IGX

He's the guy that greenlit the attack on the American embassy in Iraq and the rocket attack prior to that that killed an American. He was also the most important Iranian general, period. Last night he got spread out by a Reaper drone.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50986185

Personally, I have mixed emotions. Killing him was unquestionably justified, but I do not want to fuel any fires burning for war. A war with Iran is not justified nor needed, and there are clearly forces in the region and in the US that are gunning for it. Curious what you all think.

He's been a guy who needed killing for about 20 years. Been talked about that long, for sure.

When I was boots on ground in Iraq, I remember talking to a guy who drove armored vehicles, and he showed me the holes made by an EFP, in one side and out the other like a laser beam. Q brought those in. He's had his hand in lots of dead Americans.

Not sure why now, exactly.

LOL that he thought he could just fly into Baghdad International and cruise out of the parking lot la-de-da with his buddies.

Next few months should be interesting.

nafod wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 5:41 pm He's been a guy who needed killing for about 20 years. Been talked about that long, for sure.

When I was boots on ground in Iraq, I remember talking to a guy who drove armored vehicles, and he showed me the holes made by an EFP, in one side and out the other like a laser beam. Q brought those in. He's had his hand in lots of dead Americans.

Not sure why now, exactly.

LOL that he thought he could just fly into Baghdad International and cruise out of the parking lot la-de-da with his buddies.

Next few months should be interesting.

Why now? I assume because he was the one who greenlit the attack on the American embassy and was there to coordinate further attacks. We can't have the Iranians fucking with our embassies now can we?

Not missed by a bunch of Iraqis and Lebanese: https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... ed/604396/

This seems pretty solid:


Administration's story is already inconsistent. Speaker and gang of 8 (who were notified before bin Laden raid) were kept in dark, but not Eric Trump.

Yesterday was a very bad news day for Trump before this, and administration's credibility is shot, so it's very much wait and see with what the actual threat was. Experts in the region say this is roughly equivalent to offing a vice-president, and we have to expect significant retaliation.

Lots online today about the concept of the escalation ladder, where each tactical decision you make is defensible, but the ladder takes you to place you never wanted to go. If Iran kills a bunch of Americans in response, which seems likely, does invading Iran sound like a good idea?

This is weird:

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 6:14 pm This seems pretty solid:


Administration's story is already inconsistent. Speaker and gang of 8 (who were notified before bin Laden raid) were kept in dark, but not Eric Trump.

Yesterday was a very bad news day for Trump before this, and administration's credibility is shot, so it's very much wait and see with what the actual threat was. Experts in the region say this is roughly equivalent to offing a vice-president, and we have to expect significant retaliation.

Lots online today about the concept of the escalation ladder, where each tactical decision you make is defensible, but the ladder takes you to place you never wanted to go. If Iran kills a bunch of Americans in response, which seems likely, does invading Iran sound like a good idea?

Retaliation goes without question. But let me ask you: in your personal view, was it right to kill him? Remember, Iran already has killed a large number of Americans and he directed it.

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 6:17 pm Retaliation goes without question. But let me ask you: in your personal view, was it right to kill him?

We are going to find it if it was smart to kill him.

Having been on the inside looking out, I have a sense for what I don't know, which is a lot in this case. I hope it pans out for us. Be nice to know what "pans out" means for POTUS so we can judge progress.

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 6:17 pm But let me ask you: in your personal view, was it right to kill him? Remember, Iran already has killed a large number of Americans and he directed it.

To me there are three ways of looking at it.

As a matter of policy, the Bush and Obama admins' decisions to not kill him has not been upended by any known recent events that would persuade me that Trump is right and they were wrong.

The ethical considerations can't be made without examining the consequences, which likely involves more dead Americans. We lost 2 soldiers in in 2019 in Iraq to hostile fire. It's hard to see how the outcome won't be worse than that.

If there is in fact evidence that there was an imminent attack planned that this would disrupt, of course it's justified. We've used that to slaughter Russians in the recent past. But there's no reason to think that's the case given the administration is giving multiple explanations. A solid story would be easy to stick to, so it's unlikely they have one.

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 6:53 pm

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 6:17 pm But let me ask you: in your personal view, was it right to kill him? Remember, Iran already has killed a large number of Americans and he directed it.

To me there are three ways of looking at it.

As a matter of policy, the Bush and Obama admins' decisions to not kill him has not been upended by any known recent events that would persuade me that Trump is right and they were wrong.

You lost me here. He was the man who ordered the attack on January 1, 2020 on our embassy in Iraq:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s- ... d-n1109196

That to me is the most blatant example of a recent event that would change the calculus I can imagine. He also ordered rocket attacks that killed an American 6 days ago:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/rocket-att ... 1577492632

If killing Americans and attacking our embassy doesn't punch your ticket, what will?

