Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Leonid

Trump makes good on a threat

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Leonid said:

I trust Trump in military matters more than I trust you. He has more hours in military vehicles than you do 🙂

 

I trust my cat not to throw up on the carpet more than I trust Trump in any regard that does not have immediate personal benefit.  This does, btw: Military stocks have soared, and even more of the US populace are falling in behind their president - just as they always do.  Just in time for the election, conveniently.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Cybes said:

Just in time for the election, conveniently.


The election is 11mo away. In a 24hr news cycle that’s not “just in time” for the election.

 

Tho I gotta say, making the Dems defend Iran is a master-stroke. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙂

 

Trump doesn't have an ounce of military acumen and you know it.

 

This time he really has made a serious blunder and the sad thing is that American lives are very likely to be lost because of him - I hope his heel spurs send him twinges at least.

 

If this does force him into a ridiculous military "adventure" with Iran he's going to be on his own, well, unfortunately Australia will probably kick in, but I'd not rely upon NATO to participate, there is no reason why they should and lots of reasons not to. He cannot expect their assistance when they remain signatories to the nuclear limitations deal that he trashed and it is oil headed to their ports via the Straits of Hormuz that he is putting at risk not his.

 

When the dust settles even the most rabid Trump supporters are going to wonder what the hell he is smoking,

 

By this single act he has put the US on a par with the very people who attacked he embassy a few days ago, except he's killed the guy. Whatever you or I may think of him a highly ranked member of the government of a sovereign nation - that's an act of war. You can be certain the Arabs will be demanding, with more justification than usual, death to the American "pirates" and their friends, Israel especially.

 

This from a President who has claimed repeatedly that he does not want to get into any more wars, that he wants out of the ones he is in, great way to go in that regard.

 

I don't have even the time of day for the theocracy in Iran but the fact is it is the present government of a sovereign nation, basically he really has just declared war on them so he might as well get it over with. Except that will not be as easy as he may think it to be and even in victory he just generates another generation of fanatical terrorists along with a lot more American body bags.

 

Stupidest act imaginable.

 

I'd really like to know which advisor or advisors even put the opportunity to him. America of course keep very close tabs on people like this, but even suggesting taking him out in the back yard of a country you are trying to,  purportedly, help back onto its feet, after destroying it, is a lunatic suggestion, but obviously someone made it...

 

In the eyes of Arabs clear across the ME he just confirmed in their minds what they have been saying for years, that America is a lawless gangster.

 

Hope he had a good game of golf - no, actually I don't.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The planet's screaming out for an enema.

 

Nice start.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, chrisg said:

Trump doesn't have an ounce of military acumen and you know it.

 

We've seen him in military vehicles and among troops.

The same cannot be said for yourself.

 

8 minutes ago, chrisg said:

By this single act he has put the US on a par with the very people who attacked he embassy a few days ago, except he's killed the guy. Whatever you or I may think of him a highly ranked member of the government of a sovereign nation - that's an act of war. You can be certain the Arabs will be demanding, with more justification than usual, death to the American "pirates" and their friends, Israel especially.

 

He is not a member of the government.

Also what Arabs? There's pretty much bugger all Arab support for Iran.

Most Arabs are elated he's dead.  There's fucken parties going on in the middle east right now.

 

9 minutes ago, chrisg said:

 This from a President who has claimed repeatedly that he does not want to get into any more wars, that he wants out of the ones he is in, great way to go in that regard.

 

This isn't a war yet.

 

But lets sum up...

 

Iran helps establish ISIS by encouraging Assad to offer Syria as a waypoint for jihadis seeking to kill Americans in Iraq. Obama & Trump do nothing.

Iran offers sanctuary to Al Qaeda and let them use Iran as a base to run the 2003 Riyadh Compound Bombings with US & Aussie casualties. Obama & Trump do nothing.

Iran kills 1000+ Americans via proxy militias in Iraq. Obama & Trump do nothing.

Iran stages a coup in American ally Yemen. Obama & Trump do nothing.

Iran disrupts Hormuz shipping by blowing up tankers. Trump does nothing.

Iran attacks Saudi (American ally) oil facilities, affecting 1/3 of Saudi production. Trump does nothing.

Iran destroys a $130m drone. Trump does nothing.

Iran attacks a US military contractor and storms the US embassy in Baghdad. Trump pancakes guy responsible for everything above.

 

Leftist morons everywhere: "Trump is taking us to war."

