To an egotist, that constitutes proof.

Jack Straw, the highly regarded British diplomat, is blunt. It was a gamble linked to US President Donald Trump's re-election bid. He then said everything Trump does is only about his reelection.

He also said, and this should be obvious to everyone, that it a gamble which would "play into the hands of the hardliners in Iran". How to make war happen? Undermine elected moderates by empowering the extremists in Iran.

That is what Trump wants. And does not know it. Because he has no strategy other than to appease extremists. So as to be reelected. He is more corrupt than Nixon.

Meanwhile a much more intelligent Iranian administration did as predicted. They intentionally targeted airbase regions where humans would not be killed. They performed a necessary and restrained response to avert escalation.

Yet when Trump did similar in Syria, you said it was just a waste of money. The Iranians shoot off a dozen or two missiles in Iraq without killing anybody or doing any significant damage and that was necessary and restrained response to avert escalation.

With you, it's always about who did something taking precedence over what was done. If you don't like the person, then they did wrong. If you like the person (or they acted against someone you don't like) then they did right. You adjust the narrative, playing loose with the facts, to support only those you like. Tw speak with forked tongue. That's why tw has no credibility, only agenda.

This should be reported by the main stream media:

https://thegrayzone.com/2020/01/06/s...inent-attacks/

WaPo carried it.

Everything we have done in that part of the world in the last 16 years has been a waste of money and the lives of our soldiers. Nothing worthwhile was accomplished, merely the transfer of money from the American treasury to no-bid contractors.

The people that died over there died for nothing.

The taxes you and I paid into the whole mess were wasted.

So, yes. You are correct in that regard.

It's a mixed bag... I listened to a liberal Iranian expat with friends and family in the nation, who said:

A) When Soleimani is on a "peace mission", it's just an extension of war elsewhere. If it makes sense to make allies in war, then that will happen. The name of the "Quds" force, in Arabic, is "Jerusalem", meaning that is their end goal.

B) Iraq's government is basically an Iranian puppet now, as Iranian forces move into areas and literally tell people who to vote for.

C) Trump including cultural targets was a huge mis-step, because it gave the cultural nationalists ("Make Persia Great Again") a connection with the religious nationalists ("Keep the Shia Crescent Shia And Expand It"), when they are not brothers in arms. The religious nationalists could basically say, "See, they don't just intend to kill us and change the government, they want to destroy everything."

~ Note, that's just one Iranian expat's opinion ~

Obviously.

Stalemate is a failed strategy.

Yet, it remains the government's mantra because the electorate, by and large, doesn't have the stomach for doing what it takes to win.

They will perpetually pay for that.

Before you can even contemplating "winning", you have to have some sort of victory condition established.

We neglected that bit. There was no goalpost. There still isn't.

And deciding that we'll just carpet bomb the crap out of people or whatever it is we need "the stomach" for, won't help unless and until there is something resembling an objective.

When you're going along tit-for-tat, there's no need for any of that. Stalemate is its own objective. Until there's a desire and the will power to do something more, establishing victory conditions, goalposts and objectives are an exercise in futility. The government recognizes that the electorate lacks the intestinal fortitude to back it even if it produced those things.

Arguing liberal or conservative exposes an extremist. Those people know only from their emotions (political biases). Moderates learn facts long before having an opinion. Those are the patriotic Americans - who also saw that Saddam clearly did not have WMDs. A perfect example of what happens when extremists forget to first learn facts.

The world is only about moderates verses extremists. The informed verses the brainwashed. Liberal vs Conservative only obfuscates the real issue.

Three network newsmen were posted as three monkeys - see nothing; hear nothing; say nothing. Turns out those newsmen were the honest ones. Extremists hate to hear facts - truth. 'Hate' being the identifying characteristic. All three network newsmen were smart enough to demonstrate facts - and not automatically believe Saddam had WMDs. They were moderates. And therefore were correct. Extremists hate moderates - their political bias.

Saddam had WMDs only because extremists knew it must be true. Their political biases told them what to believe. So we massacred 5000 American servicemen for no purpose. That is also a fact. No honest person can deny that today. Unfortunately, wacko extremists do not apologize for their obvious mistake. That is contempt for the American serviceman - and 16 years of useless and now unwinnable war.

George Jr even admitted that Saddam did not have those WMD. And still many extremists insisted he must. Entrenched biases are that deep. Extremists cannot admit to any fact that contradicts their emotional biases.

Soleimani repeatedly was a best chance for America to reach a peaceful accord with Iran. On numerous occasions, he offered Americans assistance that, as it turns out, was necessary. He would have been extremely helpful. So a wacko extremist killed him on a kneejerk decision - not one fact. Therefore entrenching extremists in the Iranian government. Making war more likely. Clearly making things worse. Even 176 dead people on a 737 are more fallout of Trump's hate. Only moderates - who learn facts before making conclusions - can see that.

Soleimani was murdered because Trump only does what his ego says is necessary to be reelected. It works for extremist supporters - who cannot be bothered to first learn the facts.

Soleimani was only an evil enemy when extremists invent enemies - to rally their less intelligent supporters. Fortunately, Iran deflated tensions. Averted war.