Droppin' 'bows on 'em.

Reuters: 'airstrikes target Iraqi militia convoy north of Baghdad, killing six people, an Iraqi army source says'

Early reports have emerged on a fresh airstrike that took place in Baghdad and the details in the past hour appeared increasingly credible.

Reuters reports: “Airstrikes targeting Iraq’s Popular Mobilisation Forces umbrella grouping of Iran-backed Shi’ite militias near camp Taji north of Baghdad have killed six people and critically wounded three, an Iraqi army source said late on Friday.

Two of the three vehicles making up a militia convoy were found burned, the source said, as well as six burned corpses. The strikes took place at 1.12am local time, he said.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq ... SKBN1Z229P

^^^These are the guys that coordinated the attack on the American embassy with Soleimani. Allah presently hiring additional virgins.

Interesting to me that Trump did not embellish the announcement with any, "he died like a dog" sort of delivery. (At least I have not heard any.)

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 5:22 pm He's the guy that greenlit the attack on the American embassy in Iraq and the rocket attack prior to that that killed an American. He was also the most important Iranian general, period. Last night he got spread out by a Reaper drone.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50986185

Personally, I have mixed emotions. Killing him was unquestionably justified, but I do not want to fuel any fires burning for war. A war with Iran is not justified nor needed, and there are clearly forces in the region and in the US that are gunning for it. Curious what you all think.

I think the world would be a better place if someone followed Caton the Elder's advice (Carthago delenda est) in regard to most radical muslim countries.

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 6:53 pm

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 6:17 pm But let me ask you: in your personal view, was it right to kill him? Remember, Iran already has killed a large number of Americans and he directed it.

To me there are three ways of looking at it.

As a matter of policy, the Bush and Obama admins' decisions to not kill him has not been upended by any known recent events that would persuade me that Trump is right and they were wrong.

The ethical considerations can't be made without examining the consequences, which likely involves more dead Americans. We lost 2 soldiers in in 2019 in Iraq to hostile fire. It's hard to see how the outcome won't be worse than that.

If there is in fact evidence that there was an imminent attack planned that this would disrupt, of course it's justified. We've used that to slaughter Russians in the recent past. But there's no reason to think that's the case given the administration is giving multiple explanations. A solid story would be easy to stick to, so it's unlikely they have one.

Another way of looking at it is that this might have as much to do with Iranian internal politics as with anything else. It's not implausable to think this was greenlit from multiple sides.

GEN Petraeus on the killing:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/03/pe ... deterrence

Soleimani probably needed to go. He was probably plotting new bad things to do to us.

Killing him in Iraq was ill advised. We made the Shia dominated government in Iraq look stupid. We made them look like they cannot take care of their guests. Shia militias in Iraq are Iraqi citizens. They had this creep there for some sort of business. We killed him and one of their senior people in Iraq in a civilian area.

We Americans are guests of the Iraqi government. We do not own Iraq. They do. We violated hospitality. We made them lose face. One guest kills another guest, it's a loss of face for the host.

We should have attacked Soleimani in Syria or arranged something in Iran. Lot tougher to do. In the long run I think better for us. Iran would still be pissed. The Shia in Iraq would still be pissed. They wouldn't be embarrassed and have lost face.

We need Iraq to work with us. Wasting Soleimani was to our benefit. I think wasting him in Iraq in a civilian area was ill advised.

Trump stepped on his dick. Again.

Good analysis, Gene

“All Soleimeni has to do was announce an investigation into the Bidens and he’d still be alive”

Heh

Gene wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 4:51 pm Killing him in Iraq was ill advised. We made the Shia dominated government in Iraq look stupid. We made them look like they cannot take care of their guests.

No. The Iraqi government made themselves look like they can't take care of their guests. In fact, that they don't want to.

NYTimes: The fact that the Iraqi government permitted militia members to enter the fortified Green Zone on Tuesday, allowing the protest to happen, demonstrated Iran’s powerful influence as well as the government’s difficulty in controlling the militias.

So we owe them nothing.

Oh noes the Iraqis parliament passed a non-binding resolution! Get fucked.

Iran threatening to target Trump properties was clever. I'm not sure how many beheaded Americans he would trade for one of his properties being destroyed, but I suspect the number is somewhere around "all of them."

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 6:04 pm Oh noes the Iraqis parliament passed a non-binding resolution! Get fucked.

#BREAKING: US military tells Iraq it is preparing to 'move out': official letter - via @AFP

Honestly, good. We should respect their sovereignty when it doesn't impede our right to defense. In my mind, well worth it to kill the man responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans.

Was that all it took to extricate the US from that shit hole?