Sane people everywhere: "Can you fuckers go back to talking about whether there are 38 and 419 genders?"

20 minutes ago, chrisg said:

purportedly, help back onto its feet

 

One of the best ways to put Iraq back on its feet would be to kill Soleimani.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Rybags said:

The planet's screaming out for an enema.

 

Nice start.

 

 

I really did not think you would say that Ry.

 

He's crossed a boundary, what next ? Take out Kim in NK in one of his trains ?

 

Distasteful as it is the leader of the free world cannot be seen behaving this way or they are no better than the vile creatures they want to differentiate themselves from.

 

This is, like it or not, a nuclear world with alignments of power including Russia, China and Iran that need to be treated carefully or someone, somewhere will reach for the big guns.

 

Iran, so far as we know, does not yet have nukes, you think this is going to dissuade them from obtaining them even faster than they already were ?

 

A war with Iran has been on the cards for a couple of years but Trump very obviously acted here in his usual uncoordinated manner, caught his own forces flat-footed and has no plan whatsoever of how to deal with the fall-out.

 

Pressed to comment some official, citing anonymity, said the US "could move 700 to 3,000 troops from Italy."

 

Remember how long it took to position for Desert Storm ?

 

America has been building up in the ME the past few months buts it is not even close to being ready to take on Iran in a full war but that is potentially the position Trump has put his military into.

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, chrisg said:

America has been building up in the ME the past few months buts it is not even close to being ready to take on Iran in a full war but that is potentially the position Trump has put his military into.

 

iransurrounded.jpg?w=480&h=435&zoom=2

 

Clearly America isn't ready.

 

By the way, that map is a little old... America has troops in UAE and Kuwait now too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..Not about me Leo, so save your snide stupidities.

 

You know as well as I do how closely interlinked the government and the military are in Iran, they are not structured along western lines at all.

 

I'm not even vaguely suggesting that he was not behind those acts, what I am saying is that if there was a worse way to finally respond I'm hard put to think of it.

 

Trump had a reasonable chance to react when the drone was shot down, he cancelled at the last minute because he was advised of what the possible losses could be. In reality a surgical strike right then would have had a low possibility of losses and would have put Iran right back in its box. An El Dorado Canyon type raid right then would have been the right thing, instead he has waited until now, when the embassy was attacked but no lives lost to opportunistically kill this guy on Iraqi soil.

 

It is going to prove to be the stupidest in a long line of Trump stupidities and it is very, very likely to cost American and Israeli lives.

 

Arabs and Persians are different it is true but I'm not seeing any rejoicing over his death, what I am seeing is all of the European allies of the US having to squirm because they know damn well that he has gone too far after too long of not going far enough.

 

Your map is all well and good but it is nothing like the build up needed to effect a repeat of GW1, in most of those locations there is not much more than a few platoons and precious little in materiel.

 

It takes time and planning, none of which is available or evident.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, chrisg said:

You know as well as I do how closely interlinked the government and the military are in Iran, they are not structured along western lines at all.

 

I suspect I know it better than you do.

Quds Force is not part of the government. It's arguably not even part of the Army as no Quds member is answerable to anyone outside the Quds hierarchy.

It's a personal death squad answerable to the Ayatollah.

 

Its most close parallel would be the CIA's SAC.

 

6 minutes ago, chrisg said:

I'm not even vaguely suggesting that he was not behind those acts, what I am saying is that if there was a worse way to finally respond I'm hard put to think of it.

 

Well there was the option of "not responding". Which has worked so so well thus far.

 

7 minutes ago, chrisg said:

when the embassy was attacked but no lives lost to opportunistically kill this guy on Iraqi soil.

 

Yep. Perfect.

 

7 minutes ago, chrisg said:

It is going to prove to be the stupidest in a long line of Trump stupidities and it is very, very likely to cost American and Israeli lives.

 

This guy has already cost thousands of American and Israeli lives.

 

If the cost of killing terrorists is fear of lives lost, why'd we kill bin Laden and Baghdadi?

 

8 minutes ago, chrisg said:

Arabs and Persians are different it is true but I'm not seeing any rejoicing over his death

 

That's because it doesn't fit the Western Media's narrative of "orange man bad".

Branch out a little.

 

10 minutes ago, chrisg said:

what I am seeing is all of the European allies of the US

 

Are these the ones paying their NATO dues or not and expecting the US to shoulder everything?

 

10 minutes ago, chrisg said:

Your map is all well and good but it is nothing like the build up needed to effect a repeat of GW1, in most of those locations there is not much more than a few platoons and precious little in materiel.

 

Question: why do you assume that an invasion is needed?

 

Iran could run like Yugoslavia given a lot of Iranians fucken hate the Ayatollah and his goons like Soleimani.

 

11 minutes ago, chrisg said:

It takes time and planning, none of which is available or evident.

 

America has had plans and time to plan since 1979.

An Iran-American war was always more likely than not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh,

 

 No I'm pretty well aware of how things are in Iran, the fact is the guy was a General not an acknowledged terrorist, it crosses a big line to go killing Generals.

 

Iran is nothing at all like Yugoslavia, alone among the nations of the ME it has some longer-term coherency of borders despite being walked over by invaders for centuries. I completely agree that there is a probable silent majority in Iran who cannot stand what has happened to their country since 1979 but they are not going to have the ability to get the country back on track when an act such as this enrages those in power.

 

In a better, far from ideal but better world a new revolution in Iran to restore some less theologian direction would be a very good thing, stupidities like this do not advance that agenda.

 

To take a closer look at your map, I was writing at the time, it's crap.

 

The presence of the US in any of the 'Stans is minimal, Pakistan is not likely to allow military action from its territory, nor is Turkey, in Afghanistan the US has its hands more than full enough already and the last time Saudi hosted a build up it led to 9/11.

 

I sincerely hope that an invasion of Iran is never required but that is the ripe possibility at the moment except the US is anything but aligned to be able to achieve it.

 

Iran is not like Iraq at all, defeatable sure, but one very tough nut to crack, much larger, a solid military, Russian backing, it would not be another "shock and awe" that is for sure.

 

It is far more sensible to keep the peace and let the country find its own level - I rather think it will but they have long memories, the CIA installed Shah, a total puppet, is still not remembered fondly although many do recall it as a more pleasant place to live than under the ayatollahs. 

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chrisg said:

was a General not an acknowledged terrorist

 

https://undocs.org/S/RES/2231(2015)

 

Like I said... I know Iranian politics (and geopolitics vis-a-vis Iran) a lot better than you do.

 

If you'd like a summary, let me know.

 

2 hours ago, chrisg said:

Iran is nothing at all like Yugoslavia

 

You mean it's not at all like a nation with warring ethnic groups (Arabs, Persians, Balochis) who don't like each other, held together by dictatorial nationalism and demonisation of minorities?

 

2 hours ago, chrisg said:

a new revolution in Iran to restore some less theologian direction would be a very good thing,

 

Revolutions frequently result in worse results.

 

2 hours ago, chrisg said:

Pakistan is not likely to allow military action from its territory

 

"Allow" is an interesting word. It assumes that Pakistan has a choice in the matter.

That's a cute assumption.

 

2 hours ago, chrisg said:

Iran is not like Iraq at all, defeatable sure, but one very tough nut to crack, much larger, a solid military, Russian backing, it would not be another "shock and awe" that is for sure.

 

It has a solid military like the Cubans have a solid health system.

Their newest fighter aircraft is the SU-24MK.

They wouldn't last a fortnight before they were denuded of all air defence.

 

The only concern is their missiles. Everything else is a mild inconvenience at most.

 

2 hours ago, chrisg said:

It is far more sensible to keep the peace and let the country find its own level

 

You would've been a hoot in 1938.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regrettably I have to label you a moron of little brain -  the situation in Iran is nothing at all like the post-war cobbled together state once called Yugoslavia.

 

Revolutions can go both ways, right now the only way for Iran is up.

 

Cuba actually does have a very solid health system so I'm not sure just what you are alluding to there.

 

Air defense really does not matter much in terms of air to air, they have the ear of Russia, who seem to be itching for a proxy fight again, just how long do you think it might take to emplace a few battalions of S-400s or better ?

 

Iran has been a thorn in the side of the US for decades, ever since the hostage debacle but in reality it is not as a country much interested in expansion or even having much to do with anyone outside its borders except since the bloody Ayatollahs came back it has been on a crusade against Israel. That's not exactly news, Israel is used to be hated and has subdued all of its immediate neighbours in a series of wars.

 

Unfortunately an aspect of Israeli character can be being exceedingly brash and you sure have it in spades - its not a sensible way to be in the 21st century, sooner or later you get your head kicked in.

 

I'm not by any means suggesting any turn the other cheek attitude to Iran but on this occasion Trump has behaved in the impetuous foolish manner that characterises him and left his military utterly flat-footed.

 

The US war machine can and has surged into the ME in the past but it cannot do it over-night and worse if it begins to do so it simply ratchets up the tension.

 

There's a multi-way fight building here and not one a President who has declared he wants out of wars should in any sane manner be having anything to do with.

 

Russia, China and Iran just exercised together for the first time,  including right in the Straits.

 

Trump has China already severely pissed off with his ludicrous trade war - someone really should explain to him the reality of tariffs. Russia is busy waving probably imaginary new wonder weapons transparently aimed at America and now with his forces fragmented and not at all well positioned Trump goes and commits what is to all intent and purpose an act of war, in a country that would be kind of a useful base if he really wants a war with Iran, but which he is just as likely to be asked to leave entirely because of this action.

 

It's moronic, ill considered, an act of escalation without getting the pieces into place and plain and simply stupid and going to cost the loss of lives unnecessarily.

 

No one is being in any way Chamberlain-like but a modicum of planning would be a fucking good idea and there is absolutely no evidence of any, whatsoever.

 

He simply seems to think he can get away with this act of stupidity as he has others in the past, but this is different, this is an act of outright aggression on foreign soil against an official of another state.  An utterly despicable state and an utterly despicable person but that is beside the point when dealing with nations.

 

He is not going to get away with it and before it is over a lot of blood will be on his hands.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, chrisg said:

Regrettably I have to label you a moron of little brain


Fly over here on your Mirage and say it to my face 

 

🙂

3 minutes ago, chrisg said:

Revolutions can go both ways, right now the only way for Iran is up.


You would’ve been a hoot in 1978

3 minutes ago, chrisg said:

Russia, China and Iran just exercised together for the first time,  including right in the Straits.


That’s possibly the least scary thing I’ve heard thus far this year. It’s early days but I’m betting on it being at least a solid contender for the “least consequential event in January” award.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worthless talking to you, you have your beliefs,we'll see, just do not forget that I told you so.

 

Cheers

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, chrisg said:

He simply seems to think he can get away with this act of stupidity as he has others in the past, but this is different, this is an act of outright aggression on foreign soil against an official of another state.  An utterly despicable state and an utterly despicable person but that is beside the point when dealing with nations.


Again. General Soleimani was not an official of the Iranian State.

 

He was a part of the IRGC and specifically the Quds force. The official organ that represents Iran militarily is the Iranian Army.

 

IRGC and the Quds Force are a personal mafia for the Aytollah. They run drugs, destabilise states and carry out terror acts. They are Iran’s SAC.

 

He is a gangster and is identified as such by the JCPOA which forbade any travel by him outside Iran for 8y.

 

That ban lasted approximately a day before Iran broke it so when anyone says Iran was complying with the Iran nuclear deal - you can immediately tell they’re either ignorant (which isn’t a crime) or fucken stupid enough to believe Iran would ever stick to any agreement that wasn’t sealed with a general’s death.
 

5 minutes ago, chrisg said:

Worthless talking to you, you have your beliefs,we'll see, just do not forget that I told you so.

 

Cheers


I sat in the cockpit of an F/A-18 once and my mum has a picture of it.


That’s more than anything ever seen from you Chris. Yet somehow, you’re a he-man geopolitics expert whose first question in this thread is “what’s Soleimani doing in Iraq?”

Edited by Leonid
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, chrisg said:

Russia, China and Iran just exercised together for the first time,  including right in the Straits.


Just so everyone understands how fucken stupid this is.

 

Chris would have us believe that Russia which lets Israel bomb its ally (Iran) in Syria will defend Iran where it has no bases of any consequence - from America? And thus be in the situation where their least populated but most industrially important region is exposed to America’s largest Air Force base in Alaska?

 

And that China will choose Iran over their biggest customer who would immediately arm Taiwan

 

Seriously guys?
 

Then there’s Chris’s assertion that Iraq will force America to fuck off. America lets Israel brazenly bomb Iranian and Iraqi targets in Iraq.

 

The Iraqis have a whinge and move on.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Sigh*

 

It is not the way they see him, the guy was most certainly despicable but he had a very, very strong following. I really do not care that the US took him out, it is much more the timing and the place.

 

I do not maintain that Iraq will tell the US to fuck off I do think that they can make life extremely uncomfortable for Americans in the region in general, up to and including unnecessary deaths.

 

If Trump wants to go to war with Iran, fine, just plan it not lash out from his fucking golf course.

 

I dunno why I'm supposed to dredge up pics from four decades and half a world away to prove something that  I really do not care if you choose to believe or not - nothing but a load of bullshit.  There are so few pictures of me that it is almost embarrassing, very noticeable when cleaning out my mothers stuff - lots when I was their first child then nothing - one pic of me in Majorca that I had utterly forgotten about, odd group pics, nothing else - I basically don't like cameras much.

 

Geopolitics is not always in fact most often not about the big picture, it is often about the smaller details but on this occasion Trump has crossed a line and Iran will be making the most of it. The guy was a General in their armed Forces, a despicable branch, well aware of that, but nonetheless an authority figure. The US has avoided killing such individuals, at least until they are deposed - it is a savage slight upon the Iranian leadership that will inevitably provoke deadly retaliation.

 

What galls me the most is that Trump is crowing about it whilst in the background his military are in a state of absolute fucking panic to shore up their positions clean across the region. I had my numbers a bit off, the anonymous official suggested they could move up to 700 troops from Italy - that was about it.

 

Presently whilst there has been some build-up the US is decidedly thin on the ground in the region and worse still when you subtract those committed to important tasks.

 

The degree to which, if the situation festers or spins up that the US can spool up is much less than you might think, it's a long haul and none of the near-force commanders such as Germany are going to be too keen on exposing themselves, they will want the surge to be from the US. Simply put even putting a second carrier in there will take a week or more and it will actually be being pulled from other duties. It's a big juggling act, one Trump does not even vaguely understand.

 

He's created a crisis, when there was no demonstrable reason for him to do so.

 

Personally I think he just got a taste for it with the Baghdadi situation and thought this would just be more of the same to crow over.

 

It isn't.

 

The next 72 hours will be crucial to see what Iran does, having already moved quickly to promote a replacement I'm going to be very surprised if we do not see a retaliation. Just what I've no idea, but I would not like to be crewing a tanker there at the moment or being on Embassy Duty in Baghdad.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Trump:

 

“Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran &  the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!”

 

This is important: he’s not threatening war. He’s threatening surgical strikes.

 

The Iranians don’t really have options. If the regime wants to survive, which it does, it needs a response that won’t end in Hellfires on Iranian targets and one that makes it look strong internally because Iran is internally like Yugoslavia.

 

Iran does not have many options against USA, not least because it lacks allies who’d actually defend it.

 

I’m betting they choose a cyber attack and maybe another few tankers in Hormuz.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hardly surgical at that level, El Dorado canyon was surgical, just a few targets.

 

I'm not at all sure how he intends to follow through on that threat, 52 discrete targets is a lot, in any real world scenario there is not enough fire power available for that quantity unless he wants to try a swarm of cruise missiles which is pretty much the same as declaring war especially as Iran will succeed in knocking down at least some of them. They did take out the drone a little while back, that was no accident.

 

I really do not agree on the Yugoslavia analogy, Iran has several ethnic groups in its make -up but even the Kurds, who ae probably the most restless have some government representation.

 

It reads to me as if he is wanting to justify the strike after the fact and double down on trying to prevent any escalation, that is very, very unlikely to work.

 

Iran has a nasty habit in such circumstances of striking peripherally rather than directly, for example with the bombings in Argentina which killed a great many Jews. They most certainly could launch a cyber attack, there is every indication that they reverse engineered Stuxnet and any tanker in the straits is at risk although the UK and France are currently running interference there along with ourselves and of course the US.

 

I tend to think that retaliation when it comes, and it will, will be much more bloody.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, chrisg said:

I'm not at all sure how he intends to follow through on that threat, 52 discrete targets is a lot


He didn’t say “in one day”.

 

6 minutes ago, chrisg said:

I really do not agree on the Yugoslavia analogy, Iran has several ethnic groups in its make -up but even the Kurds, who ae probably the most restless have some government representation


Every or almost every minority is represented by law. There’s even a Jewish MP. They’re Uncle Toms selected by the Ayatollah.

 

7 minutes ago, chrisg said:

tend to think that retaliation when it comes, and it will, will be much more bloody.


Then Trump will rethink his opposition to regime change and will bombard Iran a la Yugoslavia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm,

 

 To have the proper effect he'd want the strikes to be swift, not over any extended length of time.

 

Memory says that past Presidents have actually been from ethnic minorities. The real power of course lies with the Ayatollahs and their sort of private army, the Guard, but the President does have a deal of power.

 

It took years to get everyone on the same page with Yugoslavia, in fact I'm not sure they ever were completely, a repeat of that debacle is not needed.

