Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

I should note that. Soleimani worked closely with Hezbollah, so I'm completely unsurprised as to why Ds are condemning PDJT's decisive actions. Always tough for them to see a Hezbollah ally go down.

I sort of like this: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/...th-iran-power/

We're about to find out if Iran actually has any real power beyond threats.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Questioning the decision isn't "siding with Iran" any more than Trump questioning the 2003 Iraq invasion meant he was siding with Saddam.

If this is all about 'deterrence' then if there's a single significant attack on a US interest in the next couple months then we'd have to say the strategy failed, correct?

[iam416]

If this is all about 'deterrence' then if there's a single significant attack on a US interest in the next couple months then we'd have to say the strategy failed, correct?

Uh. No. (1) you don't deter with a single act; and (2) you don't measure any outcome against the hypothetical perfect result, but rather the hypothetical expected result.

So, as to (2), if there's fewer attacks in the next couple months than there would have been then it's a success.

There's no doubt that there are large number of people who view this as a disaster, horrible decision, effort to distract from impeachment, debacle, etc. They would much rather see Soleimani alive. There is literally no metric in the world that will make this a good decision, Iran could beg for terms tomorrow and the response would be, "see, they were ready to deal with us, the killing was unnecessary."

I guess it's a matter of whether you think targeted, limited responses in kind are appropriate to Iran's behaviour. Or whether it's a turn the other cheek world.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Uh. No. (1) you don't deter with a single act; and (2) you don't measure any outcome against the hypothetical perfect result, but rather the hypothetical expected result.

So, as to (2), if there's fewer attacks in the next couple months than there would have been then it's a success.

There's no doubt that there are large number of people who view this as a disaster, horrible decision, effort to distract from impeachment, debacle, etc. They would much rather see Soleimani alive. There is literally no metric in the world that will make this a good decision, Iran could beg for terms tomorrow and the response would be, "see, they were ready to deal with us, the killing was unnecessary."

I guess it's a matter of whether you think targeted, limited responses in kind are appropriate to Iran's behaviour. Or whether it's a turn the other cheek world.

This wasn't a situation where we (or Trump rather) were presented with only two options: kill Soleimani or do nothing. Soleimani was the most extreme option he was presented with apparently and (stunning the Pentagon per reports) he chose it. It was expected Trump would order an airstrike on whatever militia was responsible for the embassy attack. Instead we killed arguably the second most important figure in Iran's government.

But as to #2 above, right, there would have been additional attacks if Soleimani was still alive and there will be additional attacks now that he's dead. No one will ever be able to say one way or the other if a specific attack was a direct consequence of his death or not.

One emerging consequence seems to be that Iraq is about to kick out our troops. The PM is calling for it. I believe that without access to bases in Iraq, the mission in Syria cannot be logistically supported so special forces there will probably have to pull out as well. Now as someone who thinks our actual interests in the Middle East are wildly exaggerated I'm not entirely unhappy about all that. But if you're someone who thinks the fight needs to be taken to Iran, Hezbollah, ISIS, etc. it's a fair question to ask if things will definitely turn out well for you.

[iam416]

If we get to kill a scumbag AND completely extricate ourselves from that shithole, then it's the greatest decision ever.

[AlabamAlum]

It surprised me to see the thousands marching through Baghdad and screaming "Death to America" and holiding pictures of Soleimani. I don't guess I knew Iranian influence was so strong in Iraq.

[Dr. Strangelove]

It surprised me to see the thousands marching through Baghdad and screaming "Death to America" and holiding pictures of Soleimani. I don't guess I knew Iranian influence was so strong in Iraq.

Well the PM did in fact announce just hours ago that he wants all US troops out. For the future good of the "relationship". And this is the outgoing PM, the one we basically supported. The new guy is more of an Iran kinda guy.

He said a few other things that could be total lies, and if they ARE lies then it shows just how much sway Iran has there. He claims Trump personally called him just days before the strike and asked him to act as a mediator between Iran and the USA. But got no heads up when we killed Soleimani. He also claimed that the reason Soleimani had come to Baghdad was to deliver a letter for Saudi Arabia. The Iraqis have been acting as a go-between in negotiations between those two.

[Dr. Strangelove]

For you, AA, since you're a fan

[AlabamAlum]

Love the R&M memes. Anything that uses the best show on television.

And the "he was just bringing a letter so we could carry the letter for him to the Saudis" might've been true in 1839 or whatever. In 2020? Yeah, not so much.

[iam416]

It's pretty clear from PDJT's twittering and obvious facts that this was a retalitory strike. Whether you think the US should retaliate when its embassy is attacked is an open question. For some.

[WingsFan]

Iranian Regime now offers $80 MILLION for Trump's Head from the billions of dollars Obama gave them.



81876405_2984525951558840_4974928354886025216_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&_nc_eui2=AeHd_PjNu-mY4suUBbn7d6zhGnST7-0jvwuxWAnZCP0uIXmFBDxIwNiXSzRzY7YKmjXTGqZvCBwaC4m-9XIy6TmwvA3FRB6-shJ_N3tGk2mngA&_nc_ohc=3yyja88_PqkAQkYdYfaxXhfBwCasIvyorZl0NSXme63IZ-mQZFKsnz7

[Dr. Strangelove]

It's pretty clear from PDJT's twittering and obvious facts that this was a retalitory strike. Whether you think the US should retaliate when its embassy is attacked is an open question. For some.

But again,, the choice wasn't either kill Soleimani or we might as well let Iran sodomize us with a broomstick. Trump chose the option that (just my opinion) is the most likely to cause Iran to hit back. We could have just bombed a militia, killed one of their foreign leaders, which is apparently what WAS going to happen until the Embassy attack. I think it's a fair debate the question a) Was the strike proportional? and b) Is the strategy of "you hit me, I'll hit back 10x harder" a good one?

I guarantee you that there's plenty of people at the Pentagon and the State Dept right now who are happy Soleimani is dead but are still very, very concerned about what's to come in the next few months. So while Pompeo goes on tv and declares that we just made the world safer he's also behind-the-scenes telling people to get the fuck out of the Middle East while there's still time.

Anyways...couple other related things

At this point, Iran will be held responsible for anything their affiliated militias do. But for quite a while there HAS been a legitimate debate over whether these units go rogue from time to time. With Soleimani gone I have to imagine that possibility is increased and should be recognized.

On the political front, keep an eye on Tucker Carlson. He was pretty much alone on Fox in ripping the decision to do the airstrike. He pretty pointedly avoided going after Trump directly, but he blasted Mike Pompeo and the "war hawks" he claims drove this decision. Tucker has spoken for that portion of the Trump base that is very anti-intervention and it'll be interesting to see how they react to all this as it plays out.

[AlabamAlum]

Here are my thoughts on the matter: fuck pretty much everyone in the Middle East; including, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Kuwait. Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and even Israel.

I am generally okay with the UAE and Qatar.

The rest can eat a bowl of dicks.

[WingsFan]

[lineygoblue]

That may well be.

This all might be Trump giving Iran the reason it needs to attack us. Iran has threatened the US for decades now. About the best they've been able to do on an overt basis, is send a couple of gun-boat dinghy's toward our destroyers. Covertly, and thru proxies, they've killed hundreds of Americans.

Maybe Trump is saying, "if you want to attack us so badly, here's a reason to do it.... now, go for it".

If they have the burning desire to take on the US, then maybe its best to get it over with.

Or not.