Eleven Posted January 3, 2020 Report Posted January 3, 2020 There is no way Iran doesn't respond to what happened last night. And, of course, there's all this: “In order to get [re]elected, @BarcakObama will start a war with Iran - Tump's Twitter; 2011 Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.- Trump's Twitter; 2012 Don't let Obama play the Iran card in order to start a war in order to get elected--be careful Republicans! Trump's Twitter; 2012 I predict that President Obama will at some point attack Iran in order to save face! - Trump's Twitter; 2013 Remember what I previously said--Obama will someday attack Iran in order to show how tough he is. Trump's Twitter; 2013 Remember that I predicted a long time ago that President Obama will attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly-not skilled! Trump's Twitter; 2013
LGR4GM Posted January 3, 2020 Report Posted January 3, 2020 The best part about Trump is that anything he flings at at adversary (in terms of twitter or commentary) is an idea he himself would like to do or is doing. I have to say I actually think this will hurt him. The country is war weary. We have been constantly fighting in the middle east for decades. We were stupid to walk away from the Nuclear Deal. Idk how dumb this killing is because I don't know about this General. I guess we shall see.
SABRES 0311 Posted January 4, 2020 Report Posted January 4, 2020 I’d wait a bit before getting twisted up and worrying about WW 3. 1
North Buffalo Posted January 4, 2020 Report Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) Agreed folks need to keep the powder dry on this one. Despite what I think about Trump... this deal seems like a military run target of opportunity- meets need given the current involvement of this guy and Iran in the area. My gut reaction outside of politics is it probably needed to happen. How this Admin handles the fall out is another issue, but again it is one of keeping powder dry... and yeh Trump gets to crow about it, but if he oversteps and Iran goes off the deep end reacting then there will be plenty of political consequences. Till then stay tuned. Edited January 4, 2020 by North Buffalo
Weave Posted January 4, 2020 Report Posted January 4, 2020 I'd feel alot better about this if, 1. Congress had been involved and 2. We were actually at war with Iran. Right now it feels like state sanctioned assassination, and that ain't cool. This won't help us get out of the middle east. 1
Eleven Posted January 4, 2020 Author Report Posted January 4, 2020 10 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said: I’d wait a bit before getting twisted up and worrying about WW 3. I didn't say it would be WWIII.
SABRES 0311 Posted January 4, 2020 Report Posted January 4, 2020 2 hours ago, Eleven said: I didn't say it would be WWIII. No you did not. My comment was general because some people think this will be a war with Iran and others think WW3. I don’t have access to the intel Trump does so I do not know what “imminent attack“ was prevented. If there was a planned attack by the IRGC then killing this man would upset their command and control. I think the timing of the killing could’ve been better.
SABRES 0311 Posted January 5, 2020 Report Posted January 5, 2020 So I did some thinking after I saw Trump’s long tweet telling Iran we have 52 targets. In that tweet he talked about targeting the Iranian culture. Obviously this brought on some amusing comments saying trump is about to target civilians and become a war criminal. Iran has an issue with some of its population wanting reform, I think as far as regime change. If you read the tweet on the surface it sounds like targeting as with kinetic strikes. I don’t think that is what is meant. Trump does not seem to be a long war, long conflict guy. If/when Iran retaliates I think we will try to target their culture by triggering internal conflict. Sort of nudging them over the cliff they are on. As for retaliation I think Iran will make good on their threat but not the way some people have posted on other sites.
LTS Posted January 5, 2020 Report Posted January 5, 2020 12 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said: So I did some thinking after I saw Trump’s long tweet telling Iran we have 52 targets. In that tweet he talked about targeting the Iranian culture. Obviously this brought on some amusing comments saying trump is about to target civilians and become a war criminal. Iran has an issue with some of its population wanting reform, I think as far as regime change. If you read the tweet on the surface it sounds like targeting as with kinetic strikes. I don’t think that is what is meant. Trump does not seem to be a long war, long conflict guy. If/when Iran retaliates I think we will try to target their culture by triggering internal conflict. Sort of nudging them over the cliff they are on. As for retaliation I think Iran will make good on their threat but not the way some people have posted on other sites. Whatever it is... having any political leader, let alone one who continually has his sanity questioned, going off on social media in fits of vaguebooking is not the way to settle the concerns of the world. His comments rank in the same tone and vein as those made by the kinds of leaders the United States usually opposes. Being one of the despots is not going to help the situation. As far as the rest of this, nudging in the MIddle East has long been a tactic used... Middle Eastern reform has yet to ever stand a chance because even when someone rises to power that wants reform it seems that their version of reform comes along with killing all those who oppose them.