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, chrisg said:

To have the proper effect he'd want the strikes to be swift, not over any extended length of time.


On the contrary. 26-52 days of strikes will show the Iranian people what their government is incapable of. 
 

20 minutes ago, chrisg said:

Memory says that past Presidents have actually been from ethnic minorities


Incorrect and irrelevant anyway. Candidates must be Ayatollah-approved.

 

20 minutes ago, chrisg said:

took years to get everyone on the same page with Yugoslavia, in fact I'm not sure they ever were completely, a repeat of that debacle is not needed.


On the contrary. Yugoslavia is how you run a war against a population that doesn’t like its leadership.

 

Its also the only war that America can be said to have won since WW2.

 

As far as I’m concerned - there are 2 ways to win a war in modern times. Fight an enemy that is hated by its own people and keep casualties low OR destroy everything and then bomb it from orbit just to be sure (a la Sri Lanka vs LTTE).

 

Iran’s regime is hated by its own people. If you hit it over time, continuously and show the people the Ayatollah has no clothes, he’s gonna end like Gaddafi - with his internal organs mushed from the inside via a poker in his asshole.

 

And nothing and nobody is gonna save him. Not Russia. Not China.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is from Maajid Nawaz, an ex-Hizb ut’Tahrir member:

 

Analysis - legitimate liberal concerns about feared Iranian military escalation after Trump’s bold gambit, and my considerations in reaction:

1) Concern: striking #Soleimani was in violation of international law
Consideration: Trump designated IRG as a terror group. If you reluctantly accept Obama’s strike against Bin Laden, and recently Trump’s of Baghdadi, it isn’t *technically* much different,though it is in reality

2) Concern: in reality the IRG is also Iranian military (Iranian Revolutionary Guard) & so (even though its backing of militia in Lebanon, Syria & Iraq is irrefutable) it is also *more* than a terror group. It is the national army of a state. So they may still respond with war

Consideration: this is true & is why this is Trump’s bold gambit. But, so far indications are Iran hasn’t declared traditional war against US & won’t do so. Rather, if she attacks again via her proxies, she is now uncertain whether Trump will reply again *directly* against Iran

3) Concern: This is a declaration of war, leaving Iran no option but to reply with war
Consideration: in fact by attacking UK ship in Hormuz, kidnapping sailors,missiles at Aramco,downing US drone,killing US contractor& raiding US embassy,Iran had already effectively declared war

4) Concern: killing Soleimani will further endanger US & Arab lives
Consideration: hundreds of thousands of Syrian civilians (and many Iraqis) were already tortured,bombed,slaughtered or gassed due to Soleimani & his proxy militia. He was already killing, and planning more deaths

6) Concern: this was a violation of Iraqi sovereignty& Iraqi PM complained
Consideration: Iraq’s sovereignty was already(erroneously)violated by Bush. Post ISIS, US troops are in Iraq at behest of current gov. As are Iranian proxy militia. In other words, Iraq is a conflict zone

7) Concern: Iran may incite attacks on US interests globally, via proxies
Consideration: true, but Soleimani attack changes rules of game, in a way not done since invasion of Iraq. Iran no longer knows if a direct attack will be the American reply. Proxies are no longer deniable

8 ) Concern: I don’t trust Trump to engage in war
Consideration: Understandable. But you shouldn’t trust anyone. Like the world, war is a messy business. It was Obama who initiated drone strike assassinations & “Presidential kill lists” without congressional oversight. Not Trump.

9) Concern: Ok but I wish to defend international norms & their being chipped away at
Consideration:understandable. But Iraq & then Syria already pretty much destroyed this. This strike may herald an end to a period of unchecked slaughter in Middle-East, facilitated lots by Iran

10) Concern: I’m scared of war.
Consideration: yes. So were all the children tortured to death in Syrian jails, in front of their parents, by Assad’s regime that Soleimani was instrumental in maintaining via his proxy death squads sent to Syria


 

 

 

Point 7 is the biggest change in military doctrine in decades. And that’s a great thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All very well but in just about every scenario Americans are going to be putting their lives on the line.

 

Either by sitting in a fighter in very hostile air or through being exposed to potential terror, which also extends to Israel.

 

One of the few Trump promises that really made much sense in 2016 was drawing down on the useless wars and getting the troops home.

 

He has not even come close - bogged down in Afghanistan, vacillating in Syria and now escalating with Iran.

 

Great track record.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×