A dumb Trump was so wacko that America was only ten minutes away from an all out attack on Iran. The planes were loaded, tasked, and in the air when, at the last minute, somebody intelligent finally got them stopped. Same asshole also murdered Soleimani - in direct violation of international law and clearly in violation of Iraqi sovereignty. Only the most wacko extremists would say all that is good.

He can murder someone on Fifth Ave. And wacko extremist Fox News disciples will still vote for him. Trump knows who extremists are and what is acceptable to them - such as Guantanamo.

Certainly closer. But honest news services also note a very strong Iraqi desire to get Iranian influence removed. Especially among Iraqi Shia. Cited was one obvious and politically powerful example: Sadr.

Iraqi was quite happy playing American verses Iraq. To get what they wanted from that game. If the Iraqi Parliament gets what it now wants, that game and its benefits are over. Just another example of how Trump makes things worse. Just another example of him further isolating and therefore ethnic cleansing the Kurds.

Exactly. In order to justify war, three things must exist. These were repeatedly listed here in the Cellar even before George Jr started the Mission Accomplished war. That long ago.

First, a strategic objective must exist. WWII was won because the strategic objective was clear, bluntly stated, and hostilities did not end until that objective was achieved: unconditional surrender.

Second, there must be a smoking gun. That smoking gun is surprisingly unknown to many if not most Americans today - Pearl Harbor.

Third, plans for the peace must exist well before hostilities end.

Vietnam. None existed. So that war was lost and well known as lost by 1966.

Mission Accomplished had no strategic objective. Those WMDs were total fiction - all US intelligence agencies could not find any. They were invented by Cheney, et al.

Second, there was no smoking gun. Nothing (but a lie) justified Mission Accomplished.

Third, there was no planning for the peace - no phase four planning - no after action orders. Only CPA orders 1 and 2 that resulted in 5000 dead American servicemen.

So yes, a strategic objective, et al must be clearly defined even before the very first attack. Desire only disappears when these three critical factors do not exist. Without them, victory cannot happen.

The electorate doesn't have the stomach to do what it takes to achieve that. It hasn't had since WWII. Since the advent of global terrorism, the electorate's position has been We're sorry, please don't hurt us. This has made your justifications for war a moot point. Tit-for-tat is where it's at.

Domestication: fat, happy, and stupid; 'don't rock the boat!'; go along to get along; Aesop's dog (the leash only chafes a little).

Some administrations know their supporters are so uneducated as to, for example, automatically believe Saddam had WMDs - when facts clearly said otherwise.

"War .... what is it good for. Absolutely nothing." About 1 million sang that as one in Woodstock. Back then, rock and roll stations played five minutes of news every hour. But the informed Americans could not even vote.

Another hundred thousand clearly stated same in Washington. And still extremists belittled the most patriotic people - the informed.

One would think we learned from that experience. And yet the same lies justified Mission Accomplished. Another war that clearly could not be won due to an administration that lied. And three necessary requirements all were violated. So they massacred another 5000 American servicemen for no purpose.

So many Americans did not do their jobs as citizens - learn facts well demonstrated in history.

Some wars are justified. And were won because all three critical factors were met - ie Desert Storm.

So one would think Americans got educated by history and not by wacko extremist talk show hosts. Not by Fox News (that constantly lied about Mission Accomplished). Not by Tweets or Facebook.

How many patriotic Americans exist? Well, how many are extremely angry that a president (dumber than George Jr) was only ten minutes away from 'Pearl Harboring' Iran. All over a downed spy drone. Patriotic Americans should still be fully aware, extremely angry, and asking who saved America - by restoring sanity to that administration with only minutes to spare.

This dumb president even left a NATO Summit early because so many other leaders mocked him. Rightly so. He cannot even take a joke. PBS Newshour

So maybe add a fourth requirement is necessary to justify war. The president must be intelligent. This one is dumber than George Jr. And more corrupt than Nixon. Another factor that says military intervention is unjustified. Unfortunately, too many Americans do not even understand that.

Desert storm was nothing more than a confidence exercise for a post-Vietnam, downsized and dilapidated military. We had only the capability to chase Hussein back across his border and stalemate. It would be another 10 years before we were capable of going back and finishing the job, under the guise of Iraq having WMD, by going into Iraq and eliminating Hussein. Not doing that the first time around wasn't by choice.

Not going into Iran is by choice, albeit influenced by a pusillanimous electorate.

Woodstock = summer 1969

"War" = released March 1970 (Temptations version) / June 1970 (more popular Edwin Starr version)

This is a distinctly bizarre view on the American people.

So let me see if I have this straight:

FIRST we need to carpet bomb, etc, THEN we should decide on objectives?

This is absolute and undiluted rubbish.

The objective as stated was to remove the Iraqi military from Iraq. There was never any question that Iraq could have been crushed at the time.

I thought it was to remove them from Kuwait?

You're an incompetent boob. I can see why tw likes you.

I was in the US Special Forces during the planning phase. You don't just go in with guns blazing and kill a bunch of people. You have to have the boots on the ground to manage the aftermath, control the surviving population, maintain infrastructure, reestablish government … etc. If you don't, you're soon back at square one. We didn't have the manpower capability at the time. We stalemated just as we did in Korea with the continuing problems that entailed.

Don't get all excited old timer. Your blood pressure will go up and you'll start making mistakes. You don't want to sound like absolute and undiluted rubbish now do you?

Fuck dementia. :lol2: