Iran

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by tw

Unlike so many extremists, he was an earliest and strong supporter of Kurds.

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

We can even expect Iraq to throw us out. Since they must now choose between Iran and America. And apparently have done so.

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.

He openly endorsed ethnic cleansing of the Kurds.

Well they're... not dead yet.

Even the Kurds have learned the hard way (and now again) that America is no longer a trusted ally.

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.

[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 Undertoad

The calculation was that they would be happy it was representative, and thank us for the favor.

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.

[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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Luce

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

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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

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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[Diaphone Jim]

This should be reported by the main stream media:

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

[Luce]

Originally Posted by Diaphone Jim

This should be reported by the main stream media:

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

WaPo carried it.

[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.