SABRES 0311 Posted January 5, 2020 Report Posted January 5, 2020 (edited) For me, how this is handled will impact my support. I’m not down for a new 20 year war that my kids would have to fight if they chose to follow my footsteps. Lady on MSNBC said the strike on a foreign military leader was not proportional to the death of a civilian. Disgusting, but expected. Edited January 5, 2020 by SABRES 0311
Curt Posted January 6, 2020 Report Posted January 6, 2020 23 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said: So I did some thinking after I saw Trump’s long tweet telling Iran we have 52 targets. In that tweet he talked about targeting the Iranian culture. Obviously this brought on some amusing comments saying trump is about to target civilians and become a war criminal. Iran has an issue with some of its population wanting reform, I think as far as regime change. If you read the tweet on the surface it sounds like targeting as with kinetic strikes. I don’t think that is what is meant. Trump does not seem to be a long war, long conflict guy. If/when Iran retaliates I think we will try to target their culture by triggering internal conflict. Sort of nudging them over the cliff they are on. As for retaliation I think Iran will make good on their threat but not the way some people have posted on other sites. He didn’t say Iranian culture though. He specifically said cultural sites, and today again expressed this when talking with reporters.
SABRES 0311 Posted January 6, 2020 Report Posted January 6, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Curt said: He didn’t say Iranian culture though. He specifically said cultural sites, and today again expressed this when talking with reporters. Negative. In his tweet he said sites important to the Iranian culture. Furthermore, it wasn’t a threat to destroy but to hit very hard. In Iraq the U.S. instituted maneuver warfare with the goal of taking Baghdad. In the process we pushed through lesser important cities. Targeting say Tehran not only interrupts their command and control but sends a psychological message resulting in degraded morale. Both I believe are crucial to defense against an invasion by a superior force. Dropping a JDAM and obliterating a cultural site would strengthen their resolve. The exact opposite of how to fight. Targeting sites of cultural significance opens the door for indigenous opposition as well. Major mosques and city centers (cultural sites) under control of an opposing force assists in the growth of opposition to the current governing body. Therefore I think what Trump means is we will hit Iranian cultural centers very hard in order to degrade military control, decrease morale (willingness to fight), set conditions for opposition political control and control of key terrain. Then again I doubt we will find out. Still, how this is handled will impact my support from purely a political perspective. Addition: Trump has been relatively quiet minus a couple posts since the strike. Just a feeling but I won’t be surprised if something happens in the next 48 hours. I’m probably wrong though. Edited January 6, 2020 by SABRES 0311
LGR4GM Posted January 6, 2020 Report Posted January 6, 2020 9 hours ago, Curt said: He didn’t say Iranian culture though. He specifically said cultural sites, and today again expressed this when talking with reporters. Trump doesn't understand something very important, unintended consequences. Part of the problem of having him as president is that he is incapable of considering reactions outside of his world view. You see this via tweets and how he always accuses others of things he has done or would like to do. Psychologically he responds to things in a way that he thinks makes him feel powerful and will in his mind force his opponents to back down. In the past most of his opponents have had less power than him. Contractors, investors, etc... people who were beneath that he could bully and threaten. He brings that world view to the world stage. He's not afraid of Putin, he idolizes Putin's ability to control and look strong. Where am I going with this. Trump values property and power. His world view is that he can force people into submission because he views most people as below him. Any military option that attacks physical assets with value and that he thinks would bully someone into submission, he will be naturally drawn to those ideas. Consider who and what Pompeo is and Miller is, attacking actual cultural sites seems a real possibility.
Curt Posted January 6, 2020 Report Posted January 6, 2020 9 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said: Negative. In his tweet he said sites important to the Iranian culture. Furthermore, it wasn’t a threat to destroy but to hit very hard. In Iraq the U.S. instituted maneuver warfare with the goal of taking Baghdad. In the process we pushed through lesser important cities. Targeting say Tehran not only interrupts their command and control but sends a psychological message resulting in degraded morale. Both I believe are crucial to defense against an invasion by a superior force. Dropping a JDAM and obliterating a cultural site would strengthen their resolve. The exact opposite of how to fight. Targeting sites of cultural significance opens the door for indigenous opposition as well. Major mosques and city centers (cultural sites) under control of an opposing force assists in the growth of opposition to the current governing body. Therefore I think what Trump means is we will hit Iranian cultural centers very hard in order to degrade military control, decrease morale (willingness to fight), set conditions for opposition political control and control of key terrain. Then again I doubt we will find out. Still, how this is handled will impact my support from purely a political perspective. Addition: Trump has been relatively quiet minus a couple posts since the strike. Just a feeling but I won’t be surprised if something happens in the next 48 hours. I’m probably wrong though. I think your first sentence is an important distinction. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Your second sentence, I never said anything about destroy. However, I don’t see the differentiation between “destroy” and “hit very hard”. They could mean very different things or they could mean exactly the same thing. It’s not clear.
Weave Posted January 6, 2020 Report Posted January 6, 2020 https://reason.com/2020/01/04/absent-evidence-of-imminent-attack-on-americans-white-houses-justification-for-killing-iranian-general-collapses/ Quote Citing two unnamed U.S. intelligence officials who have been briefed on the Soleimani assassination, Rukmini Callimachi, the New York Times' top correspondent covering ISIS and the War on Terror, reports that "evidence suggesting there was to be an imminent attack on American targets is 'razor thin'" and that the Trump administration made an "illogical leap" in deciding to kill Soleimani. Quote One official described the planning for the strike as chaotic. The official says that following the attack on an Iraqi base which killed an American contractor circa Dec. 27, Trump was presented a menu of options for how to retaliate. Killing Suleimani was the “far out option”
Eleven Posted January 6, 2020 Author Report Posted January 6, 2020 20 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said: Lady on MSNBC said the strike on a foreign military leader was not proportional to the death of a civilian. Disgusting, but expected. Military leaders always have been viewed differently than civilians and rank-and-file.
SABRES 0311 Posted January 6, 2020 Report Posted January 6, 2020 24 minutes ago, Eleven said: Military leaders always have been viewed differently than civilians and rank-and-file. Well she made it sound like killing a general was too much for killing a civilian contractor. What she left out is what the general has done in the past.
Eleven Posted January 6, 2020 Author Report Posted January 6, 2020 Just now, SABRES 0311 said: Well she made it sound like killing a general was too much for killing a civilian contractor. What she left out is what the general has done in the past. What the general has done in the past is what all generals have done for millennia. This isn't about what the general did. This is about starting a war to win an election.
SABRES 0311 Posted January 6, 2020 Report Posted January 6, 2020 13 minutes ago, Eleven said: What the general has done in the past is what all generals have done for millennia. This isn't about what the general did. This is about starting a war to win an election. I get that argument but a war hasn’t started yet. Not all generals have done what that guy did.
LGR4GM Posted January 6, 2020 Report Posted January 6, 2020 1 hour ago, SABRES 0311 said: I get that argument but a war hasn’t started yet. Not all generals have done what that guy did. I have started to see this pop in places. What do you think will happen? Iran will just, shrug it off and move on?
SABRES 0311 Posted January 6, 2020 Report Posted January 6, 2020 14 minutes ago, LGR4GM said: I have started to see this pop in places. What do you think will happen? Iran will just, shrug it off and move on? Honestly I don’t know for sure. I think humans in the world today focus on looking for the threat or negativity in situations. It very much played a part in Trump’s election and in the situation we are in today. To be fair both situations are a product of external factors. To answer your question a little better I think it comes down to Iran seeing us as an imminent threat they need to defend against or retaliation out of ego. I ignore Iran’s statements of targeting military sites. Therefore I see a world of possibilities. If I had to guess we will see an uptick in violence between Israel and Palestinian militants. I wouldn’t be surprised if violence increased in Afghanistan as well. I also see increased Iranian military training as a show of force along with verbal threats. Iran, I think, would like to be seen as the victim and maybe wants to entice Trump to authorize another strike. Spun correctly Iran could use it to bring their divided population together and strengthen the regime’s hold.
Eleven Posted January 6, 2020 Author Report Posted January 6, 2020 2 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said: I get that argument but a war hasn’t started yet. Not all generals have done what that guy did. Ok, so he has tried to start a war to win an election. Doesn't really fit with your one-issue support. What makes Suleimani so special? He planned and ordered the killing of humans. It's what generals do.
SABRES 0311 Posted January 6, 2020 Report Posted January 6, 2020 7 minutes ago, Eleven said: Ok, so he has tried to start a war to win an election. Doesn't really fit with your one-issue support. What makes Suleimani so special? He planned and ordered the killing of humans. It's what generals do. Not every killing is meant to start a war. Not every general looks at their sole purpose as taking of life. If taking life and starting war was the only purpose of a military and military commander none of us would be here today.
Eleven Posted January 6, 2020 Author Report Posted January 6, 2020 5 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said: Not every killing is meant to start a war. Not every general looks at their sole purpose as taking of life. If taking life and starting war was the only purpose of a military and military commander none of us would be here today. This killing was meant to start a war, and generals plan and order the killing of humans even though it is not their sole purpose.
SABRES 0311 Posted January 6, 2020 Report Posted January 6, 2020 9 minutes ago, Eleven said: This killing was meant to start a war, and generals plan and order the killing of humans even though it is not their sole purpose. How do you know the killing was meant to start a war? Neither you or I have the reporting that lead to the strike. Neither do reporters. I get anonymous people are saying it was “razor thin” but in order to know the value of that we have to know a couple things. Things like how much of the info did they have access to, is this an analysis or opinion, do the anonymous people actually exist? He just happened to be at the Baghdad Airport when the embassy was attacked? If there was actually a credible threat he was overseeing then killing him reduces command and control thus disrupting planning and execution. All I’m saying is hold judgment on why/how this happened until more comes out.
Recommended Posts