Iran

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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.

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.

[Undertoad]

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

[Luce]

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

The Iraqi prime minister Mahdi, said Suleimani was bringing Iran's response to a letter that Iraq had sent out on behalf of Saudi Arabia in order to ease tensions between the two countries in the region.

This was totally a mob-style set up.

[Luce]

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

[sexobon]

That's show biz.

[tw]

Originally Posted by sexobon

That's show biz.

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.

[sexobon]

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?

[Luce]

Originally Posted by sexobon

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?

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

[tw]

Originally Posted by sexobon

The Iranians would probably like to retaliate for the killing of Suleimani by taking out someone close to Trump,

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.

[sexobon]

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

[tw]

Originally Posted by sexobon

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

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.

[sexobon]

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.

[Luce]

Originally Posted by sexobon

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.

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.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Luce

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.

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.

[Luce]

Originally Posted by sexobon

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.